The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-11-30
TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY, CONGRESSIONAL
SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE TRUE DOCTRINE.
fr,r,n Aicbun, nRa fol.


.sTo come to the facts Hssv you not, in opposing
the doctrines OF popular Sovereignty in their applca
aon to the Tcittod Embodied in the Cincinnati plat
form adopts the principle that Congress possess
eign powv OF legislation in the Territories you deny
that tha people may such powers do you adj
nit that Congress may In this portion ofhe country you
undersood and such is the construction put upon
your Discussion by the New York Evening Post and other
prominent Journals who charge it all to Gen Cass and
aliege that the arguments OF the Union indicate
petc abandonment of that statesman former positions
and his adoption Of the dogma OF congressional nterven
ton In this State did trouble ourselves with the
question at all but confess, Notwithstanding. that
there many here who regard the Union as having
fallen back upon the old abolition doctrine of congress
siona control Nobody denies the ability of the Union
and II have not correctly stated position you
il to the democracy Of the Northwest to be very explicit
defining it.
Answer, We can hardly understand how our
correspondent could SO misapprehond us, lie has
evidently read more of the Evening Posts com
ments uponwhat we have said than of the editorials
Of the Union. But will proceed again explicitly
to state our opinions upon the subject. The ques-
ton is legal one. 1t involves the constitutional
powers Of Congress the Territories. Congress
is tho ofa active legislative authority under this
government 1t is limited by the organic law both
with respect TO the exercise of its immediate and me-
date functions. 1t authorizes the existence and de-
tines the powers of territorial governments. The
latter are its creatures under express constitutional
limitations. In comforting authority upon them, in
other words, Congress is restricted within its own
organic limits. 1t cannot convey what it does not
possess lit cannot authorize the local legislature to
do what it has constitutional authority to do i'm
medately of its own will.
The territorial governments represent the States
and the interests of the people of the States The
Territories are the property of the States species
of public commcn--set apart by Congress for the
equal benefit and advantage of all the members Ct
the Union. They in sense sovereign because
their authority to act is derived from Congress
alone. There is no proprietyi in claiming for them
sovereign powers, because they are merely repre-
sentative, temporary governments, with ample con-
stitutional guarantees that they may, when they
shall have reasonable number of inhabitants be
admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with
the original States II they sovereign in terri
toriai life, it is manifest they already the equals
of the States But they not. They are depend
ent communities, acting under authority conferred
upon them; and the question is, what authority has
been thus conferred? Congress in the case of Kan
ave authority. 1t had no power to abolish or Gre
ate slavery therein and could not of course, author
ize that government thus to act, 1t did not say TO
the local legislature 'You arc prohibited the exer-
else of such powers" because such prohibition
would have been of no avail, as the constitution
itself restricted both Congress and the Territories
from the exercise of any such authority.
In denying to the Territories, then, the requisite
authority to abolish slavery, we do not maintain
that Congress possesses such power. We assert that
neither has any jurisdiction of the question This doc
trine is no abridgment Of popular rights, because
Congress has given to the territorial organizations all
needul authority to carry on local government and
has In no sense restricted the free exer-
else Of the elective franchise.
This whole doctrine is thus correctly stated The
Territories are authorized by Congress to conduct
local, temporary governments. Their powers are
strictly defined The constitution provides express
ly for their admission into the Union upon an eq,dl
footing with the original States Experience has
shown that in this latter respect there is no diff
Guilty to be apprehended, at the proper time, in
clothing the people thereof with sovereign powers.
Until they prepared for admission during their
territorial lifethcy not sovereign, and may not
exercise any other functions than such as are au-
thorized by Congress, in conformity to the federal
constitution as defined by the bred Scott decision.
Thus, while we maintain this construction of the or
ganic law of the federal Union, we are equally ex
plcit in denying to Congress- as we have said, the
exercise Of any authority over the subjectmatter of
slavery.
We may also, in this connection, suggest that, in
respect to the creation of territorial governments
and the authority conferred upon them by Congress,
they are thus organized and empowered in obedience
to what may be termed the common law Of our poll
tics. In conveying to a third party the right to
legisate and to carry the operations Of govern
men Congress has rather consulted the necessity of
the case than any specific provision of the CON
stitution for its authority This necessity was
early recognised and has been received as sufli-
cient justification for tie creation and endowment of
territorial governments 1t is manifest that in pur-
suing course of legislation on such basis. Con
gress should at least be strictly confined to the ex
ercise Of powers absolutely needful and the govern
ments created with equal strictness to the express
authority conferred upon them.
The pretcnsion set up of popular sovereignty in
the Territories that they are independent govern
ments even to the extent of prescribing propertv