The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-07-29

70 ctate rlghts ON tne osner. Inns was emphRt
ically the case in the inception Of the dynas
ties of 1900 and 1880, and i as obvious nov
in regard to the Territorial policy. On each sns
every occasion, the Fedora. Judiciary has no
only leaned to centrsism, but assumed to itsel
powers in derogation Of other departments o.
the Government.
s. Mr.. Jefferson, as the selected Header of the
old Republican party, clearly defines his posi-
ton, and that of his political associates in hi.
day, in the extract We have made. And in the
second phase of parties, thirty years later, Gen
jackson, the acknowledged head Of the Demo
cratic party, declared that the opinion of the
Judge has no more authority over Congress, than
the opinion of Congress has over the Judge
and on that point the President is independent
of both. The authority of the Supreme Court
must not, therefore, be permitted to control the
Congress or the Executive, when acting in their
legislative capacities, but to have only such in
Ausnce as the force of their reasoning may de.
serve" ..
The prominent and marked measures of the
present Administration relate to the Territories
and what is its policy in regard to them 2
Where ID the sovereignty of the Territories
vested until they become States, and are them.
selves endowed with sovereignty Most clearly
in the Federal Government, of which they are
mere dependencies. On this point, Mr.. Blu
chanan is clearly committed by, declarations,
speeches, and votes-until past his grand eli.
mscteric- well a. BY his Berks County letter.
In that letter, he avows his policy td2be that Of
prohibition above . particular parsfiel Of lati.
tude. As . Legislator, Statesman, and constitu-
tional expounder, he could not have advocated
such prohibition, if he entertained doubt Of
the constitutional power and authority. He had
when he wrote that letter, attained the age Of
sixty years, thirty Of which he had spent in the
public service. Without sovereignty, there could
be no prohibition. If the sovereignty of the
Territories is in the Federal Government, it was
and is as much its duty to legislate on the sla.
very and freedom of the people, as on any sub.
ject whatever. Mr.. Buchanan was right, there.
fore, as to the authority of the Federal Govern
ment, when he proposed prohibition, and wrong
in failing to make it general. The politician
and the partisan absorbed the legislator and
the statesman.
But this was the policy of ls47, when he was
Secretary of State, and old parties were in their
decadence. What is the policy Of the Admin.
istration at this time? Does the Executive main.
tain the principles svowed by him in ls47, when
the first officer in Mr.. Folks Cabinet? and if
not, does he excuse himself by transferring all
the powers of the States to the General Govern.
ment, and all Of that Government" to the Judi
ciary, so far as the Territorial policy concern
ing Slavery is in question? This is not in con.
formity with the doctrines of the Republicans
in 1902 as stated by Jefferson, nor Of the Dem.
ocrats of 1882 as avowed by Jackson. 1t is q
marked feature in The history of parties, that,
while the State Rights men, the advocates of
'trict construction, have, like Jefferson, been
or preserving to the States the powers not
Yielded by them to the Union, and to each de.
,artment of the Union its constitutional share of
he division of powers" they have as scrupuIous.
y maintained for the Federal Government all
he authority clearly delegated to it by the Con
titution. Congress had full power to legislate
IN the subject of Slavery, without the limits of
he States, from the adoption of the Constitu-
ion, except they should not prohibit the import.
'tion of slaves prior to 1908. Jefferson and the
did not hesitate to prohibit, they
,eing then in power, as soon as that limitation
xpired. The sectional doctrine of g Southern
lights " was not then regarded as legitimate.
North Carolina and Georgia, aware that Con.
,ress had full authority to legisate and prohibit
slavery in the Territories, expressly stipulated,
n their deeds ceding the Territories now com.
'rising the States of Tennessee, Alabama, and
Mississippi, that Congress should pass no law
slaves in these Territories. They
lid not suppose that Slavery was national and
Freedom local-that Slavery was above and
'eyond the Constitution-they were not aware
# any element in our system, known as " South.
I'm rights" There were State rights and Fed.
raj rights; but it remained for modern sec.
under the training of the Nullifiers,
o bring out Southern rights" for Legislation
md Executive recognition.
Sectionalism and centralism belong to the
anne political family, each begets and fosters
he other, both are opposed to State rights and
o Federal rights-to the Constitution and to
he Union. The aggregation of the slave States,
u combined action, to promote great monop.
'y interest, has introduced the sectional heresy
If Southern rights into our politics, and con-
rolls the administration of the Government. In
obedience to its dictates, the Chief Magistrate
las abandoned his own avowed principles, and
he Government has been prostituted to sus.
ain it.
The policy of the present Executive in ad-
the Federal Governmen is to per-
nit Slavery to 60 unrestrained over the whole
public domain without the limits of the States.
t has abdicated sovereignty on the subject of
Slavery and of Polygamy in the Territories.
The Administration is powerless to prevent
'ither. Its Territorial policy ID the opposite of
hat of Jefferson and jackson, of the Republi.
ANS and the Democrats, as well as of all prece.
ling parties except the Nuli6ers; and, while
t claims to be devoid of power, authority,
md sovereignty, in the Territories, it, with
strange inconsistency and by despotic assn mp
ion, arrogates to itself the right to dictate to
he people in regard to their State Government,
md to impose upon them Constitution to
which they are opposed.
How unlike Mr.. Jefferson and the Republi.
,ans of 1902? How unlike jackson and the
Democrats of 1882, is this Territorial policy of
he present Administration ? How unlike that
frugal and simple Government of the great
Apostle of Freedom, who was "not for multi.
plication of officers and salaries, merely to