Year: 1859

MR.. DOUGLAS REVIEWED.


= The heads of the Democratic party al
Washington have issued formal reply to the
magazine article of Senator Douglas on Pop
ular Sovereignty in the Territories" A PAM
phlet edition of it has been printed, which will
be scattered all about the country; and it will
be circulated in the newspaper organs OF the
Government. The Boston Post published it
yesterday morning, not emitting to endorse it
as follows ct is written with great perspic-
uity and power, and, in our humble opinion,
exposes very clearly the falacious reasoning
of the Senator in essential points Public
rumor attributes this production to Mr.. Attor-
ney General Black. 1t is very likely that he
wrote it nevertheless, it bears marks of hav-
ing been revised at long session of friends
in council +"


It Is written with great clearness and precis
ion of statement and shows the ground on
which the rally is to be made against the Hi
nois Senator. He divides his opponents in the
Democratic party into two classes; but they
will all doubtless accept this very adroit and
effective statement of their position, in which
Senator Hunter of Virginia seems to be as
visibly present as Mr.. Black or any 9TH
er member of the Cabinet. Mr.. Douglas de-
scribed the two classes of Democrats op-
posed to him as holding that the federal
tories, while he merely asserted that it has a
right to go there as property. This reply to
him denies this, treats it as a misrepresenta-
ton, and speaks for its friends as follows -


"The Constitution certainly does not estab-
lsh slavery in the Territories, nor anywhere
else. Nobody in this country ever thought or
said so. But the Constitution regards as sac
red and inviolable all the rights which a citizen
may legally acquire in a state If man ac-
quires property of any kind in a state, and
goes with it into territory, he is not for that
reason to be stripped of it. Our simple and
plain proposition is that the legal owner of a
slave or any other chatte may go with it into
a federal territory without forfeiting histitle."


Therefore Mr. Douglas mssstated the mat
ter and claimed a difference where none exists
The parties are in agreement on this point and
have no occasion to dispute about it. And we
can see no important difference between them
on any other point; nor does this reviewer of
Mr.. Douglas really pretend to find any sub
stantial difference save on one point. And
this supposed difference is referred to thus =


"He Mr.. Douglas] claims for the territorial
governments the right of confscating prop
erty on the ground that those governments ARE
so0eretgn-haye an uncomfortable and indie
pendent power over all their internal affairs.
That is the point which he thinks is to split
the democracy, and impale the nation"


And large portion of the article is devoted
to this matter. But, in this case, the reviewer
finds a difference where there is none, and falls
into more serious MEASUREMENT than any he
has been able to detect in the essay of Mr..
Douglas. That gentleman has nowhere
taught the doctrine here attributed to him.
On the contrary, he has denied it in the most
explicit terms. He said in the Senate last
February =


II hold that no such thing as sovereign pow
er attaches to territory while a territory. l
hold that territory possesses whatever power
II derives from the constitution under the or.
game act, and no more. | hold that all the
power territorial legislature possesses is de-
rived from the constitution and its amend
ments, under the act of Congress and be-
cause hold that, denied last year that the
people oI territory, without the consent OF
Congress- could assemble at Lecompton and
create an organic law for that people. de-
MED the validity of your Lecompton constitu-
ton, for the reason that constitutions can only
be made by sovereign power; and because the
territory was not sovereignty, that was not
constitution, but petition"


And he has never said anything contrary to
this. Nor is it likely that any of his Demo
cratic critics really believe him any more in
clined to do so than themselves but they are
quite willing to drive him into a corner where
he will be compelled IN sefdefence to reiterate
his old proslavery explanation of such speech
es as he has recently delivered in Ohio. They
are playing sharp game for control of the
Democratic party. Douglas is the bodest
player. Will he prove to be the most cunning
and successful? 4? This remains to be seem He
cannot well avoid taking notice of the criticism
of this reviewer and we have some curiosity
to see how he will shape his reply to it. He
will of course repeat what he said in expana
ton when closely questioned in the Senate
last winter; but how will he contrive to do
this satisfactorily and yet keep up that sover
eign style of antagonism to his rivals