The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1859-11-02

1
of his property without due process OF law, "r
without just compensation, for two reasons: !.
1t has no sovereign power Of its own; and 2.
The Federal Government being forbidden by
the COnsiitu ion to exercise such ITSELF cannot
bestOw it on a Territory. The Constitution Of
the United States protects a mans property
from being plundered by Territorial Legisia-
ture, Just as State ecOnStItuton pro ects it from
robbery BY the authorities OF Ia 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 a
+ meng the Judges, whether Congress might, or
! might not, egislate for a Territory in such
manner as to take away the right Of property
in slaves. ma j0rity OF two thirds or more
held the negative; and Mr., Douglas admits that
the majority was clearly tight. But no mem
: ber Of the court expressed the opinion, nor was
it even thought of by the counsel, that the ter
r ritores had any such inherent aud natural pow
er of their own. Indeed there is no judge of
any grade or character nor any writer on law
or government who has ever asserted or given
the least cOuntenance to this notion Of p1puiCp'
or any other kind Of Soveretgnty tn tie Iel7T-
toTjes. -. F.. .,...r
Some trouble will be saved in this part Of the
, argument, by the fact that since the first pub
lication of this pamphlet, Mr.. Douglas denies
; and repudiates all claim Of reignty for the
/ Territories lie even says that he never did
regard them as soyereignS. Ills words spoken
at Wooster, Ohio and written out by himself
: are these: .s
'I NEVER claimed that territorial govern
mcnts were sovereign, OF that territories were
: sovereign powers" ...... rr .aE
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
Nj. Douglas with adopting the exploded system
. :, Of morality, which allows a man to cover up
4 the truth under an eQuiU0qUe. We are bound to
u take his denial fairly, as meaning; that he neY-
4 er thought the Territories had the rights and
e powers which belong to sovereign governments.
$ Let US see how this assertion will stand the
t test Of investigation,
: We do not deny that the article in Harper is
o extremely difficult to understand. Its unioint-
u ed thoughts, loose expressions and Illogical rca-
u soning, have covered it with shadows, clouds
= and darkness But we will not admit that il
c has no meaning at all. 1t is scarcely possible
{ to mistake the general purpose of the author
e That purpose undoubtedly was to prove that
II the States and Territories, SO far as concerns
their internal affairs have political rights ano
J powers which are precisely equal. In fact he
e declares in so many words, that PennSy lyanjs
and Kansas are subordinate to the Constitution
e ''i7 the same manner and to tie s0He ertent."-
+ He not only levels the territories up to tht
T. States but levels the States down to the Terri
II tories. If Kansas has slavery by virtue o! tht
/ Constitution he insists, that, by the same reas
L. oning, Pennsylvania has it too. Now we know
IS Penn ylyania to be sovereign; ard if Kansas
= be her equal, then Kansas must necessarily b
;, a sovereign also. n
1T B,1t lcnl- nj tho 1oet capinOcn which is th
r grand summary of the whole doctrine:
q The pyiacip}e 3n3er or political systcmis tba
a. euery distinct pohtca2 ccmmunity, loyal to tn
et Constitution and the Union is entitled 10 all III
ST ri9Its pieilegeS md jijnu,ateS Of Seb-go,e1m
0tent in respect to their local concerns and i'll
c, ternal politv, subject only to the Constitution
IL OF the United States"
s Here the States and territories are placed o.
a. footing of perfect equality; there is no distinc
III ton made between them. If the States ar
r severe gn, so are the Territories. Besides, th
y 'rightS, privileges ard immunites,' which b
n describes, as pertaningto every distinct politi
e. cal community Chat is to both States and ter
e, ritories) are soysregn rights and nothing else
J. Any community which has the independent am
e. uncomfortable right Of sel(.guvcrnment, wit
1T respect to its local concerns and internal polity
n must be gpoad hoc, a sovereign. l 3s tfN q.
ne Again: Mr.. Douglas, in his speech at Cinc1n
m natl, made 50 lately as the 9th OF Scptembe
1t last used the following uumistakRbe language
n "Exnmine the bills and search the record:
RS, and you will find that the great principle whic
u underlies those measures, (he compromise meas
" ures of 1860 is the right Of the people of eaC
RS State and each Territory, WHILE A IERRlToRl
We to DECIDE the slavery question for then
b. selves,' r.. # tH
ue Is, ,Sot &dis claiming sovereignty for the terri
ot tories? Can the slavery question be decdc
er without legsIating on the right Of paoperty?-
u And can subordinate government do that?-
its II the Territories have power TO decide whetht
Is. man shall keep his property or not, where di
the power come from? Surely not from Coz
on gIess through the organic acts. They mus
p have it, then, upon what Mr.. Douglas calls
re great principle, and that principle can be no,hr
ny else than Sovereignty in the Terrtories."-
ri Thus it is seen that Mr.. Douglas makes to,
dy to the West, and on his way back he contr
n diets what he said as he went out
ill There are but two sides to this controvers,
raj The territories are either sovereign powers
RI natural and inherent right, Or else they are p
be litical corporations owing all the authority the
y? possess to the acts Of Congress which crea
CT them. 1t is not possible to believe that M
, I Douglas wrote thirty eight columns of mag
les zine to prove the truth of the latter doctrin
he Nobody but himself and his followers were ev
aid accused OF denying it. If lie did not deny
on- and plant himself on the opposing ground
ct SOrerejgny in the Territories, then there was
ny dispute, or cause oil division between him al
he the Democratic party; and he has consequent
c been engaged in raising an eNcitemc mt aho
rty nothng;-tryingt to tos. the ocean o poiti
his into a tempest, without having even feath
ely to watt or a fly to drown. .a -rsrn.7 ...f
in But that is not all. Mr.. Douglas has co
tinualy used the rrjY acold Sorete,grty with RI
lf erence to the Territories. This soveydgHty
md the Territories he has asserted and re-assert
rue SO often, that the phrase is in greaI danger
hat becoming ridiculous by tie mere frequency WI
leir which he repeats it. For many months he h
Sh not written speech or written a letter fort
the newspapers on any other subject 1t heads
es elaborate article in Harper; 1t is vocierated
ere to the public ear from the stumn and it stal
ose at us in great capitals from the handbiIls VIII
,ral call the people to his meetings. Unless it
leir acknowledged he predicts the hopelers diysi
lint Of the party, and even threatens to refuse
ent nomination for the Presidency. Now, all
, as once, the subject matter Of the whole cont
ere versyis admitted to he anonentity. He "chec
fact his thunder in mid.volley" and owns Il
nts there is no sovereignty in territory any, mt
on than in a British Colony. Other persons IN
the have ridden their hobbies as hard as Mr. Dou
be las, but since the beginning Of the world
per- Eman ever dismounted so suddenlyaI' at aag
on Sovereignty in the Teuioties,1 Of viii
by? we haye heard so much is generally, i not
Tit ways, coupled by Mr., Douglas with che pre-
.his of "Populur" This last word appears TO
ays fused for the mere sake of the Sound1 and wit
itch out any regard whatever to the sense tide
any not mean that the people or inhabitants Of /
en- Territories have any supreme power indepe