, 1859-09-07
The Copyright Essay Examined,
The Necessity Of New Construction Of
the Dred Scott Decision.

tne 0fed Scott Decfaton.
Senator Douglas in his copyright essay upon
lis sphantom Of Squatter Sovereignty, had Il pur-
'ose- His object evidently was to fortify and
strengthen bis own position, and to explain and
'cconcile what seems to most people contradic-
ions in his Own course upon this subject. It is
lot my purpose to meddle with Democratic plat
or1ns. leave it to be settled By his Democrat |
e friends in the Charleston Convention. which |
# the factions Of That party nre right, according
70 those platforms. Regarded as device to de- |
udc persons anxious to ID deluded, and to /
strengthen himself with such Of his political |
friends as hare free soil proc1iyi.ies, It is ingen-
ous. Regarded as an argument in support Of |
Lis phantom, it is shallow sophisn,.
His argument is not that ms a question ofe1pe-
diency it would be wise md Just for Congecss to
give the Territories power to regulate their do
messic affairs in their own way, but TINT they
hive That power as j matter Of right iudepend-
cnt Of Congress. If this be true, then eyery
Territorial act on the statute.book, from the Or
dinancc Of 1857 down to the Kansas-Sebraska
act inclusive, is apalpaGle usurpation, for every
one Of them is in indirect violation Of this sup
posed right. They all impose restrictions on
this right. None Of them allow them to chose
their own Governors aud Judges, and all Of them
impose limitations upon tlcir legislative power.
Some Of them give The whole Legislative power
to Governors and Judges chosen not By the peo-
pie Of the Territory, but appointed By tile Prcsi-
dent Of The United States; all Of them gire toa
Governor appointedby the President veto upon
the Legislative power, and some Of them giye to
Congress also a reto upon their Legislative pow
er. But it may be that all the men who passed
aud approved these acts, including Senator
Douglas Aim.clf, were wrong, and Tint he is
now right. Then to his argument. His first
witness is the American colonies previous to the
American revolution. The colonies he says
claincd nothing but Squatter Sovereignty, or in
his own words:
glance to the crown, tlleir affection for the peo-
pie, aud their devotion to the Constitution Of
Great Britain; and their oulE complaint was
that tIes@were not permitted to enjoy the rights
and privileges Of selfgoyernment, ia tue man
agemeut Of their internal affairs and domestic
concerns, in accordance with the guarantees Of
that Constitution md the colonial charters grant
et by tue crown in pursuance Of it. They con-
cedcd the right Of the Imperial government to
make all laws, and perform ali acts coacernsng
tue coloui.s; which were in their nature Impe-
rial and not colonial. They recognized the
right Of the Imperial Government to declare
war and make peace; to coin money and deter
intercourse with foreign nations; to regulate
commerce between the several colonies, and be
tween each colony and the parent country, and
with foreign countries; and iu general they re-
cognizcd the right of the 1mperial Government
Of Great britain to exercise all tue powers and
authority which, under the Federal Constisu:
ton, are delegated by the people ofthe several
S.atcs to tic Government Of the United States.
"Thus it appears that Our fathers OF the Rev.
olution were contending, not for Independence
i'll tue first instance, but for the incstiuaable
right Of Local Self Government under the BRIT
is6 Constitution; the right Of every distinct
political community dependent colonies, terri
S:tates-to make their own local laws, form
their own domestic Institutions, and manage
their own Internal affairs in their own way, SUBJ
jcct only 10 the Constitution Of Grcut Britain
the paramount law Of the Empire"
This is the basis of his argument in support
Of his bantling-squatter SoreEeisnty-so far
Us it depends upon our colonini struggles. Cn-
fortunately for his argument, the history Of that
struggle is directly the reverse Of what he
| states it to be. lie says they recognized the
right Of the imperial government to regulate
commerce between the several colonies, and
between ouch colony and the parent country,
und with foreign countries. Now, everybody
kuows tlat The immediate cause Of the war
between tLe colonies and the parent country
was the imposition Of a duty by the parent
| country VI three pennies upon each pound oi
tea imported into the colonies. Tea, believe
| was thea, us it is now an article Of foreign
commerce, and the duty imposed upon its i'm
portation was regulation Of foreign commerce
Yet the colonies went to war with the mother
country because she did what they admitted she
had i right to do.
But again he says: And in general they re
"cognized the right Of the imperial Goyern
"mcnt Of Great Britain to exercise all the pow
"ers and authority which, under the Fedora
Constitution, arc delegated by the people o
"the several States to The Government Of tht
"United States" II is well known tha. tb,
people Of the several States, by our Fedora
Constitution, delegated to tho government O.
the United Suites the power to regulate forcigr
commerce, soAich incIudtd The portr to lay I
dafy on ths importation Of tfa--tA< ruy poso<
uAicA tie oo.onits dtni:d to The Imperial Gcefra
1.ent Of Gr&ak Britain. The Senator adroitl,
passes over this part Of the colonial histor,
very lightly, and reviews ut great length the co!
onial Legislation on the subject Of African Slav
] = m - -