, 1859-11-25

meeting, IN February, 1858, is more explic-
il, and, barring some anomalous ideas con-
cerning the allegiance Of the power and the
sEspsnsion Of it in trust, it is clear enough:
Under our territorial system, it requires
sovereign power to ordain and establish
constitutions aud governments. While a
Territory may and should enjoy all the
rights Of self-government, in obedience 10 us
organic lao, it is NOT SOVEREIGN POWER
The Sovereignty Of Territory remains in
abeyaacs, sHspeaded in the United States, IN
trust for The people ioAsR they become a Stale,
aud eaaRoi Be l0ilhdraWH from The hands Of
he trustee aud rested ia the people ofa Ter
Yiiory pitAOHt The consent Of Congress"
The report which he made in the same
month, from the Senate committee on Ter
ritories. is equally distinct, and rather more
emphatic against the new doctrine:
This committee in their reports have
always held that Territory is not a sOv-
srsiga POloer; that the sovereignty Of Ter
ritory is in allegiance, suspended in the Uni
ted States, 10 trust for the people when
they become State that the United
States, as trustees, cannot be dvested Of
the sovereignty, nor the Territory be in
vested with the right to assume and exer-
else II, without the consent of Congress-
II the proposition be true that sovereign
power alone can institute governments, and
that the sovereignty Of Territory is in
abeyance, suspended in the United States,
in trust for the people when they become q
State, and that the sovereignty cannot be
divested from tue hands Of the trustees
without the assent Of Congress, it follows,
as an inevitable consequence, that the Kan
sas Legislature did not and could not con-
fer upon the Lecompton Convention the
sovereign power Of ordainng constitution
for the people Of Kansas, in place Of the
organic act passed by Congress"
The days are past aud gone when Mr.
Douglas led the fiery assaults of the oppo-
sition ia the Lecompton controversy. Then
it was his object 10 prove that Territorial
Legislature, SO far frem being competent,
was powerless even to authorize anelection
Of delegates to consider about their own
affairs 1t was as erted that a convention
chosen under Territorial law could make
and ordain no constitution which would be
legally binding. Then a territorial gov
ernment was to be despised and spit upon,
even when it invited the people to come
forward and vote on question of the most
vital Importance to their own interests
Bnt now oil things have become new. The
Leecompton dispute has gone glimmering
down the dream Of things that were," and
Mr.. Douglas proposes another issue, bran
new from the mint. The old opinions are
not worth a rush to bis present position: it
must be sustained by opposite principles
and reasoning totally different. The Leg
stature Of Kansas was not sovereign when
it authorized convention Of the people to
assemble and decide what sort of consti-
tation they would have, but when it strikes
at their rights of property, it becomes not
only a sovereign, but a sovereign without
limitation Of power. We have no idea
that Mr. Douglas is not perfectly sincere,
as he was also when be took the other side,
The impulses engendered by the heat Of
controversy have driven him at different
times in opposite directions. We do not
charge il against him as a crime, but it is
true that these views Of his, inconsistent
as they are with one another, always happen
to accord with the interests Of the opposi-
ton, always give to the enemies of the Con
stitution certain amount Of laid and com
fort, aud always add little to the rancor-
Gus and malignant hatred with which the
Abolitionisis regard the government of their
own country. 4.
Yes; the Leeompton issue which Mr..
Douglas made upon the Administration
two years agois done, aud the principles on
which we were then opposed are abandon
ed, We are no longer required TO fight
for the lawfulness Of Territorial election
held under Territorial authority. But an
other issue is thrust upon US to disturb
the harmony and threaten the integrity"
Of the party. A few words more, (perhaps
of tedious repetition,) by way Of showing
what that new issue is, or probably will be,
and we are done. y--..,. .,,.- .a.
We insist that an emigrant going into a
federal Territory retains his title to the
property which he took with him until there
is some prohibition enacted by lawful au-
shOA ny -hA AohbAeo NoAAAoh AOuJ AAlo IA
the face Of his New Orleans speech, and
the overw helming reasons to support it.
1t is an agreed point among all Demo
Gratis that Congress cannot interfere with
the rights Of property in the Territories.
1t is acknowledged that the people Of a
new State, either in their Constitution or
in an act Of their Legislature, may make
the negroes within it free, or hold them in
state Of serviiude. ...
But we believe more. We beleve-in
submitting to the law as decided by the
Supreme Court, which declares that & Ter.
ritOrial Legislature cannot any more than
Congress, interfere with the rig ghts OF prop.
erty in Territory-that the settlers Of a
Territory are bound to wait until the SOW
ereign power is conferred upon them, with
proper limitations, before they attempt tC
exercise the most dangerous OF oil its func
tons. Mr.. Douglas denies this, and there
! is the new issue.
/ Why should such an issue be made al
such time? What is there now to excuse