Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1859-03-03

,rrrjtories. If he meant to say that there
vas no mower to compel the Territories 10
Ass laws protecting the rights of Southern
men. then be would say to him, & You prom
sed us bread, and you gave US stone, he
,ad said that the inhabitants have this power
riven them by the organic act; but his con-
fusion was that that was power tooyerride
he decision of the Supreme Court. He agreed
hat the decision of the Supreme Court d.
vests Congress ofthe power to iuhibit slavery; |
but he urged that they had right to delegate
such power 10 the Territories. The lnhab-
ltants of Territory were not a people, and
it was not in the power OF Congress to grant
them political power. 1t could delegate pow
ers of convenience. but II could grant nothihg-
The Senator from Illinois seemed to con- |
slider that Congress bad irreveeably parted |
with power to that people which Congress
did not itself possess. They had seen that
Senator's doctrine for six months past III the
public journals; they now had them In an
authentic form. He claimed to know this,
and he feared no disseniient voice south OF
the Potomac, that if this Kansas-Nebraska
act was to be interpret d to remit the rights
of the South in the Territories from both
Congress and the Supreme Court. 10 the in
habitants of the Territories for the tine-be-
ing, the Southern States would be recreant
to their honor if they gave any candidate
standing upon such a platform solitary
vote And if it was to be the signal for dis
solution of the party. let it be dissolved. and
the sooner the better. They would find no
one builder or plank for the reconstruction oil
the platform on such basis in the whoie
Southern States.
The Southern States would be recreant TO
their honor # they gave solitary vote to
any candidate holding the doctrines avowed
by Mr.. DouGI.As. land it was to be the
signal for dissolution of the party, the
sooner the better Why, does not this very
discussion show that the dissolution of the
party has already taken place? Will Mr..
MASON try to shut his eyes to the fact that
the doctrines of Mr.. DOUGLAS are the doc
trines of the Northern Democracy?
DEMOCRATIC MR.. PUGH, OF OHIO, BACKS UP THE
LITTLE GIANT.
Mr.. PUGH thought this discussion was wholly
unnecessary. But he understood the nat
tor from Mississippi (Mr. BRowN) to demand
from Northern Democrats whether they would
agree to protect Shareholders against the To-
cal Legislature of the Territories. He an
swercd. never He regarded it as mOnstrous
demand involving breach of their plighted
faith If that was the price of supporting
the Democratic party, the Price would never
he paid He quoted from speech of the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. BRowN) on the
I'd of july, 1856. main tanning the right of the
people of the T, rritories tn legislate upon all
matters of local and domestic concern. and
that if ANYBODY was dissatisfied with such
legislation they mutt go to the courts. and
not come to Congress for redress. There was
no question as to the construction of the law
at that time. The present Secretary
of State held the same views ut that
time. If any Southern man thought he
had right to hold slaves in Territories in
defiance of the Territorial authorities, ht him
assert this right and appeal to the courts to
maintain it. not come to Congress.
But it was said the Supreme Court had
decided the matter already. Since when had
Democratic faith? Was it since the alien and
sedition laws of John Adams or the drclara-
ton of the constitutiOnality of the Unite
States Bank? Or since Thomas Jefferson
pronounced them the sappers and miners OF
the Constitution? No court should make him a
platform But the Supreme Court had de-
cided no such thing. In the whole bred
Scott case there was no act OF Territorial
Legislature at all involved. 1t was the first
time he ever heard that when nine judges in a
case made opinions serldtim, an illustration by
one of them in his opinion was to be deemed
decision of the court. The court had pro-
perly decided that Congress had no right to
exclude slavery from the Territories.
The Legislature of Kansas was no longer a
creature of Congress. Government had only
called the Legislature into being by relin-
gushing to the people their Inherent rights,
and the Legislature took It's sovereign power,
not from Congi ess. but from the people
, What were the people of Territory but the
inha - :
but the people? This whole claim was for
the sacred right of one Southern man to hold
negroes in bondage in a Territory in defiance
of every body else in it. 1t was bad piece
of special pleading to build up doctrine
offensive to the pride and seit-respect of the
North. He would give them equal rights
But he would also have equal rights
You shall not carry into the Territories the
laws of your State unless | carry also the
laws of mine When they claimed to set az
negro sovereignty in the Territories-tC
claim that slaves are peculiar species o
property which no man dares touch, and NJ
government regulate, they subverted the
whole foundations of Government.
Strong language this, and coming from
none OF your Black Republicans. but from 1
real live Democrat. The Northern Demo
erats would neer agree to protect slave
holders against the local legislatures of tn
Territories 1t was "a monstrous demand
involving breach of their plighted faith.
.'When had the Supreme Court become th'
expounder of Democratic faith Was it sine
the alien and sedition laws of JOIN ADAMS o
the declaration of the constitutionality of tn
United States Bank? Or since THOMAS JET
PERSON pronounced them sappers anil miner
of the Constitution? No court should max
him platform"
| MR.. GREEN, OF MISSOURI, AIMS A BLOW AT Mr.
DOUGLAS AND HIS DOCTRINES.
Mr. GREEN intended 70 deceive no one a
10 his views. The Supreme Court bad de
cid d that slaves are property, and the ques
| ton was whether Kansas could abolisl
slavery If il could il would be the duty o
| Congress to intervene for the protection o
persons and property. He asked the Senate
from Illinois ie Territory could prohibi
the introduction of any other property! TIL
| Senator had said that it could be don
by unfiiendly legislation. Unfriendly Il
whatY Unfriendly to him or his property
| No person could take his properi,
from him. Since Magma Charta pirivat
| rights had been more sacred than any other
The time might come when the Soutl
would see the Necessity Of asking the inter
veution of Congress in the Territories 70
the protection of slave properly. and he wa
sorry the Senator from Illinois had d clare'
| he would refuse that Intervention, while h
was the loudest advocate OF Intervention II
Utah to put down polygamy.
MIR. DOUGLAS dsnied ever having advocates
intervention in Utah for such purpose. Ill
had advocated in his Springfield speech tn
repeal of the organic act because the peopl
were alien enemies.
Mr.. GREEN insisted that he had in tina
speech'also advocated the intervention of Con