The Oxford intelligencer., 1860-07-04

then the advocates Of Territorial Sovereignty
the men who now hold up their hands in holy
horror at the idea Of any interference by Con-
gress, with the enactments Of sovereign Terri
torial Legislature, were the very men who adyo-
Gated and voted for a repeal of those laws by
Congressional Intervention. Just listen how
they then talked about the Territorial legislature
and the awful journey through the Supreme
Court. Mr. Cass then said:
q Now, there is no doubt that some Of the Stat
utes passed by the Legislature Of Kansas, are a
disgrace 10 the age and to the country. repeat
the strong expires sion--a disgrace to the age and
the country Such is my firm conviction. Hea-
w penalties are imposed to prevent the people
from arguing what is almost an abstract right.
Now, ask you, how have the people Of Kansas,
full liberty 70 pass laws establishing their domes-
tie relations for themselves, If they are not allow
ed to discuss them. Il is inconsistent with the
organic act
Mr. Pugh, Of Ohio, the right bower Of Mr.
Douglas, the second incommand-he who is now
striving to hold the feldin the Senate from which
his great leader has Aed-then used the follow
4 ing argument:
Now, what is the power Of the Legislature
under this act? As the Senator from Delaware
well said, II extends to all 'rightfll subjects Of
Legislation consistent with the Constitution of the
United States and the provisions Of this act. "
What arc the provisions of this act ? That the
people of Kansas Territory, whether during the
Territorial form Of government or afterwards,
when they come to form State Constitution,
certainly at some period, shall be permitted to
debate, to discuss and to decide whether that
shall be a slayc-holding or a non-slayeholdins
State That is the purpose Of The act, and that
act oftho Legislature which prevents the people
from deciding the question, is a violation OF the
organic law. Ny friend from Mississippi says
that being the case, why not appeal to the courts
orjustico? Sir, there is no appeal given in such
I a case. IT Is provided that from the final iudg-
mcnt Of the Territorial District Courts, where
/ there is single judge, you may have a writ Of
Error from the Supreme Court Of the Territory
to the Supreme Court of the United States in
any such cases.
g.
! It amounts to this: Shall majority, succeed
mg In the election Of ono Legislature, when, per
theughtt0 pcIpctuato their power, inflictiugpcn-
altica ON their opponcntsy Sir, il is dospotiam.
Nothing more and nothing less can be made ont
/ oft. To say that. because one party had tri-
umphed to-day in Kansas, at the election cf this
Legislature, il is 10 go on and fctier is opponents
30 that they, bFne change Of opinion, shall ever
have the power is despods1m.
As.ny friend from Michigan, CIR. Cass) well
SUGGESTS, the idea IS, that man is to be com
PEELED 10 travel through all the Territorial Courts
up to the supreme Court Of the United States
a poor man, toto establish his right TO vote
and when he has established it by nomnalyer-
dict ola fw dollars against the election officers,
another Judge refuses him the right, and he has
the glorious privilege Of bringing another suit
but cannot sech how he can ever get the vote, and
thcrclote I ask nay fiicnd from Mississippi TO tell
me the judicial remedy | say again, appeal to
legal gentlemen to tell me whore the lcpalremedy
isy There is no other You must either admit
that The first body ofscttlgrs-iiye or six thous-
and ofthcm--who have elected thellrst Lceisla-
ture, may directly prcvontall future comors from
VOTING, or You must pass the amendment Of the
Senator from Missouri
Task YOU tomarl- tbc argument, and say ifthoy
are not the same which hUenow make. The anti
slavery man u.gst be protected by Congress in
his light to proclaim his doctrine, otherwise, he
would not have fair reliance IN settling the insji-
tutious Of the country. And we now say that
the STAKEHOLDER must be protected in his rights
of property in the Territory, otherwise he
cannot remain until the cfornation Of a State Con-
sttu,ion, and cannot have an equal chance in
settling the Institutions Of The country.
Dut our authority does not stop here. Our
right to protection to property in the Territories
grows out Of the fact that they arc under the i'm
ofthe Federal Government, and stands
upon The same footing with our right to protcc-
ton on thc high scas-whcrc no local laws OK
ist-on The tamcless hllow, which bids defiance /
10 all human law, aud am proud to say that
our right to protection has there been fully rec
ognized. The Inflated owners Of the Comet and I
Eucomium received compensation from the Brit I
ish Government, and in the case Of The brig Gre /
OLE the great statosman of Mas achusotts com /
pelled theacl,nowledgment Of our rights, and The .
British Government was compelled TO pay FOR .
the slaves which were stolen from their decks.
And yet, in the face Of all this history, we are
told that This is new and a startling doctrine,
and therefore, thcmaioritya at Charleston refused
to recognize our right to protection either in the
Territories or upon the high seas.
Most clearly then, It is neither new nor is It an
upinzt doctrine. ---...-
Cd Have VIC surrendered it and bound our
selves not 70 assertit?
Ifso, when and where! Was it in the can
yass Of ISIS?
II is true that VIC supported Gen. Cass and
that we al know now chat Gen Cass meant
Sqlatter Sovereignty in his Nicholson letter, but
dill we know it then did we not most bitterly
deny It and denounce the doctrine? ! cannot
speak 50 vel for Tennessee. for I was young
then. but well remember that every Democrat
ic speaker in Mississippi denounced the doctrine,
and one ofthcm Gov. Foote, proclaimed on every
stump that he had "private assurances" from
Gen. Cass that his letter meant no srfch thing
And Notwithstanding all this. in our State where
we have a majority ranging from eight to twenty
thousand. Gen Cass. from the doubt existing in
the public mind a this question, only carriedthe
State by about 500 votes. And IN the great