The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-11-10

/ power" can there be any sovereignty OF the
| people? Why talk, then, of popular sover
eighty in Territory Clearly, it seemed for
no honest purpose.
We sought to know what rights Mr. Douglas
| did claim for the people of a Territory. We
found his own statement in Senate report,
made by himself as chairman of the Committee
on Territories, and quoted by him in that same
Wooster speech. Z" The sovereignty of Terri
tory" he says in that report, "remains in abey-
ance, suspended in the United States, in trust
for the people, until they shall be admitted into
the Union as a State. In the mean time, they
are permitted to exercise and enjoy all the
rights and privileges Of selfgOvesnment, to be
exercised IN subordiRation 10 the Constitution
and IA obedience to the organic Iai0."
Here we have it. This is the Douglas doc
trile of popular sovereignty-the fright of
selfgovernment in subordination to the Consti-
tuition and in obedience to the organic law"
The people of Territory have no sovereignty.
1t is suspended-it is not very clear where
but certainly suspended. 1t cannot be vested
in the people until they come into the Union
as State. :" In the mean time and very
mean time it is" they are admitted how
gracious that is +" to exercise and enjoy the
rights of selfgovernment in subordination to
the Constitution and in obedience to the or
ganic law" / pass over, tonight, the limita-
ton Of subordination to the Constitution -
though the whole wickedness of the bred Scott
decision is covered up in it-and ask your at
tention to that other limitation, obedience to
the organic law"
The people of a Territory must obey the
organic law" They have only such rights of
selfgovernment as they may exercise in ODE
| dience to that.
The popular sovereignty taught by Jefferson
1 tod in h.. 10 g. of
government from the consent of the governed.
There can be 10 genuine popular sovereignty,
according to his teaching, where the people do
not institute their own Government-frame
their own "organic law
Now, how is it vita "nly doctrine?" Why,
my doctrine refers the power of organizing
the Government of the Territories to Congress.
Mr. Douglas himself framed the organic act
the fundamental law-the Constitution of Kan
sas and Nebraska. Congress, by enactment,
gave it being and vitality. Neither the people
of Kansas nor the people of Nebraska were
consulted at all about their institutions The
consent of the governed had nothing to do
with the powers of the Government. Those
powers are derived in Kansas and Nebraska,
and every other Territory, from the act of Con-
gress which Mr.. Douglas calls the organic law.
When he says, therefore, that the rights of
ence to the organic law, he says, in reality,
they are to be exercised in obedience to Con-
gress.
What kind Of popular sovereignty have we
here? Does not this sham cut rather a sorry
figure by the side Of the grand old verify of
Thomas jefferson?
But now let US look into "my Kansas Ne
braska BILL" and see what powers of selfgov-
eminent the people may exercise ain obedience
to the organic act" Every really selfgovern-
ing people must exercise, through agents ap-
pointed by ITSELF in such form as itself may
prescribe, legislative, judicial, and executive
powers. In other words, it must make, con-
strue, and execute its own laws.
Now, we have already seen that with the
making of its fundamental law the people of
Kansas or Nebraska had nothing whatever TO
do. Mr. Douglas and Congress made it. But,
passing over this, how much legislative, ju-
dicial, and executive power does the organic
act allow to the people? 1t vests "the legis-
lative power in the Governor and Legislative
Assembly," fixes the number of members of
each branch of the Legislature provides for
their pay determines how many days they
may sit; and then subjects all their acts to
the veto of the Governor. Not much popular
sovereignty here Not much "power of self
government in obedience to the organic act"
where no bill can become a law without the
approval of the Governor, unless passed by
vote of two-thirds of the members of each
House
But this is not the worst of it. The Governor,
thus made constituent element of the legisla-
tive power and clothed with the prerogative of
the veto, is not elected by the people of the Ter
ritory, but appointed by the Federal Govern
ment through the President. Thus we see that
al Ill
legislative power. What executive power
does it give them2 None whatever That
power is vested in Governor, or, in his alb
sence in Secretary, and both are appointed
by the President Where then, finally, does
the organic act vest the supreme judicial power2
In a Supreme Court. Do you say, then,
"Well, the people certainly elect their own
Judges" you do, you are mistaken; for the
Judges are all appointed by the President What
powers of selfgovernment, then, repeat, have
the people of Territory I" in obedience to the
organic law?" No executive power, no Judi
cial power, and, practically, no legislative
power, except in subjugation to the Federal
Executive. In other words, here is people,
organized as a political community, by act of
Congress, without power to make, construe, or
execute their own laws. Can we fail to admire
in the organic law by which they are thus sub
jugated, my doctrine of popular sovereignty p"
Now, these violations of every Just principle
Of true selfgovernment were not inadvertent or
accidental. When this Kansas-Nebraska bill
of Mr.. Douglas was under discussion, |, as your
Senator, objected TO the veto power proposed
to be given the Governor, but without avail.
proposed amendments, giving to the people the
power to elect their own Governor their own
Secretary, and their own Judges, and these
amendments were voted down by Mr.. Douglas
and his confederates in the repeal of the Mis-
souri, prohibition against the extension of Sla-
very. 1t was premeditated thing-this strip
ping of the people of every attribute and func-
ton of sovereignty, and this subugation ofthem
to the will and control of the President Nor
is the purpose hard TO guess. The President
was the servant Of the Slave Power, and his will
and control was the will and control of the oil
garchy
just one thing further in this connection.
Does this organic act enable the people to ex-
clude Slavery? Mr.. Douglas tells us that he
regards slaves as property, recognised as such
by the Federal Constitution; that slaves taken
into the Territories remain property; and that
neither a Territorial nor a State Legislature
has right to deprive an owner of his property
without his consent except for public use, upon
due compensation. Still, he saws, a Territorial
Legislature, by unfriendly legislation or by non
action, may control Slavery so as to make slave
holding impracticable, Or what is the same
thing, inconvenient and Improbable. But this
is not what we want. Such legislative action,
if we admit that slaves taken into Territory
remain property, and that this property in man
is recognised by the Constitution, can hardly
be indicated as honest or constitutional. What
we want for the people of Territory-what
they want for themselves substantive, suf
fcient, and efficient power, plainly recognised
in the organic act, to exclude Slavery-to pre-
vent its introduction--to keep IL out. Have