Daily national Democrat., 1860-01-18

claim. The consequence was the provision
that Congress should have the power to ad-
NIT new States, but should not have the
power to erect States within the limits of a
State, or to divide States, etc, without the
consent of the concerned States that Con
gress should retain the power in the terri
tory north of the Ohio, which was fixed in the
ordinance of 1887, and that the claim of all
States (the United States) should be reserved
in regard to the territory south of the Ohio.
Therefore reads the Federal constitution, art.
~, sec Sd, as follows
New States may be admitted by the Con-
gress into this Union, 5t no new State shall
be formed or erected within the jurisdiction
| of any other State, nor any State be formed
by the junction Of two or more States. or
parts of States, oithout tie consent ofthe leqis-
tdtures Of the States concerned as well as of
Congress
I'd. The Congress shall have power to dis
pose of and make all needful rules and regu-
Jations respecting the territory or other prop
erty belonging to the United States and
nothing in this constitution shall be so con-
strued as to prejudice any claim ofthe United
O..
States or OF any particular State.
Mr.. Latham says, "The Federal constitu-
ton does not require any aston by the peo
pie. 1t speaks of the consent of the legisla.
ture alone, and to ask the consent of the peo-
pie wonld be a matter of favor not of right.
1t is difficult to see how the consent of the
people can give any legal weight to the acts
of the legislature. n For these and
other reasonsI respectfully suggest, that the
act of the California legislature is valid. tho
never submitted to vote of the people of
the whole State, and that article 10, section
3, of the Federal constitution contains all the
requirements for division of the State"
Now, sir, can any one doubt that we are
under the despotic government of Lecomp-
tonitic Oligarchy2 They have transformed
the Republic, usurped the right of their SOW
ereign, the people, made themselves masters.
degraded the people to subjectsl at would
be matter of favor not of right to ask the
consent of the people!" Sosays Mr.. Latham
We are conquered people A. w.
LETTER FROM LOUIS NAPOLEON TO ExeL1sH
MERcHANTs-The following is the reply of
the French Emperor, to an address received |
by him, from mercantile house at Liver
pool, asking what his intentions were in ref
erence to England
PALACE OF THE TUILLER1Es. Nov. 90
10 MeSSrs, Shaw, NelIoz, Hgin,g and Black
aceH, Merchants at LtgerpooI
GENTLEMEN You have addressed your
selves direct to the Emperor " to know achat
lohere h'S intentions as regards Englaud p
Great fear or great confidence alone could
explain this step.
On the one side, you are possessed of the
imaginary trouble which appears to have
seized your country with the rapidity of an
epidemic and on the other, you reckon on
the loyalty of him from whom YOU desire
reply. 1t was, however, easy far you your
selves to give it, if you had calmly examined
the true cause of your apprehensions that
cause you would have found only in all those
rumors created among your fellow country
men by the obstinate propagation of the most
of alarms; because, until now,
under whatever circumstances, there has not
been a word or an act of the Emperor which
could permit doubt of his sentiments. and.
NNHSNd NduNholy5 vi Ills lHleHJlODS towards your
His conduct, invariably the same
has not ceased for one moment to show him
as faithful and irrepoaehable ally.
That which he has been, he will (I declare
it to you in his name) continue to be-witness
again, to day, the approaching community of
perils to be shared at a great distance by
your soldiers and ours.
Thus, henceforth, fully treasured, oppose
an error too much spread Great nations
should appreciate, but not fear each other
Receive, gentlemen, the expression Of my
sentiments.
The Secretary of the Emperor, Chef du Cab
met, MoCQUARD.
December 3, 10:20P. NJ