The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1856-01-30
The discussions ii the house Of representa-

=
81 which induced the democratic members iron
the north to support. and vote in favor of th'
passage of. the Nebraska-kansas bill. Thes'
developments are worthy of the serious consid
: Grafton of every soulherner. We extract th'
following article on the subject from the Com
mercial Bulletin:
SaUATTER SoyEREIGSTY.-We noticed in al
:. article yesterday the wide discrepancies ofcon
} struction of prominent principle OF the Ne
braska bill, prevailing in the democratic party
, This contrariety of sentiment partakes of ;
sectional cast-northern democrats claiming
for the people of territory the right to regu
: late their own concerns in their own way, in
: dependent of congress. while southern demo
. lcrats contend that the territorial government
being subordinate to- the federal government
neither the legislature or the people have any
such right The doctrine of the former is wha
is Familiarity known as squatter sovereignty
claiming for its paternity the distinguished sen
ator from Michigan Cass.
This doctrine was first eliminated by gen
/ Cas- in his celebrated Nicholson letter, where
in he said, .the interference of congress should
be limited to the creation of proper govern.
ments for new territories acquired or settled
and to the necessary provisions for their even
tual admission into the Unin, leaving, in the
meantime, to the people inhabiting them. tc
regulate their own concerns in their own
way. This same doctrine was expressed BY
the same gentleman on another occasion in
the following still more emphatic terms: Cor
ganized communities, exercising the powers OF
government, whether in States or territories,
/ had alone the right of determining the ques-
ton of slavery for themselves"
! The quick perception and astute sagacity of
Mr.. Calhoun discovered at once the covert mis-
chief that was smothered in this generalizing,
and, at the first blush, specious and popular
axiom. 1t was seen, not until after while
ESQ great was the faith Of the democracy ia Mr..
Cass) that this assertion of the sovereignty Of
the people of the territories over property in
the territories, conceded the right of the people
OF territory to exclude slavery or. in other
words, to declare that not to be property in
territory belonging to all the States, which is
recognized as property by the United States.
and held as property in fifteen States of the
Union. This is the essence of what is called
'squatter sovereignty" which gen. Cass faith
ers, and which such leading democrats as
Bright, of Indiana, the president pro tenn. Of
the senate, Dickinson, of New York, Dodge,
OF Iowa, and Douglas, the young giant of the
west, openly sanctions and endorses. During
The memorable debate on the Nebraska bill in
the senate, in 1854, Douglas gave expression
to his opinions in the following frank and clear
language: Il have always held, he said,
.'that the people have right to settle these
come into the Union as a State, but that they
shall be permitted to do so while territory
On the other hand this specious doctrine has
al, bx,, ILL L.,
heterodox and mischievous and has provoked
more than any other, unqualified denunciaton
The great exponent and champion of southern
rights, Mr.. Calhoun, led off, and pronounced
it to be 'the most monstrous doctrine ever adj
vanced by any American statesman" That
master mind put the question in the shape Of
a proposition, as follows, and which conveys
an argument that cannot be met: ''If the ter
rltores belong to the United States, if the
dominion and sovereignty over {
hem be in the States ofthe Union, then neither
he inhabitants of thetterritories, nor their leg
slatures can exercise any power but what is {
subordinate to them. :. But if the reverse be
rue, if the dominion and sovereignty be in the {
-. they might exclude whom they a
'leased, and what they pleased. But in that 7
they would cease to be territories of the I'm
% the moment We acquired them and permit n
ed them to be inhabited. The first half dozen n
f squatters would become the sovereigns, with S
all dominion and sovereignty over them" n
This is the southern doctrine of non-inter- C
ention, in contradistncton from the northern
emocratic doctrine of 'ssquatter sovereignty" Q
hich has been formally declared by southern a
conventions as ''indefensibe in Il
rlnclple and dangerous in practice as the Will te
lot proviso," but which, nevertheless, at this z
resent time is cardinal principle of northern d
emocracy. ..p
Such was the conflict opinion among NJ a. fl
ers of the same party six or eight years. ago b
pom the great principle involved in the Ne N
raska bill, which at the present time is con- in
dered the sure test of democracy. The sub til
ct has been revived in the house of represen- +.
tves, as We have before stated, as kind of is
'lsode to the tedious business of yolR for a al
eaker, and some interesting factss0ncited hi
r. Cox, member from Kentucky, put the de
rect question to Mr.. Howard. of Michigan, W
neither he believed that the laws established di
the Legislature of the territory of Kansas are, sh
lderthe constitution, null and void; hS added: BY
Il asked the question for the purpose of bet
r illustrating the ground taken by democrats
the stump in the late election-in not one, re
1t several of the States of this Union. Iun- ed
rstand that the ground was taken, during the ur
tie canvass for Legislative offices, by Nebraska sh
mocrats, north, that congress, by the repeal SIC
the Missouri compromise, had conferred tai
the people of the territory power to estab- TEL
h or abolishelavery; and that in this regard MI
e north had the advantage. because it could 60
ur in population more rapidly than the south, tn
d thus prevent Kansas or Nebraska ever be- sol
ming slave territory. In short, under Il.
md that the ground was taken before the lltl
ople that the Kansas Nebraska bill was As
sasure in favor of freedom OF
Mr.. Howard replied: .svs7 74s- on
81 was of opinion that the due effect of the ne
Nebraska act was to allow shareholders bu
go into the territories with their slave pro- De
rty, and to receive there that protection, by at
tue of the constitution, which they do with gr
at property upon the high seas and under the an
g of the Union. l brought that as one of OF
, charges against the measure, not that l Ing
IS in favor Of the doctrine. but / contended
1t that was the effect of the act. Ny oppo-
Mt denounced me- as haino southern MI col