Year: 1859

| LAs' POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY MANIFESTO

 Judge Black, the present Attorney General of

 the United States, has written a searching and

 conclusive reply to Mir. Douglas popular

 sovereignty manifesto. We learn from the l New York Heral that s'the work undertaken

 in this connection by Judge Black is to show: l first that Mir. Douglas ''has not correctly stated the doctrines" held by his democratic opponents; and secondly, tsthat his own opin-

 ions, as given by himself, are altogether un-

 sound" Upon the first point, in reply to the l assertion of MT. Douglas, that Ca portion of

 the Democratic party believe, or profess to be lieye, that the Constitution establishes slave " in the Territories" Judge Black says that the Constitution does no such thing--that ssno body in the country ever thought or said so;'' but he pleads that the Constitution does

 establish the right on the part ''of the legal

 owner of slave or other property to gowih it into Federal Territory without forfeit ing bis title" Upon this proposition the

 whole question hinges, and the clear, constant

 and common sense argument of Mir. Black in

 support of this right of property, will some

 what impress the reader with the slippery na-

 ture of the ground occupied by the Illinois

 Senator. The exact point of difference be-

 tween the two learned judges in the premises

 are: Judge Douglas holds that Territorial

 Legislature, by "friendly or unfriendly legis-

 ation,n may admit slavery into the Territory

 or exclude it therefrom. Judge Black con tends that no such power is invested in Ter

 ritorial Legislature, and that those who desire to con6scate private property of any kind must wait until they get Constitution al Convention or the machinery of State government into their hands. In support of this proposition the simple fact that Ter ritorial government is merely provisional and temporary, that it is the creature of Con- gress and may be changed, suspended re- pealed at the pleasure of Congress, are conclu- sive; and no heightened argument is needed to show the fallacy of the doctrine of Mir. Doug las, that substantially Territorial govern ment holds the same local sovereignty as that of State. The quotations from the speeches and reports of Mir. Douglas given in this arr gument against him show that it is only since the adjournment of the last Congress that he has given this finishing to the dogma of Ter ritorial sovereignty, and that at present his position is step or two in advance of that which he occupied against the Topeka and Lecompton Constitutions. In fact, we can only account for his present position upon the assumption that he has taken it deliberately for the purpose of making an issue with the Charleston convention, which will give him some color of justification in running as a Northern Democratic stump candidate for the Presidency. In no other way can we account for these late instructions of MT. Douglas, which will require the National Democracy at Charleston to recognize the general sovereign ty of State. The views of Judge Black re- fleet the views and policy of MT. Buchanan. If they govern the Charleston Convention in the matter of the party platform, it may not, after all be very difficult task to find prop CT candidate, dispensing with Douglas, Wise and all other sectional ultras. The result may be movement on the part of Doug las and his adherents which, in conjunction with the Southern Opposition, as another in dependent party, may throw the election into Congress; but even there, should Mir. Douglas be one of the three highest candidates, we cannot comprehend the contingency of his election. But can it be that MT. Douglas is content with the ROLE of Martin Van Buren? Let the future determine"