Daily national Democrat., 1858-09-12
Sever. ON IN. R,s,b,li,les.

chanan Is not making any effort to defeat
Judge Douglas in Illinois, nor to break him
down before the country! This, in the f. ce
Of the confined denunciation Of Judge Doug
las by the Presidents leading organ, the
Washington Union, and the barking at him
by hundreds of Lecompton papers in every
quarter of the Atl ntic States. including II.
linois, is one of the rich est of all the declar-
ations that we ever knew emanate from a
partisan newspaper. Further on, in the
same article, the editor says, in reference to
Mr. Buchanan and Judge Douglas:
They were agreed as to the doctrine of
popular sovereignty. Mr. Buchanan con
tended that one thing constituted popular
sovereignty, and Mr.. Douglas contended that
another thing constituted popular sovereign
ty. Mr.. Buchanan argued for one construc-
tion of q rtain act, and Mr. Douglas con.
tended for another construction. They both
claimed to he popular sovereignty llemo-
Gratis. Different men have different Ideas rs
to what is popular sovereignty
Well, this is the most extraordinary kind
of agreement, between two men, that we ever
heard Of. One contends that one thing con
stitutes popular sovereignty, and the other
that another thing constitutes popular SOW
ereignty, and yet they are entirely agreed
One gives one construction to the Kansas.
Nebraska Act, and the other another con-
Structiom to the Kansas ebraska Act, and
/ yet there is no difference between them
IN another place, in the same article, the
editor says;
They buchanan and Doughs) are cordial
ly agreed us to the future policy to be pur
sued.
At this point the editor really seems to be
serious and indeed he does have some little
ground for supposing (if he has not thought
much on the subject that Mr.. Buchanan and
Judge Douglas actually are agreed as to the
future policy Of the Democratic party II
they are, and if Mr.. Buchanans followers
everywhere are the same, why then the
Douglas principle has already triumphed,
and there is nothing more to be said. But,
let us see to what extent they are agreed.
Mr.. Buchanan declared, in his first message
regarding the Lecompton Constitution, that
( he construed the term " domestic Institutions
ms used in the Kansas. n ebraska Act, to mean
simply those institutions which were confined
to the domestic circle and were of a family
c aracter Slavery, he said, was one of those
institutions His inference was, therefore
that it VAS a sufficient carrying out of tn,
Kansas Nebraska Act, to allow the people ia
pass upon that part of their constitution, n
the ballot box, which referred to those DO
mestic and family insttations. Senator
Douglas declared this construction of the
Kansas Nebraska Act 10y Mr. Buchanan to be
fundamental error" He said that the
term domestic Institutions" as used in the
Kansas N ebraska Act, referred to the whole
civil polity of q State, as contradistinguished
from the Federal Government, and that
when the people of a Territory came to make
their transition from Territorial condition
to that Of q sovereign State, they were cnti
tied to pass, not alone upon those institutions
which concerned mere household and family
affairs, but upon those more extended insti
tutions which make up the political charac
ter of an individual member of the American
Confederacy-in other words, that they were
entitled to vote upon their ,chole constitut, on
and not simply part of it Now, this was
a difference Of principle, between President
Buchanan and Senator Douglas. That same
difference now eriStS. Notwithstanding this
difference, however, Mr. Buchanan declared
in recommending the admission of Kansas
under the Lecompton Constitution, that
hereafter he should be in favor Of seeing fol
lowed the wise example which was set in the
case Of Minnesota, where it was required
that the entire State Constitution should be
submitted to the people, for their approval
or rejection. He took very good care to say
however, that he was in favor of seeing that
example followed, but left the inference very
plain that if it should happen not to be fol
lowed, why, then, the same rule that had
been applied to Kansas would have to pre-
vail. He left the difference Of principle be
tween himself and Senator Douglas entire Y
untouched and wholly unaffected. lie was
IN fdror of seeing the example in the case OF
Minnesota followed, as a matter of policy
| but if it was not followed, he could not heiI
IL. This is all the guarantee that we hav,
from James Buchanan in regard to future
t contingencies. Though hundred c lses, pre-
cisely similar to that of Kansas, should arise
: there is nothing in the shape of any ahsolut,
E and direct pledge from him, to prevent hin
from re'enaeting over and over again th,
same old swindle of Leeomptonsm.
So much for this wonderful harmony be
tween Mr., Buchanan and Mr. Douglas. Bu
the editor goes on to say:
We have heard enough of this war of tn,
Administration upon stephen A. Douglas
Give us the proof
Is it possible that the editor of the Expires
) never reads the Washington Union, which i.
the Presidents mouth.piece? We can Civ,
him extracts from that sheet ad infnituo,, t,
show that there is war upon Mr.. Douglas
and war the most bitter and unrelenting. -
We have already given numerous extracts
from that journal, in proof of this sam,
thing, as well as extracts from various otbe,
Lecompton sheets in different sections of the
Union. The editor of the Express has Il
great deal to say about Black Republican pa
pers not being reliable authority in regard to
the assertion that the Administration Is fry
iEg to crush Mr.. Douglas We refer him to
the Leeompton organs themselves, as author.
, ity. Out of their own mouths will we con