Kenosha tribune & telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1856-1859, 1858-09-23
POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY.

There is much said at this time, especially bv
the Douglas democracy about popular sovereign
ty. There is perhaps no term used, which has
SO much Indebtedness, and which is so vacue.
ly understood by those who employ it, as this
Popular Sovereignty as theoretically apprehend.
ed, is the right Of apeople to frame and regulate
their own institutions of government in such
way as the majority may determine. Practical
~ however, this has never been, and never can
be exemplified, in the case Of any of the terrific
rles belonging to our government in their first
organization. The freedom Of a territory TO
originate its own organic law, has never vet
been exercised, and probably never will be. Yet
such an exercise Of power, would be necessary,
IN order to full illustration of popular soyer-
eighty. II popular sovereignty be claimed as
the exclusive right Of the territories, then Con
gres6 has no right to frame organic laws for their
government to appoint governors, secretaries.
Judges Of courts, and make sundry regulations
such as have in all cases heretofore been made,
These rights would pertain exclusively to the
territories, according to the theoretical idea en-
tertaned Of popular sovereignty, by most people.
who are professedly its advocates.
Since then the inhabitants residing on terrific
ry belonging to the United States cannot oriei-
nate their own organic act, and put in operation
government Independent of the action of Con
gress, it follows that popular sovereignty has
limitations; that there must of necessity be Con-
gressional interference to give action to terri
tonal government. For if any given number
VI inhabitants have the right to originate and es
taDlsh government within the limits Of tn.
United STATES, then any number of sovereior-
ties, may start up and exist, entirely independ-
ens OF each other, and of the general government.
lhe constitution admits of no such separate and
distinct independencies. There are but two
conditions-a state in the Union, or TERRITORY
under the care ofthe general government. The
people OF territory are therefore not supreme,
and popular sovereignty does not belong to
them without limitations, while they remain in
territorial condition. A state government is
the nearest approach to popular sovereignty.
The federal government is not u popular sover-
eighty, because the powers it possesses are del
egated to it by the states besides, it is made mn
OF inequalities; mihorities having equal power
with majorities; the small states being repre-
scented in one branch equally with the large
states; the president may be elected represent
ing the minority, and the basis Of suffrage is
unequal "'
Popular sovereignty rightfully belongs to the
people of territory in the framing of their fun
damental law or constitution; in the exercise of
this duty, the people should be free to determine
such form of state government as the majority
may elect Congress only having the power by
the constitution, to judge whether it is 1epubli-
can IN form, when admission into the Union IS
sought under it. 1t is this exercise of popular
sovereignty, which the present administration
has attempted to defeat by efforts to force upon
the people OF territory, a constitution repur
to the popular WILL In this the administration
and its supporters, have shown their total dis
regard for their own protested principles. AL
though not few of the national democracy are
now free to dsnounce popular sovereignty as a
humbug yet the great: majority still profess to
MAINTAIN the doctrine ....-..
Popular sovereignty, rightfully understood
and applied, has its appropriate place in our
form Of government, but the indiscriminate man
ner IN which the term is employed renders II
often meaningless and absurd. If it belong ex-
clusiyey to the territories, then Congress has no
night whatever to legislate for the territories
not even to rive than n n orc,,,;o o4