Washington sentinel., 1854-02-28
From the Barnstable Patriot
The Territorial Questionable Massachu.
setts Democratic Press.

There are fifteen democratic presses in Mas
sachusetts, of which the following, eleven in
number. have expressed, more or less deci-
dedly, their opinions in favor of the principle
embodied in the bill of Mr.. Douglas, as the
true democratic non-intervention policy: The
Boston Post Boston Daily Times, Barnstable
Patriot, Pittsfeld Sun, Franklin Democrat,
Plymouth Rock, Lowell Advertiser, Lawrence
Sentinel, Peoples Adpocate, Salem, Westfeld
Standard, and Taunton Democrat So much
for the democratic press of Massachusetts, and
its position. (misrepresented by opponents) upon
the territorial question.
The editor of the Taunton Democrat, an old
and faithful laborer in the democratic ranks,
publishes the following in reference to the ter
ritorial question:
The DEMOCRATIC TERRITORIAL PoLIcY.-
The most interesting question now before Con-
gress is involved in the consideration of the
bill reported by Mr.. Douglas in the Senate, for
the organization of the Territories of Kansas
and Nebraska. As now modified by the mover,
this bill provides for the erection Of two Terri
tories, instead of one, as at first proposed, and
guarantees their admission into the Union as
States with or without slavery, as may be pro-
vided in their respective constitutions. 1t de-
clares that the provision of the 9Th section of
the act commonly called the Missouri com.
promise Of 1920 was suspended by the princi.
Piles of the legislation Of 1850, and is now in
operative. 1t places the subject Of slavery en-
tirely under the regulation of the people of the
Territories themselves, as was provided in the
organization of Utah and New Mexico, and
proceeds upon the ground that the nonnter-
vention doctrine of the compromise Of 1850 is
| to be the only rule for the future This is the
true democratic doctrine, and the only doctrine
which has been found sufficient to meet at all
the question of slavery in the Territories. We
do not see upon what other ground the COM
| mittee could have proceeded at all. If the two
compromises Of 1920 and 1850 are found to
conflict in their operation, the last must GER
tainly supersede the first. We have no ven-
Grafton for the Missouri compromise which
would lead us to feel any great concern in its
fate.
The principle of the non.intervention Of Con.
gress with the subject Of slavery in the Terri.
tories is one which has always been in accord.
with our own ideas. We have not to see any
good reason why the people of Territory
should not possess the control Of this question
as well rs Of other domestic institutions, and
manage affairs in their own way. Their will
is, or ought to be- superior to the will of Con
gress. They are supposed to know and under
stand their own interests and Wishes and we
should be the last to propose an interference.
The bill before Congress viii be likely te
elicit an able. discussion, but we believe il vii
be conducted in the right spirit. We do not
believe it is in the power Of any party to lash
the country into another excitement on the
question at the present time, if the bill be con
| sidered and disposed of upon its merits.