The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-09-16

on such Congressional legislation as may be
necessary to protect slave property in that
and all other Territories.
7. These issues must, and will be met by
the Democratic party. Non intervention
and popular sovereignty must be maintained
in New Mexico and Kansas. If New Mex
leo wants slave code and always, she has
right to it. If Kansas does not want it,
Congress must not force it on her.
8. Northern and Southern intervention
lists agree in the principle that slavery is
rightful subject of Congressional legislation,
but differ in regard to the character of such
legislation-each insisting that Congress
should intervene 10 favor of their section and
against the other in violation of the right of
the people interested in the question to de-
sire it for themselves
9. According to the doctrine of the inter-
ventionists, North and South, slavery is
rightful subject of Federal legislation, de-
pendent upon Federal authority for its
existence and protection, and, consequently,
subject to Federal regulation and control
the one contending the whole power of the
Federal Government should be eXerted for
its protection, and the other for its destruc-
ton.
10. On the other hand the Democratic
party hold that slavery is State institution,
and that it exists in the several slaveholding
States "under the laws thereof" and not by
virtue of the Constitution of the United
States. and consequently, it is beyond the
reach or control of the Federal Government,
for good or for evil, except in the simple
case of returning fugitive slaves-that &C.
cording to the bred Scott, decision "the
right of property in slave is distinctly and
expressly affirmed in the Constitution
that 1.-THE Government in express terms is
pledged to protect it in all future time, if
the slave escape from his owner"-that "the
only power conferred is the power coupled
with the duty of guarding and protecting
the owner of his rights" When the slave
escapes-that "no word can be found in the
Constitution which gives Congress greater
power over slave property, or which entities
property of that kind to less protection than
property of any otter description"
all other property is dependent upon the
local law for protection, as we'll in the Ter
itories as in the States, and that slave pro-
perry stands on the same footing in every
respect whatever.
IL. He referred to the doctrine of "squat,
ter sovereignty" and said that the term,
when first christened by Mr.. Calhoun, had
no reference to the powers of a Territorial
Legislature, when organized under the Con-
stitution and laws of the United States, but
referred to the action of body of men who
had settled on the public domain without
title or authority of law, and set up a gov
eminent independent of the United States,
and without its consent, as in Oregon, where
they prohibited slavery before Congress es-
tablished Territorial government. This
Mr.. Calhoun denounced as "squatter sover-
ignty.'
r. In contradistinction to "squatter
sovereignty" as denounced by Mr.. Calhoun
and Congressional sovereignty, as advocated
by the Opposition, the Democratic party is
pledged to the prime pie of popular sovereign
ty, by which the people of the organized
Territories, " like those of State, shall de-
eide for themselves whether slavery shall or
shall not exist within their limits
Is. Those who insist that the first hand.
full of settlers should not decide the slavery
question, should vote against the organiza-
ton of the Territories until they have sul1i-
Gent population for a political community
capable of self-government in all their do
nestle concerns; that no Legislature should
be established for people who were not
qualified by numbers, and in all other res
poets, to legislate for themselves on all
rightful subjects of legislation, subject only
to the Constitution and if their legislative
enactments should conflict with the Consti-
tuition, that was a judicial question, which
could only be decided by the courts, and
whose decision must be obeyed and respected
by all good citizens.
IA. He denounced the system of spurious
emigration by Emigrant Aid Societies, for
the purpose of controlling the Territorial
legislation, as fraud upon the elective fran
chise, intended to subvert and destroy the
principles of self government none but the
actual inhabitants, who had abandoned their
respective States and settled in the Terrific.
ry in good faith, with view of making it
their permanent home, have right to
voice or vote in the Legislature of the Ter
ritory.
Is. He emphatically condemned the
doctrine of Mr.. Stewards Rochester speech,
in respect to the irrepressibe conflict be-
tween freedom and slavery" in the several
States-said that he had denounced the
same doctrine when announced by Mr.. Lin.
coin in the Illinois canvass, as subversive of
the principles upon which the Union was
founded. He contended that uniformity in
the local laws and domestic institutions of
the several States, was neither desirable nor
possible so great variety of climate
and interests created necessity for a cor
responding variety in the local legislation,
adapted to the wants of each locality-that
the liberties of the people and the union of
the States depended upon this inalenable
right of local self-government in all the
States and Territories.
Is. He said that the duty of restoring
fugitive slaves was an obligation imposed by
the Constitution, which every good citizen
was bound to obey-that the example set in
the North of refusing to execute the fugi-
tive-slave Law because they did not approve
it's provisions, had been intimated in the
South by refusing toexecute the laws against
the African slave-trade for the same reasons
that those who had set the example, as
we'll as those who had followed a bad exam
pie, were alike faithless to their duties as
citizens, and should suffer the penalties of
the law.
II. He argued that if the doctrine of
non-intervention and popular sovereignty
was maintained, the Union was susceptible
of indefinite expansion-that steady growth