Year: 1859

ment of city established by State Legis.
lature;" and that there is probably no
city in the United States whose powers are
not larger than those of federal Terri
tory!" The learned Attorney General,
having convinced himself by the study of
that "primer Of political science" which
he claims to have mastered" and kindly
commends to my perusal, that Congress
possesses the same sovereign power over the
people and government of the Territories
that sovereign State has over the munich
pal corporations of all the cities within its
limits, or that the British Parliament
claimed over the American colonies when it
asserted its right to bind them in all cases
whatsoever, deprecates all inquiry into the
foundation of this right, and especially into
the mode in which the claim was met by
the colonies when it was attempted to be
enforced by George III and bis royal
cabinet.


The authority of the Kings Attorney
General, and the terror which bis anathemas
were calculated to inspire, when supported
by the King and his cabinet, were not suffi
cient to stife the inquiry in those days. So
long as the right of local self government
was not wantonly outraged, and its actual
enjoyment practically obstructed by the
action Of the imperial government, the COL
onies were content with the possession and
enjoyment of this sovereign power, without
inquiry into its origin or source. But the
instant that the British government at
tempted, both as matter of right and in
fact, to deprive them of the free and ex-
elusive power of legislation in their several
provincial legislatures in all cases of taxa.
tion and internal polity," serious and
anxious inquiry was instituted into the
origin and source of all legitimate political
power. The result of the investigation was
the disclosure of fundamental and irrecon
cilable difference of opinion between the
colonies and the British government in re-
spect to the origin and source of all rigbtful
political authority, which laid the founda-
tion of our American Theory of government
in antagonism to the European Theory.
The colonies contended, on the one hand,
that the power of self government was inhe-
rent in the people OF the several colonies
and could be exercised only by their author
ity and consent while the British ministry
insisted that the King of England and his
government were the fountain and source of
all political power and rightful authority in
the colonies, which could be delegated to
the people or withheld from them at the
pleasure of the sovereign. Here We find the
first practical assertion on this continent of
the American theory that the power of self
government is inherent in and emanates from
the people in each State, Territory, or colo
ny, in opposition to the European theory
that the King or Monarch is the fountain
of justice and the source of ali legitimate
power. 1t is to be hoped that the Attorney
General will be able to comprehend the
distinction between these two antagonistic
theories, since onr entire republican system
rests upon it, and the conduct of our revo-
lutionary fathers can be vindicated and
justified only by assuming that the European
theory is wrong and the American theory
right. So long, l repeat, as the British
government did not, in fact, deprive the
colonies of the power of self government in
respect to their internal affairs, differences
of opinion could be tolerated upon the theo-
retical question in regard to the source of the
power for the colonies were at liberty to
claim, as they did claim, that they exercised
it of their own inherent right, in conformity
with the royal charters, which only pre-
scribed the form of government under which
they were to exercise exclusive legislation
in all cases affecting their internal polity.
While, on the other hand, the British gov
ernment could contend, as they did contend,
that the colonies possessed the power, not in
their own right, but as favor graciously
bestowed by the crown. Practically, it
made no difference, therefore, to the colonies
whether the power was inherent or delegated
whether they possessed it in their own
right, or as gracious boon from the crown,
so long as they were not disturbed in its
exclusive possession and unrestricted enjoy.
ment. So it is with the people of the Ter
ritories. 1t makes no practical difference
with them whether the power of self govern.
ment, subject only to the Constitution, is
inherent in themselves, and recognized by
Congress in the organic act or whether
Congress possesses sovereign power over the
Territories for their government, and has
delegated it to them. Whichever be the
source of the power, the result is the same
so long as their right OF local self govern
ment is not invaded.


ALL LEGISLATIVE POWERS APPERTAIN TO


SOVEREIGNTY.


By the terms of the Kansas Nebraska
act, ard, indeed, of all the territorial gov.
ernments now in existence, the legislative
power of the Territory extends to all right
f1l subjects of legislation consistent with the
constitution of the United States" and the
provisions of the organic acts.


In the lace of this general grant or recog-
milton OF Legislative :" power" over call
rlghttul subjects of legislation" the Attor-
ney General tells us that the Territories
have no attribute of sovereignty about
them" What does he mean by attribute of
sovereignty? "M Legislative posoers apper-