The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-12-31
TERRITORIES WITH THE PRERoGATIgES OF
STATES.

IL must DC confessed by al VINO have not complete
ly surrendered themselves to a radical turn of mind
that the Nebraska Kansas act went quite far enough
IN the policy Of erecting the Territories into indie
pendent communities equal in privilege and preroga-
tive with the sovereign States. The conservative
portion OF its supporters in and out of Congress did
indeed endeavor TO conne the exercise, by the ter
utorial population, Of one sovereign prerogative
conferred by that act--that of permanently fixing
the character Of their domestic institutions the
time which, the Territories should come to apply for
admission into the Union as States and this inter-
Dgeaton Of the act has been sanctioned by the fed
eral Supreme Court; but a very large class of its
advocates contend with vehemence for the unre-
srcted exercise of that right at any time during the
territorial existence, which it may behoeve the peo-
pie Of the Territory in their sovereign voIition to
exercise this fright of settling their domestic in
situations on permanent basis
Aside from the effect which the latitudinous doc
arne may have upon the slavery institution, and
leaving entirely out of consideration that subject on
which politicians determined to debate al hbi-
fua, dd ffnitu, without reason or logic, and equal
ly in defiance of both-we think il must be evident
to every philosophical mind that the Nebraska-Kan-
sas bill has gone quite far enough in endowing those
dependencies, colonies, adolescent communities
attached 10 the Union, which we call Territories
with the prerogatves which appertain and belong of
right only to sovereign States. We repeat, that we
do not aude in this remark to the power which that
act conferred upon the territorial inhabitants of set
ting the slavery question as they might choose but
we aiiude to the policy of establishing independent
territorial legislatures with original powers of legis
laton and the new project of comforting upon terri
toria inhabitants the power of elecng their iudges
their executive and police officers, and generally of
exercising all the powers which it has SO long been
considered hazardous to entrust without wholesome
restrictions, oven to the populations of matured
settled, conservative, sovereign States. . .a.".
In questioning the propriety of applying these
radical doctrines of popular sovereignty and per-
fectibihty to the government of new sparscly-set-
tied and chaotic communities like those of the Ter
ritories we do not intend to be understood as i'm
peaching their soundness safety when applied in
communities more matured and conservative ; on
the contrary, we would deprecate the reckless and
radical application of them as q means of de-
tending the wise and conservative one, and of avoid
ing the opprobrium which a failure of the popular
experiment in the Territories would most surely
bring upon that in which we have been so success.
fully prosperousy, and gloriously embarked for the
greater part of a century, in the matured States
AS single example of the opprobrium and mis-
chief which may result from the radical extension of
this policy, what, if the experiment of erecting the
Territories into independent States with power not
only OF choosing their legislators and enactinr
their own laws, but of eecting all their own civil
officers, as is now proposed, had been inaugurated
In 1850, instead of being postponed to 1859? The
success OF Brigham Young would have been COM
pete in establishing an independent State in Utah
co-equa in rights and prerogatives with the other
States of the Union, and enjoying all the privileges
enjoyed by these States except that of being form
ally admitted into the federal sisterhood and being
represented in the councils of the Union; in which
1t would be though not Of it. ......
Admit that the case of Utah is an extreme one,
and not again likely to arise still extreme and anom-
alous as 1t is, it presents an argument which seems
to us conclusive, against the policy of so cheapening
the high prerogatives possessed by the sovereign
States of our Union to squander them upon any
handful OF eroc religonists erratic citizens who
may choose to issue forth from the body of society
IN the States, seize upon any occupied domain they
may find and attempt to fix upon the new territory
of fifty OF hundred thousand square miles, having
but five, ten, or fifteen thousand inhabitants their
peculiar social or religious system in permanence
and perpetuity. We could not have more forcblc |
illustration than is furnished by this case of Utah. of
the impolicy of endowing crude chaotic, unmatured
Territories, not yet possessed Of population large
and dense enough to have formed consistent and
distinctive whole, or to have acquired tie right
to prescribe permanent institutions for the hun
dreds Of thousands, probably the millions, of peo-
pie who win soon occupy the Territory which they
now call their own, with the high functions and
prerogatives which 1t is the pride Of our Oldest,
most powerful and populous States that they pos
sess. t., ,r..... ....-..
If we give to those four, ive ten thousand peo-
pie the right to so out into the public domain, mark
themselves off magnificent territory by motes and
bounds confer upon them the boon of an independent
elective government in all its branches, and afford
them all the privileges, commercial civil, and So
cial, in their intercourse with the States and the
other Territories which mutually enjoyed by cit
izens Of the matured States of the Union; have we
not in fact created State and placed it upon "a
full footing Of equality with the other States Of the
II n AZ.