Oroville daily Butte record., 1858-01-22
The Sam Francisco Herald on the Kan
4--s as @ uestiOu.

Inc Oau franclscO herald OF Tuesday
contains an able article favoring the expedi
ency phase Of the Kan8as question. The
article appears to have beea prepared with
ahat deep research and profundity which
fchsracterizes that journal dissertions upon
public affairs, but avoids, in our estimation
the true issue altogether. Five interpret
the article Alright, the ground taken is that
there was but the single question of sla very
embraced in the Kanms Nebraska act, and
that question having been submitted to the
people, the principle" of that Act having
been thus carried out. nothing remains but
to accept the heoompton constitution That
we may present the Hsrsid's position fairly
We make the following extrat. After de
nounoing the action of the Lecompton Con-
vention as "odioas and detestable in many
respects" the Htyai says:
But the only question presented to the President
was, whether the KanEas- Nebraska Act. which he
was sworn to maintain. had been violated by the
cOnvention-thatis, whether they had attempted to
stde the voice OF the people the slavery quest
II will be see hat the Herald assumes
that the Mansas- Nebraska act was framed
for the express purpose Of settling the slave
ry question, and the provision of the or
ganic act being thus cowplied with, however
"odious and detestable" the provisions of
the Eecompton constitution may Re, they
must be enforced.
IL is a mistake to Suppose that the princi
pie of popular sovereignty was asserted in
the organic act for the single purpose Of
settling the slavery question 10 Kanzas, but
rather MS principle upon which all ques-
tons of domestic policy, or State govern
ment, inclSding that of slavery, might be
justly, fairly aud permanently settled. To
single oRt the question of slavery as the on
ly one embraced in the popular sovereignty
principle of the Kanzas. Nebraska act, seems
to US the most vulgar legerdemain of sophis
try 1t is not only begging the whole Kanzas
question, but is narrowing the policy of the
Democratic party for the past eight years,
down to that question alone TIE national
principles which they have promulgated and
upheld are powerless, except upon the slave
~ question All others, however odious
and detestable" they may be to the people,
come not within the meaning of the popular
sovereignty doctrine of the National Democ-
racy! For the slavery question alone have
national men gathered around the constitu
ton for that alone have the National de-
mocracy declared the principle of popular
sovereignty applicable to the territories =
for that alone were the compromise meas
uees of 1850 enacted for that alone was
the Cincinnati platform erected and endorsed
10y the people land to that application of
the principle was the sanction of the people
given by the Democratic victory of 1866!
We deny the proposition, and consider it
as strongly antiDemocratic as the argu-
ments of those who advocated the reception
of the, Topeka constitution 1t is only the
southern extremists on the other, that have
ever endeayored to narrow the, issue down
to the slavery question alone. National
Democrats should avoid either extreme. and
remain firm upon tho broad and "vital prin
ciple Ct our free institutions" That is
what Mr.. Buchanan calls the Democratic
doctrine Of. popular sovereignty. Is the
"vital principle of our free institutions"
applicable only to the question Of slavery;
The Kanzas-Nebraska, act recognizes
slavery as local institution, and gives to
the people Of those territories the right "to
form and regulate their Institutions (not
institution, as argued by the Hereid.) in
their own way, subject only to the oonsitu-
ton of the United States. 1t is not reason
able to say that the Democracy repealed the
Missouri Compromise, which prohibited
slavery north of thirty six degrees thirty
minutes, for the single purpose of settling
the question in kanzls by the popular vote.
1t was not done for that question alone, bnt
because it was the proper way to settle all
questions of domestic policy. This was the
principle upon which the friends Of that Act
defended it before the people. Shall they
now assert that the principle of popular
sovereignty applies to but single question
of domestic policy, when they have every
where previously declared-in their plat
forms and before the people-that, under
that act the people had right to say what