Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1859-10-01

NJ Al communications must be accompanied BY a re
sponsi5lc name to notice.
DOUGLAS ON SQUATTER so VEREICNTK
The few persons who have read Douglass
Harper article on the Dividing Line between
State and Territorial Sovereignty" and the larger
number who have read his various political speech
es during the last two years, will remember that
the Illinois Senator has lattcrly insisted upon
the right Of the people of a territory to deter
mine for themselves the character of their own
local institutions; or to use his own language
at Cincinnati, on the 9th of September last,
Examine the bills and search The records,
and you will find that the great principle which
undcrlies those measures is the right of the peo-
pie of each State and each Territory, phiic a
Tey7itory to decide the slavery question for
themselves"
To ascertain exactly what the Senator means
by this it will be well to search the records"
and see if we can find any explanation or mod
ifcation of language which is apparently so
clear in its meaning and logical bearing. Hav-
ing looked at the record so vauntingly appealed
to by Mr. Douglas, we find that when the Ne
braska bill was pending in the Senate the prop
ositon was distinctly made to confer this very
power upon the people Of the TERRITORY while
a Territory" and was voted down by an over
whelming majori:y-Mr Douglas voting with
that majority against the grant Of any such
po,cer. We quote the following proceedings
from the Congressional Globe for the LIST SEES
sion, SD Congress, PIP. 1874, $40, 500.
Feb. 16, 1854 The Senate, as in committee
of the whole, resumed the consideration of the
bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska-the
pending question being on the amendment sub
mitted on the 10th instant by Mr. Chase, to add
to the 14th section of the substitute reported
from the Committee on Territories, as amended
on the motion of Mr. Douglas, the words:
"Under ,chich tie people of the Territory,
through their appropriate representatives, i
they see .ft, may prohibit the eriste,ce Of Stare
ry therein"
SO that the part of the section relating to that
matter would read;
THAT the Constitution and all laws of the
United States which arc not locally inapplica-
Bile, shall have the same force and effect within
the said Territory of Nebraska as elsewhere
within the United States, except the eighth sec
ton of the act preparatory to the admission of
Missouri into the Union, approved March 6,
1920, which, being inconsistent with the princi-
pies of non-intervention by Congress with slav-
cry in the States and Territories, as recognised
by the legislation Of 1850, commonly called the
compromise measures, is hereby declared nope
rative and vod-it being the true intent and
meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into
any Territory or State nor to exclude it there
from; but to leave the people thereof perfectly
free to form and regulate their domestic insti-
buttons i'll their own way, subject only TO the
Constitution of the United States, uI,deT ,chich
the people Of the Territory through their appro-
priate representatives may, if they see nit, pro-
hibH the cristence Of .Slarey therein"
March ., 1854. The Senate resumed the
consideration Of the bill to organize the Terri
tory of Nebraska.
The debate was continued until half past six
o'clock, when MIR Chasc's amendment was re-
jected-yeas 10, nays 36-as follows
IEAs-Messrs Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin,
Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Hamlin, Seward, Smith,
Sumner, and Wade-lO
NAYs-Messrs Adams, Atchison, Badger,
Bell Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Clay,
Clayton, Dawson, Dixon, Dodge of Iowa,
DOUGLAS, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Houston,
Hunter, Johnson Jones of Iowa, Jones of Ten
nessee, Mason, Morton, Norris. Petit Pratt,
Rusk Sebastian, Shields, Slidell Stuart, lou
cey, Walker, Weller, and Williams-36.
The amendment of Mr. Chase contains the
very doctrine for which Mr. Douglas is now con-
tending; and if it had been incorporated into
the bill would have left no room for doubt or
construction on the subject. 1t was, however,
repudiated and rejected and Mr. Douglas assis.
ted his democratic colleagues, in its rejection.
Mr. Douglas now insists that the construction
which the Republican Senators attempted in
1854 to put upon the Nebraska bill is the true
construction, and that it was then so construed
by the democrats. Is Mr. Douglas honest in
this matter now? We think not and his
statement in his Cincinnati speech is at total
variance with his record on the subject. The
fact is Mr. Douglas used the Nebraska bill to
hoodwink the democrats and he is now attempt
ing the same game, and carrying it to the point
of disqualification to hoodwink the Republi-
cans.