The Nevada Democrat., 1859-03-30
Senators Defining their Positlons-Territo-
xson y

rtNA heS1sAutAOus
An interesting debate occurred in the q. S.
Senate, Feb. Esd. on Mr.. Hale's bill to repeal
the restrictive clause of the English Bill, when
Douglas and other Senator's defined their posi-
tions. Alate st. Louis paper has the following
synopsis Of the debate:
Mr.. Brown made heightened address TO
Northern Democrats.
Messrs. Douglas and Davis occupied the floor
several hours.
Messrs. Hunter, Gwin and Broderiek defined
their positions. .f IA. ..f
Mr.. Brown held to the doctrine of States
rights and denied the squatter sovereignty Of
the Territories and threatened secession, with
banners flying, il the South was deprived Of her
rights His address was directed TO The North
ern Democrats and he placed his views frankly
on the record, and desired neither TO cheat nor
to be cheated.
Mr.. Douglas felt il to be incumbent on him,
as Northern Democrat, to make reply.
While he admired the fraukness, caudor and di-
rectness with which the Senator from Missssp-
pi (Mr Brown had approached the question.
he, too, would put his opin on on the record in
such manner as will acquit him of the desire
to cheat or to be cheated. He agreed at the
outset, with Mr.. Brown, and with the decision
of the Supreme Court, that slaves are property.
and that their owners have the right to carry
them into the Territories the same as any other
property having the right of transit into the
Territories The question arises how far does
the power of the Territorial Legislature extend
to slave property and his reply is, to the same
extent, and no further. than to any other de-
scripton Of property. Mr. Brown has said that
slave property needs more protection than any
other description, and so it Is the misfortune of
owners of that kind of property.
Mr.. Douglas remarks, from the frequent in
terruptions assumed so much the form of ques-
tons and replies aud running comments on the
various issues started, that we can only men,
ton the salient points of the discussion. which
extended throughout many hours, Mr.. Douglas
sustaining the principal part. His general
scope was that he would leave all descriptions
of property, slaves included, to the operation
Of the local laws and would not have Congress
interfere in any way Herewith. Ii the people
of a Territory want slavery, they will foster
and encourage it. If they do not find it TO be
their advantage, they will do otherwise, so il
becomes question of soil, climate, production
and estate. He illustrated by saying that if
any discrimination is to be made between the
descriptions of property, the owners OF a stock
of liquors or any others might claim it. After
other Illustrations, he went into discussion Of
the Kansas Nebraska bill, which was passed by
distinct understanding between the Northern
and Southern Democrats, however differing on
some of its points, to give the Territorial Leg
islature the full power with an appeal to the
Supreme Court to test the constitutionality of
any law, but not to Congress to repeal it. II
the Court decides such law constitutional il
must stand If not, 1t will fall to the ground
without the action of Congress- That the doc
trine of non-intervention by Congress with
slavery in the States and Territories has been
Al ,.lo,x al af ha rati in
platform. Every Democrat is pledged to IL by
the Cincinnati platform.
Hero Mr.. Douglas, in reply to question put
by Mr. Clay, of Alabama. who also made re-
mark. that according to Mr.. Douglas interpre-
tation squatter sovereignty is superior to the
Constitution, said that the limit Of the Terrific
rial Legislature is the organic Act and the Con
stitution.
In reply to Mr.. Clay's question-can a slave
owner take his slave property into Territory
he could reply yes, and hold it as other prop
erty there.
Mr.. CIay-Wll Congress pass law to pro-
tect other kinds Of property in the Territories
Mr.. Douplas-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.
He said then 1t was violation OF rights to
assume to legislate for Englishmen without
their consent Through legislation nov is he
(Mr Douglas) to be called upon to force this
same odions doctrine on the people of the Ter
ritores. without their consentf He answered,
no. Let them govern themselves. II they
make good laws, let them enjoy the blessing;
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 II he had given them
to understand the doctriue Of popular sover-
eighty as he now claims to do.