Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1859-11-09

ines the power of the Territories thus: '"rhey
possess legislative power, which is only another
form of expression for sovereign power, over all
rightful of legislation in respect to their
internal Pollty, subject, Of course to the Const-
tuition of the United State" This definition is.
somewhat wanting in perspicuity and definite
ness. What arc the ''rightful subjects of leg
islation" in respect to 'their internal polity ?"
And how far are they Subject to the constitu-
tion?" These are questions which are left
unsettled, yet they form the very gist of the
main controversy. If Senator D. includes
amongst the rightfuI subjects of Territorial legs
islation, all questions relating to the internal
polity of the Territories; then we understand
him, aud it is only fair to presume that this is
what he does mean. The condition, Subject
to the Constitution, &C., is used simply to quail
y their legislative power just ash he would use it
to qualify the legislative power of the States of
the Union. With this construction, 0he ouly
one his language will admit of,) we are to un-
derstand Senator D. as affirming the full, COM
plete sovereignty of the Territories with respect
to their internal polity, except that, like the
States, the87are prohibited from such acts in
the nature OF sovereignty as are contrary to the
Constitution of the United States.
Assuming this to be true, let us inquire, first:
How did the Territories deprive themselves of
that portion of sovereignty which, as Senator
DIS definition implies, is retained by the Con-
stitution or, in other words, how did they
''subject" themselves to the Constitution p
Not as the States have doue by express cession
to Congress, for whilst they remain Territories
they are not yet parties to the Federal Com
pact. Why should they surrender power into
the hands of the Federal Government when
they receive Ito equivalent in the way of repree
sentation, or voice in such government? The
only;soution of the problem thus presented is,
that the Territories remain without that portion
of sovereignty which Senator D. takes from
them, because, in fact, they never possessed it,
or, as we might otherwise express it, that par
ticuar sovereignty remains with Congress, be-
cause there is where it originally belongs.
We thus advance step in the investigation
of the difficult question. For, if we find por-
ton of the sovereignty Of the territories existing
originally in Congress, and sovereignty is in its
nature exclusive, we are forced to the conclusion
lu"I 1uc CtG|0 sovereignty oIlSInally cHlStS III
Congress, and must still exist there, unless there
is an express delegation of the same to the Ter
ritorics themselves.
Here we ought to be content to leave to Sens
ator Douglas and Judge Black the discussion of
the question: Whether Congress has in fact
delegated to the Territories already organized
full legislative sovereignty with respect to their
internal poIity," and especially with respect
to slavery, That is n question which we arc
now not called on to look into. We are salts
fed with the result, which, taking Senator DIS
own definition as the basis of our examination,
we have arrived at, to wit: That Congress has
full sovereignty over the territories, except in
SO far as it may have delegated the same to the
Territories themselves. by express legislative
Act.
We now leave the question, proposing to ex-
anime some time hereafter, the equally contra
dictory and fallacious position of Senator D. that
Territorial legislative power extends to all subs
jects CT external polity.