The Feliciana Democrat., 1857-11-07

This point has at last been finally decided by the
highest tribunal known to our laws. How 1t could
ever have been seriously doubted is mystery. If u
confederation of Sovereign States acquire II new ter
ritory ut the expense of their common blood and trea
sure surely set of the partners can have no right
TO exclude the other from its enjoyment, by prohibit
ing them from taking into II whatsoever is recognized
TO br property by the common Constitution.
The other point urged by this pamphctccr and
mainly relied upon 10 Justify Walkers conduct in in
crcring against the South and arguing that slavery
could not owing to natural causes, exist in the terri
tory, is the alleged fact that pending the Kansas hll
in Congress. number of Southern senators and Re-
Impressed the opinion that Kansas would
not br permanently u slavcholling country. II is
difficult to comprehend how these expressions of
opinion or prophcsics. if the writer chooses author
lied Walkers violation of the fundamental doctrines
of the bl to verify them. If Southern men, prone
to look upon The darkest side of the picture, INDUCED
the conjecture that Kansas would bc antislavc, did
they hy that act indicate willingness that Walker
should outrage the law with view to the realization
Of their gloomy forchodings? Strange reasoning.
If they expressed the opinions attributed To them,
they nevertheless supported the bill on the ground
that IL cf the people "a determine their own instiiu-
tons lnr themselves without the agency either of
Congressional or Executive interference. Moreover.
il was oae thine r thns, Senator's and Representa-
ycs charged with no duty in Kansas. and before the
enactment finer territorial nw 10 express their opin
ion Of il future status. hut quite another for the
Governor Of The Territory pending the contest he
twrcn The gnlt parties slave aud anti-slnvc to oh.
itd, hi- rrolg III behalf o' one party 10 the con
tust aud ihol shape l- official acts so a. to put h-
theory into woctical effect The Southern men quo.
h.. T.. II! II N.
tpari'ug me ruturr condition Of The country Int
walker A. The gent ot thu Federal Government n-
ter the pls,ng" d the l was pledged TO strict
Incutmlity.
But un dcay .,at tn southern u,ll l,c.i capable u
determining lIe question the men nearest the scene
Of action. aud directly Interested in the settlement, Of
TIE 4aeiiona issue Ind expressed tie opinion which
the writer pupdc- ~ Justification Of Walker high.
hapd proceedings.
In proofofit vc refer TO their acts in the territory
~ before rrmwl, 4. thoy haI madr Tie slavery qrcs-
ton tIr turning poiw Of every struggle ~ n" poli.
in The trr.iory and hal iriumphcd They had pass
cd local laws protecting slave property; and even
after walker reached TIE territory. notwithstanding
his isoihnrmnl drcrrc they elected constitutional
Convention composed almost exclusively Of mrp.
bcts IL fayor Of Inserting polavory clnrs in the
organic ltN under Which thry design applying for
admission State. fl yicw Of these urdrnia-
hle frt- how utterly inl.r how stupidity absurd.
how cont mpuou-ly ridiculous /, the plea Of the
pamph iaer ID behalf of tie great political Grim.
ma ~ the times.
There arr other misrepresentation and hastlcss as
sutnptioas which may h. specified, 10 show the intel
lisen reader how ignorant ~ how INSCRIPTIONS this
model "Sthsh h.fhts SgHAgp Doaocrty"s.
ll'a.srr;s that the Southern delegation in Con.
qre.s generally laaiHliaed that III" people of the
territories. H,gn& mn L,yt1rlo,. hria cqn
% utfo'tf"r n o'o'tt InrRm fhQ ~ N, t,alirof
Il &",, ll'. J. notor,ausly untrur. They have
always hold that people ola territory were moi
mlborizod 70 decide tlr slavery question unit! they
conn 70 form their Stain Constitution preparatory to
admission into the Mon This Is the Democratic
doctrine as cnuncatcd Al Cincinnati aud 10 which the
Soalhcn Democracy adhere. and II /. the Gpnsiin-
iional doctrine rs pronounced hy The supreme Court
II the bred Scott case
The writer assumes that the Southern Democracy
have objected 70 IL" submission Of the Constitution
framed by the Kansas Convention to the people Of
HE territory This j. nutorione untrue. The South
nm Democracy have done no such thing They have
connndni oIs Walker now admits and as the prcsi-
dent declares in his Connecticut cttcr) that the Con
fcnlion has been fairly and legally called--that it
VIII represent the sovereignty Of the pcopc-that It
Will possess full und complete powers to submit or
not =, II chooses, aml that Walker had no right to
dictate how hosc powers should be exercised
lie sayS that ~ the Territorial Democratic conycn
ton which assembled ut IecoInplon on the 81 Of July.
ana which Was rompos@N Dmjmdy Of pyo-siapeyy men
passed resolutions endorsing Governor Walkers
policy in his efforts for the preservation of the peace
and expressive Of their determination TO support his
inaugural The Cincinnati platform and the submission
oI The constitution 10 the people"
False again. The Lecompton Convention did mol
endorse Walkers policy, nor did they express
" their determination to support his inaugural -
They simply declared their purpose TO assist him in
preserving the peace of the territory lie was pres.
ent Mt the Convention, arfully intriguing to procure
m endorsement Of his aueural but il was Intentions
ally ignored and virtually rcpudiated. This ne hnow
10 be true. But let the only resolution passed by the
Convention on the subject, speak for ITSELF
Resolved, That the National Democratic party of
Kansas territory, pledges itself to the support and
maintenance OF his EXcellency II, j. Walker, in pre-
The and I0rm0uu of Ruu9,s o,J "a;