Delaware inquirer. (Wilmington, Del.) 1859-18??, 1859-11-05
Views of the Hon, Reverdy Johnson
on Popular Sovereignty.

7
Attorney General Of the United States and one
of the ablest lawyers OF the country is now in
press, and will shortly be published under the
following title
\ "Remarks on Popular Sovereignty as Main
tanned and Denied, respectively, by Judge
Douglas and Attorney General Black, BY a
southern Citizen
Mr.. Johnson will be remembered us having
! heen the chief counsel on the Southern side of
the famoss Dred-Scott case, which involved
the question of slavery in the Territories.
The New York Times, of Tuesday, furnishes
a short extract of this pamphlet, and we hope
to he able to take cOpious extracts from it Mt an
early day. He fully endorses the positions
which Judge Douglas has taken in his contro-
vcrsy with Judge Black
| He establishes the following propositions:
First-That Congress has no power to pro-
! hibit slavery in the unorganized Territories
| His position is established by the bred Scott
/ case.
Second-That Congress has no power to pro-
hibit slavery in the Territories after they have
/ heen organized under Territorial Governments
Third--That Congress has no power to es-
tablish slavery in Territory. Slavery is the
creature of positivelaw, which may exist either
4 by statute or custom.
/
| hibit nor establish slavery in u Territory, it
cannot legislate to protect or regulate it. He
reproves the doctrine of Mr. Buchanan, "Sla
very exists by virtue of the Constitution and
shows that the bred Scott case sanctions no
such doctrine that it is altogether m Exec
| utiyc impression and blunder not less original
than erroneous" that according to the doe
trne OF the Supreme Court in the bred Scott
case il clearly follows that to legislate to
protect the institution, is as much beyond the
Congressional authority as TO legisatc to pro-
hibit or establish it, and consequently all of
them are among the powers reserved 10 the
States respectively, or to the people
| Ffth-The fifth proposition is stated in these
words "The remaining and last question
propose TO examine, is Can the Territorial
Government admit, protect or exclude slavery,
at any time during its existence7' The dstn-
| guisled writer maintains the affirmative Of this
proposition with great ability. He says:
at would seem to be an anomaly in our in
situations if these powers do not exist That
slavery, nm artificial instead Of natural cOndi-
ton, should he beyond the reach of human
power, under any form of government, and
should be admitted, protected or extended, in
violation of the wishes of the people with whom
it is or is to be,.and in disregard of the wishes
of all branches of the Government and of all
general or ocsasb bower, is doctrine so extra
ordinary that il defies human judgment. No
proof short of demonstration can be given TO
hiring such judgment to satisfactory eoncln-
sion in its support and when we reflect ON the
length Of time during which this state Of things
| is to prevail the doctrine becomes yet more
startling
| He then reviews the bred Scott decision, and
shows clearly that all the positions and prn-
| ciples affirmed by it are in harmony with the
| doctrine of Popular Sovereignty in the Terri
tories as explained by Judge Douglas in Hdr-
per's Magazine and concludes as follows;
| IA has been, this doctrine is not only not in
| consistent with the opinion with the Supreme
| Court, but maintained by its principles
/ He next proceeds to show that il has clear
est Congressional, and Democratic, and Execu-
| tive sanction
Here he reviews the Compromise Measures of
1850, and the Kansas Nebraska legislation of
| 1854, to prove that they were intended and I'M
derst0od at the time to establish the doctrine
of popular sovereignty in the Territories, and
adds
| " Does it maintain Judge Douglass doctrine2
| Unless language has lost its use, and serves
only to mislead and deudc, no other meaning
| can be given to it."
After reviewing all the authorities on this
point, he arrives Mt the following conclusion;
/ Whatever, therefore, under this act, the
4 =
I tory can do; the sole limitation upon the au-
1 thorty Of either is declared to be in the Const-
ton OF the United States
lie next proceeds to instance the absurdity
of Judge Blacks "aximotic principle of public
| law for the protection of slave property in the
Territories, under the laws of the State from
which they were removed, as follows;
Shut if there can be no legislation by the
Territory, what law is to regulate the rights
! "A f,r, sh trnf - ,a
as various as the laws of the several States
from which the property was taken? Are the
rights TO sell and dispose Of such, or any other,
| property TO depend on such laws? Then, an
immigrant from one State might sell each slave
sinely, while one from another could not sell
1 at all if the sale separated man and wife pa
rent and child. In one case, slaves would be
liable to execution for debt in the lifetime of
the owner, or to sale at his death for payment
| of his debts or distribution, and in the other
not. In one, the children Of slave mother
might belong to her owner. in the other not
I In one, they might be free, in the other not. In
\ one troyer might be the remedy in the other
not. In one, resistance by the slave TO the
owner might be punished with death, in the
other not. In the one, the mode Of feeding,
clothing, and working might be prescribed, in
the other not In the one, labor might be pre-
sumptiye evidence of slavery, in the other not.
III tne one slaves lnlbnl De cOnSlutTeu az real
estate and so to be disposed of during life or
at death, in the other not. And what is true
us to this species of property is true of ALL
lie illustrates this position by further refer
ence 10 the laws of the different States and
countries upon the subject Of i" Farming and its
implements, its cares and its hire which are
property in some places by reference to poly
gamy, where it is authorized by law, and to
lotteries, which are still lawful in some States
and also by reference to ones which have re-
Gently been held by the courts TO be property
j il New York, but not in South Carolina.
The distinguished jurist next proceeds to
show that Judge Black is mistaken in suppo-
sing that private property could be lawfully
seized and taken without compensation, where
subject-that the title to property is found in
the nature of society and civil government
that il existed before Magma Charta or Consti-
tutions--and cites the opinion of Chief Justice
Marshall in the case Of Fletcher and prate. 10
Cranch) and denies that g there is word in
Judge Douglas Harper article, word fairly
considered, tending towards a different doe
trine.'
lie next cites the Cincinnati platform To
prove that the doctrine of Popular Sovereignty
as now eypounded by Judge Douglas, was the
doctrine Of the Democratic party AT that time
shows that Mr. Buchanan so understood it, and
was elected President upon that understanding
of ii, and that he never would have been elect
ed if he had not been committed to the doc
trinc that q the people OF Territory, like those
of State shall decide for themselves whether
slavery shall or shall not exist within their
limits.
He adds g In conclusion then the writer