The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1860-08-14
From Me Washington Censii'na'on.
av,ttcr Sovereignty Not Democracy.

and moi of n,Hjcritcs merely. Rights are dehte'i
and sc cured, and not left to the caprice of arLi'-
~ popular will In this stands the bulwmk CT
what We correctly dcnominaic 'sci government
each citizen being kcard on Tic subject oi rights
and wrongs, iii the Constitution Itself w'iic.i Is
thus I'm ex preston ot aaqam9Ts consent np''i 'ne
Fundamental prnc les Of the civil Organization ci
society," and if the boundaries thus dciincI be
transgresscd by Legislative action, the courts VIII
arrest The alterations Of the mere popular VIII.
In the administration Of Tie government niJori-
ties rule, by agreement, the organ OF Tie whole
body polite, according TO prescribed method,
and within assigned limits, asccrained and deter
mined in the organic instrument which defines
rights and wrongs. Sclfgovcrnmcnt, then, docs
not refer so much TO the remedy as to the right.
The l.; ght being sccurcI the remedy niay be more
or less detective without impairims the establish
nlcnt Of the former II was not for rcacGics, but
for right, that our ancestors fought.
Popular, or squattcr sovereignty, as the term is
used by Judge Douglas, substitutes for this legal
authority an arbitrary and irresponsible will, and
as such, is dcspoism Of The most unn!iiig:ied
ry elementary principle Of se!f-soyc'nment, de-
liycring the minority over, helpless prey to the
power of the majority II is wholly deceptive, and
does not approach in the remotcst degree TO the
standard of free principles adopted by the Aneri-
can people at the Threshold of our national his
tory. 1t is cmphatically the opposite TO scfgoT-
crnmcnt.
In II true popular government al must be heard
that al may become parties to the organization
This can only be effected by q constitution defining
rights and securing remedies aboyc The control of
administrative bodies. II najoritics may pro-
noun:c adversely to such rights, where will the
minority fnd {. voice? To vote or not TO vote will
be 10 hem e1uallyvaluclcss. Moreover, without the
restraint Of Il constitutional instrument, the courts
arc catopped from interference. Ii the Legislative
will be The supreme law the judicial function can
be only to administer it, according to the theory OF
the British judiciary, which is regarded by Black
stone rs q mere representative Of the executive
branch, instituted for the purpose Of administer
ing the statutes enacted by the supreme lcgisla-
tive power THUS, the fundamental idea Of cur
American judiciary, as an independent coordinate
department in the organization Of the Government,
would be destroyed by tho theory we arc opposing.
Hence, Judge Douglass proposition 10 refer the
question ol. 81 territorial statute is fa!cicuS, cX-
cept " the territorial legislature derives its ahcr
ity through Congress ~ IL constitutional govern
mcnt Ii there is no constitutional standard by
which to measure territorial Legislation, what
could IL court do or say: Nothing whatever, KS
must be clear 10 every mind possessing The mns;
superficial knowlcIgr Of law. Why, then, does lie
propose referring Ic Question territorial ;.c,
Independently 0. and separately from the validity
such net must derive from Congress? One OF two
reasons only can lc given; as lately said, i'll
reference to another ani similar proposition OF his,
either he does not know what he says or he s"ys
wlui he does not belicye.
What, Lei me ask, is Tho san,lard by which an
&c; Of territorial legislature is to be jnJSc.i aa'l
lv.c. mined: Is it the act Of orglni.;t;ou or All
original sovereignty in The people? Ii ~ nie act
Of organisation, then hc supreme Ccur; has alju-
Heated rc pssen question in ,lo Dred l5coAt c!se.
II b. Tie original sovereignty oY the people, (t,
idea inirpirceI y Judge Douglas III or'er Ia cs
cape the Consequences OF gro5S aHd manifest e.
ror, requires arology,) lsn The decision ci liie
court is II forcaAlo cuicluaon-;t il liuc;! to :.
bare caunci&tom o; the in cni;cn ot Tic .cp.ramonnJ
au;l,pr;y-a view more scryile th.i il.ai o! 'iic
English theory above noticed, inasia;lc! us the
British j,Isc is supposed 10 proclaim the VII ci
an org" Acd representative legislature, willie Ike
Az. .c;in court, ui'icr this suppos;icn, you'll
mcryl; be the aoilipiccc OF the inajcrily Of si't-
tcls ior The TINS lcia;e, without reference 10 ,l.c
forms Of o.ganiza,ion iccl.c the force of the de
tun, would re-f upon ''origina Sovereignty Ihs
cour, OF course, OIL =ucl. hypothesis, could nat
do more than register :c decree Of ;I.e s''.' =
soycrcigns, as the l'rliamcnts Of Paris, u..cr Ike
old fye recorded Ike ise dirit Of the Kin, pro-
mul9a;cd, without appeal in '.lcd of justice. .
The prcicncc That is u3rl to 4eu'lo superficial
thinkers, as il the coastH, after MI, cvtl 'ae!ar.
agans; such inhcrcn; sovereignty and r4sr.s.n il
rs'li :tion is on lie suppos;:ion VIC arc con-'r-
my, not Only absurd bat iulpuien;--:. !eiiablc
scli-conira liciion.
Undoubtedly l!crc resides i'll the feoilaan orig
inal, Inherent sovereignty, bui it oSis's prioF-tU
rsAiizaiion-antocedcnt to cxur,asi.'' t'.'c.'
rlc natural law every would H. ei: " e'4'
other ln:sri, before entering into any agreement or
contract for the purpose Of government. Eat as
cycr, Individual. ut lis birth, Gn.s Himself al
ready i mcinbcr of civil society, in which rights
are 'c:HcI, and iIie means of remedy for thcir vi
olaii,n provided, ii is not 10 such supposcd pos
sibc condition Of individual humanity that rr'c;-
cal political philosophy looks for The sources Of
law and II it were, our argument would be no
less conclusive. The Constitution is precisely !!c
expression of that agreement upon the subject OF
rgh and wrong which adjusts domestic iuslilu-
tiols: defines ihr limitations OF Individual indie
rcnence, and orliins the method Of lcgislains
for social improvement. Each mans right .iul in
l.lcsi i. in cul.N;c u;ih Ll. Of N.