Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1860-08-04
POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY"

what is meant by others who employ the term
1t is very much used at the present time IL
political discussions, and yet there is hardly
any other political term that so much needs
careful definition by those who use 1t. 1t was
first brought into currency as an excuse for re
pealing the Missouri compromise restriction
and prelude to the bred Scott decision
but the term is not now confined to those who
contrived it to hide political conspiracy. Lei
us put in contrast and examine the three diff
ferent views of popular sovereignty that art
now considerably discussed among us.
l. The popular sovereignty" of Senator
Douglas, naturally comes first Wheneve
Mr.. Douglas makes a speech here in New
England, he is pretty sure to announce hi
doctrine as follows 1.-THE people of terri
tory should be allowed to govern themselves
and manage their own affairs in their OWL
way" But he does not mean anything OF the
kind. His bills to organize the territories OF
Kansas and Nebraska, as well as some OF his
speeches in the senate, show that he means
just the reverse. When those bills were before
the senate, he was among those who voted
down the amendment of Mr.. Chase, which
proposed to have the people of the territories
elect their own officers. He insisted on hav
ing the bills provide that the officers should be
appointed by the president and that the presi-
dents governors of the territories should be
authorized to veto any bill of the territorial
ASSET blies, the only political institutions iii
these territories, in which the people are re-
presented Mr.. Douglas has never contemplate
ed the application of popular sovereignty to
anything but the slavery question in the terri
tories; nor does he allow it to approach this,
until he has first provided in his doctrine that
slaves are property in such sense that they
may be held in territory on the Same foot
ing as other property" Moreover, he main.
tains, in the senate, that it is unlawful and
''rebellious" for the people of territory to or
ganize government without the consent Of
congress, and that they have no rghtful pow
er to govern themselves save what they may
get from the constitution Through the organic
act" Popular sovereignty, indeed This
Douglas doctrine of popular sovereignty, is
one of the most unmitigated shams ever heard
OF below the sun.
2. The views of Mr.. Thayer, our represen.
tative in congress, are not like those of Mr..
Douglas. He means all that Mr.. Douglas
says when he talks of allowing the people of
the territories to manage their own affairs.
The only point on which there seems to be a
resemblance in their views relates to the mat
for off CyO int ba+h
tain that congress should not legislate on the
subject Of slavery in the territories But,
whe II we come to the matter OF squatter SOW
ereignty, we find them differing widely. Mr..
Dou gas rejects it as completely as Jefferson
Davis himself, and even seems to go beyond
Mr.. Davis in this direction while Mr.. Thayer
has the most unbounded faith in it, and goes
very far into the opposite extreme, even to the
extent of denying that congress should pass
any bill to secure the organization of terrific
rial government. Mr. Thayers action on the
territorial bills during the last session OF con-
gress was regulated chiefly by his doctrine
that congress should not touch that subject;
and while he retains his present views he will
not vote for such bills, no matter how they
may be drawn. In his opinion, every
such new community should be left to
itself. An act of congress to secure it a regu-
lar political organization, would, in his view,
interfere with the right of self-government.
This is giving territorial community sepa-
rate, outside, independent existence--a sort
OF untrammeled, irresponsible individualism,
which torgets the important matter of recog-
nlzed and harmonious relation to the rest of
the country and it overooks also the very
important fact that the territorial condition
supposes new community, not yet complete
ly formed and settled, and not an old, com.
pletely formed, long established state.
3. The true doctrine of popular sovereignty
in the territories is that which has been favored
by the republican sentiment of the country
ever since the repeal of the Missouri CON
promise According to this doctrine, congress
should secure the organization of such govern
ments in the territories as are republican i
form and spirit-governments that represen
the people and secure TO them their right t
elect their own officers, make their own laws
and manage their own affairs. This kind o
popular sovereignty was proposed in til,
senate by Mr.. Chase, supported by his politi
cal associates, and voted down by Mr.
Douglas, when the Kansas Nebraska bill
was under consideration. In all the re
cent discussions Of the territorial question
it can be seen that republican sentiment flow
towards it steadily and it will, ere long, be
a1 Of ba
policy Of allowing the president to appoint tn
governors and o.her important officers of tel
ritories, came originally from good intentions
1t was meant as a favor to the new and wea
communities, being coupled with the paymen
OF money from the federal treasury TO supper
the territorial governments; but it was wron
in principle, and, of late, has been gross
abused Executive influence in the territore
has become foully offensive to good order, an
there must be change.
Mr.. Thayer, we believe, stands entire
alone in holding that congress should not pas
what are called territorial bills. 1t is SO plai
that certain things must be done by congress
to secure regular territorial governments, tina
his most remarkable theory Of this matter
not likely to gain many converts. Not t
speak of what must be done to regulate th
boundaries Of new political communit.
and to connect it with the federal courts, Their
is the undeniable fact that the federal constitu
ton makes it the duty Of congress to provid,
that the governments established in the terri
tories shall be republican in form. TLil