Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1859-09-02
Mr.. Douglas as a Magazinist.

Mr.. Stephen A. Douglas. whose sue
cesses in the political world are well
known, has betaken himsef to new
sphere of labor. In Harper's Magazine
for the current month he appears as lit.
erary contributor. 1t is an admirable
stroke of policy on the part Of its editors
to procure so distinguished and able a
writer-as great as Bonner made when
he secured the services OF Edward Ever
EFT for the kdgr. But in DOMINIC the
plumes of the magazinist, Mr.. Douglas
does not abandon his political tastes ana
proclivlties. He is the same original
Douglas. He still harps upon the old
string. and in his first literary effort,
which is entitled 1.-The Dividing Line be-
tween Federal and Local Authority" we
are treated only with new dissertation
upon lupular sovereignty. Let us re-
mark, however, that this entertaining
monthly, which has hitherto avoided all
political discussion. appears in new
character, if Mr.. Douglas does not.
As the papers in this periodical are
copyrighted. we do not feel at liberty
to quote the essay Of Mr.. Douglas at
length, but we presume there will be no
offence in furnishing our readers the
substance of his argument, he says, the
! first duty of an American statesman is to
mark distinctly the dividing line between
the authorities OF the federal and local
governments. 1t is question which
arises most prominently, at the present
time, in regard to the government of
the territories of the Union. One lead
ing party, the Republican, asserts that
the Constitution confers the supreme
right OF legislation over the territories
upon the federal Congress- but. on the
! other hand, the democratic purity. which
oppose this assertion, is divided into two
opinions, which seriously disturb its
harmony and threaten its integrity
/ These differences OF opinion arise. ac-
cord NJ to Mr.. Douglas, from the differ
ent interpretations placed on the consti.
tutons By persons wao belong to one OF
the following classes:
" Frst-Thcss who believe that tbe
constitution of the United States neither
establishes nor prohibits slavery in the
states or territories beyond the power of
the people legally to control it, but
'lcaVes the people thereof perfectly free
to form and regulate their domestic insti-
tutlons IN their own way, subject only
to the constitution OF the United States.
'Srcoad Those who believe that the
Constitution establishes slavery in the
territories. and wthelds from Congress
and the territorial legislature the power
TO control it; and who INSIST that, in
the event the territorial legislature fails
to enact the requisite laws for its protec
ton, 1t becomes the imperative duty OF
Congress to interpo'e lis authority and
furnish such protection.
1hird-These who. while processing
TO believe that tie Constitution establish
es slavery In the territories beyond the
power OF Congress or the Territorial
Legislature to control it,at the same time
protest against the duty OF Congress to
interfere for It's projections; bnt insist
that it is the duty Of the judiciary to
protee. and maintain slavery in the ter
ritories without any lay upon the SUI.
jet"
1t is needless to say that Mr. Doagbs
adhere to the first-namad of thcse opln-
ions. he adv Gates of the other two
agree on the theoretical point. that the
ooastituti0a ustaGI;sies eia<orr s.ah0
territories, and eompels them to have il
" nj q,
on the practical point. whether a right
secured by the Constitution shall be
protected BY an act of Congress whea
all other remedies fail. The reason as
signed for not protecting by law right
secured by the Constitution is. that il Is
the duty OF the courts to protect slavery
IN the territories without any legislation
upon the SUBJECT. But Mr.. Douglas
falls to see how the courts are to afford
protection to Slaves or any other propel-
". where there is no law providing rem
edles and imposing penalties and confer
ring jurisdiction upon the courts TO hear
amt determine the cases as they arise
He remarks:
alt is difficult to conceive how any person
who believes that the constitution confer, the
night OF protection in the enjoyment OF slave
property IN the territories. re.ardle 5 Of the
wishes OF the people and of III, action Of the
territorial Legislature. can satisfy his con science
and his oath OF tdetty to the constitution in
withholding such Congressional legislation as
may be essential 10 he enjoyment If such
right under the constitution. Uader this view
OF the subject II Is impossible 10 resis, the con-
clusion that if the constitution does establish
slavery III the territories beyond the power of
the people to control il by law, it is the inpsr-
ative duty Of Congress TO supply allthe leg,s-
lation necessary to Its protection and If this
proposition Is not true. II necessarily results
that the constitution neither establishes nor
prohibits slavery anywhere. but leaves the PEG
pie Of each state and territory entirely flee to
form and regulate their domestic affairs 10 sui,
themselves without the intervention of Con-
sress or OF any other power whatsoever"
The writer then proceeds to demon.
strate his own position In an exceedingly
elaborate, minute, and closely reasoned
accoun. OF the whole history of our fed
erai government in its relation to state
and territorial organizations. We shall
not follow him through his long disser.
tation, nor, believing, as we do, that his
premises are fundamentally false as to
the powers of Congress. undertake to
crlticise The course of his reasoning
Neither shall we dissent from his main
conclusion that, under orr political sys-
TEN, teyery distinct nolitieal com,,un;