The daily press. (Cincinnati [Ohio) 1859-1859, 1859-02-25
LATEST NEWS
By Telegraph.
Conversational.

| he then understood that tho people Of the
| Territories should decide whether slavery should
| or should not exist within their limits. When
| gentlemen call on Congressional Intervention,
they step of of the Democratic platform. He
maintained that Tho Democratic creed is non
interN ention by Congress, and the right of the
people to govern themselves. He would frankly
toll the gentlemen Of the South that no Demo-
| cratic candidate can carry one State of the
| North but on tho principles Of the Cincinnati
platform as construed by Mr.. Buchanan when
he accepted it, and which he (Douglas) stood
up to-day to defend.
Mr.. Davis, of Miss, replied to Mr.. Doug
las deliberately, denying that he rightly in
terpreted tho obligations Of the Democratic
party. . .
Mr.. Pugh, of Ohio, said that the Senator
from Mississipp (Brown) had asked if North
ern Democrats would vote for Congressional in
tervention to protect slavery against local leg
islation. He would answer never. 1t is a mon
strous doctrine; it is against the plighted faith
of both the North and South. Mr. Pugh dis
cussed the question at length, and said that he
stood on the platform of his party with the in
terprctation which he explained.
Mr.. Green, of No., was sorry that this bone
Of contention had been brought forward to try
to bring discord into the Democratic party, the
! only party able to override the Republican par
| ty. He ehoped and believed that there would
be no difference between the North and South.
| A government is formed to protect persons
and property, and when it ceases to do either,
it ceases to perform the one great function.
Mr.. Hale's amendment had brought up the
question, what is proper? He (Green) main
tanned that under the Constitution and by the
decision of the Supreme Court, slaves are prop
orty, and he argued the subject in its many
aspects, concluding by calling on the Democrat
| ic party to stand united, and not permit com
bination to make us mere figment to disor-
ganize them. In the course of his remarks he
quoted from Mr.. Douglas Springfield speech,
to show that he had therein proposed congress
sional Intervention to regulate the internal af-
fairs Of Utah.
The Intervention he proposed was alone on
the ground of rebellion, not on account of the
domestic affairs, but as aliens and rebels.
Mr.. Green, in speaking of how territorial
legislation could destroy the rights of slave
property, said that he had before him a bill
passed. by the Kansas Legislature to abolish
slavery.
Mr.. Douglas remarked that several speeches
had been made very peintedly at him, ma
| king him no better than an abolitionist for
leaving the territories to carry out their own
affairs.
1t does well to attack one man for his opin-
ion, but the gentleman from Missouri (Grecn,
had alluded to the most aggravating act ever
committed by Kansas. lie (Douglas) did moi
say it is committed. e. manumitting youI
slaves and confscating your property; and yct
you do not propose Intervention in the case
You say it is not yet time. There can be nc
better time than now to introduce a bill to re-
peal that act of the Kansas Legislature, anG
carry out the doctrine of Congressional inter
vcntion. Some Senators say that he douglas
may 60 out of the party. No. He stood or
the platform, and it is for those who jump off tc
60 out.
Mr. Green said that he had received infor.
nation of the passage of the bill to which he
had alluded, by telegraph, and could not legis.
late on such information.
Mr.. Douglas would take it for granted thai
Mr.. Green meant that when he received au
thentic information of the act, he would intro
duce a bill to repeal it.
Mr.. Green said if he could protect the prop.
erty of his constituents in no other way he
would bring in such bill, and would expect tC
receive Mr.. Douglas vote ON the strength o.
his Springfield speech.
Mr.. Mason, Of Va, had fondly hoped tha
the Kansas ebraska Bill, by which the Senate
had made concession, would have settled thu
slavery question, but he was mistaken. IL,
would not say deceived. The South, he slid
had reluctantly acquiesccd in the movemen
with the Democrats of the North to settle the
question. lie went at some length to discuss
and approve the decision of the Supreme Cour
in the case of Drcd Scott. He did not agree
with Mr.. Douglas views as to the power of the
people of Territory. He did not believe thai
the Kansas Nebraska Bill gave them an indie,
pendent power. The Senator from Virginia
then gave his ideas as to the rights of the peo.
pie of the Territories and Of the people of thu
States. The right Of property is recognized il
the former, but the inhabitants of Territory
are unknown to the Constitution. Congress
cannot divest itself of its power over the prop
erty Of Territories, but it can grant them moth
ing South of the Old Potomac River to tn
confines Of Mexico. There is not one dissent
lent voice. The South would be recreant t
itself if it would give one vote in favor of ii
rights being taken from the Constitution an
remitted to the pleasure of the people tempo
rarily in the Territories.
Mr.. Davis took an animated part in the de
bate against Mr.. Douglas who, in the Kansas
Nebraska Bill, had made great error an
drawn the Senate into great error.
Mr.. Douglas resumed, saying that it wou
: not do to read him out of the party becaus
they had fallen from the faith. There is n
middle ground-it is either Intervention or non
intervention.
Mr.. Hunter, of Va, said that it was with re
luctance that he occupied the time of the Senat
at this late period of the evening, but the tur
! the debate had taken rendered an explanation
necessary in justice TO himself.
He differed with the Senator from Illinois
both in the history of the Kansas Nebra. *
Act, and in what was intended by it when tn
proposition was made to pass that act II
n;aintained, as he had always done since
had place on that floor, that the South had
right to protection for their slave property i
the territories.
Mr.. Hunter read from his speech of that dat
. showing the views he then entertained. Th
case stood thus Southern men, on the one sid
maintained right, under the Constitution,
:: protection to their slave property; Norther
men thought the contrary-and as there wG
no chance of an agreement between them, th
. act was very carefully framed, neither affirm
ing nor disafirming the power of the Territor
to abolish slavery, but reserving the question
right, and agreeing TO refer to the Judiciar
10 any points arising out of it. It was in itself
compromise, in which neither conceded the
= opinions or their rights. They were but place
in abeyance, until case affecting them migl
arise. No Southern man, with whom he acte
;, ever considered that he was comforting on Il
Territorial Legislature the absolute right
deal with this subject.
g. They agreed to this settlement as a cons,
- quence of acting together upon the poin
wherein they agreed, and expressed no opiniO
upon the points where the difference was irr
concilable. BY this they secured the repeal
the Missouri Compromise unon which N