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

ion 10 the wtsnes OF tle people. fis PoN.
lion was not logical. If the people wanted
slavery they would protect it, and If they did
not want it they would not protect it. They
could not be compelled to have it. He was
glad his record made it unnecessary TO ask
him if he would vote for slave code for the
Territories. He had yet to learn that there
was a Northern man who would.
The Constitution provided no remedy lot
stealing slaves or any other property, and no
kind of property could he protected IN a 1er-
ritosy wiihourTerritoria law providing RENE
dies and penalties. The QUESTION was whe,l-
er Congress should make discrimination III
favor of slave property, makingit higher than
any other prop.rfy. He would leave al,
kinds of property to the action OF locai
Territorial laws.
II was well understood when the Kansas
Nebraska bill was passed that they gave the
Territorial Legislature full power to pass
whatever laws il chose, and the question oil
The constitutionality of those laws was to be
settled by the courts. The bill was amended
to that end by striking out the appeal to
Congress and inserting the right of appeal 10
the. Supreme Court, without reference To tue
value of the property in controversy. me
bill excepted certain things from the leglsla-
tive control of the Territory. but there was
no exception as to slavery. He stood npon
the Nebraska bill as ii was understood at the
I u.
the question of the gentleman from Mlssis-
sippi He would never vote to annul law
of the people of Kansas. If they did not
like the Territorial laws they could appeal to
the Supreme Court. That was the doctrine
of non-interventihn as it was understood
when the Nebraska bill was passed.
He knew some men did not like the doc
trine as well as they used to, but that octrlne
had long been the fundamental law OF the
xrhn
for the Kansas Nebraska bill voted TO con-
firm it as such. He called attention to the
fourteenth section of that act. which repealed
the Missouri compromise restriction. They
had in that section declared the doctrine, OF
non-intervpntion, and every Democrat was
pledged in favor of it and against any lrgisla-
ton by Congress in respect to slavery IN the
Territo les. He held them to the agreement
Mr. D,UGLEs said that by the organic act
the legislative power was extended 20 all
rightful subjects of legislation. with three ex
ccptions. and slavery not excepted
| They had the same right TO take anc
hold slaves in the Territories as Other
property They could hold improperly
without law for it, and Congress wouio
| not interfere TO prot ct slaves any
more than any other property The doctrine
Of the right of Congress to make laws lor Il
distant unrepresented people was the doctrine
| OF the tories IN the heNpiuttou- ON' 100"
asserted the right of every colony to make
its own local laws, and he was asserting, III
behalf of the people of the Territories, Inc
same doctrine which they then defended
against the power of Great Britain. Let
them enjoy their own good laws, or sunri
und,r their own bad laws until they repeal
! I'd them. Upon that principle they STOOD IL
1856. How many votes wonld Mr.. Buch-
anan have received in Pennsylvania IL III
had then declared il was the duty Of Congress
TO maintain slavery in the Territories by al
the power Of Federal bayonetsf The Presi-
dent diI not then understand popular sove-
regnty in that sense.
| He procet ded to argue that the President,
when he accepted his nomination pltdgeC
| himself to the doctrine OF selt-government II
/ the Territories, as well as in the States, anC
read from his letter of acceptance to the Ell c
that the people of the Territories have til
sole right of determining whether slavery
should or should not exist. He hoped the
Senator from Mississippi had no allusion tt
| this letter when he said that in the next con
test he did not desire to cheat or be cheated.
He meant to maintain only such doctrines as
! could be avowed wherever the American nag
waves. If the people of Territories wanted
to have slavery they should have it. II gen
temen were going to abandon the doctrine OF
nou-utervention, they must step OIL from the
! Democratic platform. No Democratic can
didate could carry single Northern otate
upon any other platform than the Clnclnnail
| platform, as construed by Mr.. Buchanan In
| his letter Of acceptance, and maintained py
| the men who ell ctud him.
Plainly spoken. too. He never would
vote for Congressional Intervention for the
protection of slavery in territory against t
territor' al law prohibiting it, and he chad
vet to learn there was a Northern mai
who .couLdr' The doctrine of the right o.
/ Congress to make laws for distant unrepre'
sented people was the doctrine of the tories II
the Revolution" How many votes would
| Mr. BUCHANAN have received in Pennsylvania
if he had then declared it was the duty o
Congress to maintain slavery in the Terrific
ries by all the power of Federal bayonets )?
If gentlemen were going to abandon thu
doctrine of non-intervention, they must stel
off the Democratic platform. No Democratic
candidate could carry single Northern Stat
upon any other platform than the Cincinnati
platforms las construed by Mr.. BUCHANAN in hi
letter of acceptance" He hoped Imaliciou
Mr. DOUGLAS j the Senator from Mississippi
had no allusion to that letter, when he salt
that in the next contest he did not desire {
cheat or be cheated"
MR. DAVIS, OF MISSISSIPPI, LETS FLY AT Mr.
DOUGLAS.
Mr.. DAVIS said when the Constitution wa
formed the councils of the nation were guide
by men who stopped not TO deg aiding con
troversy. Not the breadth OF one hair wOult
1 IL al. g.. 10 IN tlA
: reer he had chosen. The Senator had base
J his argument upon the idea that there was
people in the Territories. There were in
habitants. but not people in Territories
inhabitants waiting in the fullness of time t
he admitted to the privileges OF citizrnshiI
, The past history of the country showed tina
: Congress had not hesitated 10 afford tn
I protection to slave property which it wa
bound to afford by the Constitution. Ii wa
the duty of Congress to discriminate for tn
: protection of that property. II Congress ha
/ no right to legislate on the subj ct of slavery
how could they pass fugitive slave law
Ii Congress attempted to grant away il
mower i'm the Kansas-Nebraska bill, Congress
| exceeded its authority. 1t could delegat,
! hut not grant away It's legislative trust. HOY
had a territory power 20 legislate whic
= Congress could not revise. and still derive II
sole power of legislation from Congress
He conceded TO Congress the power I
lecislate through the fundamentally OF tn
Territorial Legislature: but the Terrtoria
| Legislature had no power which was nc
: delegated by Congress. How, then, could
I Q, the power to inhibit slavery? Congres
hid not that power; and the Senator fro'
: Illinois himself argued that all the power {
the Territory was derived from the ConstitI
ton of the United States and the organic nc
They could assert that power only ny u
right of revolutionary rising in rebellio
E against this Government aud achieving the
: Independence.
d His vote could not be had for any man VII
stood upon platform adverse to the righ
of the South. They were not to be cheate
{ with their eyes open.