The daily Butte record., 1858-02-03
Remarks OF senator DOUGLASS.
In Reply to the Speech Senator Firth,
in Senate, Wednesddy, Dec. 90, 1857.


in Senate, Wednesddy, Dec. %, 1857.
MR. DOUGLASS. Mr.. President, I ask
pardon Of the Senator from Michigan for oc-
cupying few moments of the time properly
belonging to him | regret that, as the
Senator from Indiana spoke by the courtesy
Of the Senator from Michigan. he should
have deemed 1T necessary to say anything
that demanded reply from me at the ex.
pense OF the Senator who is entitled to the
fioor. understand the Senator's argument
to rest upon the proposition which he ar.
CUES at some length, that the object, the
only object, OF that portion Of the Kansas
Nebraska bill which repealed the Missouri
restriction was to place the slavery question
on the same footing with each and every
other local ana domestic question, as had
been done from the beginning of the Gov
eminent do not misunderstood him OH
that point.
Mr.. FITCH. No, sir.
Mr.. DoUGLAss. | am glad to find that on
the very basis OF his argument he and |
agree 1t was the object Of repeating the
Missouri Compromise, to put the slavery
question on the same footing with each and
every other domestic question in the Terri
tories and new States that il, to leave the
people perfectly free to form and regulate
all their domestic institutions, slavery in
cluded. to suit themselves. On this point,
however, he differs with the President of the
United States; for the President tells us
that the object was to make slavery an ex-
ceptlon and submit that by itself, but not
su bmit the other questions.
| was sorry to see the Senator taking is
sue with the President of the United States
q nnavfinp nf l. ;,J .I.
same time, arraigning me for having done
the same thing. The whole head and front
of my offending consists in the fact, that
dissented from that part of the Presidents
message which declared that the slavery
question was an exception, and argued to
prove that the object Of the Kansas Nebra-
ka bill was to exclude that exception and
put the slavery question on the same foot
ing with every other question which was To-
cal 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 lie
repeated tho proposition a dozen times in
the course of his speech. am glad to find
that he and agree thus far hope he will
not consider that he is outside the pale of a
"N"''hy W p''h'S"tiph tilhb iC Is dDdUuUU-
ing the President, and engaging in an ambi-
tious scheme to break down the Administra
tion, because he differs with the President
on the same point that do
lie says ! have come out in favor Of n gen.
eral rule, novel in the history of the Gov.
ernment, that, hereafter, every Constitu-
ton formed by II new State coming into the
Union must be submitted to the people be.
farn IL IL born Tha
against the general rule rs being novel
and revolutionary principle which ought
not to be fastened on the country at this
day. llns he read the Presidents message
on that point? In the message the Prcs.
dent of the United States tells us that the
example of the Minnesota bill, in requiring
tho Constitution to be submitted to the peo.
pie, is noble example. and should be fol-
lowed in all cases hereafter to arise. The
Senator is arraignng the general rule of the
President in regard to the submission of
Constitutions to the people for ratification
stand with the President in behalf Of that
general rule.
am little at n loss to see upon what
ground it is that the Senator utters vague
inuendoes about men putting themselves in
II factious position towards the party, divid-
extent that they ought to be considered out
side of the party. He differs with the Pre>i-
dent on two points: on one. The Presi.
dent says the slavery question 10 treated by
the Kansas Nebraska bill rs an exception.
The Senator says that by that bill, and by
the Cincinnati platform, the slavery ques-
ton is put on the same footing with all 9TH
er questions, without any exception. On
tb n pnipt hava Gail tba
Indiana and myself agree, both differing
from the President. lIc differs from the
President in regard to the general rule that
the Constitution ought to be submitted to
the people. On that point agree with the
President. If to differ from the President
is faction then the Senator has Just double
the amount of faction in his position that |
have in mine.
Then what is the issue between the Sena-
tor from Indiana and myself Agreeing
that the object of the Kansas Nebraska bill
was to place the slavery question on an
equal footing with all other local and do
mestic institutions. and leave the people
free to decide the whole, he takes the ground
that he will not submit those questions to
the people, and take the ground that they
should be submitted to the people. That is
point the reasoning of the President is with
me, for he says that by the terms of the
Nebraska bill. it was incumbent upon the
Democratic party to insist that the slavery
question should be submitted to the people
for their decision, and if the Senator from
Indiana be right in saying that by the Neb.
raska bill the slavery question was put on
the same footing with all others. then if he
agrees with the President. he afiirms that
the whole Constitution should be submitted
to the people for their ratification.
Thus We find the gentleman in 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 claim, like the Senator from pennsylva.
MIA. that he has sother sources of informa-