New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-07-19


rs ia some Quixoic expodi ion IN attain results to
mnissr 10 fsr-.ttchod individual hopes. bat each oil
these would have left New-York powerless foe go1d,
and old Inc Democrats seemingly responsible, ana
determined to give those who bad power ID RUE or
Iuin and determination suited to the occasion, uudiS
yut.d power 10 rnle after associatiug all he good IN
tiuopces could command. They protested 10 desire
arm oDy unity, and Cancellation. proposed 20 take
them at their word without saying how much, or now
htte filth had in their professions. saw they would
have tie power. | determined they should have 80
far ss i conld control it, the responsibility ALSO.
knew that If they fairly aud faithfully represented the
State, they would merit and receive the commentator
Of all good Democrats aud that the party would be
pensaed in the results which would follow
knew if BY treacberous schemes and ambbg resorts
they betrayed their trust and repeated the cheats
abrt ad which they practsed ut home, they would
pose to the world their own peI6dious ns,ures, aud
De troy then selves forever and defeat their further
power for isChef st home and abroad and that the
Democratic party in New-fo.k could afford unbounded
comIt DsatiCn for consummatiOn so deyoutly to be
wisfed. In short | saw they would have the power.
| meant they should have the responsibility with il,
and hey Lad both. The power they might have exer.
cised so as to have given life and health aud JOY and
urquestoned success to the Democratic parry Oh the
Saie and Nation But they chose TO exercise in an OPP
posite direction and let them prepare for the re-
tponsibilty which they cannot escape. They have,
they might advance the selfish purposes OF a cor,
1upt clique with malice atorethought, wiekediy ana
van,only committed the crinie-kt them stand up IN
the worlds pillory and suffer the penalty due 70 false
hood treachery Dgatitude, and baseness. When
threw my whole soul into an effort to unite the Demo
cratic pa " of this State. determined If II was hra ANY
because of the bad conduct OF this trading
combination that would never again make an effort
10 unite the party with such material In it. That effort
at union would have been crowned with complete sue
cess but for bem for the ranks OF the party mad closed
up and the masses hailed deyerance from internai
division and strife as proud day in their cOuntrys
history. But they have torn open again its wounds to
snbserye their own selfish ochemes and now let divis-
ion be the order of the day until these iahless Pohu
cal gamblers" driven without the pale OF the Dem
ocrac party forever So totally abhoued as they are,
that we shal sooner attain success without than wl'h
them and we have proved now to the satisfaction oil
81, how vain the attempt for party to repose upon
such rotten foundations, and hereafter their power VIII
not lie couIted nor their necessities rewarded by Dem
ocrstic Administrations. No, | shall hereafter make
no efforts for union where they to be recognized,
but war upon any faction under their teacherous rae
and nothing but faction will follow their lead.
Twice have sought clam lpine's glen
In peace but when come again,
come with banner brand and bow,
As leader seeks bis mortal foe"
Much has been sid upon the subjects of NOn-inter
rention ard Squotter Sovereignty, as it is termed,
and there has beer much sad upon them than has
been understood by those who have said IT.. And it
would De we'll for the political magpes who chatter 20
ppantly upon the subject 10 learn their lesson before
they prste it. The two principles which really have
no relation TO each other and are catIey different
have been strangely and unpardonably conounded but
Y
Non Intervention that there shou be no inter-
veLton to extend prohibit Slavery in the Territories,
but that the people of the States aud the Territories
should be left while Territory, to enjoy Justsuch
rights as to carving their slaves with them when re-
moving into the Territories exclusion herero n, rs
il should be held by the courts, belonged to them.
Squster Sovereignty claims the soreelgR rtgh OF the
peolle q Territory to exclude the Introduction OF
Slavery from the Territory by hostile territorial egis
ation regardless of the construction given to the Con-
stituon by the decisions OF The Supreme Court. Be
fore the bred Scott decision this open questions
since 1bat decision it is so no longer. The difference y
Ilany this non intervention by Congress and quail
lied popular sovereignty proposed such Territorial
Legislation should be in difference to- subject TO- and
in harmony with the decisions of the Supreme Court
upon thslgreat question. Sqnatter Sovereignty de5s
the au hOTiy of the Courts and asserts the power OF
The Territorial Legislature to exclude Slavery from the
Terrific " by law absolutely regardless OF the consruc-
ton given to the Constitution by the Court,
1t has been often said, with ruth, that was the
first 10 introduce the principle of nOnnterventi0n aud
qualified Popular Sovereignty into Congress for the
Government of the Territories When the doctrine has
been regarded with dlsfay0r 1t has been assigned 10
pe but when it has been greeted with popular APP
Tlause it has had numerous claimants lt has some
lines been said but enormously, that was an advo-
cate if the author OF the doctrine Of Sq1atter Sow
ereigutv | was and am an advocate Of non-nterven-
ton with qualified Popular Soversgnty-tha IS, with
tie right of the people TO egsate in harmony with the
CONSTITUTION for their domestic government. l never
was an advocate for believer IN the doctrine Oh
Squater Sovereignty, ard hold 1t TO be an ou-and'out
absurdity, for makes the laws of Territorial Legis-
atuIe override the Cons tuition of the United States
The resolutions which Introduced in lSi7 proposing
nonnteryebOn in the Territories, and suggesting the
principle of Popular Sovereignty IN qualthed form,
proposed, as shown by the speech winch followed
ber introo uctlon that the Territorial legislation should
keep in view such construction AS should be given 70
the Constitution by the Supreme Court and legsate ia
harmony with and in decaratory obedience - 1t.
They were never brought 10 vote because practical
-l.-.. 81 afta nnfap
consideration after their introduction, and for no
other reason.
In ls4s. Mr.. Calhoun, myself and others, were
upon the Committee charged with bill known as the
Clayton Compromise. | proposed and Dir. Calhoun
assented that the bill should be framed upon the prn
eiple of non-interventioD and it was so framed, and
so passed the Senate, but was, near the close Of the
session. laid the table in the House Of Represen a
tives. The only difference between MIR. Calhoun aud
myself upon the subject then at any other me was
this: He proposed that the bill should recognize, in
decaratoy form, the right of the citizens OF all the
States to to the common Territories with their prop
ertyslaye property ncludedand there be protected.
Without affirming denying his position, proposed,
az IL was an unsettled question and strictly belonged
to the judiciary 10 leave it to be- decided by the Courts
10 which he readily assente dremarkng that the South
had such entire confidence in their position that they
were wiDg stand upon non-ntervention, and await
q judicial construction of the Constitution and Of their
rights in the Teri tories The position of Me-. Calhoun
has since been fully indicated aud sustained by the
The COMPROMISE measures Of 1850 were based upon
the month ntion idea and while they
under discussion in the Senate of the United States
had the honor to state my position there in speech
upon the floor, a. follows:
Now cir wish to say al that it is my inten-
ton either directly indirectly 10 favor by voice vote the
extension # Slavery the rest lotion of Slavery in the Terri
tories by Coners Interference With the subject what
Nor Influenced In this conclusion by the local laws
OF the Territory question either neutral athcathe laws
the laws OF and Tor all the purposes OF the
action wn1t inquire what they in either respect
will stand upon the principles of nintervention in the
broadcast possible nOnin,erveuOns saketo uphold
the fundamental principles OF freedom, and for other
and the people the Territories and Of the States
such rigbs and privileges theirs under the Cons lion
aud laws the United Saes without addition domination
from such rights by the action OF Congress.'
The Kansas and Nebraska BILL except in its disturb