The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1882-03-30

eign aggression" [Applause]
The Serfs of the Republic.
Hitherto the exact boundaries of the
power of the Government of the Uni
ted States over the territories and their
inhabitants has never been systemati-
cally defined. Congress, without any
direct inquiry into the extent of its
authority, has, from time to time, eu-
acted whatever, in its wisdom, it saw
fit to enact, and, in every instance
where it has been invoked, the judi
ciary has affixed the seal of constitu-
tionality to it's enactments. At the
time of the framing of the constitu-
ton, no such things were known as
those civil divisions to which, since,
the title of Territories has been
affixed; and the only clause in that
instrument in which the common sub
the following:
1.-The Congress shall have power to
dispose of and make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory
or other property belonging to the
United States"
A novice in constitutional interpre-
tation would be apt to suppose that this
provision had respect solely to the
rights of the United States al proprie-
tor of such domains, whether within
or without the boundaries of the states
as had not passed under individual
ownership. It probably would not
occur to him-the civil divisions now
known As Territories being not then
either in actual or potential eXistucee
that the trainers of the constitution
SAW them in the vista of the future
and intended, in the words cited above,
to confer upon Congress unlimited and
irresponsible power not only over the
lands, but over those by whom they
were TO he Inhabited. lie would in-
cline to think, if such had been their
design, that they would have expressed
it in terms that would not have admit
ted of misrepresentation.
An opinion has obtained not
without inducement-that there is Il
wide distinction between the rights of
the people of the States and those Of
the Territories. While it is-at least
by the masculine members of the com
monwealth-very generally admitted
that, subject only to the limitations of
the federal compact, the former have
full power to order and regulate their
domestic concerns rs seems most fit
ting to themselves, the dominant no
ton appears to be that, while the latter
have no rights that Congress or any
body else is bound to respect, every
body il entitled to take hand in their
regulation. The doctrine that ali men
are, by nature, endowed with certain
inalienable rights, among which is the
right of self-government, admitted to
h... nal NJ IN ha nft 1NnS t.atI
is not thought to be of any relevancy
as applied to the inhabitants of these
outlying dependencies. The people OF
Maine, Massachusetts, or Ohio, regard
themselves as alone entitled to direct
concerning the admission or exclusion
the use or non-use, of beer and whisky
within their respective boundaries. and
would resent in language the reverse
of temperate any attempt at interfer-
ference with their rights in the prem
ises by Congress at the dictation of the
| inhabitants of Montana or Arizona or
the District of Columbia. And YET
tens of thousands of the people o
Maine, Massachusetts, and Ohio are
inundating Congress with petitions
praying that body to legislate accord
ing to their will for the Inhabitants O
Montana, Arizona, and the District o
Columbia.
While no one will venture to deny
the abstract sOundness of the principle
that the inherent rights of every hu
man being are the same as those 0
every other, and the civil rights of ev
cry citizen of the United States equa
to those of every other citizen, if ont
were to infer the rule from the senti
meut which most prevails, he woul,
be forced to concede that the only res
idents within the domains of the Uni
ted States who have no right to voic
in the direction of their own affair
are the inhabitants of the Territories
Citizens of the States, seeking neV
fields wherein to invest their energies
removing to the uncultured spots o
the continent and there laying tn
foundations of new and robust incre
ments to the republic, are regarded a
having, by such removal, abdicate,
not merely their rights as citizens, bu
their rights as persons; as having de
scended to the condition of apperte
nents to the public domain-enjoyin,
such freedom as they have by suffer
ance; and to whose government ever,
body but themselves is entitled to PAL
take. In short, the inhabitants of tn
Territories are looked upon by the REP
resentatives of the prevailing senti
mentalisms as proper subjects o.
whom to try those experiments il
moral reform and individual rectifica
ton which Congress is not permitte
to impose upon the people of the State
and which the latter are not altOgethe
inclined to adopt; nor does there 81
pear to be. in those quarters where tina
sentiment is manufactured befor
which Legislators bow IN the Hindo
devotee before his idol, any doubt c
the absolute authority ofCongress eve
the habits, customs, modes of living
and personal acts of these serfs of til
republic
The claim of a people to the enjoy
ment of civil freedom includes tn
admission by them that civil freedom
is a thing of common right. 1t is no
true that citizens of the States enii
grating to the outlying lands of tn
republic become thereby divested &
any portion of their civil entitlemeut
or subject tO be governed in any re
spect as they would not govern them
selves. Whoever does the legislatin
for the people of the Territories, and
in so doing, reflects any other will tina
theirs, commits an otfense against tn
principle upon which our institution
are founded and has no right to incIud
himself among the friends of populi
liberty.
: The above We copy from the Wash
ington Sunday Chronicle, pronOunC
ell Republican paper, and though tn
views it expresses are manifestly rea
sonable and sound, yet they are strang
coming from such source. A quartz
of a century has hardly passed ava