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


q man shall keen his property or not, where
did the power come from? Surely not from
Congress through the organic acts. They
must have it then upon what Mr.. Douglas calls
a oreat principle, and that great principle can
be nothing else than "Sovereignty in the Ter
ritories." Thus it is seen that Mr.. Douglas
makes tour to the West, aud on his way back
he contradicts what he said as he weEt out.
There are but two sides+o this controversy:
The Territories either sovereign powers by
natural and inherent right, or else they are
political corporations, owing all the authority
they possess to the acts of Congress which Gre
ate them It is not possible to believe, that
Mr. Douglas wrote thirty-eight columns in a
magazine to prove the truth of the latter doc
trine Nobody but himself and bis followers
were ever accused of denying it. If he did
not deny it, and plant himself upon the oppos-
ing ground of sovereignty IN the Territories,
then there was no dispute, ,or cause of division,
between him and the democratic party; ard he has
con sequently been engaged in raising an excite
ment about nothing;-trying to toss the ocean of
politics into a tempest, without having even
feather to watt, or fly to drown.
Bat that is not all. Mr. Douglas has contin-
ually used the yery ,oord 4ucreignty with refer
ence to the Territories. This sovereignty IN
the Territories he has asserted and re-asserted
becoming ridiculous by the mere frequency
with which he 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 yo-
ciferated into the public car from the stump;
and it stares at us in great capitals from the
hand-bills which call thepeople to his meetings.
Unless it be acknowledged, te predicts the
hopeless division of the party, and even threat
ems to refuse its nomination for the Presidency.
Now, all at once, the subject-matter OF the
whole controversy is admitted to be nonenti-
ty. He "checks his thunder in mid-volley,"
and oATns that there is no sovereignty in Ter
ritory any more than British colony. Other
persons may have ridden their hobbies as hard
as Mr.. Douglas; but, since the beginning of the
world, no man ever dsmounted so suddenly.
"Sovereignty in the Territories, of which we
have heard so much, Is generally, If not always,
coupled by Mr.. Douglas with the perfx of
tpop,s1ar." This last word appears to be used
for the mere sake of the sound, and without
any regard whateverto the sense. 1t does not
mean that the people or Inhabitants of the Ter
ritories have any supreme power independent
of the laws, or above theSegularly constituted
legal authorities. They cannot meet together,
count themselves, and say: 1--WE are SO many
hundreds, or SO many thousands, and we must
and not in the rules which our Government
has made to control u.s." Something like this
view was vaguely entertained in times when
the Lecomption constitution was opposed
But that is gone by. Mature reflection has
left n,o6ocracy without defender. Nobody
now insists that the righs to make or annul
laws and constitutions can be exercised in vol
untary mass meetings or at elections unauthor-
lied by law Mr.. Douglas himself says: 'sIt
can only be exercised where the inhabitants
are sufficient to constitute a government, and ca
pable of performing ats rarious functions and
duties fact to be ascertained and determined
by Congress" The sovereignty, 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 Territories, and resumiing
his old position, that they are not sovereign
powers, it would have been well to fall back
upon something little more Ineligible than
his reports to the Senate, or his anti-Lecomp-
ton letter to Philadelphia. Here is the
way he describes sovereignty in his report Of
1856:
"The sovereignty of Territory remains tn
allegiance, suspended in the United States, an
trust for the people until they shall be admitted
into the Union as State"
What do these words mean, and in what
possible way can they help us to a knowledge
of the matter under consideration? A6eyance
is good law French, and signifies the peculiar
condition of an estate after one tenant has died,
and before his successor is competent to take
it. But what application can it have, even by
analogy, to sovereignty which never existed
1t seems, too that this sovereignty is suspended
IL T.. kl-4.z
from something in the United States, and not
heaven. But the most marvellous part of the
business is that one government which is SOW
erign is Represented as a trustee of the SOW
ereignty of another government which is ad-
mitted not to be sovereign. This is the talk
of man who has too much learning. These
technical terms of the common law were invent
ed by English conveyancers and real property
lawyers, for the purpose of expressing the ar
tifcial relations which men sometimes bear to
lands, tenements, and hereditaments; but they
are wholly inapplicable to such subject as
the sovereignty of State or naticn. We
might as we'll call territorial sovereignty, a
contingent remainder, an executory devise, or
a special fee tail.
There is some confusion of ideas on another
subject. Mr.. Douglas and his disciples ascrib-
to certain democrats Ito the President among
others) the belief that theConstituton establish
cs slavery in the Territories; and to sustain
this accusation they quote from message in
which the EXISTENCE of slavery in the Terri
tories By virtue of the Constitution is asserted
on the ithority of the Supreme Court Now
we are in the wrong, if the expression that
thing erists by virtue of the Constitution be
equivalent to saying that the Constitution has
established it. There is not only substantial,
but wide and most obvious difference. The
Constitution does not establish Christianity
in the Territories but Christianity exists
there by virtue of the Constitution because
when Christian moves into Territory,
he cannot be prevented from taking his re
igion along with him, nor can he afterwards
be legally molested for making its principles
the rule of his faith and practice.
We have said, and we repeat, that man
does not forfeit his right of property in a slave
by migrating with him to Territory. The
title which the owner acquired in the State
cro,,, he oo,,,o ,ousk he rocraofad his