Western sentinel. [volume] (Winston [i.e. Winston-Salem], N.C.) 1856-1886, 1859-11-04

OF the whole controversy is admitted to
be nonentitv. He s'checks his thunder
in mid-volley," and owns that there is no
sovereignty in Territory any more than
in British colony. Other persons may
have ridden their hobbies as hard as Mr.
Douglas; but, since the beginning Of the
world, no man ever disnounted SO sud
denly.
Sovereignty in the Territories of
which we have heard so much, is gener-
ally, if not always, coupled by Mr.. Doug
las with the prefix of s'Eopular." This
last word appears to be used for the mere
sake OF the sound, and without any re-
gard whatever to the sense. It does not T
mean that the people or inhabitants of the
Territories have any supreme power inde- t
pendent of the laws, or above the regular |
ity constituted legal authorities. They |
cannot meet together, count themselves,
and say: Owe are so many hundreds, !
or SO many thousands, and we must there
fore be obeyed the law is in our voice,
and not in the rules which our govern
ment has made to control u.s. Something
like this view was vaguely entertained in
time when the Lecompton constitution was
opposed But that is gone by. Mature
reflection has left mo1ocr0cy without de-
fender. Nobody now insists that the
~ Oui laws COIlStl-
tutions can be exercised by law. Mr..
Douglass himself says: 'sIt can only be
exercised where the inhabitants are suffi-
cient to constitute a government, and ca
| pable of performing its various functions
and duties-a fact to be ascertained and
determined by Congress" The sover-
| eighty, then, is in the government, if it be
anywhere. But Mr.. Douglas now says it
| is not there and he is right That being
the case, where is it!
When Mr.. Douglas, in his speech at
Wooster, was repudiating and denying
the doctrine of sovereignty in the Terrific
ries, and resuming his old position, that
they ar3 not sovereign powers, it would
have been we'll to fall back upon some
thing a little more intelligible than his re-
ports to the Senate, Or his anti Leconr-
ton letter to Philadelphia. Here is the
way he describes sovereignty in his re-
port Of 1856:
ssThe sovereignty of d Territory remains
iaa a6eyuHe peaatlsd ~ Tie mated
aS5otes, sss 5,ssst
shall be admitted into the Union as a
State"
What do these words mean, and in
what possible way can they help us to a
knowledge Of the matter under consi der
ttlOiL L1OCyftftCG IS SOou law IlcllCll,
and signifies the peculiar condition of an
estate after one tenant has died, and be-
fore his successor is competent to take it.
But what application can it have, even by
analogy, to a sovereignty which never
existed! 1t seems, too, that this sovereign
ty is suspended in the United States that
is, hung or dependent from something in
the United States, and not independent
like every other sovereignty under hea-
ven. But the most marvellous part of the
business is that one government which Is
sovereig On is represented as a trustee o
the sovereignty Of another government
which is admitted not to be sovereign
t This is the talk OF a man who has toe
much learning. These technical terms o
, the common law were invented by Eng
lish conveyancers and real property law
yers, for the purpose of expressing the ar
tifcial relations which men sometime
bear to lands, tenements, and heredita
ments but they are wholly inapplicable
to such subject as the sovereignty of
State or nation. We might as we'll cal
territorial sovereignty, a contingent re
mainder, an executory devise, or a specla
fee tail.
There is some confusion of ideas on an
other subject Mr. Douglas and his disciple
,
ident among others) the belief that the
, constitution establishes slavery in the Ter
ritories; and to sustaint this accusator
they quote from message in which EX
IsTENcE of slavery in the Territories 6s
vi1tue of the constellation is asserted OIL
the authority of the Supreme Court
Now we are in the wrong, if the eX
preston that thing exists by virtue o
. the constitution be equivalent to sayin,
that the constitution has established il
/ There is not only a substantial, but
: wide and most obvious difference. The
: constitution does not establish Christiani
E ty in the Territories; but Christianity ex
t lists there by virtue of the constitution
) | because when a Christian moves into
Territory, he cannot be prevented fror
taking his religion along with him, no
: can he afterwards be legally molested TO
s making its principles the rule of his .ait
: and practice.
g We have said, and we repeat, that
: man does not forfeit his right of propert
i in slave by migrating with him to
8 Territory. The title winch the owner ae
: quired IN the State from whence-he cam
) must be respected in his new domicil q
i st was in the old, until it is legally an
c constitutionally divested. the propos
n ton is undeniable. But the absurd infer
b ence which some persons have drawn from
t it is not true, that the master also take
s with him the judicial remedies which wer
S furnished him at the place where his I