Daily national Democrat., 1859-03-23
allnh ROOkh mn on thpm
DougIns Defines his Position.

There is one great attribute in the charac-
ter of stephen a. Douglas. lie is never
afraid to express his opinions. What he said
at Freeport, Illinois, he said in Memphis, Ten
nessee, and he reiterated in the Senate of the
United States On the 23d of February,
debate took place on Halls amendment TO
repeal the restrictive clause of the Kansas
Act, when Douglas defined his position, as
follows a synopsis of the debate is thus
given in the st. Louis papers;
Mr.. Brown made heightened address to
Northern Democrats.
Messrs Douglas and Davis occupied the
floor for several hours.
Messrs. Hunter, Gwn and Broderick de-
fined their positions
Mr.. Brown held to the doctrine of States
rights and denied the squattcr sovereignty Of
the Territories, and threatened secession,
with banners flying, if the South was de-
prived Of her rights. His address was di
rectad to the Northern Democrats, and he
placed his views frankly on the record, and
desired neither TO cheat nor to be cheated.
Mr.. Douglas felt it to be incumbent on him.
as a Northern Democrat, to make reply
While he admired the frankness, candor ald
directness with which the Senator from Mis-.
sissppi (Nlr. Brown had approached the
question, he, too, would put his opinion on
the record in such manner as will acQuit
him of the desire to cheat or to be cheated,
lie agreed, Mt the outset, with Mr.. Brown
and with the decision of the Supreme Court
that slaves are property, and that their own
ers have the right to carry them into the
Territories the same as any other property
having the right of transit into the Terrific |
ries. The question arises, how far does the |
power of the Territorial Legislature extend |
to slave property: and his reply is, to the
S lme extent, and no further, than to any |
other description of properly. Mr. Brown |
has said that slave property needs more pro
lection than any other description, and 50 it
is the misfortune of owners of that kind of
Mr.. Douglas remarks, from the frequent
assumed so much the form of
questions and replies, and running comments
on the various issues started, that we can
only mention salient points of the discussion
which extend throughout many hours, Mr.
Douglas sustaining the principal part. His
general scope was that he would leave all
descriptions property, slaves included, to
the operation Of the local laws, and would
not have Congress interfere in any way
Herewith. If the people of a Territory want
slavery, they will foster and encourage it.. If
they do not find it to be to their advantage,
they will do otherwise, so it becomes ques-
tion of soil, climate, production and estate.
lie illustrated by saying that if any discrmi-
nation is to be made between the descriptions
of properey, the owners of a stock of liquors
,tb i,rlt * e. I'll
lustrations, he went into a discussion of the
Kansas Nebraska bill, which was passed ly
distinct understanding between the North
ern and Southern Democrats, however differ
ing on some of its points, to give the Terrific
rial Legislature the full power, with an ap-
peal to the Supreme Court, TO test the con
stitutionality of any law, but not to Congress
to repeal it. If the Court decides such law
constitutional it must stand; if not, it will
fall to the ground without the action Of Con
grcss. That the doctrine ofnon intervention
by Congress with slavery in the States and
Territories has been the Fundamental princi-
pie of the Democratic platform. Every
Democrat is pledged to it by the Cincinnati
platform.
Here Mr. Douglas, in reply to a question
put by Mr.. Clay, of Alabama, who also made
remark, that according to Mr.. Douglas in
depreciation, squatter sovereignty is superior
to the Constitution, said that the limit of the
Territorial Legislature is the organic Act and
the Constitution
In reply to Mr.. Clay's queston-can
slave owner take his slave property into
Territory-he could reply yes, and hold it as
other property there.
Mr.. Chy-Will Congress pass law to
protect other kinds of property in the Terri
tories ?
Mr. Douglas-No The doctrine that Con-
gress is to legslate for property and persons
without representation is the doctrine of the
Parliament of George ILL.,. that brought on
the revolutionary war
lie said then it was a violation of rights
to assume to legislate for Englishmen With
out their consent Through legislation now
is he (Mr. Douglas) to be called upon to force
this same odious doctrine on the people Of
the Territories without their consent? He
answered no. Let them govern themseles
If they make good laws, let them enjoy the
blessings; if bad, let them suffer under them
till repealed. Referring to the great battle
fought and gained in 1854 and 1856, he
would like to know how many votes Mr.
Buchanan would have got in Pennsylvania
and Ohio if he had given them to understand
the doctrine Unpopular sovereignty as he now
claims to do.