Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-10-05

tion be true that sovereign power alone can institute governments, and that the sover- eighty of territory is in abeyance, suspen- ded in the United States in trust for the people when they become State, and that the sovereignty cannot be divested from the hands of the trustee without the assent of Congress, it follows, as an invitable conse quence, that the Kansas legislature did not and could not confer upon the Lecompton convention the sovereign power of ordain- ing constitution for the people of Kansas Tn place of the organic act passed by Con- gress."
 The days are passed and gone when Mir. Douglas led the fiery assaults of the oppo- sltlon Tn the Lecompton controversy. Then 1t was his object to prove that a territorial legislature. so far from being omnipotent, was powerless even to authorize an election | of delegates to consider about their own af- fairs. It was asserted that convention chosen under territorial law could make and ordain no constitution which would be legally binding, Then territorial govern ment was to be despised and spit upon, even when it invited the people to come forward and vote on question of the most vital importance to their own interests But now all things have become new. The Lecompton dispute has "gone glimmering down the stream of things that were," and Mir. Douglas produces another issue, bran new from the mint. The old opinions are not worth rush to the new position; it must be sustained by opposite principles and reasoning totally different. The legis- lature 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 ilea that Mir. Douglas is not perfectly sincere, as he was also when he took the other side The impulses engendered by the heat of controversy have driven him at different times in opposite directions. We do not charge 1t against him as crime that these views of his, inconsistent as: they are with one another, always happen to accord with the interests of the opposition, always give to the enemies of the constitution certain amount of "ad and comfort" and always add little to the rancorous and malignant hatred with which the abolitionists regard the government of their own country.
 Yes; the Lecompton issue which Mir. Douglas made upon the administration two years ago is done, and the principles on which we were then opposed are abandon ed. We are no longer required to fight for tho 1o rf, ,lpocc of orio1 oloot,o,, ho T under territorial authority. But another is- sue is thrust upon us to ''disturb the har- mony 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 a federal territory retains his title to the pro- perty which he took with him until there is some prohibition enacted by lawful author- ty. Mir. Douglas cannot deny this in the face of his New Orleans speech, and :he overwhelming reasons which support it.
 It is an agreed point among all demo- crats that Congress cannot interfere with the rights of property in the territories.
 It is also acknowledged that the people of new State, either in their constitution or in an act of their legislature, may make the negroes within it free, or hold them in a state of servitude.
 But we believe more. We believe-ir submitting to the law as decided by the su preme court, which declares that territo rial legislature cannot, any more than Con gress, interfere with the rights of property in the territory-that the settlers of terri tory are bound to wait until the sovereign power is conferred upon them, with proper limitations, before they attempt to exercis the most dangerous of all its functions.- Mr. Douglas denies this, and there is tn new issue.
 Why sould such an issue be made at snc a time? What is there now to excuse an frienk of peace for attempting to stir up tn bitter waters of strife? There is no actua difficulty about this subject in any territo ry. There is no question upon it pendin, before Congress or the country. We ar called upon to make contest, at once un necessary and hopeless, with the iudical au thority of the nation We object to it, We will not obey Mir. Douglas when h commands us to assault the supreme cour of the United States. We believe the cour to be right and Mr. Douglas wrong.
 ---O~--
 Abstract of the decisions of the SupreY,,