The Shasta courier., 1860-08-25
"Ohi Constituency, Thou Art . Jewel.

In Mr.. Latham's Address 10 the Democracv
he founders awrully. The plain and nalnabl.
manner n which he contradicts himself is ab-
solutely painful to his personal admirers. Heat
one time says Congress cannot interfere with
slavery ir the Territories, and then in the next
breath says that Congress can. and, in a certain
contingency, ought to interfere. In short, in his
effort to throw off the sentiments of years and
adopt new ones, and yet make it appear that he
is doing nothing of the kind, he wiggles Ike II
snake in the net of shedding its skin. In fol-
Living MIN through his argument one is con-
tinually getting his head bumped against some
i'd contradiction" to use the language of
the puzzled son of Gaul. His course, in fact to
use familiar illustration, is possessed of the
characteristics which distinguished the track of
the serpent. One could not tell
Whether the snake that made the track
Was going South or going back"
We have given one of these contradictions" in
another portion of this weeks paper. Let US
give second. Read:
lgo bark to 1854, when the Kansas Nebraska
bill was passed by Congress At that time
there were three distinct schools of politicians,
each viewing the power of Congress over the
rights of the people of the territories, as to the
institution of slavery, in different lights. The
Republican party contended then, rs now, that
Congress had supreme power over the terrific
RES under the Constitution, and that there was
no clause in that instrument against Congress
prohibiting slavery in the territories of the Uni
ted States. One class of Democrats conceded
the power OF Congress over the territories, hut
argued that there WAS such a restriction of that
power in the Constitution as to prevent Congress,
Or its creatRre the territory. from interference
with the institution of slavery. R7y- Another
class, composed also of Democrats, argued that
Congress had no power over slavery; but that
the moment Congress created territory, it be-
came by such organic act, vested with sover-
eighty, and that the Territorial Legislature
could pass upon the question of slavery the same
rs State. To the latter class belonged Judge
Douglas. @ESa Both classes of Democrats, how
ever, were united in opposition to the Republ-
can view of the power of Congress, while rs to
the power of the territory on the subject of sla-
very the above vital difference existed.
Here, the reader will perceive, Mr.. Latham
says that when the Kansas Nebraska bill ,cas
before Congress, Douglas gave it the same inter
probation that he does now-that, in fact, Judge
Douglas was then but one of 4 n class Of Demo-
Gratis who gave it the same Interpretation that
he did then and does now. And yet in the
same address, in the very adjoining column, Mr..
Latham denies this and contradicts himself
thrs:
II is evident that Mr.. Douglas Interpretation
of the Kansas s-Nebraska bill is erroneous as to
" squatter sovereignty" from its reputation by
nearly all who voted for the bill, including
Franklin Pierce the President who signed it,
And if his Interpretation of it now had then been
it would never have passed at all.
Such palpable contradiction in the same pa
per, is simply ridiculous. Oh inconsistency, if
we have no other name for thee, let us call thee
T,ntharr