The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1859-09-28
From ne Peoples Press.
Hon. L. Q. G. Lamar.

q
According % appointment, this distinguish
ed statesman addressed our citizens on the
Sth inst, on the political topics Of the day
His speech was eloquent, powerful and con-
,vincings 80 much so, thatwe are Inclined to
think that but few, who heard him, viii be
found 50 poor rs to do reverence to the
Little Giant and his heresies, Il would be
vain to attempt b follow Col 1Amar in the
line Of argument he pursued. and in the APP
peals he made to the patriotism OF his audi
ence The subject of his speech was, princi-
pally, the doctrine of Territorial or Squatter
Sovereignty, as held by Mr.. Douglas and his
followers North and South He stated the is
sue fairly, and discussed it with an ability that
carried conviction to all who listened to him.
Col Lamar showed, most conclusiyely, that
no leading statesman Of the South--at least
none whom the South had most trusted and
looked to, as exponents Of southern senti-
ment had ever admitted the right of the peo-
pie of a territory 10 exclude slavery there-
from, until they were in the act of forming a
State. He secuted the idea that Calhoun had
ever entertained such a doctrine but showed,
by many instaAees, and particularly in the
case of the bill for the formation 81 q terrific
rial government for Oregon. that the very re-
verse was his position; and, further. that those
very Southern statesmen, who have been quo
ted most frequently as authority for the doc
trine of non-intervention" had under consider
alton, when they delivered their views upon
that subject only the power Of Congress to
legislate slavery into or out Of the territories
They denied that Congress had any such pow
er, but never that she had the right to protect
slave property therein. He said that the great
error in Judge Douglass position, was the
idea that Slavery was the creature Of local
law" whereas history-the very formation of
society-would prove the reverse of the prop
osition. That slavery existed in the colonies
long before the adoption Of the constitution;
that it became Incorporated into, and formed
q part of the common law Of the land; that it
was recognized by the constitution and made
the imperative duty Of Congress to protect it
in the territories That so far from the insti-
tuition of slavery being dependent on local
law to establish it, Local law was actually re-
quired so abolish It'll -. w. "a
Col. Lamar also showed that the Supreme
Court has decided that Congress, under the
Constitution, has the power, coupled with the
imperative duty to protect slavery in the ter
ritories, and that this decision was based upon
or grew out of the Kansas Bill, and conse-
quently had become part Of it, and hence, that
the advocates of Squatter Sovereignty could
not claim that Congress conceded in this Bill,
to the territorial legislature, all power over the
subject Of slavery. Congress still has the
right and the power, and it is her imperative
duty to declare null and void any act OF a ter
ritorial Legislature unfriendly to the rights Of
the STAKEHOLDER, and which has tendency to
exclude the institution therefrom. Col. l..
also showed that the same line Of argument,
which would prove the power Of Territorial
Legislature or Congress to deny the right Of
protection to Southern men in the Terrific
ries, would empower State to pass laws to
prevent the execution of the Fugitive Slave
Law ;sthat the right to protection, which the
South have, under the Constitution, is posi-
tive and absolute right, and that refusal to
secure them in that right by positive lesisla-
ton, would be as much an act Of tyranny as
any positive imposition of outrageous wrong.
And now such being the issue before the peo-
pie; such being the position of parties-the
protection or n-protection, by Congress, of
slavery in the territories, how can the South
hesitate, for one moment what course to pur-
sue Will she support for the next Presi
dency man holding the negative Of this
question A man who differs from VIM. H.
Seward only in this--that, whereas, the one
claims for a State the power to prevent the
execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, by a
higher law than the Gonstitution-the other
claims the same right and power, by the same
higher law, for an inferior police concern to
exclude Slavery from the Territories Will
she abandon the proud position she has sus-
tanned for the last thirty years in the mainte-
nance of the rights which the Supreme Court
has said is guaranteed to her under the Con-
stitution ? Or will not the Democracy of the
South rather sustain a defeat In the coming
Presidential contest proudly contending for
their rights than to hear the shout of mere
party triumph, by the sacrifice of single iota
of those rights. IL