The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1860-08-17

- 'N''+'A AONai Tue interference
OF the British Parliament. We are now told
by the republicans OF the North, and by the
disunIonlsts OF the South, that the principle of
non-lnterventon and popular sovereignty is
very well in the States, but is all wrong 10
the Territories. daughter and cheers) They
tell us that Territory is not sovereign, and
eretore has no right to exercise a sovereign
power or establish its own institutions. bet
me ask them ii the colonies wele sovereign
when our fathers demanded the same right of
seif-government Our fathers demanded the
privilege, not for sovereign States, but for nde-
pendent colonies, for PROVINCES, for Territories,
while they were dependent and remaining in a
colonial and territorial Condition. tCheers)
Our fathers demanded This privilege under
precisely the same circumstances that We demo-
Gratis now claim it for the people of the Terrific
riea. We democrats acknowledge the right
and duty OF Congress 10 pass all laws which are
federal, and not local or territorial in their
character. We don't deny the right Of Con-
gress to regulate commerce with foreign natiuns,
to make war, to collect revenue, 10 perform
those general acts which are federal and not
local IN their character. But we demand that
the people Of Territory, the same as those of
colony, shall be permitted 10 make their own
laws and establish their own institutions to suit
themselves. (AppIause.) The republicans of
New Hampshire will tell You that the people
OF the Territory have no right OF selEgovern-
ment until they become a STATE Have no
right. Why not? Because, they saw, Con-
gress has not given them that right | have
yet to learn that an American freeman. wheth-
er in State or a Territory, derives his rights
from Congress. Cheers am aware that
the tories Of the Revolution took the ground
that the people Of the colonies had no rights
except those which the King of England gran
ted to them in their charters. And they
said that, inagmuCh as the colonies obtained
their rights from the crown, why, of course
the King could take them away whenever he
thought proper. Laugheler) What did
Washington, aud Jefferson, and Hancock, and
Molly Stark say to that doctrine? daughter
and cherrs.) They told the King OF England
anC the British Parliament that :hPy did not
get their rights from the crown, aud hence that
the crowl could not take them away. They
tolt the King OF England that they obtained
their rights from God Almighty, that he alone
could take them away. The doctrine OF the
revolutionary war was, that the right of local
government was inherent in the people; and
that hence all rightiul government must ema-
nate irom The people, and be established bv and
for thv beaeE, OF the people That was the
doctrine in the times of the Revolution. But
we are now told that this inherent right of self
government only pertains to States, don't be-
long to Territories, nor colonies, nor provinces.
as it did in l776. Let us examine this claim
for a moment. | suppose that you, Citizens of
Nm Hlyppcbira Il
all claim the lnherent right Of seIf-governmenl.
eyes, yes" You think II is an Inherent right
that 10 power on earth dare take from vou.-
Well, | suppose that democrats and repu5lI-
cans agree 50 far. But the republican tells
you that the momen; citizen OF New Hamp-
shire (who possesses the inherent right Of self
governmeu. 50 long as he stays herrl crosses a
State line and enters Territory of the United
States, he torets the right. IronicaI cheers
Is II true that citizen of New Hampshire for
teits bis inalenable right Of self-govprnment
when be moves TO Territory. 'HNo, Stree, ''and
laughter.l VIVA: provision OF the constitution
of th4 United States works that forfeiture
t''None."l Then upon what ground Is it that
an American citizen is deprived of his rights
when he goes IN TO Territory under the con-
stltutlon and the American flag Will it be-
said that the people of the Territories are not
capable OF SeIf-gOvernment Who are 1 he
people Of the Territories : Where did they
come from Many of them are your sons, your
brothers, who left the granite hills OF their ma
tive State and went to Kansas. They were
capable of seIf-govrrnment, were they not,
when they left home? When did they lose
their capacity to govern themselves laugh
ter and cheers.) Were they any less capable
of srlf-goveTnment after they got to Kansas
than they were when they started Did they
lose all their sense and intelligence and .be
virtue they possessed while on the ferry boa,
crossing the Missouri river ? (Laughter.l-
Where and when, ask, did the native-born
citizen, who was capable of sef-government
when he started, lose that capacity a.
(''He amt lost it yet" | will not pretend
TO say what NAV be the opinion of The
people of New Hampshire as to the ca
Pacity OF the people of the Territories and OF
the new State to govern themselves. ] will on
ly say that we, who have spent q whole man
hood on the frontier, do think that We are capa-
bic OF Selt-government. Ne will never admit
that on are any wiser, better, or more capable
o Selt-goveGnment than ourselves. We have
great respect for you of the cid States. | think
we love you better than you do US. tLaughter.)
And J will give you good reasons for 1t. | am
a native of New England, and left the land of
my birth. the scenes of my childhood, the grave
OF my fathers, and went TO the extreme North
west. And yet New England is my native
land, and love her en- that account Illinois
is not your native land, and you don't love her
therefore, as much as do. who live there.
Hence | say to you that the people the North
west who emigrate from New England, from
Virginia, from the Carolinas, from any of the
old States, remain loyal in their affections to the
States from which they removed, while they
love still dearer the States where they have