Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1860-10-02

Calhoun VI. rlas.

1t has been asserted that Mr.. Calhoun, while
he denied the constitutionality of the Wilmot
Provso, yet he never denied the doctrine ofpop
uiar sovereignty as distinguished from squatter
sovercignty-th that is to say, though denying
the right Of the settlers to prohibit slavery,
while the Territory is in an unorganized con-
dition, he admitted, as is contended, the power
of the Territorial Legislature 10 10 so after an
organic act has been provided by Congress-
The extract below from his speech on the Ore.
gon bill, delivered in the Senate in 1913, meets
this point, and shows that he regarded Douglas
position not merely as an error, but US an ''ab-
surlity."
81 have now shown, trust beyond contro.
versy, that Congress has no power whatever to
prevent the citizens of the Southern States
! from emigrating with their property into the
territory Of the United States, or to give an
exclusive monopoly Of them to the North.
no,o propose 10 go one step JHrtAer, and shoe
Mat neither the Inhabitants Of the territories,
nor their Legislatures hare any such riyht.--
4 rery feac acords ciU be sufficient for the pmr.
poss-.tor et' all the positions srer taken, ihold
that whieh claims the po@er. .tor them to be most
absurd
If the Territories belong to the United States
if the ownership, dominion and sovereignty
over them be in the States Of this Union, then
neither the inhabitants Of the Territories nor
their Legislatures can exercise any power but
what is subordinate to them; but if the con-
trary could be shown, which hold 10 be im-
possible, it would be subject /" all the rcstric-
tons to which hold the power If Congress is;
and for the same reason, whatever power they
might hold, would, in the Case supposed, be
subordinate to the Constitution and controlled
by the nature and character oi our political in.
stitutions. But if the reverse be true, ifthe do
minion, and sovereignty over the territories be
in their inhabitants instead Of the United States,
thsy would indeed, in that case, have the ex-
elusive and absolute power Of governing them,
and might exclude whom they pleased, and
what they pleased. But, in that case, they
would cease to be the Territories of the United
States the moment we acquired thln, and per-
mitted them to he inhabited The half dozen
aluatters would become the sovereigns, with
dominion and sovereignty over them; and the
conquered people Of New Mexico and California
would become the sovereigns Of the country rs
soon Us they became the Territories Of the
United States, vested with the full right Of
excluding even their conquerers. There is no
escaping from the alternative but by resorting
to the greatest of all absurdites- of 4
divided soYcreignty-a sovereignty q part Of
which would reside in the United States, and
part in the inhabitants Of the Territory
How can sovereignty, the ultimate and supreme
power of State, be divided? The exercise OF
the powers of sovereignty may be divided, but
how can there be two supreme powers ~
We have given the extract entire, because
we could not consent to mar the beauty Of as
perfect specimen Of logic as the annals OF
parliamentary discussion afford, and because,
while it is a clear exposition Of the true constl-
tutonal doctrine. as since confirmed oy the
Supreme Court, it annhilates the distinction
between popular and squatter sovereignty. 1t
places the advocates OF the latter doctrine
in this dilemma; upon the hypothesis that
Congress does possess the power to abolish
slavery in the territories, popular sovereignty,
and the Wilnlot Proviso are identical ; upon
the hypothesis that Congress possesses no such
mower then popular sovereignty and squatter
sovereignty are the same; for if the inhabitants
of territory have a power which Congress
has not it must be inherent in them, and being
inherent may be as rightfully exercised before
the organic act as after it. Which horn Of the
dilemma does Mr. Douglas or his followers,
choose?