The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-04-21
MIR. DOUGLAS POPULAR SOVEK-
EIGHTY CORRECTLY DEFINED.

SHOWS ciedTly anu iully Indt InlS ldNOrlte Moody
of the Illinois Senator amounts to nothing prac-
tically, as we have all along insisted. The
States is an exponent Of the Douglas policy. 1t
has defended him against the assaults of the
Administration during the whole of his schis-
matte career and it processes to stand by his
policy of non-intervention by Congress with
Slavery in the Territories. The States is, in
fact, the central organ of the Douglas policy,
and its interpretations of that policy are entitled
to all due respect
The article in the States referred to admits
by implication, that Mr.. Douglass "non-inter
vention" is a mere cabalistic phrase, coined
with view to amuse and deceive the people of
the North, while it practically comedies every
thing to Slavery. The editor emphatically
denies that the Non Interventionists admit the
Slavery, for the reason that the bred Scott de-
cision has already determined that neither Con-
gress nor the Territorial Legislature has any
such power. Nothing could be more logical
than this statement of the case, from the stand
point of the States and of Judge Douglas. Both
ness of the old Federal doctrine, that the Su-
preme Court is the final arbter of constitutional
questions; they repudiate with bitter scorn the
State Rights doctrine of Jefferson, that the co
ordinate departments of the Federal Govern
ment-that is to say, the Executive, the two
Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court
have an equal right to interpret the Constitu-
ton, each untrammeled by the decisions of the
other; and the court having already determined
the point in favor of the indefeasible right to
hold slaves in the Territories, the conclusion is
irresistible, from these premises, that the Ter
ritorial Legislatures have no right to prohibit
Slavery.
We subjoin a copious extract from the article
Of the States, which, as we have said, is the
recognised central metropolitan organ of the
Douglas faction of the Democracy. We do so,
that our readers may see that we have not mis-
represented this authoritative exposition of Mr.
Douglass hobby. From the Washington States
of April II:
ave confess ourselves at loss to understand
the obstinacy with which certain of our South
ern contemporaries persist in treating non-in-
tervention, as equivalent to squatter sover-
eighty On their own theory, the denial of the
power in Congress to prohibit Slavery in the
Territories involves a denial of the power to a
derivative and subordinate authority. Their
argument appears to imply that the power how
ever, must exist somewhere; and being with
held from Congress, it results necessarily to the
Territorial Legislature. For our o,on part, zoe
contend that 1t as incompetent for the Federal
Government, an any form Of operation, either
By the immediate erertion of its authority, or
through the agency Of a substitute, to enact an
exclusion Of Staoeyy from the common domain.
This Is our proposition: By the compro-
mise of 1850, the Kansas-N ebraska act, and
other declarations of its will, Congress re-
nounced the exercise of any direct jurisdiction
over the Territories, and delegated its power to
the local Legislatures. The legitimacy of such
substitution is incontestable, since Congress has
always employed the expedient of Territorial
Governments through which to exert its au-
thority; and if it may delegate portion, it
may delegate the whole of its power to these
subordinate institutions. But Congress could
bestOao no authority on the local Legislatures of
~hich 1t aoas not itself possessed; and hence zoe
maintain that transfer Of all ITS authority
does not inoolce the right to prohibit the intro
duct'on and establishment Of Siaueyy IN the Ter
ritOries. This conclusion is IN exact accordance
oih the principle propOunded by the Supreme
Court IN the Drcd Scott case.
" In reply, we will be told that others under.
stand the matter differenty-that General Cass,
for example, afhrms that the Territorial Legis-
latures may enact an absolute exclusion of Sla-
very. 1t Is true, moreover, that vast majority
OF all parties In the North either maintain this
proposition, or else claim the power for Con-
gress. And the inquiry will be, What is your
escape from the dilemma?" We answer at
once, let the courts determine 6et,oeen as and
orr adcersarieS. If the Territorial Legislature
attempt to exercise power in disparagement
of Slavery which the South will not admit within
its jurisdiction, any injured party may carry ats
grievance before the Supreme Court. Is 1t
hazardous to trust that tribunal on the issue /?
We answer, leaving out of view its general wis
dom and integrity, the Supreme Court is knopn
to be reliable, from the fact that 1t happens to
hare prsudged the cery point IN dispute. In
the bred Scott case, it was determined by this
august tribunal that neither Congress nor
fortiOri the local Legislature tchich is the cred
tire Of Congress, can prohibit Slavery in the
| Territories. Years before this decision, Mr..
| Calhoun avowed his perfect willingness to re.
NIT the rights of Slavery in the Territories to
the arbitrament of the Supreme Court The
result has justified has prophetic sagacity; and
ace, 'ohO are ~iSe after the erent, hare positive
assurance Of safety in leacing .Slarery in the
Territories to tie protection Of the courts.
1t is precisely at this point that the adver-
sarles OF non-lntervention aSsail our theory
They say the South has right to demand Con.
gressional enactments for the security of slave
property IN the Territories, and that it is ingo-
nous to abstain from the enforcement of the
right 80, the man in the fable had a right to
shear the wolf, but the exercise of the right in
volyed question OF power and question of
policy. SO the South has a moral and con-
stltutional right to insist on the revival of the
African slave trade; but the exercise of the
right involves issues of policy and physical
power, which the wisest statesmen choose not
to precipitate upon the country"
1t is well known that Mr.. Douglas, like the
States newspaper, subscribes to the Federal. doc
trine that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter
OF constitutional questions, and that in specific
language he has admitted that the bred Scott
decision covers the whole ground He there
fore cannot resist the conclusions arrived at in
the above article of the States, if he would: and
he will not dare to make the attempt, unless
he Is ready to sever the last link that binds him
to the slave oligarchy.
Its true, Mr.. Douglas says, in his Freeport
and other, recent speeches, that the Territories
may exclude Slavery by unfriendly legisla-
tlon' he explains this phrase to mean that
they may refuse to legislate; but we believe
that he has nowhere asserted that by positive
legislation the Territorial Legislatures NAV
prohibit Slavery. He insists that Slavery can
not exist without specific Territorial enact.
| ments Tor Its protection. This nos;t;on 10 ~,