Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1860-08-22

Lie discussion, that the matters actually in ques-
ton are evaded, while the parties to the CON
troversy divert public attention by great
amount of disputation about points on which
there are in reality not at issue. We think It
is SO, to considerable extent in the present
discussion with Mr.. Thayer, especially on his
side. Therefore we propose to specify some
matters discussed in his speeches, concerning
which we make no issue against him, and then
recall attention to the points actually in con-
troversy.
l. In the first place, then, the difference be-
tween us has nothing at all to do with the
expediency of allowing the people OF the ter
ritories to arrange their own governments
elect their own officers, and establish for them
selves all the institutions of free society
Among the republicans, this policy is as old
as the party itself; perhaps we ought to say
older, for it has been advocated ever since the
repeal of the Missouri compromise restriction.
1t was introduced in the senate, by Mr.. Chase
of Ohio, when the motion to repeal was under
consideration there and, from that time to
this he has used it earnestly against the Doug
las "squatterism" of the Kansas-Nebraska
bill. Fessenden, Hamlin, Seward, Sumner,
Wade, and every other senator who is now
republican, voted with him on this question
1t is easy enough to show that prominent re-
publcans favor this policy; but, this may be
done by the most voluminous quotations from
their speeches, Or in any other way, without
touching any point really in question between
us and Mr.. Thayer.
2. There is no difference between us in regard
to the inexpediency of allowing the president
to appoint the governor and other officers OF
territory The president, working in behalf
of slavery propagandism with this power in
his hands, can do great evil in the territories.
1t is inexpedient to allow him such power. In
the case of Kansas, president Pierce, and after
him president Buchanan, used it atrociously
on the side of rufhanism; and one point which
republicans make against Mr.. Douglas, is that
he pretended to establish popular sovereign
ty" in Kansas, while voting that the people
should not be allowed to choose their own
officers, nor even have authority to exclude
slavery from their soil. Let it never be for
gotten that Stephen A. Douglas framed the ter
rioral bill by virtue of ,chich the president, ,oork
ing tTdternaHy Uih the border rufianS, did such
atrociouS things 1t would have been better for
Kansas, if this despotism, with all IFS villain
Gus agents, could have been removed "by Wis
itation of God" or by any means and it
would have been better STILL if congress had
interfered and saved the settlers from that very
sore and bloody struggle with the slave power
which SO long persisted in employing organ
lied armies of ruffians to work their extermi-
nation. We denounce such uses Of executive
power, whether seen in Kansas, or New Mexi.
CO, or in any other territory and we hold, in
opposition to Mr.. Douglas and his villainous
Kansas Nebraska bill, that the people of ter
ritory should be left to choose their own Of
fcers, and especially in those territories from
which he removed the restriction against
slavery. But, in all this, we do not reach the
points of difference between us and Mr..
Thayer.
3. We make no objection to any principle
embodied in Mr.. Thayers bills to organize
land districts. Those bills were unobjectiona-
bic in themselves, for they did not embody his
peculiar views. They made provision for the
survey and sale of the public lands,-such
provision as must be made, soon or late. A
vote for them could be given by any member
of Congress, without disturbing in the least
any view he may entertain OF the authority
of congress in the territories. Mr.. Thayer
himself, in framing them, took especial pains
to remove from such a vote all appearance
Of an endorsement of his peculiar views,
by putting into them the following provi-
so:-
Provided, that nothing herein contained
shall be construed to either affirm or deny the
power of congress to govern said land districts
or the people therein, it being no purpose of
this act to either extend or abridge the author
ity of the federal government"
And while urging the adoption of his land
district measure, in his speech on the polyga-
my bill, he said, after presenting his peculiar
doctrines of non.intervention and squatter
sovereignty =
"Mr. Speaker, while advocate these views,
the amendment he had proposed the land dis
trtct scheme as amendment to The polygdmy
bull propose commits no man who may
vote for it to them for that amendment nei
ther afirms nor denies the power of congress
to legislate hereafter for the land districts
which are thereby constituted"
No vote was ever taken in congress on eth
er of Mr. Thayer'e bills to organize land dis.
tricts. The nearest approach to it was the
vote on motion to suspend the rules to allow
him to bring in those bills. This motion was
not carried. We gave an account of the vote
on it, at the time, with a record of the yeas
and nays, saying that we would have voted
for the motion. If every republican in con
gress had voted for this motion, and after
wards voted for the bills themselves, he could
not have found in such vote the slightest en-
dorsement or encouragement for the peculiar
views which have been SO much criticised
among his constituents.
willing to eyade the points actually ia contro
versy, by sliding into great deal of talk on the
points we have specified. He might talk sixty
days or sixty months in favor of having the
fcers, or against allowing the president to ap-
point their officers, or in favor of adopting
some half way measure, when it will do some
good, and is, besides, all we can get at the
tme,-he might do all this without even be-
ginning to vindicate the views to which OBJ
1eeuon is made The two main points on
"hich he separates himself from the great
mass oil the republicans are the following, to
wit -