The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1859-11-02

the power by the Federal government 1ne
rule was SO laid down by Chief Justice Mar
shall It was concurred in by the whole court;
and its correctness has never been denied or
doubted by any judge, lawyer, or statesman
from the time of the decision to this day. 1t,
therefore, there be a sovereignty in the Terri
tories it is sovereignty unlimited by any con-
stitutional interdict. This implies power in
the Territories infinitely greater than that of
any other government in all North America.
The simple and easy solution OF all this diff
fculty is furnished by the Supreme Court, and
adopted by the Democratic party as she true
principle governing the subject 1t is this:
That the Territories are not sovereignties, but
their governments are public corporations, es-
tablished by Congress to manage the local at
fairs of the inhabitants, like the government of
a city, established by State Legislature. In
deed, there is, probably, no city In the United
States, whose powers are not larger than those
of Federal Territory. The people of a city
elect their own mayor, and, diractly or indirect
ly, appoint their municipal officers. But the
President appoints the Chief Executive of a
Territory, as well as the judges. He may send
them there from any part of the Union, and In
point of fact they are generally strangersto the
inhabitants when first chosen. They are In no
way responsible to the Territory or its people,
but to the Federal Government alone, and they
may be removed whenever the President thinks
times (and only sometimes) elected by the peo-
pie; but why? Because Congress has been
pleased to permit it by the organic act. The
power that gives this privilege could withhold
it TOO. It is always coupled with restrictions
and regulations which ceuld never be imposed
on a sovereignty by any authority except its
own. The organic act generally prescribes the
qualifications of voters, and divides the Terri
tory into districts; and the action OF the legls-
= - - j. IL = loI Ixf fha
er of Governor appointed by the President
and removable at his pleasure. 1t is too clear
for possible controversy, that Territory is not
a sovereign power, buta subordinate dependen-
cy. 1t cannot deprive man of his property
without due process of law, or without just
compensation, for two reasons: 1. 1t has
no sovereign power of its own and, z. The Fed
eral Government, being forbidden by the Con-
stitution to exercise such power itself, cannot
bestow it on Territory. The Constitution of
the United States protects mans property
from being plundered by Territorial legisla
ture, just State constitution protects it from
robbery by the authorities of a city corporation.
1t should be noted that when this question
was before the Supreme Court of the United
States, there was some difference of opinion
among the judges, on the question whether
Censrass might might not. lesislate tor
Territory in such manner as to take away the
thirds or more held the negative; and MIR. Doug
las admits that the majority was clearly right.
But no member of the Court expressed the
opinion, nor was it even thought of by the
counsel, that the Territories had any such in
herent and natural power of their own. In
deed there is no judge of any grade or charac-
ter, nor any writer on law government, who
has ever asserted or given the least counten-
anee to this notion of popular or any other kind
of sovereignty IL. the Territories.
Some trouble will be saved in this part of
the argument, by the fact that since the first
publication of this pamphlet, Mr.. Douglas de-
nies and repudiates all claim of sovereignty for
the Territories. He even says that he never
did regard them as sovereigns. His words
spoken at Wooster, Ohio, and written out by
himse If are these:
"I NsvER claimed that territorial govern
n'cnts sorereigr, or that the territories scere
sovereign pouers"
Of course this is not to be understood as a
mere naked denial that he had previously used
those very words. We have no right to charge
Mr.. Douglas with adopting the exploded sys-
TEN of morality, which allows a man to cover
up the truth under equiuoque. We are
bound to take his denial fairly, 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 Harper
is extremely difficult to understand. Its un-
jointed 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 ALL 1t is scarcely possible
to mistake the general purpose of the author.
That purpose undoubtedly was to prove that
the States and Territories, so far as concerns
their internal affairs, have political rights and
powers which are precisely equal In fact, he
declares, in so many words, that Pennsylvania
and Kansas are subordinate to the Constitution
t'in the same manner and to the same ertent."
He not only levels the Territories up to the
States, but levels the States down to the Ter
ritories. 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 neces-
sarily be sovereign also.
But look at the last sentence, which is the
grand summary of his whole doctrine:
''The principle under our political system is
that every distinct political community, legal to
the Constitution and the Union, IS entitled to
all the rights, privileges, and in,munsties of
selfgsvernment in respect to their local con-
serns and internal ernall policy, subject only to the
Constitution Of the United States"
mere the states ana lerr1tOrleS are placed 1
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 immunities," which
he describes as pertaining to every distinct po-
litical community, Chat is, to both States and |
Territories,) are sovereign rights, and nothing
else. Any community which has the indepen-
dent and uncomfortable right of self-govern-
ment, with respect to its local concerns and in
ternal polity, must be, quoad hoe, sovereign
Again MIR. Douglas in his speech at Gin !
cinnati, made so lately as the 9th of Septem-
Der last, used the following unmistakablo Ian
guage:
sExamine the bills and search the records |
]" and you will find that the great principle
!" which underlies those measures (the compro-
]" mise of 1850 is the right of the people of |