The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1859-05-14

Popular Sovereignty vs. Squatter Sove.
Teignty.

niica.ion of the phrases employed should
be clearly aud accurately defined. and the
hopeless confusion of ideas exhibited in
the illusions of many of our co.enpora.
ries upon the leading political topic of
the day furnishes conspicuous illustru-
ton OF this automatic truth. We will
not do our opponents the injustice of as
suming :..lat this confusion of the
phrases We have pre6xed to our article is
the result. of lack Of discrimination.
Ga the contrary, as the doctrine Of
popular Sovereignty" rightly under
stood, must necessarily prove as popular
as that of "Squatter Sovereignty" is obi.
Gus, from its unconstitutionaity, the use
ofthc two phrases unfortunately argues
rather an adroitness, useful enough to
those whose principles will not bear anal.
ysis.~
But is there any foundation for assum
ing the convertibility of these terms ?
And is it fair to charge that one is an
advocate of "Squstter Sovereignty" be.
cause he has given in his adhesion TO the
doctrine of popular Sovereignty ?" We
think not. Popular Sovereignty and
Squa,tcr Sovereignty are doctrines no.
only distinct, but antagonistic; and the
distinction is so clear, the antagonism so
palpable, that he who runs may read -
This We propose briefly to show.
Mr.. Buchanan, in his letter of accept
ance and in his inaugural Address. has
furnished the clearest possible definition
OF Popular Sovereignty. Ia his letter of
acceptance he says: az The people of a
Territory, like those of State. shall
decide for themselves whether Slavery
"fhall or shall no, exist in their limits"
and in his Inaugural he says: a differ.
"ence Of opinion has arisen as to the
point of time when the people of Ter.
ritory shall decide this question for
themselves, This is, happily, of bu,
little practical Importance. =
Though it has ever been my individual
"oplnion that, under the Nebraska. Kan.
sas act, the appropriate period will be
" when the number Of actual residents in
tho Territory shall justify the forma-
tlon OF a constitution with "A view 10 its
"ad mission as State into the Union. "
This is Popular Sovereignty in the Ter
rltories. 1t recognizes the exercise by a
Territorial Legislature Of every power
consistent with the provisions OF the
Constitution, bat it does no, recognize
the exercise Of any power Inconsistent
with the rights Of the people of the
States in whom resides the ultimate .oye.
relgnty over, as well as the ownership OF.
all the common territory Of the United
States
Squa.tor Sovereignty, on the contrary.
recognizes the right Of those men what.
ever may be their number who NAV
have squntted on the public domain in
advance OF the public surveys, md with
out the ownership Of one acre Of he soil,
to elect n Legislature which shall und r
take to prohibit Slavery within Terri.
tory, and thus practically deprive nearly
half Of the partners in this confederac '
Of States of the right of emigratins with
their property to any portion of their
vast and extended domain. In other
words, this Sqnatter Sovereignty conf, r.
on the first settlers ola Territory absolute
aud unlimited power over the propert,
rights Of all future immigrants.
Thus understanding the matter, We
proclaim, unhesitatingly that, while We
shall ever advocate Popular Sovereignty,
we will wage an eternal war on Sluattcr
Sovereignty. While the one doctrine is
just, constitutional, and in conformity
with the spirit of our institutions the
other Is unjust unconstitutional, and in
violation OF the equality of the States -
The one Is the doctrine Of the Democrat.
ic party the other is the doctrine Of the
disorganizers and boilers, who seek to
divide and destroy the Democratic party.
and with it the Union.
1t was in pursuing of this train OF
thought we were led into an expression
which has been perverted to mean the
very opposite OF our intentions. We
said, few days ago: The principles EN-
blazoned on tho Democratic banner are,
Non. intervention, by Congress or by
Territorial Legislatures, either to es.
"tablish or prohibit Slavery in the Ter.
ritories, and the protection of slave
property therein, as long as the Terri
"torial condition shall remain. by the
Judiciary, under the Constitution OF
"the United States The plain mean.
ing of this is, that Congress cannot. and
therefore should not, attempt to establish
or prohibit Slavery in any Territory, and
that the Territorial Legislature, deriving
all its powers Of legislation from Congress,
cannot, and should not, attemp, to cstab-
llsh or prohibis slavery in the Terrific
RES. But since the Constitution Of the
United States protects oH Of its people
In the enjoyment n NJ their rights Of