Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1857-12-24
rrTfe ReDpbfcs:.s lave either al

@Tke Republicans have either al!
become the advocates of what they sheer
ingly termed .Sqnatrer So-ereign,y' year
and d half ego, or else they are guilty o.
duplicity. -Democrdt;c Era.
The above is an extract from an article
in which Mr.. PURDY-surpri-ej at his Own
boIdness on the kansus.quesuon. tries TO
reconcile his present with bis pos. position;
and, lest the Democracy should think him an
spostate, he cut in a bitter TRADE On
the Republicans, blaming them FOR all the
present d faculties. This must ave been
the reason, for surely he did not suspect the
Republicans of claiming him. II he did. we
would only remind him Of the can who was
turned cut of church, aosut " hom the Out
sidsrs held a meeting and refused TO receive
him. We think il easy to show that the
Republicans are guilty OF neither of these
heinous crimes charged in the above qaota-
tion. Squatter Sovereignty has nothing to
do with Kansas now. When the State Gov.
ernmeLt is to be formed; when tie Terri
torial IS merged into a State Government. il
has always been a sacreI principle of the
Republican party, that the National Gov
ernment had 10 longer q right to dictate
laws, or interfere with Institutions estab.
lished by the people. What we maintained
was that Congress had power to govern tbs
Territories, until under its direction they
had formed a Government for themselves
This principle we yet maintain, aud had ii
been carried cut in Kansas, her past aEt
present troubles would never have been
Where have the Republicans ever refused
to LET the people vote upon their own laws
but when there is no law, and when there
is no organization Iegiiimately for the pro,
lection of the people, the people are il
thes. territories no; as the citiz, rs OF q
Stale, but of the United States, and hence
are governed by the laws of the Unitet
States, and have no rights but those com
mon to the citizens of every Stale. Now
according to the principle of"Squatter Sow
ereignty " as defined by lis originators,
citizen of Virginia goes 10 these TerriroricI
with rights that a citizen OF Ohio docs no
possess. But this is compromised by lh'
assumption of the erroneous idea that In,
Constitution OF The United States guaran
teed the right OF property in Slaves, anc
others vent further and claimed il as a RICH
higher than any constitutional right. Now
we claim that either of these propositions
dePrives the people of any power to prohibit
slavery in State or Territory. No State
can pass a law depriving a citizen of the
United States Of a single right guaranteed
10 him by the Constitution, or by that higher
law. Hence to grant the assumed propose
tion as true, would make slavery universal
Did We think the Constitution of the Unite,
States granted any such right I'VE would sa,
bot Il Out oferiSieDce. If we believed Ii,
accepted law of the common rights of ma
sanctioned any such thirg we would be quic'
to ienvre it On these que ti1ns tine Re u,
lican party stands to day precisely where
always has s'ocd. and the fact th-t n
party now favor the submission CT the Kan
sas Constitution 10 the people is neithe
evidence disappearing "Sqnutter Sovereign
IT," or of ''duplic;ty." but is perfectly con
%sistent, and the fact that many Democrat
Gre to-day acting with the Republicans i
not to be wondered at, but the fact tina
any sane man would advocate the doctrine
of Squatter, Sovereignty after its p~ractica
death in Kansas and Utah, is a myster
mystifed.