The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-03-03

than any other description. If so, it is the mis-
fortune of the owners of that kind of property.
Mr.. Douglass remarks, from the frequent in
terruptions, assumed so 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 extended throughout many hours, he
sustaining the principal part. His general
scope was, that he would leave all descriptions
of property, slaves included, to the operation
of the local law, and would not have Congress
interfere in any way Herewith. If the people
of the Territory want Slavery there, they will
foster and encourage it, and if they do not find
it for their advantage, they win do otherwise.
SO 1t becomes question Of soil, climate, pro-
duetion, dc. He illustrated by saying, that if
any discrimination is to be made in any descrip-
ton of property, the owner of stock, or liquors,
or any other, might claim it likewise.
After some other illustrations, he went into
discussion of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, which,
he said, was passed by distinct understand
ing between Northern and Southern Demo
Gratis, however differing on some points, to give
to the Territorial Legislature the full power,
with appeal to the Supreme Court, to test the
constitutionality of any law, but not to Congress
to repeal it. If the Court decides such law to
be constitutional, it must stand; if not, it must
fall to the ground, without action of Congress.
That doctrine of non-intervention by Congress
with Slavery in the States and Territories has
been a fundamental principle of the Demo
cratic platform, and every Democrat is pledged
to it by the Cincinnati platform. Here Mr..
Douglas, in reply to question by Mr.. Clay,
(who also made the remark that, according to
Mr.. Douglass Interpretation, squatter sover-
eighty is,superor TO the CONSTITUTIONAL said that
the limit of Territorial legislation is the organic
act and the Constitution. In reply to Mr.
Clay's question, "Can STAKEHOLDER take his
slave property into the Territory?" he would
reply, Yes; and hold it as other property To
the question, "Win Congress pass law to pro-
tect other kinds of property in the Terrific
rlesI" he would answer, No; for the doctrine
that Congress is to legislate on property and
persons without representation, is the doctrine
of the Parliament of George III, that brought
on the Revolutionary war. We said then it
was violation Of the rights of power to assume
to legislate for Englishmen without their con
sent Now, was he Mr.. Douglas) to be called
on to force this same odious doctrine on the
people of the Territories, without their consent !?
He answered, No; let them govern themselves.
If they make good laws, let them enjoy the
blessings; if bad, let them suffer until they are
repealed Referring to the great battles fought
and gained in 1854 and 1856, he said he would
like to know how many votes Mr. Buchanan
would have got in Pennsylvania or Ohio, if he
had then understood the doctrine Of popular
sovereignty as he claims to do now
Mr.. Bigler asked how many votes Mr.. Blu
chanan would have received in 1856, had the
Senator from Illinois and those who acted with
him told the people that the Kansas act was
not intended to extend TO the Territories the
sacred right of selfgovernment, but simply to
give the people the right to petition for redress
of grievances right not denied to any citi-
zen, white or black?
Mr.. Douglas said that there are no colored
citizens, and he trusted in God there never
would be. He did not recognise the black
brothers.
Mr.. Bigler knew that as we'll as the Senator,
and should have said inhabitants.
Mr.. Douglas resumed. In 1856 he took the
same ground as now, and Mr. Buchanan, when he
accepted the nomination, took the same ground.
His letter of acceptance to the Cincinnati Con-
vention shows he then understood that the people
of the Territories should decide whether Sla-
very should or should not exist within their
limits. When gentlemen called for Congress
sional intervention, they step off the Democratic
platform. He Mr.. Douglas) asserted that the
Democratic creed was non-intervention by Con-
gress, and the right of the people to govern
themselves. He would frankly tell gentlemen
of the South, that no Democratic candidate can
carry one State North, but on the principles of
the Cincinnati platform, as construed by Mr.
Buchanan when he accepted his nomination.
and which he (Mr. Douglas) stood here to-day
to defend.
Mr. Davis replied to Mr. Douglas elaborate
ly, denying that he (Douglas) rightly interpret
ed the obligations of the Democratic party.
Mr.. Pugh said, Mr.. Brown had asked if
Northern Democrats would vote for Congress
sional Intervention to protect the people against
local legislation. He would answer, Never 1t
is nonstrous. 1t is against the plighted faith
both of the South and North. Mr.. Pugh dis
cussed the question at length, and said he stood
on the platform of his party with the intepreta-
ton which he explained.
Mr.. Green was sorry that this subject of con
tention had been brought forward 1t was to
try and bring discord into the Democratic par
ty, the only party able to override the Repubi-
can party. He hoped and believed there was
no difference between the North and the South.
A Government is formed to protect persons and
property; and when il ceases TO do either it
ceases to perform its one great function. Mr..
Hale's amendment had brought up the ques-
ton, What is property" He (Green) main
tanned that, under the Constitution and by the
decision of the Supreme Court, slaves are prop
erty; and he argued the subject in many as
poets, concluding by calling on the Democratic
party to stand united and not permit comb
nation TO make use of mere fgment to disor-
ganize them. In the course of his remarks he
quoted from Mr.. Douglass Springfield speech,
to show that he had therein proposed Congress
sional intervention in Utah. He could not see
the consistency Of the Senator'S course, then
and now.
Mr.. Douglas denied that he had proposed
Congressional Intervention to regulate the in
ternal affairs Of Utah. The intervention he pro-
posed was alone on the ground of rebellion
not on account of their domestic affairs, but as
aliens and rebels.
Mr.. Green, in speaking of how Territorial
legislation could destroy the rights of slave
said he had before him copy of the
bin passed by the Kansas Legislature to abol-
ish Slavery.
Mr.. Douglas remarked that several speeches
had been made very pointedly at him, making
him out no better than an Abolitionist for leav-
ing the Territories to carry out their own affairs.
1t does well to attack one man for his opinion
but when was the most aggravated act ever
committed, that he did not say it was commit |
ted in manumitting your slaves and confscating
your property? The gentleman who spoke
thus, says: 1t is not yet time" There is no
better time than the present, to introduce bill
to repeal that act Of the Kansas Legislature.
Senators say that he (Douglas) may go out.
No; he stands on the platform, and it is for
those who jump of, to 60 out. Laughter.
The Chair called the Senate to order, threat
ening to clear the galleries, unless it was main
tanned. ~ f.i t.a
Mr.. Green said he had received information
of the bill by telegraph, but could not legislate
on such information. ~ .@t 80.
Mr.. Douglas would take it for granted that
Mr.. Green meant that he received authentic