Dallas herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1849-1873, 1859-09-28

Stephen A Douglas writes tor Harp
MAGAZINE.

1
MAGAZINE
There isno use donying OF trying to qualify th,
truth. There Is no sense in hugging the flatter
ing unoilun Of doubt on that score to tho soul
The whole tnoHni,y Of the thing might as we'll b.
confessed at once. That 10 to say, IL might Al
we'll ho given up tha, the American people, II
judge BY tleir representative men," are not
dist nggsh6l lor their massive dignity, for solid
comp posure, on lus an esthetio sense OF decorum
II might AZ sell be gpnted that they are intense
lovers p. The sensational, Of the strange and un,
couth, o. The bizarre and thaumaturgcal. For
is not All this an unmiigated fact which no soph,
isiry can disguieo Or evade Indeed il 10. as the
French gurualists say, an immense fact.
Thaumaiurgyi specula,ing upon sensation takes
Iposaesa'qn OF The stage, and displays most un-
mistlklble tgagicil power In its execution (mur-
lder, vlgariy sPeaking,) of the drama. Thau'
lmntur,y enters the pulpit aud is not content un-
weep lHi devils siare. Thaumaturgy ascends
the tig',.yope, tad at dizzy.heights over deadly
Igurs, cuts such sntics that tho fame Of Sam
Patch grove rale before the new glory. Thau-
imatursy plunges into politics, and, to mention
no otbcr ieats OF wondrous sophistry, We have
the hugo and bewil lering abnormity Of Squatter
Soysregnty--thAt Frankenstein monster Stephen
A. Douglas. Theumaturgy revels in literature,
u dablucbos publishers, it seduces both old and
ish nay, it drags into the literary avocation
men who are Mother to that manner born, nor in
tho acboul OF professional practice educated, and
so---Edward Everett writes weekly essays and
skstohes r1r the New York Ledger, James Gordon
Bsnratt writes poetry for the New York Ledger,
Ennny Fern writes unwomanly slang for the New
York Ladger, Syvanus Cobb, Jr., writes impos-
sibo stories for the New York Ledger, ana Ste
pheu A. Douglas writes fallacious theories of
government fUI darper's New Monthly magazine.
n This last must be confessed, is the most
VNutpstic feat Of thaumaturgy yet. The arrange
ueut between the gifted contributor and the
shreWd publisher, was doubtless for their mutual
advantage, Douglas wanted access to Harper's
hundred and odd thousand readers, number
which, in spite of the most liberal use Of the
ranking privilege he could scarcely count on
reaching. Harper wanted the prestige OF Doug
lGs s nAme--hs Wanted to have the Little Giant
on his list OF tirst.class contributors-he wanted
10 tame the loonine Illinois politician, 80 famous
out West for whipping bis weight in wild CATS"
ana keep him on hand to be trOtted out on grand
occasions ior tremendous thaumaturgcul effect.
But equal benefits to contracting parties do not
algays imply that the benefits will como up to
the expectations of either, and in this case it is
altogether possible that Douglas and Harper may
derry, mutual profit and both be sadly disappoint-
ed At least it strikes us that the fate OF the
new contributor in this instance, may be to attain
q larger circulation, with fewer readers, than
might have been had under the old process Of
getting POLITICAL llucubrations before the people.
Readers look for light, not for heavy reading in
a magazine. They expect it to contain species
Of intellectual dessert. to bo partaken after the
meat ce,lyses are over. But here we have hugo
meat dlsh-inGescribably cooked somewhere out
West, and certainly without any regard for the
wholesome precepts of Soyer-presented under
q desert cover. Not that only the dish is cold
and stale besides, and, down South at least, has
far from pleasant or appetizing odor.
The Dividing Line between Federal and Local
authority; Popular Sovereignty in the Terrific
ries Such is the title of the new contribution
to HGrper's in question. As to the matter of
this production, we have heard all its learning
ard its argument before, from the same source,
and experienced readers will be quite as little
Dr. Primrose was by the repetition of the ras
caIy Jenkinson's 8 erudite speech respecting the
,oosmogony of the world" AS to its style, it
has neither the literary graces bo6tting mag
azine article nor the racy vigor of Weatern
stump speech. AS to its logic, though tolera-
Bile clever piece Of special pleading it won't hold
water, or draw water, and is only unlike a sieve
in that respect by having but one hole its bottom,
or rather in having no bottom at all Its very IT,
lie involves falacy, and it's first sentence begs
she whole question. "Under our complex system
IF government" 80 runs the sentence, sit is the
first duty of American statesmen to mark dis
tinctly the dividing line between Federal and Lo-
cal authority" Local authority is but another
name for Poptlar or Squatter Sovereignty, and 30
Mr.. Douglas assumes at the start, that beyond
the limits of Federal authority, Squatter Sow
ereignty occupies the whole domain-the rights
Of the States, and of their citizens as such, be-
ing left no room for development whatever. Now
II may seem bold to assert, but it is ncontrovert
bly true nevertheless, that the distinction upon
which Mr.. Douglas builds his whole argument
ioes not exist 1t has no color of justification in
The Constitution which was expressly framed to
mark the dividing line between powers conferred
ind powers not conferred upon the Federal Gov
,rnment. All those dividing lines are between
Federal and State authority. and the rights of
,itizans everywhere, never between Federal and
local authority. Federal authority is constitu
lily limited by the rights Of the States theii cit
zens, and the citizens Of the United States u
But the Constitution establishes no limits to
Territories; for Territories are created by the
federal Government, and far from possessing
riginal authority that limits Federal authority;
,ossess only such powers as the Federal Govern
nent sees fit to confer. The people of those Ter
itories, of course, have rights, which, under |
he Constitution, limit the action of the Federal
Government; but all those rights appertain to !
hem as citizens of the several States or Of the
Juited States, and consequently are not local,
ut, in constitutional theory, universal rights.
Mr.. Douglas must reconsider his premises it
e would conduct us to logical conclusions. At
resent the fundamental distinction he draws is a !
fundamental nonentity. The tub of his argu-
lent has no bottom to stand upon, and no amount
thaumaturgicai genius on his part as contibu-
Or, ana on Harpere part as publisher, can ssre
from falling to pieces.
RAraEa CurrfNu.-Some few years before Dam
j Websters death, the same raft of scurrilous
ditors who now occasionally disgrace themselves
y malignlng his memory, because they could
OF bend him to their sectional and narrow pur-
oses, were in the habit of personally attacking