The New York Herald Newspaper, November 9, 1854, Page 2

"SPEECH OF GEN. CASS AT DETROIT. | Defence of Constitutional Rights Separated from | the Defence of Slavery, | VINDICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. Views ef the Fathers of the Bepnbie and ef British Siatesinen on the Subject. Declaratiqn of Pexsonal Independence of th Seuth.Separation from Their Men, but Adhesion to the Copstituttou, 3 &o., &e, Gen, Caas delivered an elaborate speech at the City Hail in Detroit, on the evening of thy 4tu inst. He embraced the o fall comsidera- tion of the Kan: brasks act, the vrinciples of which met his entire ap) robativn. We have select- ed for publication ovly tuat part of his speech referrirg to the sttavks m. upon him by the Richmond Arguir After calling upon the West- itbern democracy to stad up for the the Sowh, aed to resist with all their augerous and subversive abolition ten- e. he age, threatening the most fatal con- sequences to the Union, Gen. Cass said:— That there is a vataral feeliog in the humaa breast against the existence of slavery, I do not question. Mr. Jefferson called it a “ virtu ous feeling.” It crigioates undoubtedly in vir- {nous motives, as do all emotions caused by mis- f.rtune, through the world. We should take cara ti at their indulgence works no injustice to the posi- | tion or views of others. As American citizens you have nothing to do with the question of slavery out of Your own State, except to carry into effect the pro- vision of the constitution for tae surrender of fugi tives from labor, aud faithfally to observe its stipu- {ations respecting the principles of taxation and representation connected with that institution. Here your duty is exhausted. And you must not mis- take your objections to slavery fora right to inter- fere with it. Your sentiments upon the abstract question, as upon apy other abstract ques tion, of good or evil, can give no just csuse of offence while expressed with becoming moderation, But you must not assume these sentiments as the measure of your rights or of your obligations. The question for an honest, patrioti> American, when he comes to exercise his functions as a citizen, is not whether he regrets the existence of slavery, but what right he has to touch it. His feelings and his convictions may justify the former. The constitution alone can justify the lat- ter. A short time since I made some remarks before he Democratic State Convention, assembled in this hall, explanatory of my views and course in relation to the Nebraska and Kansas bills. Entrusted with & portion of the legislative power of the State in the general government, I appeared before a respectable body of my constituents to render an accouat of my stewardship. An effort way everywhere making, and everywhere it had been more or less sucsessfal, to produce the impression that all those who sup- ported these bilis in Congress were pro-slavery men, to use the cant phrase of the day, and that their ad- vocacy of these measures waa conclusive evidence of their alienation from the prinsiples of freedom and of their devotion to those of slavery. I chose to put myself right upon this point, and while main- taining the just power of other portions of the Union to deal with this question for themselves and as they pleased, to express my belief that slavery was a misfortune for any country. I chose to have t distinctly understood that it was cot the institu- $ co itself 1 was defending, but the political rights of other sections of the country under the coustita- tion. Certainly I could do little jaitive to mys.lf, 1 ttle benefit to a constitational priuciple which is dear to me, by endeavoring to conceal these senti ments, and by placing myse/fit a false position before my own consti‘uexts, who hai pronounced theirjadg” ment upon the condition of slavery by excluding it from the State. And in conform'ty with these views, 1 stated that I considered slavery a social! and political evil-a mis‘o:tune for any country, And this is the substance of what I thea said, as it is the substance of what I had said before, here and in the Senate and elsewh¢ re, at home and abroad. I wes reported to have added that slavery was also a moral evil. I did not ssy so. I do not think so, un- der the circumstasces in which it exists ia the Southern States. Such an assertion would have been inconsistent with the main position I assam:d—that the present inhabitants of those Siates were not res- ponsible for the introduction of slavery, nor diii see bow it was possible for them to abolish it. For the expression of these views I have been ar- raigned by the Richmond E£nquirer, in terms not less arrogant than virulent—first denounced and then renounced. I have been finally exoelled from the democratic party, by its decree of exsommuai- cation. But, as Iam not in the habit of submit- ting to aseumption, nor presumption, so I shall not submit to both, even when united in the columns of that once justly and highly esteemed journal. How are the mighty fallen! As well os I can analyze the objurgations of the Enquirer, ita eoitor, or its excathedra writer, seems uct only to make it a cause of offence that Thave entertained and expressed these ssatiments respecting slavery, but that I have done so at this time, aa though this were the first time I had done it. Why I bave thought it proper recently again to explain my views, [have just state; and it never ocourred to me that any reasonable or dispassionate man, North or South, would object to so reasonable a measure; and, indeed, I have yet to learn that ary such men has 80 objected. Jt is not the first, if in- deed it 13 the twentieth time, I have found it neces- sary to seperate the defecce of constitutional rights from the defence of slavery, and no editor is fit for his position who deems my seatiments upon this subject worth Commentary, and who censure; my Courss without ascertaining what it has bean, or, vavizg secertained it, chooses to misrepresent it. My epi ion, that slvers is an ¢ couztry time and «. er cir: ko, sto ef be fore th w t to Mr. Nicholson, ia Decembe:, 1 1 regret the existence of slavery in the South tates, and wish they had poen [ree frow its in troduction. These views were known to ew ry South ti cian before the Bs. ven‘ion of 1848 On tle 12th ot Feb 1950, f remarked in the Senate :— j Unfortunately, sir, n \ hat @ com y never ; done without it, i+ t p # " ao a Northern tan , . of the compromises u . i not believe this, and no co rth can in pon the sar I can say with truth that there fs not @ man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this heavy repronch (of slavery) im any practicable way, ‘The cession of that kindof property (for it is misnamed) is a begatelle, whieb would not cost me a single thought, if in that way a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected gradually; and with due sacrifice, I we have the wolf by the think it might be. Bat as it @xea; and we cap neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice in one scale, and selt-preservation in the other. Lheard Mr, Medison niany yeare sicee observe in conversation that s'avery wos a great musfortune for Virginia. tis weil known that each was the opinion of Mr, Movrow, oi Jodge Marshall, of Patrick Henry, of George Mason, oid of maay ovher able and patriotic Virginiaor, wLose Ten ea constitute a part of the histories] tregsure of our courtry: It isa por of our political bistory that Gen, Pierce, v hen in thé Senste, tok similar views, aad opei ty avowed them, cattieg slavery a social and policy! evi 1 do not find that tris avowal, though not. private agreeably to the latest Richwond caver, }4s provoked the wrath or called forth the denvretstous of the Lnquirer against the Preai- cent, or that “ we most inflict appropriate punish. ment on (his a8 on my) hereti ai opinions and treacherons concuct.” “dhe better part of valor is discretion,” aud the discretion of the Enquirer ‘eaches it to aveii contests with power, and to seek = et there 13 none. This is new chivalry for irgipia. I Lave not bed an opportanity to examine the debates upon this subject in the Virginia Legisla- ture, but Mr. Webster thus alluded to them iu the Senate, ia March, 1850:— recur to x inia Hi in the Vin louse of Delogates in 1832, e with what freedom a proposition made h for the g abolition of slavery was nat body 'y one spoke of slavery as t. Very i were applied to it, dolph aud Governor MeDowell as awong those who thus expressed themselves openly, and sent their remarks to the press. ious and disparaging names He particularly mentions Mr. Ran- Tf the South has changed its views of this great | question, the North has not, nor is the unshaken adhesion of Northern men to their original convic- | tions a just sulject of complaint, any more than the expression of tnem in proper terms of forbearance and moderation. Subsequentry the writer in the Enquirer, yield ing to the sober second eines or, in other words, to the wiser persuasions of his own judgment er to those of others, peceeRry to the latter, kindly per- mits a Northern wan to have his own private o, inion upon this matter, provided he simply tolerates the institution of slavery; and this, he adds, Gen, Cass refuses to concede us. He might be ever so averse to slavery, and we would not complain if he would rigidly abstain from abusing us. Once bet upon this subject, provided they shut up their thoughts in their own breasts. The position of a public man in the North requires the free expres- sion to his constituents of his views respecting slavery, a4 well for his own sake as for the sake of his usefulness to the cause of the constitution. To rail at slavery is one thing, and a very foolish and unjust thivg. ‘To submit to the tribunal of pnblis opinion ih | ia own State, his views upon the abstract ques ‘ion, while defending the right of the South t> adjust it practi: ally for themseives, is another and quite a different thing, and nothing but the very extremity of intolerance could confound subjects so widely separated in their position and so different in their rature. Upon this question of the right of opinion, and of the duty of withholding the expression of it, I said in the Senate in Februsry last— Truth was never permanently injured by free inquiry. You cannot control investigation. And you must take it, even with its abuses, for the blessinga it brings with A highly respectable aud respected member of the House of Representatives said, upon this subject, some mu consider slavery a great evil. Very but keep your thoughts to yourselves.” . this honorable member must have utter- ed this sentiment while feeling strongly the aspersions upon the So too frequent in the North, for he knows as well as any one the impossibility of proscribing the right of speech, and of confining the thoughts of man to his own bosom. You might just as well undertake to stop the tide of the ocean as to stop the tide of human opinion; and though both of these mighty agents, in their resi-tiess march, are felt for evil as well as’ for good, yet their healthful action is infinitely better than would be their stagnant quietude. But the speaker did, as he bad a full right to do, without regard to this pro- hibi examined the whole subject in the hall of the nation, and of course could not expect that his pre- cept and not his practice would be followed by others. So much for this chain of occlusion—this demand that every Northern wan sball place his hand upon his mouth end bis mouth in the dust whenever the word slavery is sound: d in his ears by its friends or its fces. And now for the assertion of the Rich- moné Enquirer, that I had transgressed the limits ot legitimate investigation by my assaults upon slavery, A bet! few words will dispose of this charge to the entire satisfaction of every one bat of bim sho mace it. Ishall not commit the folly of exp<ctiog hs recantation. He who does an injury when the injustice 1s expored, thencefo. th too often copsiders bimselt the inju-ed party. I have never utte ec one reproachful word on the sutjeet of tluvery—not ore. It is a course of dis- custion whi: b suits neither my taste, my habiw, nor my age. Aud least of all am I likely to adovt it when ore of tne gravest constitutional subjects that can be presented to the American people is brought forward fo- consideration. 1 have never, like the members of its Virginia Legislature, ap- plied isnominions or disparaging usmes to it, and I defy the writer of this article, or any body else, to find in sll my remarks a single assertion, or even epithet, that the most jealous friend of the instita- tion can justly ceneure. In my Nicholson letter, speaking of slavery, 1 said :— There it is, and not by the act of the tion, and we must deal with it as a great practical ques- tion, involving the most momentous consequences. We have neither the right nor the power to touch it where it exists, and if we had both, their exercise by any means heretofore suggested might lead to results which no wise man would willingly encounter, and which no just man could contemplate without anxiety. In the Senate, I said in 1850, that Slavery is an existing institution in the South for which no living man is responsible. It is interwoven very texture of society. Between three and of people, dillering in race and color trom ant caste, are held in bondage. L[ have seen ud I believe its evils are much magnified, and that the slaves generally in our Southern States are treated with as much kindness and considera- tion as are compatible with the relative condition of resent genera- f gel free, and certainly as well as they would be he North, if we liad slaves there. I do not see s of human beings can be set free, he work, ] may & of ages, would roy white and black. God in his providence I do not see that man can. Itisa ch concerns the Southern States alone. motive to deal with it justly and wisely; from abroad but adds to the dif- Ne p », and creates a natural reaction in e bern mind. We can give them, however, (opinion and diseussion) a right dh ; should’ be the € i outh, by stand- tation, and expose eks, through blood snd come f time, a them for it—how, know not—bu: m ow, would, at least those of them who survived the Je. beecme the most miserable and abject popula. on the face of the globe. * * * touch it (slavery) b government, ce to confes: ype it may y can be effec y it, and to the pro Any external inter- { the dangers, own, Asta the nelty on the other, n are everywhere to erous communities. rseives or by the sm human ¢ ments which I have ave always expressed the wrivate oom er divcus- » redeem tt- tare will cast a wrioh I or stimulated ‘the onints by joiciog ia their nghtin the acknowledged ot io brief and hasty ane for par- peoting 00 oarsey aad to be drawa avd only once, I heard this doctrine | of the permissory right of Northern men to think © thoce Territories waa not revived by those t at it could pot go there unless introduced by peo. le, So much for this tirade upon my union with ebolitionism. But I made svother remark at the last session, wh cb I will bere introduce, because it foreahedow- b extravegan: es as we find in the Richmond .l yet greater error connected with this iject consists in the demands, altogether too xacting, made upon the public men of the non-slave- holding States, many of which Ihave seen, and some of which I have felt. tar eee quires but little exertion to swim with the current, while he who opposes it must put forth all his strength, and even then may become its vietim, Popular feeling is ¢ power hard to resist, and the reproach of being a coughface belenge to him who panders to it, and not to him who strives to maintain the constitutional rights of all, even in opposition to his own community, which holds in tte hards his political life and death. This is ition which no onnection with this grave subject, and it is precisely the condition which he cannot com- rehend, or will not do justice to when the course of a ‘orthern man is in question, It is not enough with too many of the Southern politicians that public men from the free States maintain firmly and unflinchingly the rights of the slaveholding portion of the Union, and stand ready to meet the consequences, however disas- trous to themselves, rather than participate in their vio- lation—this, I say, is not enough. Sometimes, indeed, it is nothing, unless every opinion of the South upon the general question is adopted, and unreserved allegiance professed to the declaration that slavery is the best con- dition of human society. Now, sir, I believe no such doctrine, and not delieving it, 1’ will not profess to be- lieve it, from whatever high quarter announced. bills, and It re- In hie act of accusation against me, the Richmond prosecutor, not satisfied with detucing my hostili- tothe South, from my , and t of sla their promulgation, goes yet further, and makes my opimops on some of the questions which bave re- cently agitated the pubiio mind, connected with this general subject, a vehicle for hard words aud hard thcughts. On all these’queations I have taken my share je discussions in the Senate of the United States, and I do not propose to revew them here, either for the purpose of Seieiing my own | pcaition, or of laying oven the errors in position of others. There is, however, such anair of self- | satisfaction in these declamatory accusations, that Ism tempted, by briefly touching some of the poin's, to ascertain bow far the result jusiifies the ccmplacency of the miter And first, I will refer to that kind of motive pover by whi:h it is clarmed that immediately on the ac- quisition by the United States of any foreign territo- ry, slevery extends over it, by the operation of the constituticn, he wever it may be excluded by the local law ; by which, for instance, if Cavada were | annexed to toe Union to-morrow, every slave hold | ercou'd take bis slaves there, and hold them till prevented by ap act of the people embodied in a tate constitution. This very position I heard meintained with relation to Capaca bv a Southern Senator—I think by Mr. Yulee—in answer to an in- quiry made by Mr. Dickinson. The opposition to this pretension t!e writer does me the honor to call an article in the Cass creed. This is too high an honor, and one to which I have no claim. I tell him it is an article in the constitutional creed, firmiy maintained, as I believe by every man in the non-élave Lolding States, and as I know by many an It ctf beld by Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster; and I can also tell him he is bebind the age. This pretension originated, I know not when or where, but certain- ly very recently. It sprang up ina night, and it risked in a day. Although it was probed to by its copometts at the last session of the Sepate, I do not recollect a single member who entered upon its defence, and one very able Southern man, at least, Mr. , of Missiesippi, diravowed tt, and I thought, in rather contemptuous terms. ‘‘ Between you and me, Mr. Chairman,” ea‘d that gentleman, “ the constitution does not carry a slave anywhere, except it be a ran- away, and it dors take him back from a free State to his master in a slave State.” Another member from a slaveholding State, Mr. Frankin, of Mary- land, expressed similar views. The doctrire never had guy real foundation either in the constitution or in the nature of the confedera- tion. It rested on the assumption that the public domain being acquired by the whole Union, the whole Union had equal rights in its enjoyment. This postulate is undeniable. But what then? It was further contended that the South could not en- fer, their equal right of settlement upon the public ds un'ess Oo comparalicay pune) poeta of its population—say 350,000 ont of more than 6,000,000 ot white persone—could take their ‘slaves with them; or, in other words, that every man, from every State of the Union, had a right to take all his property to the public domain, and there hold it— whiskey, banks, or anything else—although pro- hibited by the local law. A true answer to this pretension is, that if any man, North or South, holds property not recogeized a3 such, or prohibited by local Jaw, his remedy is to be found not 1 the vitlation cf it, but in the conversion of such property into money, the universal representative of value, and to take that to bis new home, and theie commence his work of enterprise in a young and growing c: unity. 1 cannot glance at the numerous con- siderations which fortify and recoer im ueble this posixion. I shall contest mysel w tb‘adding trat the maintenance of such a doc tr ve lezés inevitubly to consequences which st:ike at that great element of our institutions—the rignts of the State. The acaamption which [have referred to iv, that slavery is essential to the equal enjoy- mitofthe pudic dumain. Now,the public do mein exists as we'l inthe States as in the Terri- tories, ard every act of Congress in relation to ite sale snd setWement is equally in force wherever an acre of tte public land is to be found. Tiere is not one statute upon this subject which does not o) rate aa fully in Obio as in Oregon. If, therefore, the constitution of the United States gives to the slave- holder the right to take h's ir property to the public dcmoin, how bappens it that the public do- main is closed to bim the moment a State constita- tion is formed, and slavery excluded by it? Does the corstitution of s State overrule and override that of the United States? Such is not the read- ing of the general constitution, which declares its o¥n supremacy upon all matters committed to it over the constitutions of the States. Dither, there- fore, this cla‘m of the expansive power of slavery over the public comain is unfounded, or slaves may be teken to Ohio, and to any other of the new States where aty portion of el apc lands is yet unsold. I kave the choice of dilemma to the constituticnal commentator of the Enquirer. But, quitting these views, and comisg to the practical recognition of the true constitutioval doc- trive of non-intervention, I at what I said in the Senate—that the doctrine of the volantary motive er of slavery has been practically abandoned by the pgssage of those bi Every man, and the South almost as one man, voted for them. Every mab who voted to give to those Territories the power to legislate over the subject of slavery, to introduce or to excluce it at pleasure, knew full well that be was giving the Lesiclatares of these Territories, who would not consider themeelves pronibited hy the constitution, en anthority which would be exercised te the letter, acd that the fate of slavery, as an in- stitution in the count y, would dapend on their ac tion, or rather would depend on {te introduction by them, as «ithout su sh introduction it was excluded able and patriotic statesman in the South. | bythe absence of any local Jaw maintaining it. | And equatier sovereignty is again arraigned by tue Enquirer, with as much invective as though the term end the claim originated with me. The nams (nick-vame indeed) owes its paternity to Mr. Cal- houn; but the doctrine, the right of mas to govern bimeelf, bas been heard of in the world for some time, too seldom ior eed practically acknowledged, a4 has made ite heme npon this continent. br: ughs here raore then to centuries ago by toe Pilgrims, who fist “squatted down” npon the rock of ly- mouth, having, the day before they debarked from tie Mayflower ombined themselves together in a ivilbedy p * J never was more forcibly strnck by the sagacity of a remark thao I have heen during the progress of this controversy, by the sercork of Misabeau—that “names are s*ings.” What is this doctrine, contended for by its frienss, aid misur derstood or misrepresented by its oppo nents, and seught to bs rendered obnoxious by the impos: ion of an obnoxious desigcattor —the same ice wii b led to the applicetion of the term “ jeeu foco” to the democratic party? It principles cepnos survive ths kind cf hostile political bap. tisi, they ore not worth the labor of enunciation er the care of preservation. When the people of Catifornia, efter havirg suffered by the neglect of Congress for two or three yea 8, to establisa a go- vernment, ettablished one for themselves, they is ted their constitotion, and detaauded admis. Union. There were mary ndlbed the happiness to be among maintained the rights of the peo- i natioonl Legislature acy a3 one of its 8 who denied tembere. beth thety right ond onr duty; end the subject was cavverced with great ecarnestners, not to say as perity eque were tring the long session of 1850. It was then , that the Terri*ories possessed rights feaconld not justly violate, received the epprobrious appellation of squatter sovereign ty; but itis stromg exongh in the hearta of the oconvert the worst neme into an ation. The settlers did not own refoe they bad no righte—as thongh rocks ang trees were dearer r n the imege of God himsell; or as reesion of brute matter, aco ding to dal notions of the middle ages, were wns eisekore or noth It is denonn ed os if it car with it the right to eeize end held the pobite T never heard any tran advavoe ench an we e6 preteneion. From the esriicst periog of rbe eticn of the public Comato,the harty plomers shdar the «ath and replenich it, havo beea permitted to ei) down upon the public land before ite pr: psretion fr eale, and generally pro emption @ majority | to widom, \ateiotiem ard intelligence. le: covercignty, then, is the right of man to rm bimeeif, whether, os Dr: Pranklio said, be | Southern man has ever , | ly prevented for solution, as we have | every unbeliever in the ter covereignty. Why, just this ed, time and time again, im O! lalf @ centary ago, end has happened at | almest every jublic sale sines, both there and elsewhere. @ he who knows the toils | ard privations avd sacrifices by which the wilder- | ness is reclaimed, will not woncer that there should be a strong public feeling in favor of the wor kettler, and an sbxiety that the fruits of his E jabor should rot be wrested frem him by the spocu- oy in other to soversiaaey—indemegeanoy, wordr—no men ovt of an insane hospital claims it for the Territories. Human rights are claimed for the people, but righte in suborcination to the con- stitution of the United States, and to the relation which these Lew political communities bear to the Union. The writer in the Enquirer cannot ucder- etand bow it is thatthe power of establishing go- vesmenta over the Territories, whether derived | frcm the pclitical necessity of the case or from the | implicative claim of the constitution, which requires | necessity to justify ita action, cam extend no farther than the necessity extends, and is e: the moment @ government i» established. “The true construction of the constitution,” ssys Judge Mc- lean, “‘is that implied power can orly be exercised in carrying into ¢ffect a epecific power. And this implication is limited to ruch measures as shall be appropriate to thesubject.” “Powers exercised be- youd this are not derived from the constitution, but ust depend upop an unlimited discretion; and this is despotiem. Now, there is no specific pover in the constitution which authorizes orgavization of a Territorial government,” “But if this power be implied from the specific to regulate tho dis- postion of the caer id, it must, under the sbove rule, be limited to messures suitable to the eid in view. If goes beyond this in the orgenization of a Territorial goverpment, they act without limitation, and may establish @ monarchy. Admit that may orga- pizea government which shall pi the lands porchered, and provide for the administration of justice among the settlers, it does by no means fol- low that they may establish slavery”—“It is a mu- vicipal regulation of limited extent, and of equally limited origin.” We are prone in the United States to substitute poll ‘ical metaphysics for plain common rense. Human rights are pot to be sought for, one by one, in volumes of judicial decisions, nor to be accepted and rejected, asa case in pa may be like a ques- found. Nor are they to be investi, od Ye beard it in tion in geometrical treatises, and grese—‘ How many individoals would constitute | @ people?”—‘ How near must they reside to consti- tute one je?—" And how far apart to make two ecules! ” He who undertakes to spply the square and the compass to human rights, find that be is dealing with a subject beyond his reach. The British ‘liament was as much puzzled as is the writer in the Enquirer, to understand how a | colonial or a territorial population can possess any tights. They pas:ed an anti.Nebraska law, which must even now gladden the hearts of it doctrine of self: | government. They claimed, ina solemn declaratory act—here are the words, memorable words they are, too—thet “His Hajesty,in Parliament, has a right by statute to bind the colonies, in all cases wi ever.’ Clear, concise and dogmatical, as if written in Richmond. And what said our revolution: fathers to this monstrous pretension? They said, in solemn continental Congress, in 1774, that “ the Ergiish colonists are entitled to a free and excla- sive power of bev eeheare! where their right of repre. sentation can alone be preserved in all cases of taxation and internal pelity,” &c. These true and wise patricts did not'rack their brains to discover a wurked boundary—a ne wall—between the power to establish governments and the power of Intetnal legialation. They found, to use the words | of the great Earl ot Chatbam, “the principles of freedola written in the great volume of Nature.” ‘They said to the British government:—We acknow- ledge Ags supremacy over the empire, and your right to establish and superintend our governments; but when you undertake to tax us, and to regulate our internal concerns, you pass the bounds of just authority, and we will resist you. And they did; and succesefully, too. And this is just the condi- tion of our Territories, with this stronger consid: | eration in their favor, that the English form pf gov- ernment admits of no limitation, while our general | government is one of limited and granted powers, ard can rightfully exercise none not previously enumerated. So much for squatter sovereignty, | whetver of the revolution or of the constitutioa. | Ax dit is among the wise discoveries of these later Ges that our revolutionary fathers were but tyros in political rights; and as they did not ask for everything, therefore they asked for nothing. As we bear it now seriously contended that, because these bills do rot give to the Territories every light, among other rights inconsistent with their relation to the United States, they, in fact, are 6 mere délus on, and confer none of the attributes of self government. The Exgutrer denies that the South bas finally recegnized this doctrine of the power of the peaple of the Territories to msvage their internal ffaiie for themselves, and calls my asre:tion upcn the subject “an absurdity,” “falls-ious loric,” and a “ syllogistic artifice,” and says “a like attempt to entrap us is discreditable to the laet degree.” Well, I shall not stop to bandy | hersh epithets, but shall content myself with repeat- ing trat the Bouthern resentation in Congress supported a measure which confe:s upon the people | of there Territories, in 20 many words, the right to form snd regulate their dos ic institutions in their own way, ard subject only to the constitution of the United es, and which provided expresily that the original law of the country, by which the cordi- | tion cf slavery was made a legal one there, should not be revived not put in force by these new statutes; and there was not a man in Copgress who did not krow, and I do not recoliec} one who denied, that, under this provision, the fate of slavery in these new regions must depend upon the will of the peopie; and, of cousse, voting with that condition was a practical abandonment cf tte gee that slay 4 is everywhere established in the Territories by the constitution. And these laws present a curious illustration of the opposition to rquatter sovereignty. Here are tw» Territories, organized with institu- tions, possessing almogt unbounded powers of self. government, and yet there is not to this day a single white man who owns sn acre of land in either of them. I commend this fect to the attention of the Enquirer. As to the ergnment repeated in that journal, but first presented elsewhere, that Congress, if it have the power to provide for the organization of Terri- toriai Legislaiuses, must, of necessity, have the pow- er to Jegislate for themselves or the Territories, I aboll dismiss it with but a summary consideration. Move cannot be necessary. The principle is, that Congress con grant no power to others which itself it cannot exercise. The proposition, in its unlimited extent, is contradicted by the legislative experieace of every Gay, for powers in every variety of form wre granted to others which it would be the veriest assumption cn the part of that body to claim for itself. But even if the pretension is narrowed down to the grant of legislative powers, it is equally un- tenable. ‘Ihe question is not one of mere idle sob- thty. It is ope of consti utional authority, and ia to be determined by the principles of toe constitu tion, If rhat great instrument, as a means of car ryiog Into effict a speciied paver, gives authority t etabish Teritorial governmec's, toere the ju- redicticn of Congress ends, end the right of tue eople tomarege their own internal effuirs begias, p In the appicoun of the pruciple of federal upee- vis . the e may be hopest diiferences of opinion the extent of its operation, some being dis pe to cairy it further ioto the details than others Gut woerever the true practical boundary may be | w te the appcintment cf supe officers, and the qhalfiewion of voters, and other siqnlar arracge rerts of organization, certsin it nere is a0 ten for ‘he whole power of domestic legiaia Ngrese—and the whole is given if cre is cover a Cistamt people who heve no mprcrentation in that kody. Thess, ss I nave she wo, are just the views of our revolutionsry fath- ers, who committed this very sbsardity of denying to the Parliament of Englard an unlimited power ot inter al Jegislaticn, while they conceded the general exer tee Of legislative supremacy necessary to the preservation of proper relations b tween the portions cf @ common pation, Neither Lord No th nor nis moster, George the Third, could at firet noderatand ‘rch an absorb ard perricicus principle,” to bor- row the words of the Anguirer. It jook themeight yeate of schooling to learn it, and the Jesson cust them an empire. The great champion of the Eog- bet ninis'ty, De. Johnson—the bired «ba xpion,i an sorry ty eay—could rot understand it any more chan his G@ adjutors ‘n Westioinster nor bis success rain | Richrond, and ip his paid pamphlet, entitled “ fax ation ne Tyrarpy,” proved to his own astisfaction, | at Joost, that it was just and wise that the B itish | | Poriement & on'd govern the colonies in ali cases whatscever. The politicians of the Angrtrer ecxool, like D» Johnsen in this, but very nolike hiw in cer ton other qualifications, which it would be iovisious | te epomerate, bold on with the same tenacity to thie pretension of unmitigated desvotism, whether exer: | ced by K pg Cong ess or by King Nicholas. Chose vbe defended she rghte of man ix 1775 were crted Crome eliene, cows os, levellers. To the two laver epithets ie row added ti @ term +quatter sovere gus, se the last snd vest term of reoreach, : But where ces this claim of usfimited teg's. sien ead? Congress has the power to putherize | the coppocation, conventions in the Verrttories, | wity a view to the formavion ¢f Stste o mstiiutivas, | ai 6 to the admission of pew members toto the on: | fecersor. Tf, then, the powerof direct and uni. | watt d egisiation is ¢educible from the power to | sta biish legislatures, because Congres# cannot grant | Tap, | cial tration of the logic or the unsoundners of ita do.trine can cestary. But there is one statement of the Enquirer which, I must <onfess, has excited my wonder, avd if I had met it any where else, I have said my amazement. » It displays recklessness of or of something ae than ee ere: | with my redeemed in some measure, ss far, indeed, as such | redewption can go, by the moral the assertion. The Enquirer thus states the po- ition: —* Obnoxious as these iples have always been to the judgment and ga of the Southern people, Gen. Cass advanced now, for the first time, ticles of this Confession of Faith, affirms, that slavery 1s the creature of local law, and can claim neither protection nor reco; the con- stitution.” As the writer controls the uni the generality of the terms he employs. “Bat we do pot mean,” continues the writer, “to discuss the validity of this novel article of the Cass creed. We propose only to submit it te the people of the South, that they may learn to what an extreme of hostility to their rights and interests Gen. Ca:s has been driven by his antt-slavery prejuaices.” There is much more ef the same sort, but this "is — And this is said in the ont ofa ae y the self-assomed Jupiter Tounans of loricus old State. Like his Olympian predecessor, he con- siders all thunder but his own as brutwm fulmen, which term he applies te the‘ Washington Union, or apy other arrogant or presumptuous organ” waich bas the arrogance or presumption to doubt his in- fallibility. “Tbis novel article in the Cass creed,” “‘ad- venced bow for the fir-t time,” believed in “on! by the most orazy of the abolition fanatics,” is hesali to the South with all the p and circumstance of ttrilling denunciation, as the most injurious and un- just attack ever made upon their rights. Doea the wiiver mean. that 1 was the first to advance this principle of the mere local existence of slavery, with ite copsequences, or that I now advance it fur the first time? I am not going to analyze the charge. It is not ne for any pi Thave io view. It is clear that his object is to irritate the South against me, and to make me responsible for the coctrive, and to [oersy them that { am using it feitblessly, and to their injary. In the place, I bave maintained the same views, time and again, and the writer, if he did not know it, ought to have known it before he thus assailed only his moral duty, me. it this, touching | is of little importance, when compared with the as sertion that ‘it has been heretofore maintained most crazy of the abolition fanatics.” a4 | by the the writer lived in such an sage rid of ical darkness that he dees not know that this doctrine has been maintained by some of the ablest and most accomplished jurists North and South ?—that it was maintained by the Supreme Court of the | Unired States, in the well known case of Prigg ‘inst the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where, sinong other points, it was solemnly ruled, that | “ the state of slavery is deemed to be a mere mu- nicipal regulation, founded upon and limited by the a of ee tenriorial laa?” ‘the same doctrine has been maintained by judi- decisions, in Pennsylvania, in Kentucky, in Obio, in Louisiana, in miprpnfii in and I have seen it stated in other States. The siana Court pronounced that ‘the relation of own- er and slave is, in the States of the Union in which it has a legal existence, the creature of the monig law.” Mississippi Court thas con- firm doctrine: ‘The right of the master exists not by the force of the law of nature or of Dations, but by virtue only of a itive law. Slavery is condemned by reason and the law of nature—it exists, and’can only exist, through mu- nicipal regulations.” ‘Slavery,’ says the Ken- tucky Court, “exista only by positive law of a municipal character, without foundation in the law of nature, or the unwritten or common law.’ “The state of slavery,” thus decides the Pennsyl- vania Comt, ‘is deemed to be a mere munici; reguiation, founded a and limited by senge of the Territorial law.” 1 find these ext:acts in the papers of the day, with reference to Mariin’s Louisiana Reports, to Mar- eball’s Kertucky Reports, to Walker’s Mississippi Reports, and to Peters’ Penssylvania Digest; and I presume they are correct. Judge McLean thus announces his adhesion to the doctyine:- Without the sanction of law, slavery can no more exist Territory than a man ‘can breathe without air. sare not property where they are not made such y municipal law. Mr. Clay mairta‘ned it, saying in the Senate:— You cannot put your finger on the part of the consti- vtion which conveys the right or power to carry slaves rom cne of the States of the Union to any Territory of he United States. Mr. Webster, it is well known, concurred in this view. Mr. Harris, of Mississippi, will hardly be visited by the denunciations of the Enquirer, aud jet Ihave already quoted hia declaration that the cor stitation does pot carry slaves any where, wid beve referred to that of Mr. Franklir. I will not pile Pelion upon Osas these references. I am weary of this tellect, closely allied to mental lucination or to moral obliquity, which boldly proclaims the expan- sive power ot slavery with law, and without law, and rebukes me as an abolitionist because I hold founded in reason, hallowed by time, wad fovtited by the “jadiaet esisions and fortifie d of it tribun: 0 7 time, higbea One word upén ened 98 I am reviled—the tone and temper displayed it no other epithet— because I expressed the belief that slavery would never be estal , these bills pass. And did not the Southern members of the Senate, in ef- fect, maintain the eame view? “ And I wascon- firmed in this impression.” I remarked in the So- nate, towards the close of the list session, “ by what was said by the Senator from Tennersee, (Mr. Jones.) by the Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Dixon,) and by the Senstor from No:th Carolina, jade ger) and stale the remarks whictr fell the nator from Virginia, (Mr. Hurter,) and in which T rally con: ur, that the South will benefit from this messuie, so far as it respects the extersion of slavery; legislate as we may, no human power can ever estabiish it in the regions defined by these bills.” 1 do not recollect a sing'e Southern member who alvocsted the adoption of these measures on the i never derive any ground that they would lead to the irtroduction of | slavery. I euppoged then, and I suopose yet, that Sothern men were influenced to support them, nct by'the prospect of the extension of rlavery, bat as I Seid iv debete, because they removed an “ invidious unconstitutional interference. It (the Missouri geo- grsphica) line) makes a distinction bet veen Nurth erd South, wiich cannot but be obnoxious to a high spirited Re Sg And certainly to remove this bar sinister from she national! eecutcheon, may weil furnish a more powerful motive to a great com: muriy, jealous of its honor, than avy hope or ex pectation that its accomplishment will lead to the inticduelin of slevery icto these Territories.” As to the assertion of the Enquirer that I sup- ported this arrangement because jt isa “ free suil, anti-slavery 1 essure,”’ I have merely to say it has by multiplying | veralty of far & proposition still more ant: to ts | aaa ieumase the South. ward iy | merly enunciated in the fourth, fifth and sixth ar- notthe shadow cf foncda ion in fact. 1 support, | ard vited for 1b, beceuse it sanctions the true dod- Wire ef Cor greesional cares vod sn vnccnstitutional provicior which established a gecgraphical lice a8 a boundary Arvinet the exercise cf the rights of se'f gure wet. belive slavery will never go to Kanaas oy Nebraska, and so said ard believed @ vast ma nov-interference, and de- | jemi: of ti © members of Congrom, without rever- | ence to location, aud I rejoice thet I have seea no Cat 8 to obenge this opinion, tut that it ts etreagth- ered fom Cay to dy Mr. Weooter and Mr. Ciay entertaired ard vd the come couvietion re. specttig the Mexiosn a quisisons of 1850, but + veluntary anercion of Southern rights yas fou eer ounce t fur i. That suo aa epi cor clusive ev vo of sbolitionism was & 6i rese. ved ¢ Bngure, ‘ “ As for joys ity to party,” says that journal, spenkiog of me, “we only know that in 1850 he corap red with Mr. Clay to baild up » union organt zation cn tbe rnirsof the democisey.” T held the nai of Mr. + im the ereetest reveren: ¢, and rer with ihe wieess acd vurest | patrions, Whore services are written jatory of our country, ard whos bly imo essed ppon ve hearts « Such men as My. Olay may ma In the stormy period of 1850, it was ie ey operate with him, and to add my feeble nition to his pigantic efforts ia behulf of th and perpetuity of the corstivetion. But toe autior of these invectives iss un/ortanste in his asemtion that [ pad any psrti¢ipstion in the attempt to form | & onicn organizsiion, n8 he is ip miny other stater tents he bes had the boldoess, | might sey the ane | cacity, to make, There seems to ce a woral pa- ralyes sbout bim, whene' smeets or makes @ catice of reference to me ald perk re- Neve bim fro of obloguy which woul? othe . Lsook no part ia | the fort t . Thaveno donbt the | spp cestion n tio motives, bat cos sderd the plo i expedient, injurions indeed, and reverie: dea toni the democratic members who Copeulted me, to yefrain fom any pa ticipstion in it. | ‘iknowa st that-duy, and should be this ebeurver the satject comes up euprrobetion crcensure. Many, bota of the de- hy Cintio ard whig. parties, united in a moment of tr! Tocarry out wessu'ee, just in themselves, sud they beheved eesertial the saivation of t ¢ © Ub That soos toll |, tf wae evident 6+ me 1p) eveb of thee partiegetiould be left to parsne ite fine cense, uxembasracsed by avy echeme o, \.me out of the party, f ( Hida er Weta yen er, it was men, Northern and Southern, befaee abifeation. I was requested by some of the latte: part of it which asserted the right of the Territories to legislate for themselves questions relating to their “ to borrow the words of the Continen' 1774. But I A I was aware then as 1 am now that this apy subsequent ¥ sul course While, at the same time, the posi: bad no power to legislate upon alavery, was equally unsceeptab! dorable with extreme Nor! Senate, on the 28th of February, this mae, stating the extent of ne i ¢ MH iil Fi | = 3 H Ee Fs and my statement. The record Mr. Butler of South Carolina, and Mr. Davis of Mis- sissippi, and others, signified their @ are sometimes junctions in the val, as such = als he present Richmond as t side, and Bost on the » but their resentments, ale in their erratic revolutions and unite in the denunciations of the same principles, such as the right of self government, and of the same ruler, we bag pes pause, and review our national poai- ticn. All experience shows that in periods of violent ~€xvitement, those who avoid extreme pretansions, and find wirdom and eafety in s course of calm in- vestigation, must the bitter hostility of oon: tenoing sections, di in everything but this common ferling of The Richmond £n- ‘antipodes brought Thold before you @ handbill, issued at Aun Arbor, one week since, announcing, among other 1! an address to the people there, and ing in a strain of violence, tence, indeed, which may well provoke the envy of the Richmond writer, while it cannot fail to rejoice his heart. Here mistakeable itis. Init I am designated in un: terms, as the great father of all doughfaces. At the South I am considered destitute of courage; Isuppese this is the Southern name for duughface, because I will not believe that slavery is the best condition of society, and because I support the rights of that of the country, from mys ee to the consti- lon, and not from a belief in the of that institution. And in the North and West I am equally condemned as wanting in that reapevtable quality, because I will not denounce the South, because I do all I can to preserve the and the rights of the confederation. The Ann hand! Ge that I have “‘prostrated myself before the altar slavery,””—that I “have bowed the knee to the elave power,” and that I am crimsoned with “the very blood of the alave.” And all this while Charleston News declares that I bave done the than any other living man,” an Richmond £nquirer maintains that I have been driven “to extreme hostility to the rights and intereats of the South”—that I have “been in an attempt to wheedle us (the South) with soit words, while he is bradan scheme to destroy us,” end that I ought “to be off, like a limb,” and much more as just and chaste as t! I cannot comprehend the object of Southern men 9m of denunciation. The existing crisis is a perilous one, and demands the cordial union of head and heart, North and South, to carry us safely throvgh it. Extreme opinions are face to face, and J have never seen the time when wise and pa- triotic councils are more needed than now. ultrairm of some of the Southern views, and the bitterness of Southern’ denunciations, ‘have done al- most an irreparable injury to the constitational cause. The New York Courier and Enquirer, in some excellent remarks on this subject, saya:— If Gen. Cass is to be denounced for expressing an un- favorable opinion of slavery in the abstract, and if this spirit is to acquire predominance in the South, then fare- well to,all hopes of restored quiet. We warn the South against any such ultraism. It is a delusion and a snare. It is arraying the whole North against them, almost as one man, for no Northern citizen with the soul of a man in_him will submit to be so dragooned. Now, is it not preposterous for such presses as the Richmond Enquirer to denounce Gen. Casa as disloyal to the constitution for expressing precisely the same opin- ion_as was expressed by Southern statesmen, not only without rebuke, but with general concurrence in the convention that framed the constitution? Is not the blind, intolerant spirit which it indicates deplorable? Is it one whit better than the furious zeal of the Northera E abolitionist, which refuses to seein a slaveholder any- thing but a traitor to his race ? These are the views of an able whig journal, which says tat for twenty years it has uyheld the corstitutional rights of the Souta. And what te the democratic view? Let it be judged by an extract or two fom that able and faiti fal exponent o7 our party principles, te Co- lumbus Datly Statesman and homes | of this claim of the exparsive power of slavery, it says — It is a usurpation of the most odious character—i¢ bears the stamp of disunion and nullification on its face —it is utterly inadmissible into the creed or usage of the American democracy. Least of all will the demo- cracy of the West tolerate any juggle for the defeat of the “popular sovereignty, so conspicuously asserted during and since the passage of the Nebraska act, as the right of the inhabitants of these Territories. The Statesman then quotes what the Richmond Enquirer sveeringly considers the Cass creed, oon- taining p ition condensed by the Fres Press, and which f subst «ally recapitulated in the Se- nate during the last session, and adds:— We beg leave to assure our Southern cotemporaries that we have yet to meet the first advocate of the late act of Congress who upholds any other construction of the Kansas and Nebrasks act than what is embodied in the propositions quoted above. In its adherence to this doctrine of the nationality of freedom and the limita- tion of slavery, the West is, and will be, « unit, If Ibave lost the confidence ot the South, or if I never possessed it, I regret my misfortune; but as it is @ misfortuze, acd not a fault, I must bear it with what philosophy I may. Certain! pro- bation of his fellow citizens—of all his fellow citi- zens—is a great reward for a public men. It choars and encourages him in his work. As the Ri h- mond eclior says, “be is cheered and en- couraged in his resolution to expose the trea- chery of the perfidious aly’—meaning myself. But as time passes over me I lsarn to place moro vainé upon my oFn convictiona of duty, and leas upon the opinions of others. If I can preserva my own self-respect and the generous confidence of tha people of Michigan, to whom [ already owe 20 en dwg the brief period of potitiesl Jife I shall sper in their service, I shall corrole myself the beet I cau for whet I msy Icee or mav have lost elsewhere. The avathemus of the Enquirer have no terio s for me, bor bave its threste or 18 puntshments, which. ever they are designed to be. I ask no favor of tie Sonth—not one. it can give me aid ia giviag mo nothing. Ido noteveu ask its justice, for 1edt-a tions but too clearly snnounce that misrepresents. tion bas done its work, sud that te demand would be # trniticss ove, Bus I spall indulge in no ane Worthy ‘srqusge of complaint urlamentation, while +H this will net change by one bair's breadth ng course of dievuss'om and of a tion, nb! ate, in relation fo this momentous subject ic vapehes. I shail mainte, a itive ever doe, tebly indeed, but earne the constitutivoal rights of the Suvtb, ond the duty of Nowta t2 sbstoi from ell interferenc and ede cistly shell T sid in diseo Z uod dis coursging that fanatical « eu justitivate expresrion of 1%, wiles is aa Go Go mK us £0 notions, wth all t sla mities which such & (ise er woule btles Do nt + botition ya ty, said Mr. Clay. Tam afr has bees Une beard or urbieded, and that be feared avd denconeed bas been dine. sible foe th i le for te tatenretiy riends do not abo.lti lave no fustun by cur fi od in tre meltlag pot of pot Dy aot lower the wtandard oft of obber metals, W ceived om the ¢acriarchsof our falou, preserve te. personel interest, my fellow citi ation of thease questions as an, mau whe is 5 betertng to me eb Nb gge, be the ober whom be passed tle acpan of bucian exlet man by the Peaimist $m warned that my bole apon feesing ove. Bot [believe the vert vet durasiom Of i) 40 Bt ie cloeety interwowen wita tee daration cf our have lived # demoore’ @ucing iy Jays Wi 9 pee Itmean to live a dew, at dui log my cays, bow that Are to The Kichmend &ngurer y be ite juried cominvr Feid wrder cj ca a Hot enledy dreginar Where shall P yet" ¢ whey. Ur oectp ied for bal try 1 u 1 » je i i