Des Arc citizen., 1860-09-26


 apprehended was the expulsion of the
 South from the Federal Territories by the
 General Government. To allay the ap.
 prehensions of the South upon this point
 and at her earnest solicitation for protec-
 ton against free soil aggression, this res.
 olution was adopted. In a word, it was
 simply intended 10 antagonize the de-
 mands of Black Republicanism, simply 10
 meet this phase of the question.
 Now let us examine the resolution in
 detail, and see if il does not sustain this
 view of the subject. The preamble sets
 forth that the ensuing resolution was made
 with the View "of meeting the issue on
 which sectional party subsstlng exclu-
 sively on slavery agitation" which was
 of course the Black Republican party,
 and therefore it was not made to assert the
 peculiar dogmas of any wing of the Dem
 ocralic party. as is now asserted by Judge
 Do glas. IL is declared in the first reso-
 lution that 1t was drawn for the express
 purpose of repudiating all sectional par
 ties and platforms, ''.which seek to embroil
 the States, and 10 incite 10 treason and
 armed reslstenee to laws in the Terri
 tories" and therefore included no part of
 the Democratic party, which had passed,
 and was then upholdIng the Kansas-Ne-
 braslsa bill. The abolitionists had repeat
 edly charged the Democracy with being the propogandisls of slavery, and their
 object was not only to prevent Congress
 from excluding slavery but to establish 1t
 in the Territories. To meet this view the first Resolution declares that the true aim of the Democracy was non-inter-
 ference by Congress with slavery in State or Territory or in the District of Colum- ba.' The language of the second and third resolutions show that this /" non-in- reference was a principle 10 govern Congress at particular periods only. The second resolution says that " this was the basis righlfully applied to the organiSa- fson of Territories in slS54,' and that the time for the application of this principle of non-inlervenlion, and the mode of its application. as illustrated in the Legisla- ton of 1854, is in "the organization of Territories" It is not q rlghtfully ap- plied," therefore, if applied as rule of Congressional dutv, when Territory violates the equal right of property of Southern citizen in Territory. Addition al force is given to this view of the sub ject by the last of the series of resolu- lions that recognizes the right of the people of all the Territories" whenever the number of their inhabitants justlfies 1t to form State Constitution and to ex- clude slavery or establish it as they may desire" Here it is declared that "when the number of their inhabitants jusifies is the time" and through constitution" is the manner in which they can settle this question.
 Let us look at it, however, in still an- otherlight. If "non-interference by Con- gress with slavery in State or Territory, or in the District of Columbia means sguatter sovereignty, what is the logical result? If by :" non-interference" is meant the complete abandonment by Con- gress of all its right to legislate on slavery, and not even interfere to revise unconsti- tutional Legislation; what is the effect ?- Congress IS divested of any right to egis- late over slavery in the District of Colum- bia, over which it has :" exclusive jurIsdic- ton" Il would also divest Congress of any power to enforce the Fugitive slave provision by any additional legislation that will have bearing either upon "State pr Territory" But as all will admit Con- gress Is bound 10 pass all need(ul laws on hese subjects, as experience may require, and as the l" interference " described in the platform. Is to be equally duty Z in State, Territory or District of Colum- Dia,'' it follows that this squatter sover. eighty principle has no foundation in reason, nor in the letter and spirit of the Cincinnati platform g But whatever may be the meaning Of his document, itmay be most confidently asserted that Southern Democrats never construed it as favoring this dogma of popular sovereignty. venture the asser- lion that there was not a Democratic elec- Tor in the South who did not defend both his candidate and platform from squatter sovereignty. The construction of this platform entered largely into the canvass of 1856, and Southern Democrats pursued he very line of argument have just left 0 prove that it did not endorse Judge Douglas present notion in regard to the power of Territorial Legislature. And when President Buchanan in his inaugu- al address repudiated this heresy 1t was received with thrill of joy throughout he South and pointed to as verifcation ,f their promises to the people. Up to period immediately preceding the meet ng of the Charleston Convention the Southern Democracy was unit in oppo- 'ition to squatter sovereignty.
 A word in regard to the practical re- 'ults of this doctrine and I am done. - Aside from the legal absurdity of impu- ing sovereignty to Territorial govern nent established and having it's existence IS ii does by lhe suaerance of the Fed i sral government, there is the most mani est injustice in permitting a Territorial 10 exercise an unlimited con rol over private rights. It is as fatal to he expansion of slavery into the new Territories as Congressional prohibition tself, and wil as efeciually prevent the South from having an outlet as if the