The Nevada Democrat., 1859-01-12
Judge Douglas and Jefferson Davis-Terri-
tOrial Leglslatfon.

Judge Douglas and Jefferson Davis-Terri-
torial Legislation.
In our last issue we quoted an extract from
speech Of Jefferson Davis, made at Portland,
Maine, to show that his position was identical,
in one respect, with that OF Douglas. The
Journal, in alluding to our remarks on the quo
tation says:
% The DEMOCRAT states it would puzzle hair
splitting politician to discover particle Of difference be-
tween the position of Jefferson Davis and Judge Douglas
ritory 10 prohibit slavery We can assure the
DEMocRAf there wide difference between Douglas and
Davis, on this question, shall proceed to show"
The Journal then goes on to show, by quota
tions from Davis Jackson speech, that his po-
sition could not be reconeiled with that Of
Douglas, deduction which few would attempt
to controvert Davis, unlike Douglas, has one
set of opinions for the North and another for
the South. While in the North, be held that
slavery could not be legally forced upon the
people of Territory; but in Mississippi he toek
a directly opposite position-that the people Of
Territory could not prohibit slavery in their
midst even if such was their desire. In allu-
ding to their position, we had reference to the
Northern position of Senator Davis.
The Journal further says, that allowing the
Dred Scott decision to be correct, and the law
of the land, the position taken by Judge
Douglas at Freeport amounts to virtual and
actual notification. This idea is undoubtedly
advanced under the suppostion that the indi-
vidual opinions of the Supreme Judges are q
portion of the decision in the Dred Scott case.
The only point actually decided in that case
was that negroes are not citizens of the United
States under the Constitution, and upon this
point, which was concurred in by q majority Of
the Judges, the ruling was made. Judge Ia
ney it is true, held that Congress had no right
to prohibit slavery in the Territories, and that
Congress could not confer that right upon the
Territorial Legislature; but q majority of the
Judges did not concur with him on this point,
and his individual opinion cannot be construed
as portion of the law of the land. Admit
ting, however, that the opinion of Judge Taney
is correct, the case is not altered 80 far as the
rights of the people Of the Territories are con-
cerncd. They will still have an inherent right
right not derived from Congress but apper-
tanning to the sovereignty-to establish or pro-
hibit such institutions as they may think pro-
per. All rights not granted to Congress by the
Constitution, are expressly reserved to the peo-
pie; and if the right to prohibit or establish
slavery in the Territories is not among the
powers conferred upon Congress, then that right
is reserved to the people themselves. If the
power is vested in Congress, it has already
been delegated to the people of the Territories
by the Nebraska bill; and there is no probable
ity that the Nebraska legislation will ever be
1t matters not, therefore, which
way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide
this question, the right Of the people Of the
Territories to regulate their own institutions,
in their own way, is still complete and perfect.