Year: 1859




in appearance and matter.


~ The Democrat answers our quer,,-
by giving an opinion that Territorial
Legislature can prohibit slavery by a
positive enactment and that such is the
opinion of Judge Douglas. This is
frank and to the point. 1t is what we
have endeavored to find out for some
time. That question is now settled well
enough for the basis of an argument.
But there are other difficulties lying
about this business of popular soTereign-
ty which will unbiddenly spring up
every time we approach the question.
The Demo rat holds that the people of
Territory have the right to prohibit
slavery, that it is an inherent right, and
inherent. it is, of course, inalienable and
cannot be interfered with. In case. how
ever. the people of Territory exer-
else this right and pass an act prohibi-
tory of slavery there is a federal governor
to veto it if ha chooses and thus thwart-
ing the will ofthe majority of the people
How can a right be Inherent and in
aicnable which can thus be destroyed
by the gene. al government through its
creaturel or is the righ: subject to mod
ifications and imitationsl It is useless
to talk of the sovereignty of the people
while this veto power remains, and il
seems to us that the Democracy. or at
least the Democrat, -lust make another
stride towards the old rositien
of General Cass to obtain a
more tenable position on the popular
sovereignty question. That veto pow
er of Territorial governor is bar to
the doctrine if the opinion of the Demo
crat be correct, and must be done away
with, or the governor of a Territory
must be elected by the people and his
powers prescribed by them.


The Democrat says: "a decision of
the Supreme Court, that Territorial
Legislature has no power to prohibit
slavery, would impose no moral or politi-
cal obligation upon the Legislature to
adopt police regulations to protect the
institution; and without such local reg
ulations slavery cannot exist in any
Territory where majority of the people
are opposed to the institniion.'


Fer the present We will almi; there is
truth in the above position. Still, if the
Territorial Legislature be under no OBJ
legation to protect The institution it does
not follow Congress may not. In case
the Supreme Court make the decision
then slavery will exist in a Territory
by some authority, for slavery is estab-
lished by positive law. By what author
ity! There IS no other than the constitu
ton ofihe United States. Such we under
stand to be the opinion of the Democratic
party expressed through its public heads
We might fortify this point from adms-
sions and declarations of Cass and
others. The constitution, then, sane
tioning slavery is it not to be protected!
There is some power somewhere for en-





forcing rights recognized by the consti-
tuition. and among these. if we are to
take Democratic opinions. is the right
to hold slaves in Territories. The en-
actment to secure this right, if it be a
right, must come from Congress. So
that in any construction Of the case Ell
ther as the thing now stands, or after the
decision of the Supreme
Court is made, the people are proven
not to be sovereign in Territory, the
highest authority being still lodged in
the federal government. What. then.
does squatter sovereignty amount to
when sifted2