Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-09-26

der the sole and exclusive jurisdiction Of the United
States. and should be placed under the operation of
the act of Congress Of the 30th Of April $780, and
the various acts supplemental thereto and amenda-
tory thereof providing for the punishment of
crimes against the United States within any fort,
arsenal, dockyard, magazine or any other place or
district of country, under the sole ard exclusive
jurisdiction of the United States.'n
In subsequent part of the speech he adds, that
the power Of Congress to repeal this organic act
and abolish the Territorial Government cannot be de-
MED" And yet this gentleman and his followers
are now denying this very doctrine; and he has
even had the etir0ntery to say since his nomination
by his Northern friends, and as fling at the South,
that intervention is disunion." He thought It
nothing wrong to intervene" TO repeal the 0bnox-
ious laws of Kansas which were deemed preludi-
cial to the rights of his Northern brethren and IN
the case of Utahh asserted unequivOcaly Con
gress could even abolish the Territorial Govern
ment ;" but when the Supreme Court has de-
clded that under the Federal Constitution, negro
property, like other property may be carried to
the Territories and when in answer to ms deciara-
ton that whatever the Court may decide, It may
still be prohibited in the Territories by untl1endly
legislation the South declares that 1t Will De te
duty of the Federal Government to intervene so far
as to protect us in these rights against the unjust
ton of Territorial Legislature Mr.. Douglas replies
that intervention is disunion." Iwoud be pleased,
sir if you would tell me by what rule Of ethics
protection from Congress TO one character of
rights Is lnterYSnlIOn, tliu Tue sduic prcteCHun
TO another character Of rights Is & non-interven-
tiong cannot believe that your mind will fail to
see the ridiculous Inconsistencies of this pigIny
statesman, and the motives which have controlled
him in thus shaping his opinions according to the
circumstances that seemed most to favor his per-
sonal purposes and ends at the time.
You say in regard 20 this doctrine of non-inter-
vention," as laid down III the various Territorial
bills since lS4s, that you regarded it principle
that you thought it right-that you therefore vot-
49,.
your action by returning you to Congress- Your
former constituents still approve your course
in voting for those measures, but they utterly
deny that the principle they contained was Squatter
Sovereignty, anything else than the doctrine of
the Cincinnati platform construed by the great
body of the party who are now supporting Breckin-
ridge and Lane. In this very connection, the Su-
preme Court, in the case of bred Scott, has since
the passage Of these territorial bills declared that
1.-THE rights of property united with the rights
''of person and placed on the same ground by the
fifth amendment Of the Constitution, which pro-
yides that no person shall be deprived of life lib
"erty property without due process Of law;" and
that an act of Congress which deprives citizen Of
1.-THE United States of his liberty property merely
'because lie came himself, brought his property,
"nto particular territory, could hardly be dgni-
"fed with the name of due process of law"
"The powers over persons and property of which
"we speak" continues the Supreme Court "are not
'only not granted to Congress- but are, in express
terms, denied, and they are forbidden to exercise
'them. And this prohibition is not confined to the
Estates but the words general and extend to the
''whOle territory which the Constitution gives
sit power to egisate including those portions OF II
"remaining under territorial government, as well
tas that governed by the States. 1t is total
aabsence of power everywhere within the dominion
"of the United States, and places the citizens of a
territory so far as these rights are concerned,
'the same footing with the citizens Of the States
''and guards them as firmly and plainly against in
''roads which the General Government might at
tempt under the plea of incidental or implied pow
GERS And if Congress itself cannot do this-if il
sis beyond the power of the General Government
sit will be admitted we presume that it could mot
authorize territorial government to exercise them
at could confer power on any local goVernm emf
established by authority to violate the provisions
''of the Constitution"
Such was the principle for which you voted in
1850, and which your constituents sustained you IN
voting fOr-as construed by the Supreme Court
They still for that doctrine, and only regret your
unwillingness to recognize the fact and to stand
with them.
fro BE CONCLUDED TOMORROW