The Nevada Democrat., 1858-02-03
NEVADA DEMOCRAT.
WEDNESDAY MORNING, FEB. 8, 1858.
In reply 70 uk OPscch q Oe'sdtoF F1lcH, " oeaIs,
Wednesday. Dec. Esd, 1857.

few moments OF the time properly belonging TO
him. regret that, as the Senator from Indi-
ana spoke by the courtesy Of the Senator from
Michigan, he should have deemed it necessary
to say anything that demanded q reply frem
me at the expense Of the Senator who Is entitled
10 the floor. understand the Senator's argu-
fuent to rest upon the proposition, which be
argues at some lsnth, that the object, the only
object o: that portion Of the Kansas-Nebraska
bill which repealed the Missouri restriction was
to place the slavery question on the same foot
ing with each and every other LEGAL and domes-
tic question, ss had been done frsm the begin
ing or the Government. do not misunderstand
him on that point.
Mr. FIrCH. No sir.
Mr. DOUGLAS l am glad to find that on the
very basis Of his argument he aud agree. 1t
was Gfhe object Of repeating the Missouri Com
promise, to put the slavery question on the same
footing with each and every other domestic
question in the Territories and new States; that
ID, to leave the people perfectly free to form
and regulate all their domestic institutions.
slavery included, to suit themselves. On this
poiut, however. he differs with the President of
the United States; for the President informs as
that the object was to make slavery an excep-
ton and submit that by itself, but net submit
the other questions
was sorry to see the Senator taking issue
with the President Of the United States upon
questioR of that kind and at the same time,
arraigning me for having done the same thing.
The wkae head and front of my offending con-
ssts in the fact, that dissented from that part
OF tae Presidents nessage which declared that
the slavery question was an exception, and ar
gued to prove that the object of the Kansas
Nebraska bill was to exclude that exception
and put the slavery question on the same feot-
ing with every ether question which was local
and not national, State and not Federal. The
Senator from Indiana now agrees with me that
the President was wrong In that part Of his
message, and that was right There is no
avoiding this conclusion He repeated the pro-
position a dozen dimes in the course of his
speech. am GLAD to find that he and agree
thus far. hobe he will not consider that he is
outside the pale of q healthy organization; that
he is abandoning the President, and engaging
in an ambitious scheme to bneak down the Ad-
ministration, because he differs with the Presi-
dent on the same point chat do.
He Gays h&vecome out in fsver Of a general
rule, novel in the history Of the Government,
that hereafter, every Constitution formed by a
new State coming into the Union Must be sub
mitted to the people before it is sent here. The
Senator argues against the general rule as be-
ing novel and lutoB2ry Rrineiple. which
ought not to be fastened on the country at this
day. Has he read the Presidents aaessage on
that piontt la the message the President OF the
United States tells us that the example Of the
Minnesota hill. in requiring the Consultation to
be submitted to the people, is EeaGe ex&mple.
and should be followed in all cases hereafter to
arise. The Senator is arraign5ng dbe geseral
rule Of the President in regard to tke sS&Emssion
eNf Constitutions TO the people fos ratification.
q stand with the President in behalf Of that gea-
seral rule.
Ian little at a loss to see upon what ground
ut is that the Senator utters vague insendoes
Nbsut nken putting themselves in faetiSss pc
-sifiOn towards the party. dividing and destract-
iiug its sooancls to such extent that they
.oaght to be considered outside of the RsaHy--
Me differs With the President on two points, |
OrOne. The President says the slavery qHes-
tion in treated by the K&nsas-Nebraska bill as
ar exception. The Senator says that by that
TDill. ana Wy the Cincinnati platform, the kia-
werysguessien is put On the same footing ~ith
aA other questions. without any exception On
tfSst pOint as have said, the Senator from tn
diana and myself agree, both differing ftoTn the
HresIent He differs from the President ia re
garf, 'se the general rule that the Constellation
ought to be submitted to the people. On thai
psintH agree with the President. If to Giifer
with the President is faction then the Senator
hss; ;JEss double the amount Of faction in bis pc
&ition that have in mine.
Then what is the issue between the Senator
from Indians and myself! Agreeing thst the
@hject of the Kansas-Nebraska bill was to place
the slavery question on an equal footing with
ali other local and domestic institutions, and
leave the people free TO decide the whole, be
takss the gron1d that he will not submit tanse
questions 10 the people, and | take the ground
thu. they should be submitted to the people
That is the simple point of differance. On that
point the reasoning of the President is with me.
for he says that by the terms of the Nebraska bill
ii was incumbent upon the Democratic party to
insist that the slavery question should be sub
nitted to the people for their decision; and il
the Senator from Indiana be right in saying
that by the Nebraska bill the slavery question
was put on the same footing with all others,
then if he agrees with the President, he afhrms
that the whole Constitution should be submitted
to the people for their ratification.
Thus we find the gentleman n conflict with
the President Of the United States at all points,
and in conflict with the President upon the very
recommendations he makes in regard to the
Territories which are about to become States,
to wit the general rule of submission. The
Senator from Indiana will not cla m. like the
Senator from Pennsylvania, that he has "other
sources Of information" than the message. He
will not claim that there are sources Of infor-
mstieA which authorize him to deny the propo-
sitions laid down in the message. If he will.
| should like to know who is the friend, and
whs is the eRemy OF the President of the United
States.
The Senator from Indiana cannot maintain
his position without rebelling against large
portion of the message on the Kansas question.
But hold that he has right to differ from the
President. God forbid that should ever sur
render my right to differ from President Of
the UAited States Of my own choice. / have
not become the mere servile tool Of any Prssi-
dent so that am bound to take every recon-
mendatien he makes without examining and as
certaining whether it meets the approval of my
judgment OF not. I know that the President
would not respect me II I should thus receive a
diotum from any authority contrary to my judg-
meat.
Again, yesterday, l tried to ascertain if there
was any one Senator on this floor who was pre-
pared to yield obedience to the Presidents rec
snmendations in his message, without excep-
ten. 4 instanced the Pacific PniIrnnd IL. |