Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-09-21

formerly stated his propositions much more clearly,
and sustained them with far greater ability and bet
ter reasons, than he does now.
When he took tour to the South, at the begin
ming of last winter, he made speech at New Or
leans, in which he announced to the people there
that he and his friends in Illinois accepted the DRIED
Scott decision regarded slaces as property and fully
admitted the right of Southern to go into any
federal territory with his slave, and to hold him
there as other property as held.
In 1S49 he voted in the Senate for what was called
Walkers amendment, by which it was proposed to
put all the internal affairs of California and New
Mexico under the domination of the PresMent Civ
ing him almost unlimited power, Legislative, judi
cia and executive the internal affairs of those
Territories. (See 30th Cong, p.-) Undoubtedly
this was strange way of treating soveregnties If
Mr.. Douglas is right now, he was guilty then of
most atrocous usurpation.
Utah is as much a sovereign State as any other
Territory and perfectly entitled to enjoy the right
of self government. On the 18th of June, 1857, Mr.
Douglas made speech about Utah at Springfield
Illinois, in which he expressed his opinion strongly
in favor of the absolute and unconditional repeal Of
the organic act bLotting the territorial government
ont OF existence, and putting the people under the
sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States
like q fort, a,senal dock-yard, or magazine. He
does not to have had the least idea then that
he was proposing to extinguish sovereignty, or to
trample upon the sacred rights of an Independent
people.
The report which he made to the Senate in 1856,
on the Topeka constitution enunciates very differ
ent doctrine from that of the magazine article 1t
is true that the language is little cloudy, but
one can understand the following sentences to signi
fly that the territorial governments have sovereign
power to take away the property of the inhabitants
1.-The sovereignty of Territory remains in abey
ance, suspended in the United States in trust for
the people until they shall be admitted into the
Union as q State. In the meantime they are ad-
mted to enjoy and exercise all the rights and priv
leges of selfgovernment in subordination to the
Constitution of the United States and IN OBEDIENCE
To THE ORGANIC LAW, passed by Congress in pnrsu-
ancc of that instrument. These rights and privi-
leges are all derived from the Constitution through
the act of Congress- and must be exercised and en-
oyed in subsection to all the limitations and restric-
tons which that Constitution imposes"
The letter he addressed to Philadelphia meeting,
in February, 1853, is more explicit, and barring
some anomalous ideas concerning the allegiance of
the power and the suspension of it in trust it is
clear enough:
Under our territorial system, it requires sover-
cgn power to orain and establish constitutions and
governments. While Territory may and should
enjoy all the rights of selEgovernment In obedience
TO its organic lac, it is NOT SOVEREIGN POWER
The sovereignty Of Territory remains in abeyance
suspended in the United States in trust for the eo
pie achen they become q State, and cannot be NTH
draacn from the hands Of the trustee and rested in
the people Of 7s,ritory aoithout the consent of
Congress.
The report which he made in the same month,
from the Senate Committee on Territories is equal
ly distinct, and rather more emphatic against Mis-
new doctrine:
This committee in their reports have always
held that Territory is not sovereign poaoer that
the sovereignty of Territory is in abeyance, sus-
pended in the United States. in trust for the people
when they become State; that the United States,
as trustees cannot be Invested of the sovereignty
nor the Territory be invested with the right to
sumo and exercise it. without the consent of Con-
gress If the proposition be true that soveregn pow
cr alone institute gorernnents and that the
ereignty ola Territory is in allegiance, suspended in
the United States in trust for the people when they
become State, and that the sovereignty cannot be
Invested from the hands of tn trustee without the
assent of Congress. it follows inevitable con-
sequence, that the Kansas legislature did not and
could not confer upon the Lecompton convention
the sovereign power of ordaining constitution for
the people of Kansas, in place of the organic act
passed by Congress"
The days past and gone when Mr.. Douglas
led the fiery assaults of the opposition in the Lee
compton controversy. Then it was his object to
prove that territorial legislature so far from being
omni potent was powerleSs even to authorize an
election of delegates to consider about their own
affairs. 1t was asserted that a convention chosen
under territorial law could make and ordain no
constitution which would be legally binding Then
territorial government was to be deSpiscd and spit
upon, even when it invited the people to come for
ward and vote on question of the most vital i'm
portance to their own interests. But now all things
have become new. The Lecompton dispute has
"gone.glimmering through the dream of things that
were" and Mr.. Douglas produces another issue,
brand-new from the mint. The old opinions are not
worth rush to his present position: it must be
sustained by opposite principles and reasoning to-
tally different The legislature of Kansas was not
sovereign when it authorized convention of the
people to assemble and decide what sort of consti-
tuition they would have, but when it strikes at their
rights of property, it becomes not only sovereign
but sovereign without limitation of power We
have no idea that Mr.. Douglas is not perfectly sin
cere, as he was also when he took the other side.
The impulses engendered by the heat of controver-
sy have driven him at different times in opposite d.
rections. We do not charge it against him a
crime but is true that these views of his, incon
sistent as they are with another always happen
to accord with the interest of the opposition, always
give to the enemies of the Constitution a certain
amount of laid and comfort" and always add lit
tie to the rancorous and malignant hatred with
which the abolitionlsts regard the Government of
their own country.
Yes; the Lecompton issue which Mr.. Douglas
made upon the Administration two years ago is
DONE and the principles on which we were then op-
posed are abandoned. We arc no longer required
to fight for the lawfulness of territorial election
held under territorial authority But another issue
is thrust upon 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.
We insist that an emigrant going into federal
Territory retains his title to the property which he
took with him until there is some prohibition enact
ed by lawful authority. Mr.. Douglas cannot deny
this in the face of his New Orleans speech, and the
overwhelming reasons which support it.
1t is an agreed point among all democrats that
Congress cannot interfere with the rights of proper
ty in the Territories
! 1t is also Acknowledged that the people of new