The Nevada Democrat., 1859-01-19
r.rr,torinI Legislation.
The Journal is trying to arrive at solution
of the following problem:

1Ue OOuIftut iS hyluH w ~ oShNNSH
of the following problem:
HAS the Legislature of Territory the right prohibit
slavery by positive enactments, not, and what Ii the
real position Of Judge Douglas on this pointf'
We shall answer the first part of this ques-
ton by giving it as our opinion, that Terri
torial Legislature has the right to prohibit sla-
very by positive enactment. 1t is, however,
question of constitutional law, and not Of party
politics, and as we make no pretensious to be-
ing profound jurist, our opinion may not be
worth much This right was conceded to the
people of the Territories by the Kansas-Ne-
braska act; but we hold that this concession
was nulity, for the reason that the people
had an inherent right to legislate upon the sub
ject, and that Congress could not invest them
with right which they already possessed.
When the Kansas-Nebraska bill was under
discussion in the Senate, Judge Douglas held
that the question of slavery, as we'll as all 9TH
er domestic institutions, belonged properly to
the people of the Territories, and that they
should have the right to legislate upon the sub
iect according to their own incinations. Even
as long ago as 1885, he held to the same doc
trine. In speech delivered at Chicago, speak
ing of the compromise measures of that year,
and of the right of the people of the Terrific
ries to regulate their own domestic institutions.
he said, .These things are all conaded by the
Consti tuition to each State, to decide for ITSELF
and know of no reason why the same princi-
pie should not be confided to the Territories"
He has held to this doctrine ever since.
or course, neither Judge Douglas nor any
one else can say what the decision of the Su-
Dreme Court may be, should the question ever
come before that tribunal for adjudication.
Should that Court set aside an act of Terri
torial lie gislature, prohibiting slavery, on the
ground that it was unconstitutional, the decis-
ion would be contrary to the construction
which Douglas has always given to the Federal
compact. If such decision is ever made. it
will be the duty of eve citizen to submit to it,
until it eau be reversed. II o majority OF the
people disagreed with the Court, they would, if
they regarded the matter of sufficient impor
tance, act in concert, and in such manner as
would effect reversal Of the decision. This
could be effected by reorganization of the
Court, by changing or increasing the number
of Judges. We know of no other means by
which the people can legally and properly re-
verse an unwarrantable decision Of the highest
judicial tribunal. Whatever the decision of the
Supreme Court may be upon this question, we
believe it s admitted by all that the people Of
the Territories will practically have the subject
of slavery in their own hands, where it proper
ly belongs. A decision of the Supreme Court,
that Territorial Legislature has no power to
prohibit slavery, would impose no moral or po-
litical obligation upon the Legislature to adopt
police regulations to protect the institution;
and without such local regulations slavery can
not exist in any Territory where majority of
the people are opposed to the institution.