The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-03-10
INTERESTING DEBATE IN THE SENATE
TIE rorULAR REsTRIcTioS CLAUSE
In the English Bill!


Right % Psolaipss slavssyI
10 the U. s. Senate, on the 22d, debate,
occupying the Senate until midnight, took
place on proposition made by senator
Hale, 70 repeal the clause in the English
Bill, requiring Of Kansas q population Of
$4,000 prior to her admission into the
Union.
The Legislative, Executive and Judicial
Appropriation bill came up as the special
order.
The question recnrrsd on Mr.. Hale
amendment TO repeal the restrictive clause
Of the Kansas Admission Act.
Mr.. STUART, Of Michigan, said be would
vote against requiring census Of Kansas To
be taken.
Mr.. SEWARD, Of New York, said Con-
gross had decided that Kansas should come
in with the Lecompton constitution without
reference 10 population, but on the other
hand should not come in outside Of the Le.
compton constitution unless she bad 3d.
400 population. There was, therefore, q
discrimination by the Congress Of the United
States. IA against Freedom, in favor Of
Slavery. Oregon, because she was Dem
ocratic State, was admitted without refer
cnce 10 population, and Kansas because Of
her different politics, was excluded. lie was
glad OF this occasion 10 renew his vote. He
was glad also 10 hear that so many gentle
men on the other side will give Kansas Q
fair hearing. Ii Indicates that the time 10
coming when any State applying Tor sdmis-
sion will he heard on its merits apart from
all other considerations. lie thought il
goes to show that II Texas shouldgbe divided,
or Free States, as be thought they woaId,
be formed in Mexico, they will cone in rs
Free Statea
Mr.. BRows, Of Mississippi, made strong
Southern speech.
Mr.. BEowN held TO the doctrine OF State
Rights. denied the quattcr sovereignty Of
Territories, and threatened secession, with
banners flying, il the South was deprived Of
her rights. His address was directed to
Northern Democrats. lie placed his views
FRANKLY on record, and desired neither to
cheat nor be cheated.
Mr.. DOUGLAS felt il incumbent on him a.
. Northern Democrat TO make reply. lie
admired the frsnkness. candor, and direct.
ness with which Mr.. Brown had approached
the question. He Douglss), too, would
put bis opinions on record in such manner
rs will acquit him also Of desire to cheat
or be cheated. lie agreed at the outset
with Mr.. Brown, and with the decision OF
the Supreme Court. that slaves are property,
and that their owners have q right TO carry
them into the territories, a any other pro-
perry. Having the right OF transit into the
Territory, the question arises how far does
the power Of the Territorial Legislature ex.
tend TO slave property, and the reply u to
tho same extent, and no farther, than to any
other description Of property. Mr.. Brown
has said that slave property needs more pro-
lection than any other description. II 90,
il ia the misfortune Of the owners OF that
kind Of property, Mr.. Douglass remarks.
from the frequent Interruptions, assumed 10
much the form Of question and reply, and
running comments on the various issues
started, that we can only notice the salient
points Of the main discussion, which extend
cd throughout many hours, be sustaining
the principal part. His general scope was
that he would leave oil descriptions Of pro.
perty, slaves included, TO the operation Of
the local law, and would not have Congress
interfere in any way herewith.
II the people OF the Territory want Sla-
very there they will foster aud encourage il,
and il they do not find it for their advan.
tagc, they will do otherwise. SO II becomes
a question OF soil, climate, production, etc
lie illustrated. by saying that il any dis.
elimination is TO he made in any description
OF property, the owner Of stock, or liquors,
or any other might claim i, likewise After
some other illustrations, be went into dis
cussion oil the Kansas n ebraska bill, which,
he said, was passed by distinct understand
ing between Northern and Southern Demo
Gratis, however differing 90 some points, to
give the Territorial Legislature the full
power. with appeal to the Supreme Court,
To- test the constltutionality Of any law but
M, 10 Congress to repeal IT, II the Court
decides such law TO be constitutional, il
must stand II not, II must fall to the ground
without action OF Congress The doctrine
OF non-interven,ion by Congress with Slave.
ry in the States and Territories has been
fundamental principle Of the Democratic
platform, and every Democrat Is p edged to
il by the Cincinnati platform. Here Mr.
Douglas, In reply to question by Mr.. Clay,
who also made the remark that, according
to Mr. Douglas Interpretation, Squa,ter
Sovereignty is superior to the Constitution
said that the limit OF territorial legislation
is the organic nc, and the Constitution. In
reply to Mr. Gays question. can q slave
holder take his slave property into the Ter
ritory,' he would reply, YES and hold II as
other property To the question. will Con.
gress pass law TO protec, other kinds OF
property in the Territories " he would an.
swer no; for the doctrine that Cougres is
to leg'slaie % property and persons wi,hca,
representation Is the doctrine Of the Parks-
men, Of George Ill that brought on the
Revolutionary war. We said then il was
a violation cf the rights q power to assume
TO legislate for Enelishmen without their