Daily national Democrat., 1859-12-02
From the New York Tlmes.
Popular Sovereignty.
.IEws oF nEvERpY IonNsoN.
WAsulNerox. MondaY. Oet.

WASHINGTON, Monday, Oct. 80
A pamphlet of as pages, BY a Southern
Citizen" understood to he the Hon. Reyerdy
johnson, late Attorney Gonerll of the United
States and one Of the most eminent lawyers
in America, is now in press with the follow
ing title:
Remarks on Popular Sovereignty. as main
tanned and denied respectively by .J"dge Doug
las and Attorney General Black. BY
SOUTHERN CITIZEN"
Mr. Johnshn will be remembered as having
been the chief c, unset on the Southern side
Of the Dred Scott case, which involved the
question of slavery in the Terrt rries.
have been permitted by friend to read
the proof sheets and make an abstract of this
important document. 1t is powerful and
mastery exposition Of the subject of which
it treats II is written in the spirit of fair
ness and candor. and exhausts the subject
He establishes the following propositions:
First-That Congress has no power to pro-
hihit slavery in the UNoRGANrzED TERRITORIES.
His position is established by the Dred Scott
case
Second-That Congress has no power to
prohibit slavery in the Territories after they
have been ORGANIZED UNDER TERRITORIAL Gov
ERNMENr.
Third-That Congress has no power to es-
tsblish slavery in Territory. Slavery is the
creature of positive law, which may exist
either by statute or custom.
Fourth-That If Congress can neither pro-
hibt nor establish slavery in Territory, 1t
cannot legislate to protect or regulate it. lie
reproves the doctrine of Mr. Buchanan.
Slavery exists by virtue of the Constitution,
and shows that the Dred Scott case sanctions
no such doctrine-that cit is altogether an
Executive impression md blurder. not less
original than errOneous'-that according to
the doctrine of the Supreme Court in the
Dred Scott case, "it clearly follows that to
legislate to protect the Institution, is rs much
beyond the Congressional authority as to leg
slate to prohibit or establish it, and conse-
quently all Of them are among the powers
reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people,
Fifth-The fifth proposition is stated in
these words: "The remaining and last ques-
tion propose to examine is: Can the Terri
torial Government admit. protect or exclude
slavery at any time during its existence ?"
The distinguished writer maintains the affirma.
tive of this proposition with great ability
He Gays:
"lt would seem to be an anomaly in our
That slavery, an artificial instead of natur.
al condition, should be beyond the reach of
human power, under any form of Govern
m-nt and should be admitted, protected and
extended in violation Of the wishes Of the
people with whom it is, or is to be, and in
disregard Of the wishes of all branches of the
Government. and of all genera or local law
is doctrine so extraordinary that it almost
dot bumun nd Nn sh t,f
demonstration can he given to bring such
judgment to a satisfactory conclusion in its
support; and when we reflect on the length
of time during which this state of things is
to prevail the doctrine becomes vet more
startling.
He then reviews the Dred Scott decision.
md shows clearly that all the positions and
principles affirmed by it are in harmony with
he doctrines of popular sovereignty in the
Terrtorities, as explained by Judge Douglas
n Harper's Magazine, and concludes as fol- |
ows:
"As has been seen, this doctrine is not only |
ot inconsistent with the opinion of the Su- |
rene Court, but maintained by its prinei
les"
lie next proceeds "to show that it has the
learest Congressional, Democratic and Ex-
cutive sanction
Here he reviews the compromise measures
t 1850, and the Kansas Nebraska legislation
1854. to prove that they were intended
nd understood at the time to establish the
octrine of popular sovereignty in the Terri
ries. and add:
Does it maintain Judge Douglas doctrine
Mess language has lost its use, and serves
ily to mislead and delude, no other meaning
n lie given to it"
After reviewing all the authorities on this
lint, he arrives at the following conclusion: ]
Whatever. therefore, under this act. the
eOple of State can do, the people of Ter
tory can do; the sole limitation upon the
lthority of either is declared to be in the
constitution Of the United States"
lie next proceeds to instance the absurdi-
! of Judge Blacks "aXiomatIc principle of
nblic law" for the protection of slave pro -
erty iu the Terri ories under the laws of the
tate from which they were removed, as fol-
)ws:
"But if their can be no Legislative action
y the Territory, what law is TO regulate the
lights and to furnish the remedies? Are
hese to be as various hs the laws of the sew
raj States from which the properly was ta-
zen? Are the rights to sell and dispose Of |
uch or and other property, to depend on |
uch laws2 Then, an immigrant from one
State might sell each slave singly. while one
rom another could not sell At all if the sale
separated man and wife, parent and child
In one case slaves would he liable to execu-
ton for debt in the lifetime of the owner. or
to sale at his death for payment Of his debts
or distribution, and in the other, not. In
one, the children of a slave mother might
belong to her owner, in the other not. In
ore they might be free, in the other not. In
one troVer might be the remedy, in the 9th
er not. in one resistance by the slave to the
owner might be punished with death, in the
other, not In the one, the mode of feeding
and working might he prescribed.
in the other, not. In the one, slaves might
be considered as real estate, and so to be dis
posed Of during his life or at death. in the
other not And what is true as to this spe-
cies of property, is true of ALL"
He illustrates this position faIther by re
ference to the laws of different States and
countries upon the subject iof Farming and
its implements, its cares and its hire" which
are property in some places; by reference to
where it is authorized bv law.
and to lotteries, which are still lawful in
some States, and also by reference to some
which have recently been held by he Courts
to be property in New York, but not in
South Carolina
The distinguished jurist next proceeded to
show that Judge Black is mistaken in sup
posing that private property could be law
fully seized and taken without compensation,
where there is no constitutional provision
upon the su6ject-and that the title to pro-
Perty is found in the nature of society and
civil Government"-that it existed before
Magma Charta or constitutions-and cites the
opinion Of Chief Justice Marshall in the case