, 1860-01-06

/ Oy OlatC Legislature. lnueeu, lDefe B,
probably, no city in the United States,
whose powers are not larger than those Of
federal territory. The people of city
elect their own mayor, aud, directly or in
directly, appoint their municipal officers.
But the President appoints a Chief Execu-
tive of a territory, as well as the judges
lie may send them there from any part Of
the Union, and in point of fact they are
generally strangers to the inhabitants when
first chosen. They are in no way RESPONSE
bic to the territory or its people, but to the
federal Government alone, and they may be
removed whenever the President thinks
proper The territorial legislature is some
times (and only sometimes) elected by the
people; but whyl Because Congress has
been pleased to permit it by the organic
act. The power that gives this privilege
conld withhold it too Itis always coupled
with restrictions and regulations which
could never be imposed on a sovereignty by
any authority except its own. The organic
act generally prescribes the qualifications OF
voters, and divides the territory into dis
tric's; and the action of the legislative body
itself is controlled by the veto power of a
Governor appointed by the President, aud
removable at his pleasure 1t is too clear
for possible controversy, that territory is
not sovereign power, but a subordinate
/ dependency 1t cannot deprive q man of
his property without due process Of law, or
without just compensation, for two reasons /:
/. 1t has no sovereign power of its own;
and, ?. The Federal Government, being
( forbidden by the Constitution 10 exercise
such power itself, e'nnot bestow it on a ter
ritory The Constitution of the United
States protects a mans property from being
plundered by n territorial Legislature, Just
as Il State constitution protects it from rob.
berry by the authorizes Of city corpora.
ton
1t should be noted that when this ones.
ton was before the Supreme Court Of the
United States, there was some difference
of opinion among the judges, on the ques-
ton whether Congress might, or might not
egisato for a Territory in such manner as
to take away the right of property in slaves.
A majority of twothrds or more held the
negative; and Mr. Douglas admits that the
majority was clearly right, But no mem.
ber of the court expressed the opinion, nor
was it even thought Of by the counsel, that
the Territories had any such inherent and
natural power 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 popular or any other kind
of sorereigntg in The Territories
Some trouble viii be saved in this part
Of the argument, by the fact that since the
first publication Of this pamphlet, Mr..
Douglas denies and repudiales all elaim OF
sovereignty for the Territories. lie even
says that he never did regard them as SOW
ereigns. His words spoken at Wooster,
Ohio, and Written out By himself, are
these:
81 NEVER claimed that Territorial gorern.
nlents iccre sOreycign, or Mat tie IsrritOries
leere sorereign poicers"
OF course this is not to be understood as
mere denial that he had previously used
those very words We have no right to
charge Mr.. Douglas with adopting The ex-
ploded system Of morality, which allows n
man 10 cover up the truth under an equi-
roqus. We are bound to take his denial
/, fairly, as meaning, that he never thought
the Territories had the rights aud powers,
which belong to sovereign governments.
. Let us see how this assertion will stand the
test of investigation.
We do not deny that the article In Har-
per is extremely difficult to understand.
Its unjointed thoughts, loose expression,
and illogical reasoning, have covered il
with shadows, clouds, and darkness. But
we will uot admit that it has no meaning at
all. 1t is scarcely possible to mistake the
general purpose Of the author. That pur
pose undoubtedly was to prove that the
States and Territories, SO far as concerns
their internal affairs, have political rights
and powers which are precisely equal. In
fact he declares, in so many words, that
Pennsylvania. and Kansas are subordinate
TO the Constitution in The same manner and
and 10 he same eGtent" lie not only levels
the Territories up to the States, but levels
the States down TO the Territories. If
Kansas has slavery by virtue of the Con-
stitution, be insists that, by the same rea-
soning, Pennsylvania has it too. Now we
AuON SHlSl l'buld W Dc u sovereign, ana
if Kansas be her equal, then Kansas must
necessarily be a sovereign also.
But look at The last sentence, which is
the grand summary of his whole doctrine
The principle under our political system
is that eray distinct political community,
loyal to the Constitution and the Union, IS
entitled 10 all The rights, priviiegss, and im-
maHllies Of sdfgOrernmem in respect to
their local concerns and Internal poiiy,
subject only to the Constitution of the
United States"
Here the States and Territories are
placed on a footing of perfect equality.
There is no distinction made between them.
If the States are sovereign, SO are the Ter
riiories. Besides, the rights, privileges,
and immunities,' which he describes as per,
tanning TO every distinct political communi-
ty, (that is, to both States and Territories
are sovereign rights, and nothing else.