The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-05-05
The Slavery Question In the Territories-The
Power Versus the Policy Of Congress.

Power Versus the Policy Of Congress.
We transfer to this paper late leading article
| from the Washington Constitution, defeing the
| important distinction between popular So
yereignty We. squatter sovereignty" over the
subject Of slavery in the Territories Of the United
States. In the course of the said article it is
declared that "the principles emblazoned on the
democratic banner are non-intervention by Con-
eress or BY the Territorial Legislatures either to
establish or prohibit slavery in the Territories,
and the protection of slave property therein, as
long as the Territorial condition shall remain.
by the Judiciary, under the constitution Of the
United States;" that "we stand by the bred
Scott decision Of the Supreme Court, which Sc
cures to the people of the States the right to
emigrate to and remain in any Territory" &C.,
and that 1--WE are therefore forced to say that the
constitution inhibits the several Territorial Legs-
| latures from abolishing property in slaves, aud
| the came prohibition applies to the people Of
Territory till they come to form a constitution"
Now, in reply to these bold assumptions and
! declarations, we have first to say that the
| principle" Of non-intervention, as cxpounded
| by our Washington contemporary, is not "embla-
zoned on the democratic banner" It has been
declared the policy of the party in some quarters
but between q matter Of policy and principle
there is margin Of difference. Policy may be
mere thing of discretion; but principle is
generally accepted as a fixed and binding. rule of
action. Thus, the rendition Of fugitive slaves
is constitutional principle; but the precise
agencies and processes Of law under which such
flgitives shall be returned to their owners are
left to the discretion Of Congress. Ii regard to
the Territories, so far as there is any constitu-
tional principle on the subject it is embodied in
these words "The Congress shall have power
to dispose of and make all needful rules aud
regulations respecting the territory or other
property belonging to the United States"
Under this constitutional provision the power
Of Congress, down to the year 1850, was practi-
caIy construed as compromising sovereign jul
risdiction over the Territories. Thus the Mis-
souri, Compromise act Of 1920, aboishing slavery
in the Territories north Of SO 80, was permitted
to stand supreme law Of the land till 1850,
and even then, while that line of prohibition was
not extended, it was not touched. A different
principle however, was applied to California,
Utah and New Mexico the cloudy principle of
popular sovereignty" It was not till 1854
that the Missouri line of slavery restriction was
abolished and then, in the Kansas Nebraska bill,
this principle was adopted, to w.t:-"That the
true intent and meaning Of this act is not to le-
gislate slavery into any Territory, nor to exclude
1t therefro, but to leave the people thereof per-
fectly free to regulate their domestic institutions
| in their own way, subject only to the constitu-
| ton Of the United States" This is what Thomas
H. Benton called "the stump speech in the belly
Of the bill, /" and most disastrous stump speech
to the democracy it has proved to be-
Subject only to the constitution" A very
important condition, and an exceedingly trouble
some one to all concerned. We are told, how
ever, that the bred Scott decision of the Su-
preme Court leaves no doubt upon the subject
that it establishes the right Of Southern men
to settle with their slave property in any Ter
ritory of the Union, and that it denies to Con-
gress and the Territorial authorities the power to
interfere prejudicially with their slave property
Nay, more-while Gov. Wise, in general essay
Of twenty formidable newspaper columns in
small type, contends that ii is the duty Of Con
gress to egislate for the protection of slavery in
the Territories, the Washington Constitution, as
s'iining to speak for the democratic party, de
clares 1t the duty Of the federal courts, unde
the Dred Scott decision, to protect slavery in the
Territories and that neither Congress nor th
local authorities have the right to interfere with
it. On the other hand Mr.. Douglas. who as
sumes to be democratic expounder of the con.
stitution, says that the bred Scott decision is all
right; that Congress cannot intervene but that
the Territorial authorities by local police regu-
lations, &C., may encourage or exclude the intro
duction Of slavery under this bred Scott deci
sion.
"Who shall decide when such doctors disa.
greer Clearly there is no established principle
Oh the subject, legislative, judicial, COMPRESSION
o. or local With all lie party clamor argu
!-eGss, eaeoial,.l..s 49,. ..a&-.i..ya, la. SO