territorial OBSERVATIONS ON 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 Harper'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 oare. 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 man to be treated with a disdainful silenpe. His ability is a fact unquestioned; his public career, in the face of many disadvantages, has been uncom¬ monly successful; and he has been for many years a working, struggling candidate for the Presi¬ dency. He is, moreover, the Corypheus of his political sect—the founder of a new school—and his disciples naturally believe in the infallible verity of his words as a part of their faith. The style of the article is, in some respects, high¬ ly commendable. It is entirely free from the vul¬ gar clap-trap of the stump; has no vain adornment of classical scholarship; it show3 no sign of the eloquent Senator; it is even without the logic of the great debater. Many portions of it are very obscure. It soems to be an unsuccessful effort at legal precision; like the writing of a judge, who is trying in vain to give good reasons for a wrong de¬ cision on a question of law which he has not quite mastered. With the help of Messrs. Seward and Lincoln, he has defined accurately enough the platform of the so called Republican party; and he does not at¬ tempt to conceal his conviction that their doctrines are, in the last degree, dangerous. They are, most assuredly, full of evil and saturated with mischief. The " irrepressible conflict" which they speak of with so much pleasure between the "opposing and ' enduring forces" of the Northern and Southern States will be fatal, not merely to the peace of the country, but to the 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 Repub¬ lican 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, as¬ sumes a very grave responsibility. Mr. Douglas separates the Democratic party into three classes, and describes them as follows: "First. Those who believe that the Constitution of the United States neither establishes nor pro¬ hibits slavery in the States or Territories beyond the power of the people legally tp 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.' "Second. Those who believe that the Constitu¬ tion establishes slavery in the Territories, and withholds from Congress and the Territorial Le¬ gislature the power to control it, and who insist that, in the event the Territorial Legislature fails to enact the requisite laws for its protection, it be¬ comes the imperative duty of Congress to inter¬ pose its authority and furnish such protection. "Third. Those who, while professing to believe that the Constitution establishes slavery in the Territories beyond the power of Congress or the Territorial Legislature to control it, at the same time protest against the duty of Congress to inter¬ fere for its protection; but insist that it is the duty of the Judiciary to protect and maintain sla¬ very in the Territories without any law upon the subject." We give Mr. Douglas the full benefit of his own statement. This is his mode of expressing those differences, which, he says, disturb the harmony, and threaten {he integrity, of the American demo¬ cracy. These passages should, therefore, be most carefully considered. The first class is the one to which he himself belongs, and to both the others he is equally op posed. He has no right to come between the sec¬ ond 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 ourselves to the dispute between Mr. Douglas and his followers on the one hand, and the rest of the Democratic party on the other, presuming that he will be willing to ob serve the principle of non-intervention in all matters with which he has no concern. We will.invert the order in which he has dis¬ cussed tl?e subject, and endeavor to show— 1. TIjrat he has not correctly stated the doctrine held hj> his opponents; and, 2 A'hat his own opinions, as given by himself, are altogether unsound. Ho says that a certain portion of the Demo- "ffl^atic 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 tbem on grounds which they never chose for themselves. The Constitution certainly does not establish slavery [,in the Territories, nor anywhere elte Nobody in this country ever thought or said so. But the Constitution regards as sacred and invio lable all the rights which a citizen may legally acquirb in a State. If a man acquires property ot any kind in a State, and goes with it into a Terri tory, 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 ether 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? The reasons which support it are very obvious and very conclusive. As a jurist and a statesman, Mr. Douglas ought to be familiar with them, and there was a time v«hen he was supposed to understand them very well. We will briefly give him a few of them. 1. It is an axiomatic principle of public law that a right of prepert a private relation, condition, or Ktatvs, lawfully existuig 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 he in direct conflict with it. For instance: A niarriage legally solemnized in France is bind ing in America; children born in Germany are le¬ gitimate here if they are legitimate there; and a merchant who buys goods in New York according to the laws of that State may carry them to Illi¬ nois and hold them thereunder his contract. It is precisely so with the status of a negro carried from one part of the United States to another; the ques¬ tion of his freedom or servitude depends on the law of the place where he came from, and depends on that alone, if there be no conflicting law at the place to which he goes or is taken. The Federal Constitution, therefore, recognises slavery as a le¬ gal condition wherever the local governments have cnosen to let it stand unabolished, and regards it as illegal wherever the laws of the place have for¬ bidden it. A slave being property in "Virginia, re¬ mains property, and his master has all the rights of a Virginia madter 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 Terri¬ tories a conflicting law. It contains no provision that can be tortured into any semblance of prohi¬ bition. 2. The dispute on the question whether slavery or freedom is local or general, is a mere war of words. The black race in 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 Constitution and laws of the United States simply declare that everything done 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 Terri¬ tory where no regulation has yet been made on the subject. There the Constitution is equally impar¬ tial. 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 com¬ petent local authority in a Territory will be else¬ where considered. 3 The Federal Constitution carefully guards the righ's 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 Constitution is religiously, morally, »nd 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 impli¬ cation from its general principles? 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. In former times, a question of constitutional law once decided by the Supreme Court was re¬ garded as settled by all, except thatliitle band of ribald infidels, who meet periodically at Boston to blaspheme the religion and plotrebellion against the laws of the country. The leaders of the so-called Re¬ publican party have lately been treading clo-e on the heels of their abolition brethren; but it is de¬ voutly to be hoped that Mr. Douglas has no inten¬ tion to follow their example. In case be is elected President, he must see the laws faithfully executed. Does he think he can keep that oath by fighting the judiciary? ' 5. The legislative history of the country shows that all the great statesmen of former times enter¬ tained the same opinion, and held it so firmly, that they did not even think of any other. It was uni¬ versally taken for granted that a slave remained a slave, and a freeman a freeman, in the new Ter¬ ritories, until a change was made in their condition by some positive 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 absenoe of a restriction, slave property would be as lawful in the eye of the Constitution above 36° 30' 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 enemies. The Republicans do not point to any express pro¬ vision of the Constitution, nor to any general principle embraaed in it, nor to any established rule of law, which sustains their views. The ablest men among them are driven by stress of ne cessity 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 d<> not deny that the Constitution is rightly inter pret.ed by the Democrats, as not interfering agains' slavery in the Territories ; but they disdain to obey what they pronounce to be " an agreement witb death, and a covenant with hell." 7. What did Mr. Douglas mean when he pro¬ posed and voted for the Kansas-Nebraska bill re¬ pealing the Missouri restriction ? Did he intend to tell Southern men that, notwithstanding the re¬ peal of the prohibition, they were excluded from those Territories as much as ever? Or did he not regard the right of a master to his slave perfectly good whenever he got rid of the prohibition? Did he, or anybody else at that time, dream that it w-ts Decessary to make a positive law in favor of the slave holder'before he could go there with safety? To 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 everything which the Consti¬ tution rec.oguised as property. We have thus given what we believe to be the opinions held by the great body of 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 servi tude 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 sus¬ tained by the reason of the thing, by a great prin¬ ciple of public law, by the words of the Constitu¬ tion, by a solemn decision of the Supreme Court, by the whole course of our legislation, bv the con¬ cession of our political opponents, and, finally, by the most important act in the public 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 without law acts against law; and surely no sentiment so atrocious as this was ever entertained by any por tion of the Democratic 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 ac cordance with law. If the law be against it we are all against it. Hy virtue of the Constitution of the United States." Everybody knows that by treating the Bible in that way, you can prove the non-existence of God. The argumentum ad Jtominem is not fair, and we Jo not mean to use it. Mr. Douglas has a right to chaDge his opinions whenever he pleases. But we qijote him as. we would any other authority equally high in favor of truth We can prove by himself thnt every proposition he lays down in Harper's Magazine is founded in error. Never before has iny public man in America so completely revolu¬ tionized his political opinions in the course of jighteen months. We do not deny that the change s heartfelt and conscientious. We only insist that je formerly stated bis propositions much more ilearly, and sustained them with far greater ability md better reasons, than he does now. When he took a tour to the South, at the begin¬ ning of last winter, he made a speech at New )rleans, in which he announced to the people there hat he and his friends in Illinois accepted the Bred 3cott decision, regarded slaves as property, and ully admitted the right of a Southern man to go nto any federal territory with his slave, and to told him there a# other property is held. In 1849 he voted in the Senate for what was called Walker's amendment, by which it was pro- posed to put all the internal affairs of California and New Mexico under the domination of the Pre¬ sident, giving him almost unlimited power, legisla¬ tive, judicial, and executive, over the internal a/airs ©t those Territories. (See 3f>th Cong., p. .) Undoubtedly this was a sfcraDge way of treating sovereignties. If Mr. Douglas is right now, he was guilty tLen of most atrocious usurpation. Utah is as much a sovereign State as any other Territory, and as perfectly entitled to enjoy the right of self-government. On the 12th of June, 1857, Mr Douglas made a speech about U'i.h at Springfield, Illinois, in which he expr>y and exercise all the rights and privileges of self-government in subordination to the Constitu i m of the United States, and in obedience to the organic law, passed by Congress in pursuai ce of that instrument. These rights and privileges are all derived from the Constitution through the act of Congress, and must be exercised and enjoyed ia subjection to all the limitations and restrictions which that Constitution imposes." The letter he addressed to a Philadelphia meet¬ ing, in February, 1858, is more explicit, and, barring some anomalous ideas concerning the abeyance of the power and the suspension of it in trust, it is clear enough: " Under our territorial system, it requires sove¬ reign 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 sove¬ reign power.. 'The sovereignty of a, Territory re¬ mains in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people when tliey 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 " The report whii h fee made in the same m' nth, 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 powerj that the sovereignty of a Territory is in abeyance, sus¬ pended in the United States, in trust for the peo¬ ple when they becom a» State; that the United States, as trustees, cannot be divested of the sovereignty, nor the Territory be invested with the right to assume and exercise it, without the consent of Congress. If the proposition be true that sovereign power alone can institute governments, and that the sovereignty of a Territory is in abeyance, suspended 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 fol¬ lows, as an inevitable consequence, that the Kan¬ sas Legislature did not and could not confer upon the Lecompton Convention the sovereign power of ordaining a Constitution for the people of Kansas, in place of the organic act passed by Congress." The days are past and gone when Mr Douglas led the fiery assaults of the Opposition in the Le¬ compton controversy. Then it was his object to prove that a territorial legislature, so far from be¬ ing omnipotent, was powerless even to authorize an election of delegates to consider about their own affairs. It was asserted that a convention chosen under a territorial law could make and or¬ dain no constitution which would be legally bind¬ ing. Then a territorial government was to be de spised sind spit upon, even when itinvited 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 Leeompton dis¬ pute 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 posi¬ tion; it must be sustained by opposite principles and reasoning 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 be¬ comes not only a sovereign, but a sovereign with¬ out 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 engen¬ dered by the heat of the controversy have driven him at different times in opposite directions. We do not charge it against him as a crime, but it is true that these views of his, inconsistent as they are with one another, always happen to accord with the interests of the Opposition, always give to the enemies 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. Douglas made upon the Administration two years ago i done, and the principles on which we were thei opposed are abandoned. We are no longer require' to fight for the lawfulness of a Territorial eieccioi held under territorial authority. But anothe issue is thrust upon us to "disturb the harmon; and threaten the integrity" of the party. A fe\ words more, (perhaps of tedious repetition,) b; way of showing what that new issue is, or probabl; will be, and we are done. We insist that an emigrant going into a federa Territory retains his title to the property which h took with him until there is some prohibition en acted by lawful authority. Mr. Douglas canno deny this in the face of his New Orleans speech and the overwhelming reasons which support it. It is an agreed point among all Democrats tha Congress cannot interfere with the rights of pro perty in the Territories. It is also acknowledged that the people of a ne: State, either in their Constitution or in an act c their Legislature, may make the negroes within i free, or hold them in a state of servitude. But we believe more. We believe—in submil ting to the law as decided by the Supreme Cour which declares that a Territorial Legislature can not, any more than Congress, interfere with th rights of property in a Territory—that the settlei of a Territory are bound to wait until the sovereig power is conferred upon them, with proper limits tions, before they attempt to exercise the mo; dangerous of all its functions. Mr. Douglas denk this, and there is the new issue. Why should such an issue be made at such time? . What is there now to excuse any frien of peace for attempting to stir up the bitter watei of strife? There is no actual difficulty about th subject in any Territory! There is no questio upon it pending before Congress or the countr We are called upon to make a contest, at once ur necessary and hopeless, with the judicial authorit of the nation. We object to it. We will not ohp Mr. Douglas when he commands us to assault th Supreme Court of the United States. We believ the Court to be right, fcnd Mr. Douglas wrong. OPINIONS OF THE PRESS • PFrom the New York Day Book.] 1 "Squatter Sovereignty* "—We trust our read- *•8 will all peruse the able article from the Wash- igton Constitution upon Senator Douglas' special pbby, "squatter sovereignty." The writer is re- brted fo be Attorney General Black, but whoever b may be, it must be allowed by all candid peoule !at he has completely demolished all of Mr. ouglas' sophisms. The point of difference is lain and radical. Mr. Douglas stands upon the ndamental heresy of the abolitionists that African Slavery" is the creature of the local law, and in rect oopo-ition to the Dred Seott decision, which >lds that "slavery" in the case of the negro is the neral or common law, and so-called freedom the ception. Two persons reasoning from these pre- ises, of course, could never come to the same con ision. The position of the Democratic party, erefore, is that "slaves," being property as re gnized by the Constitution, remain "slaves" un is taken to some sovereign State where the local w reverses their status. But as Congress has power to reverse this status, so a Territory, lich derives its power from Congress, cannot re- rse it. All this is very plain and simple, and ery one who studies it for a moment can under ind it; but Mr. Douglas so embarrasses the que.s- >n with side issues and wordy declamations about lopular rights," "the sovereignty of the people," toat it actually confuses many well meaning |Ople. This clear and able essay will do much to ssipate the fog in which a very plain and simple bject has been enveloped by politicians. i [From the T oui- South can, for the sake of a party success destitute s of principle, talk of supporting Douglas, is more than we are able to comprehend. To us it seems ;an unblushing abandonment of all." iFrom the North American & United States Gazette, Phila- 1 delphia, Sept. 17th. | Judge Black and the Territories.—If any .doubt remained respecting "one highly important .question at issue between the Administration and the people of this country, the article communi¬ cated by Judge Black to the Washington Constitu tion, ought to remove it forever. The essay to which we allude displays more than the wonted ability of its author. As a criticism of the paper contributed by Senator Douglas to Harper's Maga¬ zine, it is thorough and scathing; and it is a happy rejoinder to much that the same gentleman has uttered in the speeches he made in the course of his tour through some of the States last summe^r. This acknowledgment is due to the merit of an article that has created more than an ordinary sensation. From the Washington Constitution, Sept. 13. Douglas Reviewed.—We are quite within bounds when we say that very few State papers of the- highest consequence, and no political essay, speech, or document of any description whatever, attracted at any time greater attention, or received a higher degree of approbation than have been be Stowed on the pamphlet reviewing the famous arti cle contributed to Harper's Magazine by Mr. Sena¬ tor Douglas. It is universally admitted to be one of the best specimens of analytical examination, luminous exposition, and close and cogent reason¬ ing to be found within the whole compass of our political literature. Sound Doctrine at the Home of Senator Douglas.—The Chicago Herald, which had the reputation of inclining to the support of Senator Douglas' Presidential claims, lays down a sound platform. It understands the doctrine of the De¬ mocratic party, respecting slavery in the Territo¬ ries, to be as follows: "That neither Congress nor the people of the Territories can prohibit slavery therein; but that the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, guarantees to the slaveholder the right to take his slaves into the Territories and hold them there as property; and pledgei the Federal Government to protect him in the peaceable possession of such property in any Territory of the United States; that when the people of a Territory form a Constitution, prepara tory to their admission as a State, then, and not till then, can they decide, to prohibit slavery; and that when they shall have framed a Constitution, and ask to be admitted as a State, if their Constitution be 'republican in form,' and if they have complied with the proper laws in other respects, Congress should admit the new State whether its Constitu¬ tion permits or prohibits slavery." [Prom theN. Y. Jo rnalof Commerce.] The Territorial Question.—We invite the at' tention of our readers to a very able article on our first page in reply to that of Senator Douglas in the last number of H&rper's Magazine on the territo rial question. We hope no reader will be deterred from a perusal of the article by its length. We have heard its authorship attributed to a very high source; but whether correctly or not we cannot say. It takes the true Democratic ground, which refers the question of^slavery in a Territory to the deci- ion of its inhabitants when they enter the Union as a State—not in their unfledged condition, when first organized into a Territory. It also repudiates Wise's doctrine of Congressional interference. [From the Cliambersburg (Pa.) Valley Spirit.] The Reply to Douglas.—According to promise, we lay before our readers Judge Black's reply to Senator Douglas' squatter sovereignty argument in Harper's Magazine. We wish we could give them an idea of the enthusiasm with which these observations upon Mr. Douglas' views have been received all over the country. Some of the most distinguished jurists in the United States have pro¬ nounced Judge Black's argument unanswerable. The Democratic press is unanimous in its praise, and not a few opposition prints have candidly con¬ fessed its marked ability. The New York Times aad Washington Republic, both opposition jour¬ nals, admit that it is the strongest document on the Territorial question that has yet been laid before the public, and the Times anticipates that Mr. Douglas will feel the necessity of replying to it. The only paper we have seen that has not al¬ luded to the article with decent respect is Forney's Press, a journal that has sunk so low as to be in¬ capable of decent behavior. [From the Cleveland (0.) National Democrat ] Judge Black's Reply.—It is now well known that the masterly reply to Judge Douglas' Harper essay was written by the distinguished Attorney General of the United States, Judge Black. The arguments therein set forth are pronounced by all jurists and unprejudiced men as wholly unan¬ swerable. Judge Douglas, at Wooster on last Fri¬ day, took up this reply, and for the manner in which he noticed it we refer oui readers to the Plaindealer of yesterday. It will be found that he did not attempt a reply to the main points, but contented himself with personal abuse of the au¬ thor. An evening cotemporary undertakes to make light of the arguments, and even intimates that it is a hoax—that Judge Black "is too shrewd a- Cabinet officer to be caught dabbling with politi¬ cians in the newspapers." The intelligent public are not going to pass this matter over so lightly. The reply will be read by the whole country, and the almost universal judg¬ ment will be that the Harper essay preaches false and dangerous doctrine, and will not be sustained by the Democratic party in Convention at Charles¬ ton. The New York Times, a paper which is disposed to sustain Judge Douglas, does not consider this document in the light that our cotemporary does, as will be seen by the following extract: "The Constitution of Saturday publishes a reply to Senator Douglas' views on popular sovereignty —filling six columns of that paper, and understood to be from the pen of the Attorney General, Judge Black. It is clear in its style, temperate in tone, and exceedingly forcible and cogent in argument. The position presented in this article as that of the Democratic party is, that slaves are recognized by the Federal Constitution as proper¬ ty in States where the local law so treats them; that they remain property when taken into any "-tate of which the local law does not forbid their being so regarded; that Congress has no right to deprive their owners of this property in the Terri¬ tories or other places under its jurisdiction; and that, as it oannot delegate a power which it does not possess, neither the legislature, nor the people of a Territory have any authority to prohibit slavery within its borders. It concedes, however, that when they come to form a State Constitution, — 11 •— they may establish or prohibit slavery, as they see fit. Until then they have no power whatever over the subject. "The positions of the article in the Constitution are stated with great clearness and precision, and leave no room for misunderstanding or controvery as to their meaning. Its ability, and the cogency of some of its eztracts from former speeches of Judge Douglas, will probably constrain him to take some notice of it." [From tlie New Hampshire Gazet'e.] Douglas Reviewed.—The Constitution 'has published a full and very able review of Senator Douglas' late article in Harper's Magazine. In our judgment it is a clear and conclusive exposi¬ tion of the sophistries and fallacies of the Senator, and a complete refutation of his essential posi tions. It ought to be read by every Democrat who prefers principles to men, and who would not sa¬ crifice the safe, sound, and long tried doctrines of thfi Democratic party to a theory which, as agita ted and interpreted by Mr. Douglas, is merely a pleasant souading name, which can briDg no good to the Democratic cause. The article is rather too long to be copied entire in our columns, but we shall see what we can do with it another time. [From the Chicago Herald.] Douglasism Reputed.—To theexclusion of much Other matter designed for this issue of the Herald, we publish, entire, the concise and masterly refutation of the Magazine manifesto of Mr. Douglas, from a pamphlet copy, published by Thos. MeGill, Wash¬ ington, D. C. It is intimated by those who are likely to be well informed on the subject, that At¬ torney General Black is the author of these ,£obser- vations." Be that as it may, we hazard nothing in sayiDg that the arguments employed and facts ad¬ duced in refutation of the doctrines of the manifes¬ to are effectual: and so far as sound logic can go in demolishing the absurd theory of the Senator, he may safely consider himself a used-up individ ual. We commend the article to the candid con¬ sideration of our readers. [From the Lynchburg Virginian] We submitted some refactions yesterday upon the present and prospective policy of the Demo cratic party, showing the inconsistency of the party, and especially of its Southern wing, in the preparation they are evidently making to support Judge Douglas for the Presidency. We give also extracts from the recent ai/ticle of Judge Black in reply to Douglas' essay on squatter sovereignty, ad¬ ducing the " little giant's" former declarations to disprove the flimsy and transparent logic of his late manifesto. We conclude our extracts from the article of the Attorney General this morning with the following resume of the doctrines which he as serts as being held by the party—in opposition to those nsw taught by Mr. Douglas. Says Judge Black : We insist that an emigrant going into a Federal Territory retains his right to the property which he • took with him, until there is some prohibitiou enacted by lawful authority. Mr Douglas cannot deny this in the face ef bis New Orleans speech and the overwhelming reasons which support it. It is an agreed point among all Democrats that 'Congress cannot interfere with the rights of proper¬ ty in the Territories. It is also acknowledged that the people of a new State, either in their Constitution or in an act of their .Legislature, may make the negroes within it free, or hold them in a state of servitude. [From the Detroit Free Press. ] Senator Douglas Reviewed.—A pamphlet has; been issued at Washington, which is also having' considerable newspaper circulation, the authorship: of which is attributed to Attorney General Black,; in review of the essay of Senator Douglas contain-: ed in the last numbtr of Harper's Magazine. It is written with great force and will command scarcely less attention than the essay of the Senator. In¬ deed, as a piece of severe criticism it has rarely been excelled. The chief points of difference be¬ tween the distinguished writer^ are two : 1. With regard to the belief attributed by the Senator to a portion pf the Democratic party that the Cor stitu- tion carries slavery into the Territories. 2. With regard to the powers which a Territorial Legisla¬ ture may exercise, the Senator holding that it may exercise all the powers of a State Legislature .qver local affairs, which powers are sovereign, and by which the rights of property may be afferte'?, and the writer of the pamphlet holding that a Territorial Legislature has no sovereign powers, and that the supreme legislative power of a State alone can de¬ prive a man of bis property. But we believe more. We believe in submitting to the case decided by the Supreme Court, which declares that a Territorial Legislature cannot, any more thaa Congress, interfere with the rghts ol property in a Territory; that the settlers of a Ter¬ ritory are bound to wait until the sovereign power is conferred upon them, with proper limitations, before they attempt to exercise the most dangerous of all its functions. Mr. Douglas denies this, and there is the new issue. The Attorney General presents with great clear¬ ness and cogency the points of difference betweer the Supreme Court and ihe Democratic party, as he affirms, on the one hand, and those of Douglas on the other, deprecating the position and policj of the latter, in the following terms: "What is there now to excuse any friend o: peace for attempting to stir up the bitter waters o strife? There is no question upon it pending be fore Congress or the country. We are called upoi to make a contract, at once unnecessary and hope¬ less, with the judicial authority of the nation. Wi object to it. We will not obey Mr. Douglas wbei he commands us to assault the Supreme Court o the United States. We believe the Court to b< right, and Mr. Douglas wrong. [From the Belfast (Me.) Republican Journal.] Territorial Sovereignty.—We invite the at¬ tention of our readers to the article from the Wash ton Constitution written in reply to Mr. Douglas Harper article. The authorship of the article ii the Constitution is generally attributed to Judg Black, the Attoroey General of the United States It is a clear statement and severe analysis of th whole question of slavery in the Territories, an completely exhausts the argument. If the' write has not established these two propositions by th most irrefragable arguments, we have never see: any proposition in politics established, viz: 1. That a slave or free negro in going from State into a Territory preserves his political cob dition or status, unless there is some law of th Territory, passed by competent authority, to chang that condition or status. 2 That a Territorial Legislature has no right t change this relation. The writer in the Constitution makes it plai to the commonest apprehension that the powei claimed for a Territorial Legislature are greater than any State Legislature possesses, or has ever exercised, and more despotic than the most absolute monarch in Europe would dare to employ, inas- — 12 — imuch as those alleged powers are commensurate f a Stale Legislature are defined and limited by jthe supreme law, called the Constitution. In other words, the powers of a Territorial Legislature are Sovereign, while those of a State Legislature are subordinate. The exception taken to the position in the Harper •article, that the fact that Congress does not possess these powers under the Constitution is the reason Why it can delegate them to a Territorial Legisla¬ ture, is admirably taken, and the quotations from Douglas's former speeches and reports need no comment. According to these extracts, "the sove¬ reignty of a Territory," prior to December, 1857, "was held in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people until they should be admitted into the Union as a State." When, we Would respectfully inquire, did this sovereignty pass out of this condition of "abeyance" and "sus¬ pension" into a Territorial Legislature? 1 [From the Lancaster Intelligencer.] Read, and Then Judge —On our first page will be found, in extenso, the "Observations on Sena¬ tor Douglas' Views of Popular Sovereignty, as sxpressed in Harper's Magazine for September, 1859."' This, we think, is one of the ablest and ! Host convincing aiguments on the subject we have Uver read, and we incline to> the belief that our readers will be of the same opinion after they have jiven it a careful perusal. (From the North Carolina Statesman.) Reply to Senator Douglas.—We have the pleasure to-day of laying before our readers a re¬ ply to the recent essay of Senator Douglas, and fve bespeak for it the attention of all who would j;horoughly understand the question discussed. We •egard this reply as not only able, but conclusive. This document is generally attributed to the pen )f Mr Attorney General Black. It has, no doubt, :he cordial approval of Mr. Buchanan. It contains j;he true doctrine, as held not only in the South, jut by nine-tenths of the Northern National De nocracy. Read and file away for future reference. [ From the Georgia Telegraph.] Judge Black's "Observations."—Upon a sareful re-reading of Attorney General Black's •eview of Mr. Douglas' Harper article, we are in- ;lined to regard it as the best thing ever yet writ¬ ten upon the question of slavery in the Territories Everything which has fallen from Judge Black iince he was first introduced to the public in ofScial jonnection with the Administration, has shown a jompr«hensive, analytical mind of the highest or- ler. He is one of the intellectual Anaks of the jountry, and his brief pamphlet is the club of Her- ;ules to the Douglas theory of Territorial sove :eignty. [From the M>mphis Avalanche.] Judge Douglas Reviewed.—The article in :he Washington Constitution of the 10th of Sep¬ tember, in reply to the Harper's Magazine mani esto of Judge Douglas, is one of the most lucid, ,horough and complete reviews of the territorial (uestion that it has ever been our pleasure to read [t so completely upsets the distinguished Senator's iquatter-sovereignty argument, that none but the Host blindly prejudiced can fail to see that his loctrine is as false and unconstitutional as it is jdious and dangerous. In our Monday's issue we shall publish the article entire, and from men of all parties we ask for it a thorough and careful pe¬ rusal. From the Huntindon (Pa ) Union. The article of Judge Douglas, in Harper's Mag¬ azine, has called forth a reply in the Washington Constitution, which is supposed to have been writ¬ ten by Attorney General Black. He reviews at length the propositions laid down by the Senator from Illinois, and meets them with a torrent of rea¬ soning at once convincing and overwhelming. We have seldom read an argument that is so plain, candid and conclusive. It would afford us pleas¬ ure to publish it, but we have not the space. It is printed in pamphlet form. [From the Boston Post.] In another part of our paper will be found a re¬ ply to Senator Douglas' argument in favor of popu¬ lar sovereignty, published in Harper's Magazine. It is written with great perspicuity and power,and, in our humble opinion, exposes very clearly the fal¬ lacious reasoning of the Senator in essential points. [From the Richmond (Va.) Enquirer.] Senator Douglas on Judge Black.—Senator Douglas' Wooster (Ohio) speech is in very bad taste, as well as bad principles. He stigmatizes Judge Black's pamphlet as a black pamphlet of "malignant falsehoods," "palpable falsehoods," "misrepresentations," and "untruths," emanating from a "gang of anonymous conspirators " Such language from a Senator of the United States, and candidate for the presidehcy, applied to the Attor¬ ney General of the United States, is well calcula¬ ted to bring contempt upon a country whose press and people permit such language to pass unrebuked. That the pamphlet of Judge Black has not merited such epithets^ we can appeal to the Southern peo¬ ple, whose press has almost universally published and commended it to its readers. We know of no political essay more courteous in language and styl<>, or more polite in reference to its adversary. The arguments employed by Judge Black were worthy of more polite language, as much from the endorsement they have received frotn the press and people of the country as from their inherent weight. To stigmatize as "falsehoods'' a pamphlet that has received the commendation of the press, is to charge, by implication, those who have aided in its circulation with abetting a falsehood. Judge Douglas must learn that in a free country men have the right to differ from him without ren¬ dering themselves liable to the charge of "false¬ hood." He will never recommend his principles by the exhibition of such manners; for we believe both to be equally repugnant to the American people. A gentleman ceases not to be a gentleman because he is a candidate for the Presidency ; and when advancement is sought by denouncing grave political papers emanating from high officials as "falsehoods" such advancement will never be ob¬ tained. Such unmerited denunciations tend to strengthen rather than impair the force of Judge Black's pamphlet. All rules of propriety would not have been violated if argument and reason could have accomplished the overthrow of the pamphlet. De¬ nunciation and epithets are weapons used when argument and reason will not serve. He who gives precedence to the former over the latrer evi¬ dences the weakness rather than the strength of his position. We, therefore, regard the Wooster speech as far more obj ictionable than the Harper essay, for it contains the same principles and is in much worse taste. — 13 — [From the Philadelphia'Argns.] Judge Black's Annihilation of the Douglas Squatter Sovereignty.—Never within our re¬ collection do we remember such a sensation to have been produced by any State paper as that which is now vibrating from one extremity of this land to the other, in consequence of the document emanating "from the pen of Judge Black, Attor ney General of the United States, in answer to the manifesto of Stephen A. Douglas in Harper's Magazine." Prom the cold and bleak North to the warm and sunny South, and from the Atlantic- washed East to the far-off Pacific on the West, one universal shout is ringing out that the Little Giant of political warfare has been utterly and irretriev ably overthrown by the ponderous and irresistible blows of this more modest but all powerful Achil¬ les of the Democratic host. To the people of Penn¬ sylvania nothing was necessary to come from the master mind of their distinguished cabinet officer to tell them of his greatness—here he is known. To the people of the Union his herculean intellectual powers were not known as with us, but at a single bound he has placed himself in the fore-front of the intellectand statesmanship of the nation; and from a thousand presses of all opinions, parties, and creeds, the same note is sounding of well-merited tribute to this able defender of the rights of the people and the States and the Constitution of the Union. Dwelling not in the, labyrinths and mazes of meta¬ physeal abstractions and mysteries that confound and bewilder the reader in the special pleading and clap-trap by whica Judge Douglas seeks to deceive and humbug the people, he comes directly at the subject as a master mind would, and, by the plainest, clearest, and most convincing language, throws open the whole matter to the glare of the noonday light, and makes it so plain and simple that the veriest child in governmental policy may understand it. He uses no superfluous words—he attempts no mystification- he deals in no abstrac¬ tions—but coolly and calmly he unravels the whole subject, and shows the web by which the wily Senator would entangle the people. Throughout the whole argument you are struck with the plain, blunt, and forcible style of the author; never fur one moment lofing sight of his subject, and never for an instant forgetting the courtesies due a dis¬ tinguished opponent, or the dignity of character which adorns himself. Prom its commencement to its close you are enchained by its power and beauty, and you rise from its perusal with the irresistible conviction that it is the unanswerable argument of a man conscious of his knowledge of the subject, of his power to lay it bare, and who feels that he is right. How different is its tone, how deferential and respectful to his antagonist, when compared with the ill-tempered aDd violent remarks of Senator Douglas up®nitatWooster. No better proof could have been given of its power and conclusiveness than this public exhibition of the ill-concealed cha gfin and desperation of the Senator from Illinois. Maddened beyond all conception must he have been to have so far forgotten himself, his position, and the position of his distinguished commentator, as to apply a nick-name to a high cabinet officer of the United States, and in the most ungentlemanly manner and with the -most vulgar language and personalities to attempt to decry the author of his overthrow. Personal abuse in argument is the un¬ failing sign of defeat; no true gentleman ever re¬ sorts to it at any tima, and no man does it until he is no longer able to sustain himself in argument. We could have wished, for the credit of our nation and for the credit of Mr. Douglas himself, who in days gone by has established a reputation as a ready and powerful debater, that he should not have exhibited this almost disgraceful weakness severely injurious to him both personally and poll tically, as it must surely be. It cannot harm Judge Black, but is only calculated to place him, by con¬ trast, in a still more elevated position before the American people; his demolition of. the monstei effort of *he Sanator had placed him high in th( temple of fame; this public acknowledgment by th< Senator that he has been defeated puts the dis¬ tinguished PenYisylvanian in the front rank of th< fight. |From the Southern (Ala.) Era.] Stephen A. Douglas a Gangrenous Membei of the Democratic Party.—* * * * Judge Douglas has long since forfeited the confidence o: the Democratic party, and deserves to be thrus from its bosom. It is true that from the incipience of his treachery he has disclaimed every intentioi to abandon the Democratic party; but there wai not the least occasion for these loud protestation! on the part of the crafty dissembler. No one sus pected that he designed to leap at once into th( ranks of the Black Republican party. If he hac but ventured upon that decisive step he would hav< created within himself an eternal incapability o harm either to the South or the Democratic party We hold that Douglas in his recent speeches and in his Harper manifesto, has set forth prin¬ ciples which strike at the foundation of Southen rights, and pierce the vitals of the Democratic party. Hence we deny that he has any claim to i position in the ranks of the Democracy ; and a: an exponent of Democratic principles. The fores of his example Kill seduce other members of th< party from its true .faith, and the infection of hi: heresy will prove destructive to the purity anc vigor of the Democratic organization in the South A leprous limb may corrupt the entire body ; bu let the offending member be amputated, and th< the whole system may be restored to health. Sue! is the injunction of Scripture, and such the maxin of common sense. [From the Lexington (Ky.) Statesman.] It is baid Judge.Douglas openly denounces th( author of the article in the Constitution reviewing his magazine essay. Judge Black is generally un derstood to be the writer. The review was cour teous and entirely parliamentary. A denuncia tion of the author, if personal, seems to us in bac tatte and unprovoked. An argumentative reph to its logic and conclusions would be more appro priate than wanton, personal reflections upon th< writer. [From the Memphis *Dem.) Avalanche.] Black on Douglas—In his last Onio speech made at Wooster, in that State, on the 10th inst. Senator Douglas is reported to have indulged ii many bitter personal denunciations of Judge Black the reputed author of the admirable reply to hi; magazine essay on squatter sovereignty. Judge/B'; article is acknowledged, on all hands, to be as re markable for its fairness and high-toned courtes; as for its great power and ability, and in assailin; its author as he has done, Senator Douglas onl; proves that he feels the force of its calm, dignifiei and thorough exposure of his heresies, and is full; conscious of his utter inability to meet and repe them by argument and reason. But this report t< personal denunciation and blustering bullyism wil not avail the distinguished Senator. Argument cannot be met nor positions overthrown in that way and the only effert of it will be to render him ridic ulous, and convince the world that he feels himsel effectually driven to the wall by the power an< ability of his adversary. — 14 — [From the Philadelphia Morning Pennsylvanian.] An Overthrow to Territorial Sovereignty* i—We lay before our readers this morning a clear fend dispassionate refutation of the views of Sena *tor D >ugias on the popular sovereignty question. ^This article appeared in the Constitution of Satur iday evening, and is said by the New York Herald— upon what authority we are not informed—to be the production of the Attorney General, Mr. Black. ,If this be so, the views and arguments of this able paper are recommended to the careful and thought¬ ful men of the country, not alone by reason of his position, but more from those distinguished talents ,ind aoility which have placed him among the lead •(.ng jurists of the nation. ' i The reader will not fail to be impressed with the comprehensive and unselfish tone of this docunent. i[t most completely overthrows all sectional, local, ^>r restricted interpretations of the Constitution and ()f congressional legislation, and erects in their jltead those practical, common sense views, which tnust bu held by every statesman who has not a lersonal ambition to warp and mould his opinions in the taking questions of the day. We should have been glad to have published the Oouglas m igazine article, of which this is a refu¬ tation, if we had obtained permission from the 3:opyright owners, in order that our readers could how compare one with the other; but this was not ■iermitted to the Democratic papers of the country, j.nd of course we could not have the appearance of roluntarily competing with a Republican paper, the *Jew York Times, which published it "by permis ■ ion of the proprietors." However, those who lave not had the privilege of reading the Douglas aanifesto need be under no fear of mis Apprehend 3og its purport. The three propositions upou yhich its whole argument is based are quoted in ^11, and followed by an Argument so clear, full jnd logical that all which was written by Mr. !()ouglas in support of his first proposition, and gainst his assumed views of those opposed to him j.s stated in the second and third, is controverted pd proved to be not only inconsistent with Con¬ stitutional interpretation, but also inconsistent jfith the legislative action and opinions of Mr. Doug¬ hs himself. In argumentation there can be no reater proof of weakness than a false statement f opposing views. Of this Mr. Douglas is at once onv cted, but, with that generosity of language so daracteristic of the strong mind, no advantage is !\ken by impugning tae intentions of the writer. Jut Mr. D mglas could not have been unguard- !yiy mistaken in this matter. For nearly ten ®8ars he has made the Territorial questions his .obby. His whole career as a Senator has this slad scarcely any other distinguishing feature. 5([e is, therefore, intimately acquainted with the '"iews of every distinguished mau in the country, Mid when he stated that any respectable portion o! !Cie Democratic party "believe that the Constitution Establishes slavery in the Territories," he must, of ^urse, have known that he was trifling with pinions. Throughout the discussion of this avery topic, from 1826 to the present day, that ilief has never prevailed even among the most kbid slavery propagandists. Such a view would eive made the Missouri Compromise so plainly un emstitutional that it could not have secured the hi.nction of a respectable lawyer in the Union; and lUat famous declaration of the Kansas Nebraska !t;t, that "it is not the intent or meaaing of this act. q legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor n prohibit it therefrom," would have been at once loclared to be a stupid nulity. How could Con '(Jess legislate to prohibit or establish that which v. | was established by the Constitution? The use of this assertion was therefore intended to"midead the mind from the true point, viz: "the Constuuiton re¬ gards as sacred and inviolable all the rights which a citizen may legally acquire in a State," and con¬ tinues its pr itection to him when settling in the territory of the United States, where it is the para¬ mount law until superseded by the local law of a State Constitution. ILid Mr. Douglas stated this to be the view of his opponents in the Democratic party, he could not have filled nineteen pages ot Harper's Magazine in an attempt to prove it unten ble. Hiving thoroughly and irrefutably disposed of his Erroneous statements of opposing views, as well as of the solecism that there is no law to protect that property in a Territory which is recognized as property in some of the State*; or, in other words, having refuted the doctrioe that a slaveholder on the borders of Missouri would lose his title to his slaves by moving into Nebraska, because the Ter¬ ritorial laws could constitutionally do what Con¬ gress could not—viz: deprive a citizen of the United States of his property—the article passes by the historical parallelism of the manifesto, as irrecon¬ cilable with facts, in order to readh and expose the unsoundness of the real Douglas Territorid dogma. It is upon his own doctrine that Mr. Douglas is most insecure, uncertain, and confused. Evidently he has labored without success to reduce his views within the compass of a clear and comprehensive definition; that failure not being attributable to the want of ability in the writer, must be attributed to the logical inconsistency of his premises and con¬ clusions. It is an axiom that any subject matter which ig logically correct can be logically defined. Applying tnis rule to the following dogma, we will find that it is utterly meaningless: "xhe Constitu¬ tion neither establishes nor prohibits slavery in the Territories beyond the power of the people legally to control it " Now let us test this proposition by reducing it to a syllogistic formula. The Constitution neither establishes nor prohibits slavery in the States or Territories. The people of a Territory are subject to and con¬ trolled by the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, the people can constitutionally—that is, legally—establish or prohibit slavery. Is this not a perfect nonaequitur? Is it not a contradiction—a putting of the people superior to the Constitution to which they are subjected, and from which they derive all the powers they possess on this and all other subjects of legislation. But let us make another syllogism. The Constitution neither establishes or prohibits the Cfcristian religion in the States or Territories. The people of a Territory are subject to and con¬ trolled by the Constitution. Therefore, the people of a Territory can consti¬ tutionally—that is, legally—establish or prohibit the Christian religion. The premises are perfectly sound in each in¬ stance, and the conclusion must be correct in both or false in both. Now, it cannot be doubted that a Territorial Legislature is invested with no such power as the establishing or the prohibiting of the Cnristian religion; yet this latter might be done with less violation of the Constitution than the former, since Congress is only prohibited from making "a law respecting an establishment of re¬ ligion, or prohibiting tie free exercise thereof which, under the Douglas rules of interpretation, would reserve that right to the people of thu States, and hence, according to him, to the people of a Territory. Now read cannot for can in the last propositions of both syllogisms, and we will have a logical conclusion irrefutable by any course of — 15 — argument based upon the Constitution. This would have relieved Mr. Douglas from great labor and spared his country from much confusion from this too much labored subject. When all is said that can be, it will be found that the nation is being trifled with on a subject of no practical importance —on a dead issue—a question settled by legisla tion and judicial decision. That, in fact, the late speeches of Mr. Douglas himself most plainly acknowledge, when he intimates that this question is capable of one of two solutions; either withhold, says he, a territorial government until a sufficient number of people have settled to be capable of forming a government themselves—that is, all set¬ tlers must remain without law until they can or¬ ganize a State government, merely to make his doc¬ trine hold good—or, that if the people legislate illegally, the Supreme Court will declare that legis¬ lation a nullity. These are bis new points in his Columbus and Cincinnati rpeeches, and the country will see that he is but trifling with its understand¬ ing at the expense of union and harmony, without a substantial end to be achieved or a constitutional right to be vindicated.