Holmes County Republican. [volume] (Millersburg, Holmes County, Ohio) 1856-1865, 1860-07-12
Squatter Head and Slave.COde
Tail.
What q nominee,
Is 9erschel v,
OF Georg-ee +!

If ANYTHING were wanting to color with
dishonesty. through and through, the
nomination of Douglas and johnson, the
record of the candidate for Vice Presidency
will furnish the soloring material. Mr..
johnson was Senaor during part of 1s4s-
9, filling, by Executive appointment, the
unexpired term of Mr.. Colquitt, of Geor-
gia, and his Congressional record is written,
mainly, in the Congressional Globe, Ap-
pendix, volume 19, pages ss7, DC. Mr..
johnson, July Z, '4s, made speech upon
the Oregon Bill in which he thoroughly
ventilated his creed upon slavery in the
Territories, and from which speech we
shall make some extracts as showing him
to be Slave-code man, and opposed to
Popular Sovereignty. In that speech Mr..
Johnson says:
NO POWER CAN EXCLUDE SLAVES.
That question is, whether it is the duty
of Congress TO guarantee to the slavehol-
der, who shall remove with his slaves into
the territory of the United States, the un-
pisputed enjoyment of his property in them,
so long as it continues TO be Territory.-
Or, in other words, whether the inhabit-
ants of Territory, during their territorial
condition, have the right to prohibit slavery
therein. For the purposes of this ques-
tion, it matters not where the power of
legislating for the Territory resides
whether exclusively in Congress, or jointly
in Congress and the inhabitants of Terri
tory: the power is precisely the same-no
greater in the hands of one than the other.
In no event, can tile Shareholder of the
South be excluded from settling in such
Territory aOiM has property Of every de-
scription.
TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE CANNOT PRoHI-
BIT SLAVERY.
But suppose that Congress have the
right TO establish Territorial Government
only, and that then, all further govern
mental contro. ceases: can the Territorial
Legislature pass an act prohibiting Slavery.
Surely not. For the moment you admit
the right to organize territorial Govern
ment to exist in Congress, you admit ne
cessarily the subordinatiou of the people of
the Territory-their dependence on this
Government for an organic law, to give
them political existence. Hence, all their
legislation must be in conformity with the
organic law ;they can pass no act in viola
tion of it-none but such as it permits
Since, therefore, Congress has no power, as
1 have shown, to prohibit Slavery, they
cannot delegate such a povsr to the inhab-
itants Of the Territory; they cannot au-
thorize The Territorial Legislature to do
that which they have no power to do
The stream cannot rise higher than its
source.
HE DENIES THE DOCTRINE OF POPULAR
SOVEREIGNTY.
But suppose the right of legislation for
the Territory be in its inhabitants, can they
prohibit Slavery? Surely not; and for
reasons similar to those which show that
Congress cannot. Sovereignty follows the
ownership of the domain, and therefore
the sovereignty. over the Territories in the
States in their confederated capacity
Now, if the sovereignty over the Terri
tories is in the States, and the right of
legislation not in Congress, but the inhab-
itants of the Territories, it is evident that
they can have no higher rights of legisla-
tion than Congress could have. They
must be bound by the limitations just men
toned; and if the prohibition of slavery
in the Territories by Congress be inconsis-
tent with these limitations, its prohibitions
by the Territorial Legislature would be so
likewise.
HE WOULD MAKE FREE SOIL SLAVE TERRI
TORY.
1t is urged that slavery does not exist
in New Mexico and California; that they
are free Territories; and although, we deny
to Congress any jurisdiction over the sub
ject, yet we ask Congress by this amend
ment to establish slavery therein. We
ask of Congress no such thing. Upon the
execution Of the treaty, all political regu-
lations of the United States were extend
ed over the Territories, and the institution
Of Slavery being political IN its character,
1T aow EXISTS, IN legal amendment, as ab-
solutely in Nea0 Merico and California
as 1t does IN Virginia and Georgia.
POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY is RIDICULOUS AND
ABSURD.
If you assert the broad proposition that
the inhabitants of the Territory, by virtue
of the right of selfgevernment have the
right to exclude slavery therein, the ques-
tion arises, how many inhabitants shall
there be to enable them to do this? Shall
it be five hundred, or ten or twenty thon-
sand? Shall a few thousand people in
vast territory out of which five
or six large States may be carved-deter-
mine that question for all future genera
lions, and fix their destiny for all time to
come9 Shall few thousand half-civilized
inhabiting the territories of Cal
fornia and New Mexico decide what insti-
tutions shall exist there? THE idea is
ridiculous and absurd.
We have given our readers enough, for
one time, as showing the sentiment of Mr..
Johnson, and they can see that the substi-
lutte of that gentlemen in place of Mr..
Fitzpatrick does not relieve the "Squatters"
rom dishonesty in having as candidate for
Vice-President, on ther Popular Sovereign
y ticket, a man in favor of Slave-code
or the Territories, and one, who character
zes Popular Sovereignty as ridiculous
md absurd"
Burnt to Death in a BOnfire..
shocking Accident of the 4th.