The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1860-04-04


: to the existing governnlent--as feudalism was
to France, when whoever struck blow at i:
lad popularity. II .
81; To this claim of sovereign power over the
Territories as derived from any source,
might, as against the Republicans, have con-
ciusively internosed the decision in the Dred
Scott case, wherein the act of Congress pro-
hibiting slavery in the Territory was solemnly
adjud@ed to be unconstitutional and void
The decision was full and proper and essential.
So satisfactory and grateful was it to the South,
there is danger Of forgetting. one of the ola
State rights landm arks.l The Supreme Court
is rot to be regarded as the ultimate arbiter
for the decision of all constitutional questions.
Besides the lact, that the judiciary can only
take corYizance of technical cases-and there
are many political questions that cannot be
drawn within its auihorIty-it should never be
elevated above the sovereign parties to the
Constitution, who, as sovereign and independ-
ent States, having formed the compact, have
the unquestionable right to Judge Of its infrac
ton The Judiciary, as well as tn" Executive
or Legislature, may usup dangerous powers
gud is alike subject to the ultimate right OF
Judgment by the parties to the Constitution
To use the language of Maison's report:
s.However true it may be that the judicial depart
ment is in all questions submitted 10 it by the forms
of the Cons ion, TO decide in the asst resort, this
resort must necessarily be the last in relation to the
authorities of The other departments OF The Govern
ment: not in relation the rights of the parties to
the constitutional compact. from which IL judicial
as we'll the other departments hold their delegated
trusts. On any o'har hypo hesis. the delegation O.:
judicial power would annul the authority delega
ting it,"
We accord to this decision higher authori
ty than that claimed for the ordinary current
Of judicial decisions, because the court, in this
instance, was made the umpire OF the question
by express legislative enactment; and to its
weight as an adjudication is superadded the
authority of "a law. admitted by its opponents
to be not unconstj 'utional. 'a.
The second mode by which exclusion from
the common property is to be accomplished, OF
the right of the South to expansion, is to be OF
NAV be defeated, is through the alleged power
of a territorial legis 'ature. This theory is oi
recent birth. and is differently explained and
limited-som etimes not without confusion OF
ideas and IN sapplication of terms; but itsrzeal
GUS advocates press it under e1pl:onious and
popular nam, S. as it, like some quack medicine.
will. equally attractive nomenclature, 1T were
the never-failinr cathnlicon for all the ills that
our hodv politic is heir to. 1t is an erroneou,
opinion that this mode f exclusion is advoca
ted solely bv fragment OF the democratic
party Mt the North. Not an instance can be
cited. since 1850, wherein the republicans OF
frce-soi'ers, whatever may have been thelf
m, er theories, ha. failed to vote for every
measure practically carrying 1t out. Turing
The Kansas controvers,v varyolIs amendmeHts
were proposed and sustained By the republicans
empowering the territor.alle Legislature to exclude
slavery. or constituting the bilf 50 as to rec"g-
pize this power am informed that tsat par
ty in Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Oregon
incornorated this doctrine in their platforms
and conducted their political campaign on that
issne. Once territorial legislature was re
pardcd as the creature Of Congress, limited In
its powers of legislation. as having no sover-
eighty, and as being wholly subordinate to the
creative power. Its action was rcvisible and
a single act OF Congress could sweep 1t out OF
existence. It's power Icing derlyauvc, IL
must conform to The law of it's being; and nci-
ther bv direction or ndirccton could it trans
cend the powers of its Federal creator. Lat
t.rly. however. territory is only common prop
or if them until it is organized into t:rrl-
toral government when, by some legerdenialn
or hocus-pocus it becomes quasi or absolute
sove eign. and is invested with the indefeaslblc
rieh of self-government. 1T, on any subject
the will of the Territory is not supreme, sli
very is not the exception; for the great ex
FOUNDER of this new dogma asserts that 'ter
ritorial legislature can Iamfi/!y exclude slduery
either by non action or unfriendly legislation
This power is variously derived. from the al
leged Inherent power Of selfgovernmr mt exist
inc in every distinct political community, and
from the Kansas Nebraska bill. as endorsed by
the Cincinnati platform. To the first deriva
tion. I have no answer to make beyond the
statement that it is IN entire consistency with
he first great experiment of squatter sover
eionty-the creation of the State OF Callfor
mia. whose admission into the Union. under the
circumstances was the most unparalleled out
rage ever penetrated on people pretending
to be free. To the secoud source of power,
reply that. if found there. the South was most
miserab!y duped in that famous measure tor
silencine agitation. Whatever may have been
the purrose of the framer of that bill-and he
saws in his contribution to Harper, that 1t was
to remove any obstacle to the free exercise OF
nonulor sovereiepty-it was supported at the
South because of its repeal of the Missouri re-
striction. and because we thought we had Sc
cured sa feouard against territorial unfriendIy
legislation by the provision rendering all such
legislation subject to the Constitution of the
Tinted States, and by the further provision
Giving an appeal to the courts of the United
States in all cases where property in slaves was
involved. IF we were mistaken. this power TO
exclude slavery ~ unfricndly legis'ation-this
souatter severe; gnty covered M under ambIeu-
Gus language in The Kansrs bill. after the re-
real of the Missouri restrictior-;s but a re-
fined imitation of the hartarity of the retty
Celtic tvrant who fed his prisoners on salted
food till they called eagerly for drink. and
then let down an omrty cup into the dungeon
and left them to die of thirst. i.i r s95q.
A territorial government is the creature ct
Congress is provisional and temporary; and
ii is idle to pretend that it can usurp authority
not conferred in the act of organization, and
exercise power beyond the constitutional coal-
reteney of its creator. Any argument tre drawn
from the supposed analogy between :uch gov
ernments, and the American colonies, is i'm
perfect and ilusory. as most analogieal reason
ing is According TO the b itish theory Par
liamentis omnipotent; and no American states
man has ever claimed over the Territories what
has been claimed over the colonies-the power
to bind in all cases whatsoever. The depend
enci~s are essentially different. and are held by
different tenure. The British government
regards the colonial condition permanent
and Interchangeable. Canada was colony one
hundred -cars ago. She is colony now