New-York daily tribune., 1859-05-19


sought TO avoid the inconvenience of COM
mitting himself and his Northern political
friends to the absolute. unconditional and un-
limited acceptance Of Slavery as national
Institution, BY setting up the doctrine Of Squater
Sovereignty. Provided their work were done
provided Slavery was fixed upon the Territories
the bulk of the shareholders we're quite willing to
excuse Mr. Douglas and other Northern politicians
from the disagreeable and dangerous task of taking
upon their own shoulders the burden and respon-
sbility of the operation. II was therefore agreed
that Mr. Douglas and his Northern political asso-
ciates should be required to do nothing more than
10 draw the bolts and throw down the bars of the
Missouri prohibition, the stakeholder, feeling
confident assurance that if once let in they could
easily in the character Of squstter soveregns, set
tie matters to suit themselves. II the Northern
ID. mocrats would only allow them 10 enter, the
shareholders were certain that they could easily run
Of, not only with KaDsas, but with any other Ter
rtory into which they might think worth their
while to go.
Unfortunately, however for Mr. Douglas, exPe-
rence has shown that Squatter Sovereignty cannot
be relied upon as means for the introduction OF
Slavery. 1t signally failed in Kansas, even though
backed up by Border Observation-Disclosures Rufiian-
ism being in its turn backed up by the Army OF the
United States and the whole power OF the Execu-
tive Government Having thus failed to accom-
plish the object for which it was brought forward
it has been contemptuously expunged from the
Democratic creed; nnd Mr. Douglas, for presumlng
still to adhere to it and to insist upon it, has been
Just as contemptuousy expupged from the Dem.
Ocratic party.
Yet, with this example before their eyes, The
Constitution and Mr.. Bucbanan-if, indeed, they be
not one and the same-stil persist in attempting TO
substitute for the used-up dodge of Squatter Sow
ereipntv another dodge of the same sort, to which
they give the name Of Popular Sovereignty. 1t is
evident, however that the doctrine OF the Dred
Scott decision, which The Constitution quotes as
irreconcilabe with the doctrine Of Squaiter Sow
eregnty, is equally irreconcilabe with the new
doctrine Of Popular Sovereignty. The Dred Scott
case is relied upon as deciding that the Constitu
ton Of the United States makes no difference be-
tween property in slaves and any other kind OF
property Property Of all kinds, according to that
decision, as expounded by The Constitution, ia,
under the Constitution of the United States, "a.
cred thing, which Congress cannot either touch
itself, or authorize aDy Territorial Legislature to
touch. Not only they cannot touch it directly, but
they cannot touch it indirectly, by the enactment
Of laws unfrendly to it, calculatcd to put obsta
ces in The way Of its full, free and beneficial en-
ioyment This sacredness Of slave property under
the Constitution of the United States is relied
upon as conclusive reason why neither Con-
gress nor Territorial Legislatures can be
allowed TO enact any laws uniayOrable to
il, and why every citizen of the United States
should be allowed to emigrate into any Territory OF
the United States, taking with him and continu-
ing TO hold as property what was property in the
State whence he emigrated.
And pray what entertainment does Mr.
Buchanan's doctrine Of Popular Sovereignty
provide for the shareholders who, relying upon
the Dred Scott decision and the sacredness of
slave property under the Constitution of the
United States, have thus been induced to
transport themselves and their slaves to some new
Territory The Constitution refers with horror
and alarm to the struggle between shareholders to
maintain their property aud Free-State men to
destroy it, which would result from admitting the
doctrine of Territorial legislation on the subject of
Slavery. Every election, it says, for members of
the Legislature would be contested with the ut
most violence, and every legislative assembly would
present scene Of turbulence and commotlon; but
would not the doctrine Of Popular Sovereignty be
attended with precisely the same results ]! Ac-
coIding to that doctrine, all at once
when the Territory comes to form State COnstitu-
ton, the people of it, in spite Of the sscredne's of
property, ard of slave property as well as other
kinds, acquire the right Of saying whether Slavery
shall exist or not. 1t is impossible to suppose but
that the Territory Will from the beginning, be agi-
tated BY parties and struggles with view to the
speedy exercise of this superemincnt right In
stead of avoiding the struggle between Slavery and
Freedom, the doctrine of Popular Sovereignty only
puts il off; and the very same reasons which The
Constitution gives why the shareholders stand but
little chance ofcarryng the day in Territorial Leg
islature, would equally operate against them in
Convention for framing State Constitution. As
that journal remarks, the first emigrsnts who move
into new Territories are seldom rich enough to be
shareholders. Such also still continues to be the
ease, down 10 the period when the population is
numerous enough 10 frame a State Constitution.
There is every reason to suppose that in a number
of cases this new doctrine of Popular Sovereignty
would work no better for the shareholders than
the doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty and taught b.
the failure of that We doubt II they viii be ready
10 accept this a. substitute.