question remained the same as before the ordinance of 1787, and must depend on the Constitution itself, unaffected by the precedent of the ordinance. Let us consider the question under the Constitution. It was resolved at the Republican Convention of 1856 in Philadelphia, and I do not understand the Republican party of 1860 to have abandoned the position, "That the Constitution of the United States confers upon Congress sovereign power over the territories of the United States for their government, and that in the exercise of this power, it is both _the right_ and _the duty_ of Congress _to prohibit_ in the territories, those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery." This sweeping assertion of sovereign power in Congress over citizens of the United States in territories, of course affirms that Congress can do for the territories all or even more than a State government can do for a State. Mr. John Pettit, late United States Senator from Indiana, has made the broadest assertion of Congressional sovereignty, for he has said and endeavored to prove that it is "_absolute, unconditional, unlimited authority_"; such, in fact, as would enable the Federal government to sell the citizens of the territories into slavery. Power to do an act is one thing--a constitutional right to do it is another. I do not concede Mr. Pettit's authority for Congressional sovereignty, even though he be one of Mr. Buchanan's Judges in Nebraska, but it is interesting to note, by way of parenthesis, how wonderfully Republican doctrine on one extreme, and Buchanan or Breckinridge doctrine on the other, work together to a common center, Congressional or Federal government despotism. It is vain to look for any express warrant for any such power in the Constitution, except in the language of the 3d section of the 4th article, declaring that--"_The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States_."