£l)c Lancaster f uldliptiM VOL. LX. THE LANCASTER INTELLIGENCER. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, AT NO. 8 NORTH DUKE STREET, BY GEO. SANDERSON. TERMS Subscription.—Two Dollars por annum, payable in ad vance. No subscription discontinued until all arrear ages are paid* unless at the option of the Editor. Advertiesments. —Advertisements, not exceeding one square, (12 lines,) will be inserted three times for one dollar and twenty-five cents for each additional inser tion. ’Those of greater length in proportion. Job Printino—Such as Hand Bills, Posters, Pamphlets, Blanks, Labels, <fcc., &c., executed with accuracy and on the shortest notice. OBSERVATIONS OX SENATOR DOUGLAS’ VIEWS OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY AS EXPRESSED IN Harper’s Magazine for September, 1859. Every one knows that Mr. Douglas, the senator from Illinois, has written and printed an elaborate essay, comprising thirty-eight columns of 1 larper’s Magazine, in which he has undertaken to point out the “ dividing line between federal and local authority.” Very many persons have glanced over its paragraphs to catch the leading ideas without loss of time, and some few have probably read it with eare, Those who dissent from the doctrines of this paper owe to its author, if not to his arguments, a most respectful answer. Mr. Douglas is not the mail to be treated with a disdainful sileuce. His ability is a fact unquestioned ; his public career, in the face of many disadvantages, has been uncommonly successful ; and he has been for many years a working, struggling candidate lor the presidency. He is, moreover, the Corypliens of his political sect —the founder of a new school—and his disciples naturally bolieve in the infallible verity of his words as a part of their faith. 'The style of the article is, in some respects, highly commendable, it is entirely free from the vulgar clap-trap of the stump ; has no vain adornment of classical scholar ship ; it shows no sign of the eloquent senator; it is even without the logic of the great debater. Many portions of it are very obscure. It seems to be an unsuc cessful effort at legal precision ; liuo the writing of a judge, who is trying in vain to give good reasons for a wrong decision on a question of law which he has not quite mastered. With the help ot Messrs. Seward and Lincoln, he has defined accurately enough the platform of the so-ealleu republican party ; and he does not attempt to conceal his conviction that their doctrines are, in the iast degree, dangerous. They are, most assuredly, full of evil and saturated with mischief. The “ irrepressible con iliet ” which they speak of with so much pleasure between the “ opposing and enduring forces” of the northern and southern States will he fatal, not merely to the peace of the country, but to tile existence of the Government itself. Mr. Douglas knows this, and he knows, also, that the democratic party is the only power which is, or can be organized to resist the republican forces or oppose their hostile march upon the capital. He who divides and.weakens the friends of the country at such a crisis in her fortunes assumes a very grave responsibility. Mr. Douglas separates the democratic party into three classes, and describes them as follows : “ Tirst.. Ihoso who believe that the Constitution of the United btates neither establishes nor prohibits slavery in tho States or Territories beyond the power of the peoplo legally to control it, but ‘ leaves tho peoplo thereof perfectly freo to form and regu late their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.’ “ Second. Those who believe that the Constitu tion establishes slavery in tho Territories, and with holds from Congress and the territorial legislature tho power to control it, and who insist that, in tho event the territorial legislature fails to enact the icquisit laws lor its protection, it becomes the duty of Congress to interpose its iauthority and furnish such protection. “ Thud. Those who, while professing to believe that tho Constitution establishes slavery in the Territories beyond tho power of Congress or the territorial legislature to control it, at the same time protest against the duty of Congress to interfero for • its protection ; but insist that it is tho duty of tho judiciary to protect and maintain slavery in tho Territories without any law upon the Bubject.” We give Mr. Douglas the full benefit of bis own statement. This is bis mode of expressing those differences, which, be says, disturb the harmony, and threaten the integrity of the American democracy. These passages should, therefore, be most carefully considered. The first class is the one .to which he himself belongs, and to both tho others he is equally opposed. He has no right to* come between the second and third class. If the difference which he speaks of does exist among his opponents, it is their business, not his, to settle it or fight it out. We shall, therefore, confine our selves to the dispute between Mr. Douglas and his followers on the one hand, and the rest of the demoeratie party on the other, presuming that he will be willing to observe the principle of non-intervention in all matters with which he has no concern. We will invert the order in which he has discussed the subject, and endeavor to show— 1. That he has not correctly stated the doctrine held by his opponents ; and, 2. That his own .opinions as given by himself, are altogether unsound. I. He says that a certain portion of the democratic party believe, or profess to believe, that the Constitution establishes slavery in the Territories, and insist that it is the duty of the judiciary to maintain it there without any law on the subject. We do not charge him with any intention to be unfair ; but we assert that he has in fact done wrong to, probably, nineteen twentieths of the party, by attempting to put them on grounds which they never chose for themselves. The Constitution certainly does not establish slavery in the Territories, nor anywhere else. Nobody in this country ever thought or said so. But the Consti tution regards as sacred and inviolable all the rights which a citizen may legally acquire in a State. If a man acquires property of any kind in a State, and goes with it into a 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 other chattel may go with it into a Federal Territory without forfeiting his title. Who denies the truth of this, and upon what ground can it be controverted I The reasons which support it are very obvious and very oonelusive. As a jurist and a statesman, Mr. Douglas ought to be familiar with them, and there was a time when he was supposed to understand them very well. We will briefly give him a few of them. 1 1. It is an axiomatic principle of publio law that a right of property, a private relation, condition, or status, lawfully existing in one State or country,- is not changed by the mere removal of the parties to another country, unless the law: of that other country be in a direct con flict with it. For instance : A marriage legally solemnized in France is binding in America; children born in Germany are legitimate here if they are legitimate thero ; and a merchant who buys goods in New York according to the laws of that State may carry them to Illinois and hold them there und.r his contract. It is precisely so with the 'status of a negro carried from one part of the United States to another ; the question of his freedom or servitude depends on the law of the place where he came from, and depends on that aloue, if there be no conflicting law at the place to which he goes or is taken. The Federal Constitution, therefore, recognises slavery as a legal condition wherever the local governments have chosen to let it 'stand unabolished, and regards it as ille gal wherever the laws of the place have 1 forbidden it. A slave being property in Virginia, remains property ; and his master has all the rights of a Virginia master , wherever he may go, so that he go not to - any place where the local law comes in ! conflict with his right. It will not be pretended that the Constitution itself furnishes to the Territories a conflicting law. It contains no provision that can be ! tortured into any Beinblance of a prohibi -1 tion. 2. The dispute on the question whether slavery or freedom is local or general, is The black race in a mere war of words, this country is neither bond nor free by virtue of any general law. That portion of it which is free is free by virtue of some local regulation, and the slave owes service for a similar reason. The Consti tution and laws of the United Slates simply declare that everything doue in the premises by the State governments is right, and they shall be protected in carrying it out. But free negroes and slaves may both find themselves outside of any State jurisdiction, and in a Territory where no regulation has yet been made on the subject. There the Constitution is equally impartial. It neither frees the slave nor enslaves the freeman. It requires both to remain in statu quo until the status already impressed upon them by the law of their previous domicil shall be changed by some competent local authority. What is competent local authority in a Territory will be elsewhere considered. 3. The Federal Constitution carefully guards the rights of private property against the Federal Government itself, by declaring that it shall not be taken for public use without compensation, nor without due process of law. Slaves are private property, and every man who has taken an oath of fidelity to the Constitu tion is religiously, morally, and politically bound to regard them as such. Does anybody suppose that a Constitution which acknowledges the sacredness of private property so fully would wantonly destroy that right, not by any words that are found in it, but by mere implication from its general principles t It might as well be asserted that the general principles of the Constitution gave Lane and Montgomery a license to steal horses in the valley of the Osage. 4. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided the question. After solemn argument and careful consideration, that august tribunal has announced its opinion to be that a slaveholder, by going into a Federal Territory, does not lose the title he had to his negro in the State from which he came. 'ln former times, a ques- J tion of Constitutional law once decided by the Supreme Court was regarded as settled by all, except that little band of ribald infidels, who meet periodically at Boston to blaspheme the religion and plot rebellion against the laws of the country. The leaders of the so-ealled republican party have lately been treading close on the heels'of their abolition brethren ; but it is devoutly to be hoped that Mr. Doug las has no intention to follow their example. In case he is elected President, he must see the laws faithfully executed. Does he think he can keep that oath by fighting the judiciary 1 5. The legislative history of the country shows that all the great statesmen of for mer times entertained the same opinion, and held it so firmly that they did not even think of any other. It was univer sally taken for granted that a slave remained a slave, and a free man a free man, in the new Territories until a change was made in their condition by some posi tive enactment. Nobody believed that a slave might not have been taken to and kept in the Northwest Territory if the ordinance of 1787 or some other regulation had not been made to prohibit it. The Missouri restriction of 1820 was imposed solely because it was understood (probably by every member of that Congress) that, in the absence of a restriction, slave prop erty would be as lawful in the eye of the Constitution above 36 deg. 30 min. as below; and all agreed that the mere absence of a restriction did, in fact, make it lawful below the compromise line. 6. It is right to learn wisdom from our onemies. The republicans do not point to any express provision of the Constitution, nor to any general principle embraced in it, nor to any established rule of law, which sustains their views. The ablest men among them are driven by stress of necessity to hunt for arguments in a code unrevealed, unwritten, and undefined, which they put above the Constitution or the Bible, and call it “ higher law.” The ultra abolitionists of New England do not deny that the Constitution is rightly interpreted by the democrats, as not inter fering against slavery in tho Territories ; but they disdain to obey what they pro nounce to be t£ an agreement with death and a covenant with hell.” 7. What did Mr. Douglas mean when he proposed and voted for the Kansas- Nebraska bill repealing the Missouri restriction t Did he intend to tell South ern men that, notwithstanding the repeal of the prohibition, they were excluded from those Territories as much as ever ? Or did he not regard the right of a mas ter to his slave perfectly good whenever he got rid of the prohibition 1 Did he, or anybody else at that time, dream that it was necessary to make a positive law in favor of the slave-holder before he could go there with safety ? To s ask these questions is to answer them. The Kansas- Nebraska bill was not meant as a delusion or a snare. It was well understood that the repeal alone of the restriction against slavery would throw the country open to « THAT country is the most prosperous where labor commands the greatest reward.”- LANCASTER CITY, PA., TUESDAY MORNING, SEPTEMBER 27, 1859. everything which the Constitution i ecog nized as property. We have thus given what we believe to be the opinions held by the great body (Jf the democratic party —namely, that the Federal Constitution does not establish slavery anywhere in the Union ; that it permits a black man to be either held in servitude or made free as the local law shall decide ; and that in a Territory where no local law on the subject has been enacted it keeps both the slave and the free negro in the status already impressed upon them, until it shall be changed by competent local authority. We have seen that this is sustained by the reason of the thing, by a great principle of public law, by the words of the Constitution, by a solemn decision of the 'Supreme Court, by the whole course of our legislation, by the concession of our political oppo- nents, and, finally, by the most important act in the publio life of Mr. Douglas himself. Mr. Douglas imputes another absurdity to his opponents when he charges them with insisting “ that it is the duty of the judiciary to protect and maintain slavery in the Territories without any law upon the subject The judge who acts with out law acts against law ; and surely no sentiment so atrocious as this was ever entertained by any portion of the demo cratic party. The right of a master to the services of his slave in a Territory is not against law, nor without law, but in full accordance with law. If the law be against it we arc all against it. Has not the emigrant to Nebraska a legal right to the os-team, which he bought in Ohio, to haul him over the plains 1 Is not his title as good tout in the Territory as it was in the State where he got it 1 And what should be said of a judge who tells him that he is not protected, or that he is maintained, in the possession of his prop erty “ without any law upon the subjeot 2. We had a right to expect from Mr. Douglas at least a clear and intelligible definition of his own doctrine. We are disappointed. It is hardly possible to con- ceive anything more difficult to compre hend. We will transcribe it again, and do what can be done to analyze it “ Those who believe that the Constitution of the United States neither establishes nor prohibits slavery in the States or Territories beyond the pow er of the peoplo legally to control it, but ‘leaves the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.’ ” The Constitution neither establishes nor prohibits slavery in the States or Ter ritories. If it be meant by this that the Constitution does not, proprio vigore, either emancipate any man’s slave or create the condition of slavery and im pose it on free negroes, but leaves the question of every black man’s status , in the Territories as well as in the States, to be determined by the local law, then we admit it, for it is the very same proposi tion which we have been trying to prove. But if, on the contrary, it is to be under- stood as an assertion that the Constitution does not permit a master to keep his slave, or a free negro to have his liberty, in all parts of the Union where the local law does not interfere to prevent it, then the error is not only a very grave one, but it is also absurd and self-contradictory. The Constitution neither establishes nor prohibits slavery in the States or Ter ritories beyond the power of the people legally to control it. This is sailing to Point-No-Point again. Of course a sub ject which is legally controlled cannot be beyond the power that controls it. But the question is, what constitutes legal con trol, and when the people of a State or Ter ritory are in a condition to exercise it. The Constitution of the United States * * * * leaves the people perfectly free, * * * and subject only to the Constitution of the United States. This carries us round a full circle, and drops us precisely at the place of beginning.— That the Constitution leaves everybody subject to the Constitution, is most true. We are far from denying it. We never heard it doubted, and expeot we never will. But the statement of it proves nothing, defines nothing, and explains nothing. It merely darkens the subject, as words with out meaning always do. But notwithstanding all this circuity of expression and consequent opaqueness of meaning in the magazine article of Mr. Douglas, we think we can guess what his opinions are or will be when he comes to reconsider the subject. He will admit (at least he will not undertake to deny) that the status of a negro, whether of servitude or freedom, accompanies him wherever he goes, and adheres to him in every part of the Union until he meets some looal law which changes it. It will also be agreed that the people of a State, through their Legislature, and the people of a Territory, in the constitution which they may frame preparatory to their admission as a State, can regulate and con trol the condition of the subject black race within their respective jurisdictions, so as to make them bond or free. But we here come to the point at which opinions diverge. Some insist that no citi zen can be deprived of his property in slaves, or in anything else, except by the provisions of a State constitution or by the act of a State Legislature, while others contend that an unlimited control over private rights may be exercised by a Ter ritorial Legislature as soon as the earliest settlements are made. So strong are the sentiments of Mr. Douglas in favor of the latter doctrine that if it be not established he threatens us with Mr. Seward’s “ irrepressible con flict,” which shall end only with the uni versal abolition or the universal dominion of slavery. On the other hand, the Presi dent, the judges of the Supreme Court, nearly all the democratic members of Con gress, the whole of the party South, and a very large majority North, are penetrated with a conviction that no such power is vested in a territorial legislature, and that those who desire to confiscate private prop erty of any kind must wait until they get a constitutional convention or the ma chinery of a State government into their hands. We venture to give the following reasons for believing that Mr. Douglas is in error : The Supreme Qpurt has deoided that a territorial legislature has not the power whioh he claims for it. That alone ought to be sufficient. There can be no law, or der, or security for any man’s rights un less the judicial authority of the country •be upheld. Mr. Douglas may do .what he pleases with political conventions and party platforms, but we trust he will give to the Supreme Court at least that deoent respeot which none but the most ultra republicans I have yet withheld. , The right of property is sacred, and the first object of all human government is to =. make it secure. Life is always unsafe where property is not fully protected. This ■ is the experience of every people on earth, ancient and modern. To secure private I property was a principal object of Magna Charta. Charles I. afterwards attempted to violate it, but the people rose upon him, dragged him to the block, and severed his head from his body. At a still later period another monarch for a kindred offence was driven out of the country, and died a fugi tive and an outcast. Our own Revolution was provoked by that slight invasion upon the right of property which consisted in the exaction of a trifling tax. There is no government in the world, however abso lute, which would not be disgraced' and endangered by wantonly sacrificing private property even to a small extent. For cen turies past such outrages have ceased to be committed in times of peace among civ ilized nations. Slaves are regarded as property in the Southern States. The people of that sec tion buy and sell, and carry on all their business, provide for their families, and make their wills and divide their inheri tances on that assumption. 'lt is mani fest to all who know them that no doubts ever cross their minds about the rightful ness of holding such property. They believe they have a direct warrant for it, not only m the examples of the best men that ever lived, but in the precepts of Divine revela tion itself; and they are thoroughly satis fied that the relation of master and slave is the only one which can possibly, exist there between the white and the black race without ruining both. The people of the North may differ from their fellow citizens of the South on the whole subject, but knowing as we’ all do, that these senti ments are sincerely and honestly enter tained, we cannot wonder that they feel the most unspeakable indignation when any attempt is made to interfere with their rights. This sentiment results naturally and necessarily from their education and habits of thinking. They cannot help it, any more than an honest man in the North can avoid abhorring a thief or house-break er. The jurists, legislators, and people of the Northern States have always sacredly respected the right of property in slaves held by their own citizens within their own jurisdiction. It is a remarkable fact, very well worth noticing, that no Northern State ever passed any law to take a negro from his master. All laws for the abolition of slavery have operated only on the unborn descendants of the negro race, and the vested rights of masters have not been disturbed in the North more than in the South. In every nation under Heaven, civi lized, semi-barbarous, or savage, where slavery has existed in any form at all anal agous to ours, the rights of the masters to the control of their slaves as property have been respected; and on no occasion has any government struck at those rights, except as it would strike at other property. Even the British Parliament, when it emancipated the West India slaves, though it was legislating for a people three thous and miles away and not represented, never denied either the legal or the natural right of the slave-owner. Slaves were admitted to be property, and the Government ac knowledged it by paying their masters one hundred millions of dollars for the privi- lege of setting them free. Here, then, is a species of property which is of transcendent importance to the material interests of the South—which the people of that region think it right and meritorious in the eyes of God and good men to hold—which is sanctioned by the general sense of all mankind among whom it has existed —which was legal only a short time ago in all the States of the Union, and was then treated as sacred by every one of them—which is guarantied to die owner as much as any other property is guarantied by the Constitution; and Mr. Douglas thinks that a territorial legis lature is competent to take it away. We say, No ; the supreme legislative power of a sovereign State alone can deprive a man of his property. .This proposition is so plain, so well es tablished, and so universally acknowl edged, that any argument in its favor would be a mere waste of words. Mr. Douglas does not deny it, and it did not require the thousandth part of his sagacity to see that it was undeniable. He claims for the territorial governments the right of confiscating private property on the ground that those governments are sover eign—have an uncontrollable and inde pendent power over all their internal af fairs. That is the' point which he thinks is to split the democracy and impale the nation. But it is so entirely erroneous, that it must vanish into thin air as soon as it comes to be examined. A territorial government is merely pro visional and temporary. It is created by Congress for the necessary preservation of order and the purposes of polioe. The powers conferred upon it are expressed in the orgauio act, which is the charter of its existence, and which may be changed or repealed at the pleasure of Congress. In most of those acts the power has been ex pressly reserved to Congress of revising the territorial laws, and the power to re peal them exists without such reservation. This was asserted in the oase of Kansas | by the most distinguished Senators in the Congress of 1856. The President appoints the Governor, judges, and all other officers whose appointment is not otherwise provi ded for, direotly or indireotly, by Congress. Even the expenses of the territorial gov ernment are-paid out of the Federal Treas ury. The truth is, they have no attribute of sovereignty about them. The essence of sovereignty consists in having nO su perior. But a territorial government has , a superior in the United States Govern . ment, upon whose pleasure it is dependent ■ for its very existence—in whom it lives, and moves, and has its being—who has • made and can unmake it with a breath. Where does this sovereign authority to deprive men of their property come from ? This transoendent power, which even des pots are cautious about using, and which a constitutional monarch never exeroises —how does it get into a territorial legisla ture 1 Surely it does not drop from the clouds : it will not be contended that it accompanies the settlers, or exists in the Territory before its organization. Indeed it is not to the people, but to the govern ment of a Territory, that Mr. Douglas says :it belongs. Then Congress most give the —BUCHANAN. power at the same time that it gives the ! territorial government. But not a word ; of the kind is to be found in any organio ! act that ever was framed. It is thus that ! Mr. Douglas’s argument rnns itself out into nothing. But if Congress would pass a statute expressly to give this sort of power to the territorial governments, they still would not have it; for the Federal Government itself does not possess any control over men’s property in the Territories. That suoh power does not exist in the Federal Government needs no proof: Mr. Douglas admits it fully and freely. It is, besides, established by the solemn deoision of Con gress, by the assent of the Executive, and by the direct ratification of the people acting in their primary capacity at the polls. In addition to all this, the Supreme Court have, deliberately adjudged it to be an unalterable and undeniable rule of con stitutional law. This acknowledgment that Congress has no power, authority, or jurisdiction over the subject, literally obliges Mr. Douglas to give up his doctrine, or else to main tain it by asserting that a power which Federal Government does not possess may be given by Congress to the territorial government. The right to abolish Afrioan slavery in a Territory is not granted by the Constitution to Congress; it-is with held, and therefore the same as if expressly prohibited. Yet Mr. Douglas deolares that Congress may give it to the Terri tories. Nay; he goes further, and says that the want of the power in Congress is the very reason why it can delegate it— the general rule, in his opinion, being that Congress oannot delegate the powers it possesses, but may delegate such, “and only such, as Congress oannot exercise under the Constitution !” By turning to pages 520 and 521 the reader will see that this astounding proposition is aotually made, not in jest or irony, but solemnly, seriously, and, no doubt, in perfect good faith. On this principle, as Congress cannot exercise the power to make an ex post facto law, or a law impairing the ob ligation of contracts, therefore it may au thorize such laws to be made by the town councils of Washington City, or the levy court of the District. If Congress passes an act to hang a man without trial, it is void, and the judges will not allow it to be executed; but the power to do this prohibited thing can be constitutionally given by Congress to a territorial legisla ture ! We admit that there are certain powers bestowed upon the General Government which are in their nature judicial or exec utive. With them Congress can do noth ing, except to see that they are executed by the proper kind of officers. It is also true that Congress has certain legislative powers which cannot be delegated. But Mr. Douglas should have known that he was not talking about powers which be longed to either of these classes, but about a legislative jurisdiction totally forbidden to the Federal Government, and inoapable of being delegated for the simple reason that it does not constitutionally exist. Will anybody say that such a power ought, as a matter of policy, or for reasons of public safety, to be held by the provis ional governments bf the Territories ? Un doubtedly no true patriot, nor no friend of justice and order, can deliberately re flect on the probable consequences without deprecating them. This power over property is the one which in all governments has been most carefully guarded, because the temptation to abuse it is always greater than any other. It is there that the subjects of a limited monarchy watch their King with the greatest jealousy. No republic has ever failed to impose strict limi tations upon it. All free people know that, if they would remain free, they must compel the government to keep its hands off their private property ; and this can be done only by tying them up with careful restrictions. Accordingly our Federal Constitution declares that “ no person shall be deprived of his property except by due process of law,” and that “ private property shall not be taken for public use with out just compensation,” It is universally agreed that this applies only to the exercise of the power by the Government of the United States. We are also protected against the State governments by a similar provision in the State constitutions. Legislative robbery is therefore a crime which cannot be com mitted either by Congress or by any State legislature, uuless it be done in flat rebellion to the fundamental law of the land. But if the territorial governments have this power, then they have it without any limitation whatsoever, and in all the fulness of absolute despotism. They are omnipotent in regard to all their internal affairs, for they are socereicnis without a constitution to hold them in check. And this omnipotent sovereignty is to bo wielded by a few men suddenly drawn together from all parts of America and Europe, unaccquainted with one another, and ignorant of their relative rights. But if Mr. Douglas is right, those governments have all the absolute power of the Russian Autocrat. They may take every kind of property in mere caprice, or for any purpose of lucre or malice, without process of law, and without providing for compensation. The legislature of Kansas, sitting at Lecompton or Lawrence, may order the miners to give up every ounce of gold that has been dug at Pike's Peak. If the authorities of Utah should license a band of marauders to despoil the emigrants cross ing the territory, their sovereign right to do so cannot be questioned. A new Territory may be organized, which Southern men think should be devoted to the culture uf cotton, while the people of the North are equally certain that grazing alone is the proper business to be carried on there. If one party, by accident, by force, or by fraud, has a majority in the legislature, the negroes are taken from the planters; and if the other set gains a political victory, it is followed by'a statute to plunder the graziers of their cattle. Such things cannot be done by the Federal Government, nor by the governments of the States : but, if Mr. Douglas is not mistaken, they can be done by the territorial govern ments. Is it not every way better to wait until the new inhabitants know themselves and one another; until the policy of the Territory is settled by some experience ; and above all, until the great powers of a sovereign State are regularly conferred upon them and properly limited, so as to prevent the gross abuses which always accompany unrestricted power in human hands ? There is another consideration which Mr. Douglas should have been the last man to overlook. The present Administration of the Federal Government, and the whole democrat ic party throughout the country, including Mr. Douglas, thought that in the case of Kan sas the question of retaining or abolishing slavery should not be determined by any rep resentative body without givipg to the whole mass of the people an opportunity of voting on it. Mr. Douglas carried it further, and warmly opposed the Constitution, denying even its validity, because other and undispu ted parts of it'had not also been submitted to a popular vote. No® 1 he is willing that? the whole slavery dispute in any Territory, and all questions that can arise concerning the rights of the people to that or other property, l shall be decided at once by a territorial legis- lature, without any submission at all. Popu lar sovereignty in the last Congress meant the freedom of the people from all the restraints of law and order: now it means a government which shall rule them with a rod of iron. It swings like a pendulum from one side clear over to the other. Mr. Douglas’s opinions on this subject of sovereign territorial governments are very singular: but the reasons he has produced to support them are infinitely more curious still. For instance, he shows that Jefferson once in troduced into the old Congress of the Confed eration a plan for the government of the Ter ritories, calling them by the name of “now States,” but not making them anything like sovereign or independent States; and though this was a mere experimental projet, which was rejected by Congress, and never after wards referred to by Jefferson himself, yet Mr. Douglas argues upon it as if it had some how become a part of our fundamental law. Again : He says that the States gave to the Federal Government the same powers which as colonies they had been willidg to concede to the British government, and kept those which as colonies they had claimed for themselves. If he will read a common school history of the Revolution, and . then look at Art. 1, sec. 8, of the Constitution, he will find the two following facts fully established: I. That the Federal Government has “ pow er to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, .and excises;” and, 2. That the colonies, before the Revolution, utterly refused to be taxed by Great Britain ; and, so far from con ceding tbe power fought against it'for seven long years. There is another thing in the article which, if it had not come from a distinguished sena tor, and a very upright gentleman, would have been open to some imputation ot unfair ness. He quotes the President’s message, and begins in the middle of a sentence. He professes to give the very words, and makes Mr. Buchanan say: “That slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the Constitution of tho United States.” What Mr. Buchanan did say was a very different thing. It was this: rt It has been solemnly adjudged by the high est judicial tribunal known to our laws, that slavery exists in Kansas by virtue ot the Constitution of the United States.” Every body knows that by treating the Bible in that way you can prove the non-existence of God. The argumentum ad hominem is not fair, and we do not mean to use it. Mr. Douglas has a right to change his opinions whenever he pleases. But we quote him as we would any other authority equally high in favor of truth. We can prove by himself that every proposition he lays down in Harper’s Maga zine is founded in error. Never before has any public man in America so completely revolutionized his political opinions in the course of eighteen months. We do not deny that the change is heartfelt and conscientious. We only insist that he formerly stated his propositions much more clearly, and sustained them with far greater ability and better reasons, than he does now. When he took a tour to the South, at the beginning of last winter, he made a speech at New Orleans, in which he announced to the people there that he and his triends in ! Illinois accepted the Dred Scott decision, regarded slaves as property, and fully admit ted the right of a Southern man to go into any federal territory with his slave, and to hold him there as other property is held. In 1849 he voted in the Senate for what was called Walker’s amendment, by which it was proposed to put all tho internal affairs of California and New Mexico under the domination of the President,, giving him almost unlimited power, legislative, judicial, and executive , over tho internal affairs of those Territories. (See 30th Cong., p. .) — Undoubtedly this was a strange way of treat ing sovereignties. If Mr. Douglas is right now, he was guilty then of must atrocious usurpation. | Utah is as much a sovereign State as any other Territory, and as pcriectly entitled to enjoy the-right of self government. On the 12th of June, 1857, Mr Douglas made a speech about Utah at Springfield, Illinois, in which he expressed his opinion strongly in favor of the absolute and unconditional repeal of the or ganic act, blotting the territorial government out of existence, and putting the people under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction ol the Uni ted States, like a fort, arsenal , dock yard , or magazine. He does not seem to have had the least idea then that he was proposing to extin guish a sovereignty, or to trample upon the sacred rights of an independent people. The report which he made to the Senate in IBSG, on the Topeka constitution, enunciates a very different doctrine from that of tho maga zine article. It is true that the language is a little cloudy, but no one can understand tho following sentences to signify that the territo- rial governments have sovereign power to take away the property of the inhabitants : » The sovereignty of a Territory remains in abey ance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people untit they shall be admitted into the Union, as a State. In the meantime thoy are ad mitted to enjoy and exorcise all the rights and privileges of solf-government in subordination to the Constitution of the United States, and in obedience to the organic law, passed by Con gress in pursuance of that instrument. These rights and privileges are all derived from the Constitution through the act of Congress, and must be exercised and enjoyed in subjection to all the limitations and restrictions which that Constitution imposes.” The letter he addressed to a Philadelphia meeting, in February, 1858, its more explicit, and barring some anomalous ideas concerning the abeyance of the power and the suspension of it in trust it is clear enough : <t Under our territorial system, it requires sover eign power to ordain and establish constitutions and governments. While a Territory may and should enjoy all the rights of self-government, in obedience to its organic law , it is not a sovereign power. The sovereignty of a Territory remains i n abey ance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people when they become a State , and cannot be withdrawn from the hands of the trustee and vested in the people of a Territory without the consent of Congress.' 1 The report which he made in the same month from the Senate Committee on Territories, is equally distinct, and rather more emphatic against his new doctrine: “ This committee in their reports have always held that a. Territory is not a sovereign power; that the sovereignty of a Territory is in abeyance, sus pended in the United States, in trust for the people when they becomo a State; that the United States, a 3 trustees, cannot be divested of the sovereignty, nor the Territory bo invested with the right to as sume and exercise it, without the consent of Con gress. If the proposition be true that sovereign power alone can institute governments , and that the sovereignty of a Territory is in abeyance, sus pended in the United States, in trust for the people when they become a State, and that the sovereignty cannot be divested from the hands of the trustee without the assent of Congress, it follows, as an in evitable consequence, that the Kansas legislature did not and could not confer upon the Lecompton convention the sovereign power of ordaining a con stitution for the peoplo of Kansas, in place of the organic act passed by Congress.” The days are past and gone when Mr Doug- \ las led the fiery assaults of the opposition in j the Lecompton controversy. Then it was his j object to prove that a territorial legislature, . so far from being omnipotent was powerless \ even to authorize an election of delegates to consider about their own affairs. It was as serted that a convention chosen under a ter ritorial law could make and ordain no consti tution which would be legally binding Then a territorial government was to be despised and spit upon, even when it invited the people to come forward and vote on a question of the most vital importance to their own interests. But now all things have become new. The Lecompton dispute' has “ gone glimmering down the dream of things that were” and Mr. Douglas produces another issue, brand new from the mint. The old opinions are not worth a rush to his present position : it mußt .be sustained by opposite principles and rea soning totally different The legislature of Kansas was not sovereign when it authorized a convention of the people to assemble and decide what sort of a constitution they would have, but when it strikes at their rights of property, it becomes not only a sovereign, but a sovereign without limitation of power. We have no idea that Mr. Douglas is not perfectly sincere, as he was also when he took the other side. The impulses engendered by the heat of controversy at different times have driven him opposite directions. We do not charge it against him as a crime, but it iB true that these of his, views inconsistent as they are with one another, always happen to accord with the interests of the opposition, always give to the of the Constitution a certain amount of “aid and comfort,” and always add a little to the rancorous and malignant hatred with which the abolitionists regard the Government of-their own country. Yes : the Lecompton issue which Mr. Doug las made upon the Administration two. years ago iB done, and the principles on which We were then opposed are abandoned. We are no longer required to fight for the lawfulness of a territorial election held under territorial authority. But another issue is thrust upon us to “ disturb the harmony and threaten the integrity ”of the party. A few words more (perhaps of tedious repetition) by way of showing what that new issue is, or probably will be, and we are done. We insist that an emigrant going into a federal Territory retains his title to the prop erty which he took with him until there is some prohibition enacted by‘lawful authority. Mr. Douglas cannot deny this in the face, of his New Orleans speech,and the overwhelming reasons which support it. It is an agreed point among all demoorata that Congress cannot interiors with the rights of property in the Territories. It is also acknowledged that the people of. a new State, either in their constitution or in na act of their legislature, may make the ne groes within it free, or hold them in a Btato of servitude. But we believe more. We believe in sub mitting to the law as decided by the Supreme Court, which declares that a territorial legis lature cannot, any more than Congress, interfere with the rights of property in a Territory—that the settlers of a Territory are bound to wait until the sovereign, power is conferred upon them, with proper limitations, before they attempt to exeroise the most dangerous of all its functions. Mr. Douglas denies this, and there is the new issue. Why should such an issue be made at suoh a time? What is there now to excuse any friend of peace for attempting to stir up the bitter waters of strife. There is no actual difficulty about this subject in any Territory. There is no question upon it pending before Congress or the country. Wo are called upon to make a contest, at once unnecessary and .hopeless, with the judicial authority of the nation. Wo object to it. We will not obey Mr. Douglas when he commands us to assault the Supreme Court of the United States. We believe the court to be right, and Mr. Douglas wrong. CARDS. Edward jpgovern, ATTORNEY AT LAW, No. 3 South Queen street, in Heed, McGrann, Kelly A Co.'s Hanking Building, Lancaster, Pa. Newton lightnkr, attorney AT LAW, has bis Office iu North Duke street, nearly opposite the Court House. Lancaster, apr 1 tfll Removal.— william b. fordney, Attorney at Law, has removed his office from North Queen street to the building in the south-east corner of Centre Square, formerly known an Llubley’a Hotel. Lancaster, april 10 Removal.— dr. j. t. baker, hom- UJPATHIC PHYSICIAN, has removed his office to No. Kant King street, next door above King’s Grocery. Reference—Professor W. A. Gardner, Philadelphia. Calls fiom the conutry will bo promptly aftendod to. apr 0 tfl2 WT. DIcPHAIL, . ATTORNEY AT LAW, mar3l ly 11 No. 11 N. Duke st., Lancaster, Pa. REMOVAL— H. B. SWARR, Attorney at Law, has removed his office to No. 13 North Duke street, nearly opposite his former location, and a lew doors north «>[' thu Court llouuu. apr 6 3m 12 DR. JOHN M’C ALL A, DENTIST.--Office No. 4 Hast Kiufi street. Residence Walnut street, second door West of Duke, Lancaster, Pa. (apr 18 tf 13 ALDUS J. NEFF, Attorney at Law.— Office with B. A. Shreffer, Esq., south-west corner of :re yqua.ro, Lancaster. may 15, *55 ly 17 c. SAMUe£ H. REYNOLDS, Attorney at Law. Office, No. 14 North Duke street, opposite tho Court House. mayfitflfl Abram shank, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Office with D. Q. Kshleman, Ebq., No. 36 North Dure Bt., LANCASTER, PA. JESSE LANDIS, Attorney at Law.—Of fice one door east of Lechler’tt Hotel, East King street, Lancaster, Pa. *2, All kinds of Screening—such as writing Wills, Deeds, Mortgages, Accounts, Ac., will be’attended to with correctness and despatch. may 15, ’55 tf-17 SIMON P. E B Y , ATTORNEY AT LAW, OFFICE:—No. 3S North Duke tlrtei, may 11 ly 17 j Lancaster, Penna. Frederick s. pyfer, A T TURNEY AT LAW. OFFICE —No. 11 North Duke street, (west side,) Lan caster, I’a. apr 20 tf 14 RE MO V A L.--WILLIAM S. AMWEO, Attorney at Law, has removed his office from hifl former place into South Duke street, nearly opposite the Trinity Lutherau Church. aprBtfl2 JOHN F. BRINTON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PHILADELPHIA, Pi., Has removed his office to his residence, No. 249 South 6th Street, above Spruce. • Refera by permiaaiou to Hon. H. G. Long, J 4 “A. L. Hates, “ Feebee Beinton, “ Thaddeus Stevens. 10V 24 ly*4s JADIES BLACK, Attorney at Law.—Of fice in East King street, two doors east ofLechlerts Hotel. Lancaster, Pa. .... , , . All business connected with his profession, ana all kinds of writing, such as preparing Deeds, Mortgages, Wills, stating Accounts, 4c., promptly attended to. may 15. • tf ' lT DETER D. MYERS, Jr HEAL.ESTATE AGENT, PHILADELPHIA, ill attend to the Renting of House*, Collecting House .ud Ground Rents, 4c. Agencies entrusted to his care will bo thankfully received, and carefully attended to.— Satisfactory reference given. Office N. K. corner of SEVENTH and SANBOM streets, Second Floor, No. 10. feb 17 ** 6 _ Brooke pugh, FORWARDING <(■ COMMISSION MERCHANTS, No. 1731 Market Strkbt, Philadclphia, Exclusively Commission J*e|j2r3 FOR Till; SALE OF 2 %}'fffiSl FLU UR GRAIN. WHISKEY, 3Et;D3 AND COUNTRY PItOD U 0 E . jjOr- Forwarders of Freight , per A K WIT 'I KR'rt Cars to Paradise, Lancaster county. MUSPELMAN, HERR & GO’S. Cara to Strasbarg, do. July 5 ly 25 CAROLINA YELLOW PINE PIiOOR \J ing HOARDS. 50,000 Feet Carolina Yellow Pine Dressed Flooring Hoards. 30,000 Foot Do. Undressed. 50 000 CYPRESS SHINGLES, No. land 2. BANGOR PLASTERING LATHS, Just received and for .ale at Oraeffß .Landing, on th. PnnwKtnira Adoly to GEO CALDEK A GO., Office East Orange at., near N. Qneen st., iAncaster «30 J * 7g t\RU'g and chemical store. I ) The subscriber having removed his store to the new Gilding nearly opposite his old stand, and directly oppose ♦h« Praia Kevs Hotel, has now on hand a well selected stock of articles belonging to the Drug busineaa. conaiJtlng in nart of Oils, Acids, Spices, .Seeds, Alcohol, Powdered Articles, Sarsaparillas, Ac., Ac., to which the PhJSiC "MAB , ISi^T ral febßtfd West King etreet, Lan. WATCHES, JEW.EL.B.V AND X 1 L V E R It'd R R ■ We would respectfully Inform our friends, If I'™’ 1 '™’ tbe public generally, that wo have Just openod onr NKW WATCH, JEWELIIY, SILVER AND PLATED s<s> WAKE ESTABLISHMENT, at Wiy* STKEET, where we offer Wholesale and Retail, at the cun pbices, a large and very choice «BU1S» stock of every description of goods usually kept In a first dl^Vho^runUrTngeffoVu6^ to iocommodate not only to retain all oor former patrons, but merit and secure a large accession to the same. , I _„ ST Every deKtiptlon of Dlikosn WoEK and other JiwiUit, to be aa represented. SSStion given to ft. repairing of Watches and Jewelry of 4“ HAELEY, .. otyo Mnpbntfitrset, Sooth side, Philadelphia. N. Store, No. 148 North Second Street, for a abort time only. [aug i3m 28 S p , r k s. Ace-Cinnamon, Clowes, Saln nimiTa MAKING SODA. CREAM TARTAR, NUT Drug A Chemical Store, West King it*?®** feb 9 V . NO 37.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers