The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1859-09-14

tom aTo assume,s' said the Constitutio
that Congress has the power to prescribe Il
destines and duties of future States is not
whit more opposed to popular sovereignty,
its true aud legitimate sense, than it is to a
. sa,,te that he first squatters Of territory ca
pass Mws By ,oHich the citizens Of every sla'
State IN tie Union ,couM Be practically erclut
ed from that portion Of the common property
al tie States
Briefly, the Administration paper resolutel
maintained that not more violative Of the prir
i'ciples Of constitutional justice and State equa
ity-not more unjust and offensive to the slay
States-is the doctrine of the Wilmot Provis
than is the new tangled idea of Squatter So,
ereignty or territorial omnipotence.
The Constitution also maintained that ''th
! inhabitants of territory have the power t
settle the slavery question at the time of th
formation Of the incipient State and not b.
fore" And it made good its position as th
well-settled policy of the Democratic part
} by proving that it is unquestionably afirme
in the Cincinnati Platform.
In endorsing these views of the Convention
seeing that it had stopt short of the mai
point, We asked :: But suppose the 'firs
handfI Of squatters' should "arrogate t
themselves the authority to do that whic
you correctly assert they have no right to d.
what is your remedy? Inasmuch as the fed
eral government holds the territories in trus
for the States who are joint owners, is it nc
its duty through all its departments, Legisla
tive, Executive, as well as Judicial, to inter
pose and prevent the wrong?
To these pertinent inquiries, the Constitu
ton has returned an answer which will b
found under the above title in another column
| of to-day's paper. That the article is unsat
lsfactory and uncandid, and that it is snuou
In its course of reasoning, and not consisten
in its conclusions with the premises which i
had previously laid down, every unbiased rea
der viii be compelled to admit. 1t has deal
in vague and misty generalities and in idl
assumptions from imaginary facts. 1t has en-
deayored to steer middle course between
conflicting theories, and has entangled itsel
in a web Of palpable absurdities and contra
dictions.
| With an air somewhat dogmatic, it says:
There IS no portion of the Democratic creet
to which all sections of the party are mort
solemnly pledged and bound to adhere thar
that which prohibits interference by Congress.
with slavery in State and Territory, and Dis
trict of Columbia.
But why does not the Constitution do itsel
the credit to add that when all sections of thu
Democratic party pledged itself to non-inter
ference. it unquestionably meant that Congress
should not legislate slavery into territory
nor out OF it; and that in committing itself to
the doctrine that legal agencies should not be
hrought into exercise by the federal govern
ment to establish the institution nor to pro
hibit it the Democratic party never dreamed
of committing itself to the idea that the prop
erty of aas. ee its-eitirens should not be pro
tected when there. The federal government
does not compel the citizen to take his prop
erty to the high seas but because it is "sol
emnly pledged" not so to interfere with pri
yate rights, it does not pledge itself not tt
Intervene" to protect them. If 50, it is 1
government unworthy of the respect of thost
who live under it. But adds the Constitu
| ton:
This policy was adopted after years Of ex
hausting and proftless agitation was accepted
/ as final and by none was 1t more strongly
urged, or more readily assented to, than by
/ the South. If we look back to the records O
Congress and read the speeches of the choser
leaders of the Soufh-the most renowned ant
uncomproIhising advocates of Southern rights
if we look back to the course taken by Cal
houn and Berrien, and other distinguished
i Southern statesmen, when the slavery ques
ton was most hotly discussed-we find thai
they recommended 'non-actioa'' by Congress
in the Territories as the only true policy, and
the only efectual means by which the ques
ton could be safely settled in the interest o
the South, and that they demanded mo Zaa,
to gice them any advantage"
The Constitution has said truthfully that
the policy of non-interference was readily ac-
cepted by the South. But to prove that il
was the policy of non-interference in the sense
we have above described, we propose to sum-
mon the words of the main witness whose
| great name the Constitution calls to its aid,
John C. Calhoun. masmuch as it has cited
him as sufficient authority on this momentous
issue, we have right to insist that it will
ot,;<le. l,xy HE ovf;,aopu
Mr.. Calhoun contended that it would be
"a total pefSersion of its power and authority
for the federal government to establish or
abolish slavery or any other property Of the
citizens of the United States in the territories .
This is the non-interferenee doctrine of the
Democratic party and of "the South But
what more did he say Listen to him ats
power and authority were conferred o.. it not
to establish or to abolish property, or rights Of
any description, but to PROTECT them" at
| is bound to protect by its UNITED POWER the
property and the interests of the citizens of all
wherever its authority extends If 1t fails
| to fulfill this duty TT FAILS TO PERFORM THF
DUTY FOR WHICH II WAS CREATED" Thii
language is directly to the point and is cleal
as sunbeam. But lest we be suspected o
| garbIng the Constitutions authority, let u
quote more at length and fully
'Such is clearly the character and object o
the general government, and of the authority
and power conferred on it Its power ant
authority having for its object the more per
feet protection and promotion of the safety ant
rights Of each and all, it is bound to protect By
its united posoer the safety, the rights the prop
erty, and the interests Of the citizens of all
l0lsereger its authority extends. That was th'
object for eonferring whatever power and au
thority it has, and if it fails to fulfill that, D
fails to perform the duty for sobich 1t i0as ere
ated. 1t is enough for it to know that it il
the right interest or property of citizen o
one Of the States, to make it its duty to pr0tec
1t whenever it comes within the sphere of it
! authority, srhetser IN the Territories or on til
high seas, or any sclsere else. Its poacer ana
authority s0eye conferred ON it not to estabtssl
or to abolish property, or rights Of any de
sc7iptioR, but to protect them. To establish o.
abolish belongs to the States, in their separat
sovereign capacity--the capacity in which the,
created both the general, and their separat
State governments. It would be, then, to
tai and gross peryersion of its power and au
thority, to use them to establish or abolsl
slavery, or any other property of the citizen
Of the United States, in the territories. Al
the power It has in that respect, is to recogniz
as property there suhatever is recognised a
such by The authority of any one Of the States
its own being but the united authority Of eacl
. and all Of the States, and to adopt such law
for its regulation and protection as the state 9
the case may require. Nor rs there tn
slightest danger, that the recognition Of tn
property Of citizens of each and all the State
within the territories, would turn them into
Babel, as Col Benton contends. All may co
exist without conflict of confusion, by obsery
ing the plain and simple rule of duty an
Ijustice.p
= Further, said Mr.. Calhoun: