Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1859-07-08
WHO Is HEl

= Mr. Sanford the hero of the Sanford Let
: ter" We ask for information. Richmynd
/ ErnmiMer.
The above is obviously intended as a snecr
at the Sanford Letter If the Examiner
finds any thing TO complain Of in that produc,
ton the doctrines Of which it has so repeatedly
endorsed, it would. we submit, be much fiirer
TO a>sail it or its author with something stronger.
than sncer.
But if a real desire for information, is
mingled with tins anxiety 10 find some obliq;ic
point from which to assail Gov. Wise. We
readily furnish all We can.
We have some acquaintance with and much
kind feeling towards Mr.. Vim. +. Sanford, of
Alabama The Enquirer is indebted 10 him
for much valuable and interesting matter,
which, until the last few months, has supplied
our columns We know HIM to be - true aud
firm II State Rights Democrat as ever refused
10 'ignorc" Constitutional principle. We are
unable to state what are the issues between
him and Gov. Moore They relate most pro-
badly to matters Of State politics with which
it is not our duty to inlcrmcddc. We are in
formed, however, that Mr.. Sanford occupies Il
position 1T this time, which has two prcccdcnts
to justify it, the high authority Of which Inc
Examiner will be the last Journal to dispute.
The "Exanincr',' iilvoritc candidate for the
Presidency has twice occupied the position Of
an independent Democratic candidate, receiving
very few Democratic, and elected by opposition
votes. During the administration of Mr.. Van
Buren,, the Hon. f. VI. f. Hunter, as indcpcn.
dent candidate for Speaker Of the House of
Representatives, received eleven I'VE think that
the exact NUMBER Democratic votes. was unan.
im"rl,ly supported by the opposition, and thus
elected over the regular Democratic nominee
In lSiG, Mr.. Hunter was an independent candl-
date for the office which he now holds lie rc.
cciycd thirteen Democratic votes, and enough
opposition votes to drive one regular Democrat
c nominee OF the track lie thea opposed
another Democratic nominee. the late lIon
John W. Jones; and with thirteen Democratic
votes and the united vote Of the opposition, he
was elected to the United States Senate, over
the regular Democratic nominee Now, the
EXAMINER VIII not, We are sure, permit Mr..
Hunter to be aSsaed as an opposition canii.
date" or an ''cxioliating Democrat"
Well Ir Sanford is in the same position
now. that Mr.. Hunter occupied then. He i>.
we are informed, an independent Democratic
candidate. Cover him irnpartially with the
mantle of your charity, neghbor.
And this identical Mr. Sanford is undoub-
edy the hero Of the Sanford letter" But il
this be Il rcploach TO him, it is one shared 10 Il
great extent by his able and worthy coinpct
tor, Gov Moore Both these candidates stand
firmly on the doctrine OF the Sanford letter.
10Th Wrerly r,Fndiate tie dea cf' eompro-
missing the question mrolred, at Chariesto".-
We will take all carly opportunity to lay be-
fore our readers the able address of Gov Moore,
late letter addressed by him to .y1,o ~. ,r~
must suffice for the present: '''''"
have been thus particular IN referring 10
our constitutional rights, and to the action oi
the Black Republicans, III and out OF Congress-
10 show the truth OF your statement that I'VE
have been for years ripcning toa great ana
final issue on the question most vital To ns-thc .
question OF slavery, aud with the further yl"w
Of enabling you aud others TO determine prop
crly the application and force OF the opinions
NAV give, rs to what Is the best policy for the
South to adopt, III view Of all the dlilicultlc,
that surround uS on this great question. Be .
fore proceeding to express any opinion on tins .
nont. ! will cXalairic the ncw doctrine, To
which you refer, that "the South may be- .
excluded from all Of the common territories by
unir,udy legislation through the territorial
legislature free .from tie c0ntr0t ~ to"gr,@.
The Territories arc the common property OF
the United States, and the inhabitants OF any
of the States have the ri ght To settle in any oi
the Territories, and take with them any pro-
pcrtv. recognized as such in the States from
which they removed, whether consisting oi
mules. horses slaves or other property. From
the moment they become inhabitants Of the
Territory, they are within the sole jurisdiction
of the Federal Government, and have the right
under the Constitutions; to io"k - tvhyre~, .iof
tie tnactmCht If such luws rs may 5e mc,S- /
mtry 10 proi.ct their j,trSshS d1"t property
Slaves are held as property i'll tic slavchoidIns
States. and are so held in the Territory by the
owners thereof, and should be protected a. all
other property Congress MAJ transfer The
legislation for the Territories to the people
thereof, but she can transfer no other or great
cr powcrs or rights than are delegated 10 her
in the Constitution She has no right to cs-
tablish or abolish slavery in the Territories,
nor to discriminate against 1t by "unIrIcniiy
legislation" On the contrary Congress is eX-
pressly prohibited from constituting the rights
enumerated in the Constitution. so aS ITO deny
or dsparagc others retained by the people
Congress- therefore, having no rightto exclude /.
slavery from the common Territories OF the
United States by "unfriendly legislation, could
confer no such right on the people thereof
Such legislation would he unconstitutional and
void The Kansas act says 1t Is 1.-THE true ILL ;
tent and meaning Of this act not TO lcgI>latc
slavery in any territory or State, nor to exclude
il thcrcfrom, but to leave the people thereof
perfectly free to form and regulate their do
ncStic institutions in their own way. subject
only to the Constitution of the United States.
Now. what is it Congress by this act says she
will not do. 1t is that she will not " lc-i>latc
slavery INTO n Territory or State nor "cXcludc
il thcrcfrom." Why will she not do il: For
the sole reason that she has not the power
Then, what did Congress mean By saying that
she would leave the people of the Terri.
tory perfectly free to foin and regulate
their domestic institutions in their own
way. subject only to the Constitution Of the
United States Did she mean to give to the
people of the Territory the right whilst acting
purely in Territorial capacity, to establish or
abolish slavery therein. or to exclude it hy
''unfriendly legislation - This could not have
been her Intention because she possessed no
such right or power, and could not trali>icr TO
the people of Territory 4 rgh; which She
did not possess What, then, is the true intent
and meaning of this act Ii is. as ! under
stand it, to leave to the people of the Territory
that. which all admit is their right, to he left
perfectly free, when preparing their con>titu-
ton for admission Is a State into the Union,