The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-11-11
NEW SERIES-NO. 2O3.

all their domestic institutions, Slavery not
excepted in their own way-subject only to
the Constitution of the United States.
This is the doctrine of which Mr.. Gwin
spoke, when he said
"To contend for the power-and sovereign
power it is-Of a territorial legislature to ex-
clude by non action or hostile legislation. is
pregnant with the mischefs of ver-ending
agitation OF civil discord and bloody wars
1T is an absurd, monstrous and dangerous
theory, which demands denunciatiOn from ev-
cry patriot in the land; and profound sense
of my duty to you wOnld not permit me to do
less than to offer this brief statement of my
views upon a question so vital to the welfare
Of our common country"
Why did not the same "profound sense
of duty to the people of California require
Mr.. Gwin to denounce this &c absurd, mon
strous and dangerous theory" when pro-
nounced and enforced by Gen. Cass, in his
Nicholson letter in 1913, and in support of
the Compromise measures of 1850, and
thence repeated by that eminent statesman
at each session of Congress until 1857, when
Mr.. Gwin voted for his confirmation as
Secretary of State2 Why did not Mr..
Gwin obey the same sense of duty by de-
nouncing James Buchanan as the Demo-
cratic candidate for the Presidency, when
he declared in 1885, that the people of a
Territory. like those of a State, should de-
eide for themselves whether Slavery shall or
shall not exist within their limits ?" Why
did he not perform this imperative duty by
voting against Mr.. Cobb, who made North
ern votes for Mr.. Buchanan by advocating
this same "absur1, mOnstrOus and danger
Gus theory of non action and unfriendly
legislation" when he was appointed Secre-
tary of the Treasury? And, in short, why
did he not prove his fidelity to high sense
of duty by protesting against my selection
as Chairman of the Senate's Committee on
unanimous uote, at every session that be has
been Senator, from 1850 to 1858, NTH a
full knowledge of my opinions? The infer
ence is that Mr.. Gwin, from his remarks on
the bred Scott Decision" is prepared to
offer it as an excuse for the disregard, for so
many years, of that profound sense of duty
which be owed to the people Of California.
1t may be that before the decision biz mind
was not clear as to the sense of duty which
now moves him. Of that decision be said
"In March, 1857, the Supreme Conrt decided
this question in all its various relations, in the
case of bred Scott. That decision declares
that neither Congress nor Territorial Leg
slature possess the power either to es-
tablish or exclude Slavery from the Territory
and that it was power which exclusively be-
lOnged to the States that the people of Ter
ritOry can exercise this power for the first time
when they form Constitution; that the right
of the people of any State to carry their slaves
into common Territory of the United States
and hold them there during its existence as
the United States that it was right which
could neither be subserted nor evaded, either
by non.action, by direct or indirect Congress
sional legislation, or by any law passed by
Territorial Legislature"
Surely, Mr.. Gwin had never read the
opinion OF the court in the case of bred
Scott" except as it has been perverted for
partisan purposes by newspapers, when be
undertook to expound it to the good people
of California. 1t so happens, that the court
did not decide any one Of the propositions so
boldly and emphaticaly stated in the Grass
Valley speech The court did not declare,
that neither Congress nor a Territorial
Legislature possessed the power either to
establish or exclude slavery from Terri
tory, and that it was power which exclu-
sively belonged to the States" The court
did not declare, " that the people of a Ter
ritory can exercise this power for the first
time when they come to form cOnstitu-
ton" The court did not declare that the
right of the people OF any State to carry
their slaves into common Territory of the
United States, and hold them during its ex-
istence as such, was guaranteed by the Con.
sti,ution of the United States" The court
did NOT declare that it was right which
could neither be subverted or evaded, either
by non-action, by direct or indirect Congress
sonal legislation, or by any law passed by
d Territorial Legislature" Neither the de-
cision nor the opinion of the court affirms
any one of those propositions, either in
express terms or by fair legal ntendment.
The uersloa of the "Dred Scott Decision"
had its origin in the unfortunate Lecomp-
ton controversy, and is one of the many po-
litical heresies to which it gave birth.
There are other portions of Mr.. OWNS
speech which are equally open to just eriti-
cism and unwarranted by the facts to which
| they relate /; but | refrain from commenting
upon them, as prefer to cOnfine myself to
those points upon which my political action,
in common with that of a large majority of
the Democratic party, has been upjustly as
sailed before the people of California.
In faithful compliance with the pledges,
creed and platform of the Democratic party,
stand now as | did in 1850, in 1854, and
10 1856, by the great cardinal principle that
under our political system, every distinct
political community, loyal to the constitu-
ton and the Union, is entitled to all the
rights, privileges and immunities of self
government, 10 respect to their internal
polity and domestic institutions, subject
only to the Constitution of the United
States.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,