Staunton vindicator and general advertiser. (Staunton, Augusta County, Va.) 1858-1860, 1859-10-21

glas denies and repudiates all claim ofsoyer-
eighty for the Territories. He even saws
that he never did regard them as sovereigns.
His words spoken at Wooster, Ohio, and
written out by himself are these:
II NEVER claimed that territorial qoyern-
ments acere sovereign, or that Territories rere
sovereign pocers.
OF course this is not to be understood as
mere naked denial that. be had previously
used those very words. We have no right
to charge Mr. Douglos with adopting the
exploded system of morality, which allows
a man to cover up the truth undsr an equiir-
oque, We are bound to take his denial
fairly, as meaning, that he never thought
the Territories had the rights and powers.
which belong to sovereign governments.
Let US see how this assertion will stand the
test of investigation.
We do not deny, that the article in Har-
per is extremely difficult to understand -
Its unjointed thoughts, loose expression.
and illogical reasoning, have covered it with
shadows, clouds, and darkness. But we
will not admit that it has no meaning at ali.
It is scarcely possible TO mistake the gener-
al purpose Of the author. That purpose
undoubtedly was to prove that the States
end Territories, so far as concerns their in
ternal affairs, have political rights and pow
ers which are precisely equal. In fact. he
declares, in so many words, that Pennsyl-
vania and Kansas are subordinate to the
Constitution in the same aenuner and to
the same ertent." He not ooly levels the
Territories up to the States, but levels the
States down to the Territories If Kansas
has slavery by virtue Of the Constitution,
he insists, that, by the same reasoning,
Pennsylvania has it too. Now we know
Pennsylvania to be sovereign; and if
Kansas be her equal, then Kansas must
necessarily be 4 50. ereign also
But look at the last sentence, which is the
grand summary Of his whole doctrine:
1.-The principle under our political sys-
tenn is that euery diainct political comma
mtg, loyal to the Constitution and the Union
is entitled to all the rights, prioiliges, and
insmunities Of self government in respect to
their local concerns and internal polity, SUBJ
ject only to the Constitution Of the United
States"
Here the States aed Territories are plac-
ed on footing Of perfect equality There is
no distinction made between them If the
States are sovereign, SO are the Territories
Besides, the rights, privileges, and i'm
munlties." which he describes, as pertain
ing to every di tinct political community,
Chat is, TO both States and Territories, are
sovereign rights, and nothing else Any
community which has the independent aud
uncomfortable right Of self government,
with respect to its local concerns and inter-
nal polity, must be, qssoad hoe, sovereign
Again MIR. Douglas, is his speech ~.
Cincinnati, made SO lately as the 9th Sept.
last, used the following uhmistakable Ian
guagc:
Examine the bills and search the rec
ords and you will find that the great prsn
ctple which underIies those measures. {.he
compromise of 1850, is the right Of the
people Of each State and each Territory,
WHILE TERRITORY, to DECIDE the slavery
question for themselves"
Is not this clsiming sovereignty for the
Territories j? Can the slavery question be
decided without legislatipg upon the right
Of property? And can subordinate gov
eminent do that? If the Territories have
power to decide whether man shall keep
his property or not, where did the power
come from Surely not FROM Congress,
through the organic acts they must haze
it, then, upon what Mr Douglas calls a
great principle, and that great principle
can be nothing else than Sovereignty in
the Territories Thus it is seen that Mr.
Douglas makes tour to the West and Gu
his way back be contraa;ots what ho said as
he went out.
There are but two sides to this controversy ::
The Territories are either sovereign pow
ers by natural and inherent right, or else
they are political corporations, owing all
the authority they possess to the acts of
Congress which create tbsm. It is not
possible to believe, that Mr. Douglas wrote
thirty lght columns ia magazine to prove
the truth Of the latter doctrine Nobody
but himself and his followers we're ever ac-
cused Of denying it. If lie did deny it,and
plant himself upon the opposing ground Of
sovereignty IN the Territories, then there
was no dispute, or cause Of division, be-
tween him aud the Democratic party and
he has consequently been engaged in rails
ing an excitement about nothing trying to
toss the ocean Of politics into a tempest,
without having even feather to watt, or
a fly to drown
But that is not all Mr. Douglas has
continually used the uery ,oor1 sovereignty
with reference to the Territories The Sos-
ereignty IN the Territories be has asserted
and re-ssserted 80 often, that the phrase is
in danger Of becoming ridiculous by the
mere frequency with which be repeats it -
For many months he has not made speech
or written letter for the newspapers on
any other subject. 1t heads his elaborate
article in Harper it is vociferated Into the
public ear from the stump and it stares at
US in great capitals from the handbills which
call the people to his meetings. Unless it
be acknowledged, he predicts the hopeless
division of the party, and even threatens
to refuse its nomination for the Presidency
Now, all at once, the subject matter Of the
whole controversy is admitted 20 be non
entity. He 'checks his thunder in mid
volley," and owns that there is no sover-
eighty in Territory any more than in a
British colony Other persons may have
ridden their hobbies as hard as Mr. Doug
las; but since the beginning Of the world
no man ever dismounted SO suddenly.
Sovereignty in the Territories, J" (which
We have heard so much ia generally if MT