Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-10-05
loved in subsection to all the limitations and restrc-

Thus it will be seen that in 1856, 1857, and 1858,
as we'll as now, I claimed that the people of the
Territories are "enttled to enjoy and exercise all
the rights and privileges of elfgovernmen" under
the Constitution although the Territories were not
sovereign powers. The Territories are not sover-
cign, any more than the American colonies were
vcreign before the Revolution; and yet the people
of the Territories entitled to enjoy and exercise
all the rights and privileges of government sub
jcct only to the Constitution in the same manner,
and to the same extent, as our fathers claimed the
same rights and privileges FOR the colonies. 1t must
be borne in mind that the battles of the Revolution
were fought in defence of the rights of dependent
colonies provinces and territories and not of sover
egn States. We now claim for the American Terri
tories only those ghts of selfgovernment which
our fathers claimed for the British colonies in Amer
ic,. Hence | reaffirm to day all that have ever
sad in the reports and speeches referred to in the
Black pamphlet, denying that the Territories are
sovereign, and at the same time claiming for them
all the rights and privileges of sclf-government in
their internal polty
I repeat that the author of the Black pamphlet
must have known that he was ,nisrepresenting my
position in regard to the sovereignty of the Terri
tories for the reason that in another portion of the
same pamphlet he quotes from two reports, two
speeches. and one letter of mine to prove that in
1885, 1857, and 1853, held the opposite doctrine
without producing particle of evidence that had
ever held or expressed any other opinion.
Not content with representing me as advocating
the conScation of private property in the Terrific
rieS, the writer of the Black pamphlet imputes the
same dangerous heresy to "the President the Judges
of the Supreme Court and nearly all the Democrat
ic members of Congress- in respect to the contiSca
ting of private property in all the States Of the
Union!
The writer says:
"On the other hand, the President the Judges Of
the Supreme Court, nearly all the Democratic men,
bers of Congress- the whole of the party South, and
very large majority North, are penetrated with
conviction that no such power is vested in Terrific
rial legislature, and that those acho desire to confs
cute pirate property IF any kind must acaI until
they get constitutional convention or the nachne-
ry Of q State government into tier hands,
Aside from the false nucndo that | am in favor
of coniscating private property by Territorial leg
stature, this paragraph makes charge lagitious
as it is false-that the whole of the party South,
and a very large majority North" including the
President, the Judges of the Supreme Court, and
nearly all the Democratic members of Congress, are
IN ttror Of the doctrine Mnt the momcnt " Terrific
ry becomes State it nay royiseate all the pirate
property nihia It's limits
| deny this whole doctrine of confiScatiOn |
brand it as dangerous and wicked hercsy. deny
that there is any rightful authority anywhere with
in the limits of the United StateS-F,d raj, State
or Terriorial-which can conliscatc private proper
ty of any law-abiding citizen. Private property
may be taken for public uses in pursuance of law,
upon the payment of u just compensation, but not
otherwise The Supreme Court has decided in the
bred Scott case that the constitution places the
citizens of Territory, So fur these rights are
concerned, on the same footing with the citizens of
the States In that case the Court after referring
TO those Causes OF the constitution which guarantee
the freedom of religion the freedom of speech and
of the press-the right of petiton-the right to
bear arms-and prohibit the taking of private prop
erty torpublc uses without just compcnsation-pro-
cectls to say:
- The powers over person and property Of which
we speak are not only not granted to Congress- but
are IN express terms denied, and they are forbidden
TO exercise them. And this prohibition is not con-
hned to the States, but the words are general and
extent to the whole Territory over which the Con-
'fltuton gives its power to esiSatc inrlpdiag those
D"fttons or 1t remaining nnder Territorial gorern-
nent as aeeH rs Mat corertd By States 1t is total
'oscnce OF power everywhere within the dominion
d the United States; and pl.ces tie citizens Of Il
territory, so ttr as these rights are concerned, on
TIC same .tooting wih citizens ot Tie States, and
guards them as firmly and plainly against inroads
winch the general government might attempt under
he plea of implied or incidental powers. And if !
covers conferred on the federal governmental will
'e admitted, We presume that ii could not author
re Territorial government to exercise them. 1t !
QUIZ confer no power on local government, estab-
iShed 10y Its authority, to violate the provisions of
he constitution
read this portion of the bred Scott opinion from
ne pamphlet copy which published under the .
minority OF the Senate of the United States. | /
'Pied THIS same passage into my article in Harper
OF Inc purpose of showing that, SO far as these
lShts OF person and property were involved, the
constitution, under the authoritative exposjtion of
ne court, places the citizens of Territory s far
theSe rights are concerned on the saline footing
.'tn tne citizens of the States; and, conservative
Inc territories could not be permitted to deter
line the slavery question for themselves the States
'ere lor''n'len to exercise the power
IN the face OF this decision o: the Su rene Court,
'ih my eihPhatc endorsement Of it in more than
ne hundred public speeches, we'll as in nv art-
lie III ilarpers Magazine the author of the Black
amphlet has the har,lihood to charge me with adj
oca'lng the doctrine that Territorial legislature
ny confllscate private property, at the same time
h't nc attributes to the whole Democratic par
oo'th, and large majority North, the mon
"'> anu llaSltotls heresy that the people of Ter
Tory when they get u constitutional convention.
r tne machinery Of State government into their
aids, may at their discretion, coniiscate all the
r,vate property within their Territorial Limits.
Such doctrine is subvcrsive of the funlatal prin
pies upon which all civil governments rest de-
.hat 1t would be competent for any power with
the DOMINION of the United States-whether
eaefal State, or Territorial-o confscatc the pri-
ate property of loyal citizen or to convert it to
uolc uses without just compensation even if there
ere no constitutional provisions upon the subject.
On Dehalf OF the Democratic party, South as well
North, repcl the imrutation as a wanton calun-
y, tnat the people of a Territory when they "get
'hsttotlohal convention or the machinery of
tate government into their hands," or at any other
me. can confscate the private property of law.
,'dlng citizen No State or Territory has ever yet
tempted or claimed the right to exercise any such
over and trust none will ever regard the Black
amphlet sufficient authority to justify the legisla
We e, robbery by State or Territory
u Inc author Of the Black pamphlet charges me
ith disappearing the position of those Democrats
no are opposed to the doctrine of popular SOW
'elgnty, when spoke of them as believing or pro-
Sslns to believe that the constitution establishes
avery IN the Territories beyond the power of Con-
ress or OF the Territorial legislature to control #