The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1860-08-15
Geas. Cass sepom the POsUer OF IN
Ierrif0fies.

The Republican party ever since its organi.
%zation have. asserted that Congress has com-
plete power over the domestic institutions Of
the territories of United States, and in sup.
port of this have claimed that all the powcI
that the people of a territory had or could have,
was delegated to them by Congress, and that
Congress had the right to supervise all the acts
of, the Territorial Legislatures. In proof of
this they quoted, as every one who heard one Of
their: speeches in 1856, knows, that clause in
the Constitution of the United States which
gives Congress the right to etmake all needfnl
rules and regulations for the territories and
other property of the United States"
Thespeakers of the Democratic party at that
time clearly showed up the fallacy of such de-
auctions from this clause and argued then as
they do now, and as the clause itself fairly
shows that it referred only to the land of the
territories as property, and not to the people
of the territories. After that eventful contest
was over, it was supposed by the Democracy
that this question was settled and more partic-
ularly after it rad been passed upon by the
Supreme Court it was supposed that none would
dispute that it was thus settled against the
right of Congress to intervene, save the ultra
abolitionis;s and fanatics of the Northern States.
Judge BARLEY was with the Democracy, then
on this question, and in his speeches of that
date expressed that doctrine as clearly and for
icibly as any one.
But ON the 18th of July at the Breckinridge
meeting in this town, he 1abored long
and loud to prove the correctness of a different
theory and then said that the people of a terri.
tory had no power in and of themselves, but
that all their power was derived from Congress,
and that Congress had the right to supervise
all the acts of a territorial legislature. Judge
BARLEY in 1854 and 6, took the same view of
this question that Gen. Cass did; and, mark you,
this is aquestion upon which the decision of
the Supreme Court could not have altered the
opinion of either of them, nor has it that of
Gen. Cass. We have before us the speech of
Gen. Cass delivered on the 18th of May, 1856,
in which he says, that the people do not de-
rive this power of internal legislation from Con-
gress in the case of an organized territory, but
only the right to exercise 1t. He then said,
The people of the Territories do not derive
this attribute of self-government-the power
of internal legislation-as a boon from Con-
gress. All they derive from that body is the
opportunity of exercising it; and even this they
may rightfully assume by their own act, when
ever the National Legislature refuses, or un-
reasonably delays, measures of organization, as
in the case of California, where the people
were driven, in the maintenance of social order,
to those first principles of self-defense, which
belong not less to communities than to indi-
viduals, and which neither predicates nor copu-
Jas, nor all the apparatus of verbal logic, can
wrest from them. 1 do not speak of a revolu-
ton. That is the ultimate resort for oppres-
sion. I speak of rights and necessary acts
within the proper allegiance of a colonial COM
munity to a paramount authority.
The Just foundation Of local legislation is
laid down in the Declaration of Independence,
wherein it is said: Legislative powers, incapa-
BILE of humiliation, have returned to the peo-
pie at large for their exercise" RETURNED
to the fountain whence they issued-to the
people to whom they belong-not to king, Con-
gress, nor Parliament.
He further shows in that same speech that
Mr.. Pierce and Mr.. Douglas both held the
same opinion, and it is the same opinion the
latter advocates to day.
But I will add, sir, that the honorable Sena-
tor from Mississippi mr. BRowN mistakes
the position of the two distinguished gentle
man, to whom he alluded in his remarks the
other day, if, as [ understood him, he supposes
that in their opinion the people of a Territory
ought not to have the right to regulate the
question of slavery for themselves. These
are the President of the United
States, and the chairman of the Committee on
Territories, the member from Illinois. Mr..
DOUGLAS. I am gratifed in being able to as
sure the Senator from Mississippi, that they
have both announced their adhesion to this
principle of self-goyernment. The
former calls it "the true principle of leaving
each State and Territory to regulate its own
laws of labor according to its own sense of right
and expediency." The latter, when the Kan
sas and Nebraska acts were under discussion,
took the opportunity of referring to and re-
affirming the sentiments on this subject which
he had avowed and supported while the bills for
the establishment of governments in Utah and
New Mexico were under consideration. When
, proposition was pending at that time, prohib-
ting the local Legislatures from legislating on
he subject of slavery. he observed: L
81 wish to say one word before this part of the
bill is voted upon. 1 must confess that / rather re-
yretted that a clause had been. introduced into this
bill, providing that the territorial governments
should not legislate in respect to African slavery
The position that I,have ever taken has been that,
his and all other questions relating to the domestic
affairs and domestic policy of the territories ought
o be left to the decision of the people themselves,
nd that we ought to be content with whatever way
hey may decide the question, because thev have a
much deeper interest in these matters than we,
Who have, never been there, can decide for them"
And also:
sI do not see how those of us who have taken the
position which we have taken, THAT of non-interfer-
,nce,) and have argued in favor of the right of the
,eople to ~legislate for themselves on this question,
IAN support such a provision without abandoning
III the arguments, which We urged in the Presiden-
ial campaign. and the principles set forth by the
Senator from Michigan in that letter, whiehis known
Is the Nicholson letter. We. are required to aban-
Ion our platform We are required to abandon
hose principles and to stultify ourselves, and to
ldopt the opposite doctrine, and fr what? In or
Ter to say that the people of the Territories shall
lot have such institutions as they shall deem
to their condition and their wants"
Now it cannot be denied that this was Just
~ - l.