The Feliciana Democrat. (Clinton, La.) 1855-186?, 1856-04-12
JUDGE DOUGLASS GREAT SPEECH
ON THE KANSAS QUESTION.

Douglas is in vindication Of his majority report
on Kansas affairs against certain attacks by
Mr.. Trumbull and in reply to some OF the
positions in Mr. Collamer's minority report.
When this speech was made we characterized
it as q mastery enfort--nnsurpassed, II ever
equalled, by any Of Judge Douglass own great
efforts In the Senate The reader will now
Judge whether our commentator of its power
full reasoning and thrilling cloquencc was not
stnted rather than extravagant. This speech,
taken in connexion with majority report,
the Presidents annual message upon the con-
stitutional relations Of the government to the
question: and his special message ON Kansas
affairs, constitute superstructure, erected
upon the solid pedestal of constitutional prnci-
pies, ON which the democratic party, Gun in oil
time rest their claims to national confidence,
and defy the assaults Of their sectional adver-
saries.
There is one point in Judge Douglass report
which seems to us to make the democratic
position OH the question Of congressional rcstrc-
tons upon territorial governments perfectly
imprcgnable- refer to the position that the
power Of Congress to give governments to the
Territories of the United States is a necessary
and proper incident to the express power to
admit new states into the Union. Others have
demonstrated the non-exstancc Of this power
in the clause for disposing Of the territory and
other property in which our opponents locate
it but until Judge Douglass report, We had
seen the question Invested ofall embarrassment
by deducing the power as q necessary incident
to that expressly given Of admitting new states.
As yet, VIC have heard no effort to controyert
tho conclusiveness Of this position. When it
was annouced in the Senate, upon the report,
it struck us like one Of those great truths which
seem so simple and obvious when discussed that
we are surprised they were not sooner brought
to light, and which we hesitate to acknowledge
because Of their very simplicity and obyiouness.
For this reason, we have waited to hear what
answer the intellectual champions Of the oppo-
sition have to make to the position.
1t will be seen at once that the Missouri
Compromise restriction falls to the ground, as
null and void, whenever it is conceded that in
giving governments to territories the object to
be keptinyie is to prepare them for states 10
be Stntes they must be eqnais in all the attr-
butes Of sovereignty of the States already in the
Uuion. A prohibition against slavery is nee
essarily inconsistent with the sovereign right
every state has to establish or prohibit slavery.
To enact, therefore, as the Missouri RESTITUTION
did that slavery should be ")orercr prohiJittR'
in Kansas and Nebraska, was unconstitution,
and this is equally true whether the word forey.
or be understood in its obvious sense without
limitation us to time, or whether it be limited
to the duration Of the territorial government
In the former sense, the violation Of the con-
tuition is direct and palpable in the latter it is
indirect, but practically not less certain. The
Kansas debate is postpondcd until Thursday,
when Mr.. Collamer has the floor
1U,The following Acts were passed Mt the
late session of the State Legislature, and have