Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-10-19

Territory The Constitution of the United States
protects mans property from being plundered by
territorial legislature, just as State constitution
protects it from robbery by the authorities OF CITY
corporation
1t should be noted that when this question was be-
fore TIE Supreme Court of the United States there
was some difference of opinion among the judges, on
the question whether Congress might or might not,
legisate for Territory in such manner as to take
away the right of property in slaves. majority
of two-thirds or more held the negative; and Mr.
Douglas admits that the majority clearly right
But no member of the court expressed the opini,r,
nor was it even thought Of by the COUNSEL that the
Territories had any such inherent and natural pow
er of their own. Indeed there is no Judge OF any
grade or character any writer on law or govern
ment who has ever asserted given the least coan,
tenance to this notion of popular or any other KIND
of sovereignty in the Territories.
Some trouble will be saved in this part OF the ar
glIment by the fact that since the first publication
of this pamphlet, Mr. Douglas denies and repudates
all claim of sovereignty for the Territories Lie
even says that he never did re,ard them as sover.
eigns His words spoken at Wooster, Ohio, and
written out by himself are these:
81 NEVER claimed that territorial governments
acre sorereign, or that the Territories rere sorer.
eign po9ers."
OF course this is not to be understood as mere
naked denial that he had previously used those very
words. We have no right to charge Mr.. Douglas
with adopting the exploded system of morality,
which allows man to cover up the truth under an
equicoque We are bound to take his denial fairly.
as meaning that he never thought the Territories
had the rights and powers, which belong to sover-
eign governments. Let us see how this assertion
will stand the test of investigation.
We do not deny, that the article in Harper is ex-
tremely difficult to understand. Its unjointed
thoughts, loose expression. and og ical reasoning
have covered it with shadows clouds, and darkness
But VIC will not admit that it has no meaning at ALL
1t scarcely possible to mistake the general purpose
of the author That purpose undoubtedly was to
prove that the States and Territories, far con-
Germs their internal affairs have political rights and
powers which are precisely equal In fact, he de-
cares. in so many words, that Pennsylvania and
Kansas are subordinate to the Constitution /" in the
sane manner and to the same ertent" He not Orlv
levels the Territories up to the States but levels the
States down to the Territories. If Kansas has sla-
very by virtue of the Constitution. he insists that
by the same reasoning Pennsylvania has it too.-
Now we know Pennsylvania to be sovereign and
if Kansas be her equal then Kansas must necessari
ly be sovereign also.
But look at the last sentence, which is the grand
summary of his whole doctrine
THE principle nn1er our political system is that
erery distinct political community, loyal to the
Constitution and the Union, is entitled to all the
rights, privileges, and immunities Of selt-gorern
ment in respect to their local concerns and internal
polity, subject only to the Constitution Of the Uni
ted States"
Here the States and Territories are placed on
footing Of perfect equality There is no distinction
made between them. If the States are sovereign,
so are the Territories Besides, the "rights privi-
legeS and inmunities," which he describes per-
tanning to every distinct political community, that
is to both States and Territories,) are sovereign
rights, and nothing else. Any community which
has the independent and uncomfortable right of self
government with respect to its local concerns and
internal polity, must be, quoad hoc, sovereign.
Again: Mr.. Douglas in his speech at Cincinnati.
made so lately as the 9th of September last, used
the following unmStakable language:
Examine the bills and search the records and
you will find that the great principle which under
lies those measure the compromise of 1850 is the
right of the people of eaeh State, and each Terri
tory WHILE a TERRITORY, to DECIDE the slavery
question for themselves"
Is not this claiming sovereignty for the Terri
tories? Can the slavery question be decided with
out legislating upon the right of property? Can a
subordinate government do that? If the Territories
have power to decide whether shall keep his
property or not, where did the power come from
Surely not from Congress through the organic acts.
They must have it then upon what Mr.. Douglas
calls grent principle. and that great principle
he nothing else than Mr. Douglas make a tour to
the West and on his way back he contradicts what
he said as he went out.
There arc but two sides to this controversy The
Territories are either sovereign powers by natural
and inherent right or else they political corpo-
ratons, owing all the authority they possess to the
acts of Congress which create them 1t is not posi-
BILE to believe, that Mr. Douglas wrote thirty eight
columns in a magazine to prove the truth of the
latter doctrine. Nobody but himself and his fol-
lowers were every accused of denying it. If he did
not deny it, and plant himself upon the opposing
ground of sOrereingty in the Territories then there
was no dispute or cause of DIVISION between him
and the democratic party; and he has consequently
been engaged in raising an excitement about moth
ng;-trying to toss the Of politics into tenn
pest without having even feather to watt, or fly
to drown.
But that is not all. Mr. Douglas has continually
used the Gerry Uord sorersigniy with reference to
the Territories. This soreregnty in the Territories
he has asserted and re-asserted so Often that the
phrase is in great danger of becoming ridiculous by
the mere frequency with which he repeats it. For
many months he has not made speech or written
letter for the newspapers on any other object. 1t
heads his elaborate article in Harper it is vocfera
ted into the public from the stump; and it starcs
at us in great capitals from the handbills which c,
the peopleto his meetings. Unless it be acknowl-
edged he predicts the hopeless division Of the party
and even threatens to refuse its nomination for the
Presidency. Now, all at once, the suhect-matter Of
the whole controversy is admitted to be nonentty
He " checks his thunder in midvolley," and owns
that there is sovereignty in Territory any more
than in British colony. Other persons may have
ridden their hobbies as hard as Mr.. Douglas but
since the beginning Of the world no man ever dis
mounted so suddenly.
Sovereignty in the Territories" of which we
have heard SO mnch, is generally, if not always,
coupled by Mr.. Douglas with the prefix of Popu-
lar" This last word appears to be used for the
mere sake of the sound, and without any regard
whatever to the sense. 1t does not mean that the
people or inhabitants of the Territories have any
supreme power independent of the laws, or above
the regularity constituted legal authorities They
cannot meet together, count themselves, and say ::
ave are so many hundreds or so many thousands,
and we must therefore be obeyed the law is in our
voice, and not in the rules which our government
has made to control U.S." Something like this view
was vaguely entertained in time when the Lecomp-
ton constitution was opposed But that is gone by
Mature reflection has left mobocracy without de-