The Kansas herald of freedom. [volume] (Wakarusa, Kan. Territory) 1854-1860, 1858-11-06

Oub Az thO 4LLphCptNtAHt VI OSsOSSA @AoeI
there appears a second chapter from the
same chalice, so filed with contempt for
the principles that it is my hope to see
written upon the ensign of victory in
1860, in which the author, by some spe-
cies of black art or otherwise, is trans
muted, as proved by his signature, from
the incorporated exponent of "Kansas"
to the more humble sphere of "A Citizen
of Kansas" This second article of over
four columns, with the exception of a few
interludes of garbled Latin and Mother
Goose melodies, is an elaborate and able
examination Of the general subject of q
sovereignty in the people. Owing to
their voluminousness, and the variety of
points presented, shall not copy the
paragraphs to which my reply will be d.
rected, but shall extend the positions in
detail, as wlole, that 1 wish to present,
bearing upon the subject of Territorial
government, in opposition to the argu-
ments presented by "a Citizen Of Kan
sas"
1t has been said, that it was unwise and
impolitic to agitate this subject new in
Kansas, that it will tend to divide the
Free State party upon "dead ISSUE" and
that the Republican party in the States is
already dividing upon it. Now it mat
ters not to those who seek nothing but
truths, and the fullest security to the whole
people of their sovereign rights, what
becomes Of the individual or the party, so
that the principle in issue is not compro-
missed, in the investigation. Where, moro
than in the Territories is popular sove-
reignty living issue I? Where, more than
in Kansas, have the people suffered by
foreign oppression, in violation of the spirit
of that principle? Where, more proper
ly than here, could party, even, endorse
that feature of national polity Who,
more than this chastened people, should
holly contest the nature and extent of the
powers of the Federal Congress over the
citizens who may settle in the Territories
of our confederacy Where else, more
consistently than here, could discussion
be tolerated upon the enumerated powers,
delegated to Congress by the Constitu-
ton, relative to State and Territorial sove-
reignty? Forgetting our party biases,
then, "let us reason together"
"a Citizen of Kansas" has defined pop
ular sovereignty to be a "swindle," a
"sham," "humbug," ''mere subter-
fuge," and the like, that profound states
men Laughed at" These epithets are
easily applied, but after a full examina-
ton of the proof, it may be query wheth-
er this doctrine, or IA Citizen" would be
the more justly "laughed at"
There is but one source of light in this
review, and that is the Constitution. In
Article tenth of the Amendments, it pro-
vides, that "The powers not delegated to
the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people, I"
Now, in that clause, are the people, living
in the Territories, deprived of their sove-
reignty? The only section verging upon
it, referring to the power of Congress to
make all needful rules and regulations
respecting the territory or other proper
ty," &c, already quoted, can have no ref
erence to the establishment of a civil gov
eminent over colony, but, as was decid-
ed by the Supreme Court in the case Of
the U. s. vs Gratiot and Others, as fol-
lows rt
"The term territory, as here used, il
merely descriptive of one kind Of prop.
erty, and is equivalent to the word lands
and Congress has the same power over il
as over any other property vested in the
United States" &c.
Any other Interpretation than this, i.
an outrage upon the principle Of popular
rights, as established in our revolutionary
struggle, and violation of that soye.
reiguty, recognized by all our institution,
as belonging exclusively to the people
Had the trainers of the Constitution in
tended to give the General Government
any jurisdiction over the citizens living il
the Territories above those living in thu
States, it would have been easy to express
the idea in definite language, but in fact
no such thing is provided. On the othe
hand, there is negative proof to the con
trary, in the following, defining the pow
ers of Congress
"To exercise exclusive legislation in al
cases whatsoever, over such district lno
exceeding ten miles square) as may, b.
cession of particular States, and the &C
ceptance Of Congress, becomes the seat o
government of the United States, and Il
exercise like authority over all place
purchased by the consent of the Legisla
ture of the State in which the same shall
be, for the erection of forts, magazines
arsenals, dock-yards, and other needfu
buildings"
There is neither any implied or ex
pressed jurisdiction given therefore 4
Congress over the Territories, except
possessory one over the soil, and it vii
be vain to argue that the right to max
needful rules and regulations for tina
I purpose would convey any political juris
diction whstever, over the rishtful PEG
pie, and wherever Congress has such ju
risdiction, il is clearly pointed ont in tn
| aboSs section. II, then, Congress derive
no exclusive powers from the Constitution
over the people living IN Territory, i
can possess no such power. and all at
tsmpts TO- exercise it is arbitrary ana
high.handed despotism, against which i
is the province of the people to rebel