The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-12-02
From the Washington Union
THE QUESTION OF SOVEREIGNTY IN
THE TERRITORIES. a-

On6 Ol the great merits Oh the DTtu CCOt'
decision is the total extinguishment it gives to
| the dogma of squatter sovereignty IN the TERN
tories. 1t utterly negatives the idea that there
is any original jurisdiction or Legislative author
ity in the Territory and asserts that all authority
therein is deriUdtiUe coming from sscithOut, and
not inherent IA its inhabitants or tribunals. Its
| whole theory in regard to authority IN the
| Territories is that what Congress cannot do
| with respect to them, therefore their own
| tribunals which are the mere agents and
creatures of Congress, cannot do; that the
supreme ultimate authority Of the Territories
resides outside of them, and not UithiR. Thus
| the Supreme Court takes direct issue with the
advocates of the squatter-soyereignty doctrine,
| that the prime ultimate source of authority in
the Territories is in its people aCittin, and not
| in the United States lCithOut.
Those who entertain the latter view of the
origin of authority in the Territories derive it
| from a set Of very vicious notions in regard to
personal freedom and personal sovereignty,
which are very prevalent among radical politi-
| clans. There are very sound philosophic, and
Just doctrines concerning popular sovereignty,
and also very unsound, absurd, and incendiary
doctrines. The sovereignty which belongs TO
the people of an entire community or nationality,
IN the aggregate, has two opposite extremes,
which are each equally in conflict with the true
conservative idea of popular sovereignty. On
one hand, it is maintained that because a
nation possesses the attribute Of sovereignty in
the aggregate, usage may, for convenience
sake, have concentrated all the sovereign
functions in a single individual of specific
lineage, as king, monarch, or the like On the
other extreme II is contended, that because the
people are sovereign in the aggregate, each
particular individual member of the nationality
is individually and severaly sovereign in his
own person and right, rs an integer man, and
not as q member of the community. Each of
these extreme dOgmas is alike hostile TO the
true idea, viz: that sovereignty is an attribute
of the nation and not Of the individual and that
each individual person is an integral participant
of that sovereignty only as a member Of The
MISUNDERSTANDING no right, ON the one hand,
to usurp the entire sovereignty to himself nor,
on the other, to seize to himself his integral
microscopic fraction of sovereignty, and march
off with it; but that, in the latter case, by his
expatriation, he loses his integral individual
share ofsovereignty, and becomes a wanderer, an
adventurcr, a pirate, or coonist, as the case
may be, until he joins himself to some new
nationality, with it's consent.
The radical, red republican, squatter sover-
cign idea, prevalent among radical politicians,
is very different from the one last stated. 1t is
that, as the people of each nationality are SOW
crcign, the individual members OF the natonal-
ty are each absolute sovereigns in their own
persons, IN all things affecting mere individual
ity, and may remain in the nationality in which
they are born in full absolute possession of this
individual sovereignty, or, if expatriating them
selves from it. carry along with them in abso-
lutte indefeasible right, this inherent sovereign,
ty, wherever they go. The corrOllary Of this
doctrine is, that If no more than one SingLe man
go ont from a Slate into uROccupied domain he
carries htS inherent sovereignty on his back
and stamps u on has neD territorial abode.
Much more-that if two or three of such sover-
eign comc-outers gather together in any unoc-
cupied domain or two or three thousand, or
twenty or thirty thousand of them, they stamp
their aggregate sovereignty on that Territory.
This then, is Sqitdtter SOcsreignty and it's source
Is found in the red republican doctrine of abso-
Lutte individual sovereignty, inherent in the
lnteger individual, and not derivative from his
nationality 1t has its origin i'll the same set of
doctrines which give the negro slave the right
of running away, married women liberty to
obey the allureInents of passional attraction,
and make all government the mere creature
and baube of the mob. The dogma of squat
ter sovereignty derives the supreme authority
in new Territories from the few scattering ad
vcnturers therein, good and bad, including the
vagabonds and outlaws who have fed there
from fear of punishment, quilted organized
government from restiEeness under its conser-
vative restraints, or sought that fortune beyond
the limits of society, which their imprudence,
improvidence, want of thrift, or want of honesty,
had lost them within it. Thus the dogma is
not only derived from a vicious source but
rests on a vicious popular basis
We might enlarge at great length upon the
baeiul results of erecting new States and Gov
ernments in the domains of the Union on such
vicious basis, upon principles derived from so
radical an origin and so impure political
fountain; but our object embraces nothing
more at present than merely pointing out the
respective sources of the vicious and of the
sound doctrines touching sovereign authority i'm
the Federal Territories
We have seen that squatter sovereignty comes
from the same fraternity with red republican
ISM, abolitonism, womans-rgh tsism, Ell id Onne
geiHGS of denominations; and that it will not do
TO allow institutions in the Territories, the in
cipient cOsovereign States of this Union, to
grow up from such a source. sovereignty
winch should be the fruit Of so noxious a
Parentage would not be fit for association with
thai sovereignty of the States of this Union, of
winch we are so justly proud and so Justly
boast.
Where, then, does the rightful sovereignty or
supreme authority in the Territories reside
during the territorial condition of the infant
community Let us see
We first hear of the Territory as new pur-
chase by the Federal Government from some
other ownership. IL it be inhabited by citizens
of the alternating nation at the time of purchase
the treaty of purchase expressly STIMULATES that
these inhabitants are to enjoy all the r;obts
privileges, and mmunities of the citizens az the
United States. Thus, the very act of acquisition
negatives the idea Of the Terrtory's subsection
To the sovereignty of residents, whether citizens
or the sayageS or adventurers who are the pets
of the red-repubhcan theory.
The next acts we hear OF in the history of the
| new Territory relate TO the establishment OF
land Offices for the sale of its lands by the Fed.
cral Government, alhreserving the right Of emf
ncnt domain expressly to the Federal Govern
ment, with reversien TO the State into which II
Il IN the future to mature. Here, again, is M
emphatic negation of the rcd-repu .lican notion
ol the absolute mdividul sovereignty of the
| squatterF in the new domain,
Who's right there is none to dispute,
From the centre al! round to the
The next step We see taken in the progress Of
the Territory rs It's organization into a Territorial
| Government, within prescribed territorial metes
ana bounds, by act Of Congress-. Here AGAIN
| Is an emphatic negatiOn of the sovereignty b
me individual squatters; for Congress, of a..
'IcH authority AID right, prescribes the foria
OF Government and the territorial metes am
bounds OF ITS authority, with utter indifference
to Tn" pretenslons ofits sovereign occupant,
Moreover, 1t not only delegates in expres
terms 10 the new Goyernmentthes specific power
winch 1t Is authorized to exercise and to tbs
lerritorlai Legislature the specific subjects on
wmen 1t may leglslate, but it expressly re
L vat II Il
Government and Legislature, and all powers y
| the Territory not eNpressly dnlnrntod ~ IL