Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-10-11

We commend the appendix to the earnest perusal
of cur readers and OF the American people gencr-
ally.
HAnOther edition of these observations" being
called for an opportunity is afforded of adding
thoughts suggested by the attempted reply of Mr.
Douglas, and by some criticisms OF different kind
which have appeared in other quarters.
Mr.. Douglas charges us with entertaining the Opn-
ion that "a the States of the Union may confscate
private prOpcrty-a doctrine which he denounces as
a most wicked and dangerous hcFesy.' He cham
ponizes the inyOlability Of property, and inyokes
the fiery Indignation Of the public upon us for
cribing to the StatJs any power of taking II away
Now mark how plain tale will put him down.
There is no such thing and nothing like it on all
these pages from the first 10 the last Mr.. Doug
las merely iOurishing his lance III the empty
air. He had no ground for his assertion. except Il
most unauthorized inference of his own from our
detail that the power existed in the Territories The
Territories must wait till they become sovereign
States before they can cOnfscate property that was
our position Therefore says the logic ot Mr.. Dong
las. all the States in the mon pay do u now What
right had he TO make imputatiOns OF hcresy founded
upon mere inference, when our opinion on the rery
pOiHt was directly expressed in words so plain that
mistake was impossible: The following sentences
occur on page Il:
''.Al tree people know, that if they would remain
free they must compel the Government TO keep Its
,
done only by tying them up with careful PestFlc-
tions. Accordingly our Federal Constitution de-
clares that person shall be deprived OF his prop
erty except by due process Vt law, and that private
property shall not be taken for public use without
INST cornpensatiOn' 1t is universally agreed that
this applies only the exercise OF the power by the
Government of the United States. We are also pro-
tected against the State governments by similar
provision in tho State constitutions. Legislative
robbery Is therefore. crime which cannot be COM
n1itta pitb bV nh
ture unless il b. done in fiat rebellion to the tnda-
mental law Of the land"
The close of the same paragraph shows why it was
important that attempt should be made 10 exer-
else such power by Territory:
is it not every way better to wait until the new
inhabitants know themselves and one another; until
the policy of the Territory Is settled by expe
rience: and, above all, until the great powers OF
sovereign State regularly conferred upon them
and properly limited, 50 as to prevent the gross
abuses which always accompany unrestricted pow
cr in human hands,
Mr.. Douglas certainly read these passages for he
borrowed phrase from them, and put it into his
own speech He ought to have understood them.
If he both read and understood them, why did he al
lege that this pamphlet favored the dangerous here
sy referred to? Let the charity which ''thinkcth no
evil find the best excuse for him it
That the government Of sovereign state, unrc-
stricted and unchecked by any constitutional prOhi-
bitiOn, would have power 10 cOnscate private pro
perty, even without compensation 70 itho owner, is
a proposition which will scarcely be denied hy any
one who has mastered the primer of political sci
ence. Sovereignty, which Is the supreme authority
of an independent State or government is in its
ture irresponsible and absolute, Ii cannot be other
wise, since it has no Superior by whom IL can he
called to account Mere moral distractions then
retica principles of natural justice do dot limit the
legal authority of a sovereign No government ought
TO violate justice; but any supreme government,
whose hands entirely free, can violate II with
impuniiy. For these reasons it is that the Saxon
race have been lahOring, planning, and fighting du-
ring seven hundred years, for Great Charters, Bills
of Rights, and Constitutions TO limit the sovereignty
Of all the governments they have lived under, Our
ancestors in the old country, as well as in America,
have wasted their money and blood in vain TO es-
tabsh constitutional governments, if 1t be true
that a government without constitution Is not ca
pable OF doing injustice, They knew better than
that. They understood very wei that sovereign
Government, no matter by whom its power Is Wleld-
cd may do what wrong it pleLses, and bid its viii
avouch the deed
Now, what is the constitutional prohibition which
can anywhere be found to restrain Popular Sow
creignty in the Territories (f there be such a
thing there) from cOnfiscating any citizens proper
ty! There is none. \ Territory has no constitu-
ton of its own; and nobody would be absurd
enough to say that it Is governed by the constitution
of another State. VIII it be said, that the provision
in the Federal Constitution, which forbis the taking
of private property without compensation. can be
used so as restrain territorial sovereignty Ger
tainly not. The Supreme Court have decided, lin
Barron u.s. The City of Baltimore Peters 243) that
the clause referred to applies exclusively to the
Crcise Of the power by the Federal Government.
The rule was laid down by Chief Justice Mar
shall 1t was cOncurrcd in by the whole court and
its correctness has never been denied doubted by
aDy Judge. lawyer, statesman from the time of
the decision to this day. IT, therefore, there be a
sovereignty the Territories, it is sovereignty
limited by any constitutional nterdict. This implies
in tbp
that of any other government in all North America.
The simple and easy solution of all this difficulty
is furnished by the Supreme Court, and adopted by
the democratic party as the true principle gov
erning the subject 1t is this That the Territories
are not soveregntes their public
corporations established yCOngress manage the To-
cal affairs of the inhabitants, like the government of a
city, established by 4 State Legislature. Indeed,
there is probably no city IN the United states whose
powers are not larger than those OF a Federal Ter
ritory. The people of city elect their own mayor,
and directly or indirectly appoint their municipal
officers. But the President appoints the Chief tx
ecutve of a. Territory, as we'll as the Judges. He
NAV send them there from any part OF the Union,
ami in point of fact they generally strangers to
the inhabitants when first chosen They are in no
way responsible to the Territory or its people, but
TO the Federal Government alone, and they may be
removed whenever the President thinks proper. The
Territorial Legislature is sometimes (and only some
tmes) elected by the people; but whyy Because
ganc act The power that gives this privilege
could withhold it too. 1t Is always coupled with
restrictions and regulations which could never be
imposed sovereignty by any authority except
its own The organic act generally prescribes the
qualifications OF voters, and divides the territory
INTO districts and the action of the legislative body
itself is controlled by the veto power of governor
appointed by the President and removable at his
measure 1t is too clear for possible controversy,
that Territory is not sovereign power, but sub
ordinate dependency. 1t cannot deprive man of
his property without due process of law, or with
out Just compensation. for two reasons l. Il has
40 sovereign power of III own and, q The Federal
Government, being forbidden by ths Constitution to
exercise such power itself, cannot bestow II ON a
| Territory. The Constitution Of the United States
protects a mans property from being plundered by
territorial Legislature, just state Constitution
protects it from robbery by the authorities OF a
| city corpOratiOnl
| 1t should be noted that when this question was
| before the Supreme Court Of the United States
| there was some difference Of opinion among the
! Judges on the question whether Congress might, on
might not l.gislatc for Territory in such manner
as 10 take away the right of property in slaves. A