Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1859-03-01
Daily Tir9iuiau.

mocratie readers especially, to tho following frag'
mcut Of doba,e in tho Senate on Wednesday last
On llalos amendment to tho Appropriation Bill
Mr.. Brown of Mississippi, whilst paying his
special respects to the doctrine Of Squatter Soyer
eighty. called out Mr.. Douglas. and tho following
debate onsued.
national party" AMI the sentiments here sumsr-
ated 10y Douglas will fall with pleasing effect
upon such Southern mon a. advocated his re- cleo
ton. 1t will also be seen that the difference be-
tween Douglas and Lincoln ia about that between
tweede dec and twecdlc DUN.
Mr.. Douglas felt il incumbent upon him to reply
to some Of tho points presented by the gentleman
from Mississippi. & should do 80 with candor and
frankncss. 10 had no desire to cheat or bo cheat
cd. To ~ certain extent tho Scnntor and him
self agrood but from that point tho divergence
grow widor and wider. undor tho decision Of tho
supreme Court slaves were property. standing on
M equality with all other property. and tho own
or OF slaves had right to take thcm with him to
the Territorios.
Bu, tn" gentleman said ho would appeal to Con-
gross for protection Of slave property against tor
rtorial legislation. and ask Congress for n slave
code in opposition to tho wishes Of the people His
position was not logical II tho people wanted sla
very they would protect il. and if thoy did not
want it they would not protect it, They could
cord mate Il unnecessary 10 ask rim u he pouid
rote for siaT co'ie for the Territories. lie had
get 10 learn that there tcas a Ao,ehern man scho
,roud.
Mr.. Green inquired if larceny in general terms
wns punished by the territoralal Legislature and
tho larceny of slaves was excepted. would tho 40
nator consider that n slave code
Mr.. Dnuglns said he would call it by any name ;
he wished only to bo clearly understood. The con-
sttution provided no remedy for stealing slaves
or any other property, and no kind ofpropcrty
could be protected in u Territory without rsrrto-
rial law providing remedies and penalties. Tho
question was whether Congress should mako dis
rriminni"n IN favor OF slave property. lie would
lcav" all kinds of property to the action of local
Territorial laws. Slave property had no moro
right to special protection than tho stock Of L.
quar dealer.
llc would never vote to annul n law Of tho peo-
Pile Of Kansas. If they did not likc tho rerritori-
III lnws they could appeal to the Supreme Court.
That was tho doctrine ut non-ntervention as il
understood when tho Nebraska bill was pass
ed.
lIc know somo mon did not like tho doctrine ns
we'll AS they used to, hut TINT doctrine had long
been the fundamental law of the Democratic par
ty. and every ono who voted tor tho kansas-Ne-
bruskn bill voted to confirm il AZ such.
Tho doctrine Of the right of Congress TO make
laws for distant unreprcscnted people, was the
doctrine Of tho Tories in tho Revolution. Our
fathers asserted tho right of every colony to make
its own local laws, and he WAS inserting. in be-
half oi tho people of the Territories, the Same
doctrine which they then defended against tho
power Of Great Britain. Lot them enjoy their
own good laws, suffer under their own bad
laws until they rcpel them. Upon that principle
they stood in 1876. How many votes would Mr..
Buchanan have received in Pcnnsy lvania II he
had then declared it the duty Of Congress to
maintain slavery in tho Territories by all thepow-
of Federal bayonetsY Tho President did not
then understand popular sovereignty in that
sense.
II the people of Territories wanted to have sls-
very, they should have it. lfgsntcmen were 60
ing TO abandon the doctrine Of non-interventiOn,
thew must step off from tho Democratic platform
No Democratic candidate could carry n single
Northern State upon any other platform than the
Cincinnati platform, as construed by Mr.. Bucha-
nan n his letter Of acceptance, and maintained by
tho men who elected him. There was no occasion
for recriminntion; il they could not agree to act
together. they could part in kindness
Mr.. Davis said when the Constitution was
formed the councils of the nation were guided by
who stopped not to degrading controversy
Not the breadth Of ono hair would he follow the
Senator from Illinois in the career he had chosen.
The Seuator had based his argument upon the
idea that there was people in the Territories.--
There were inhabitants, but not people in Ter
ritores-- inhabitants waiting in the fullness OF
time to be admitted to tho privileges Of citisen-
ship. The past history Of the country showed
that Congress had not hesitated to afford the pro-
lection TO slave property which it was bound to
afford by the Constitution It was the duty of
Congress to discriminate for the protection of that
property. If Congress had no right to legislate
on the question Of slavery. how could they pass
fugitive slnve law? II Congress attempted to
grant away its power in the Kansas Nebraska
bill, Congress exceeded its authority. 1t could
"a Ia.
His vote could not be had by any man who stood
upon platform adverse to the rights Of tho
South. They were not to be cheated with their
eyes open.
Mr. Pugh thought this discussion was wholly
unnecessary. But he understood the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. Brown to demand from
Northcrn Democrats. whether they would agree
to protect Shareholders against the local legisla-
lures of the Territories He answered. never
lie regarded it as u monstrous demand, involving
n breach Of their plighted faith. If that was tho
price disappearing the Democratic party, the price
would never be paid.
Mr.. Green was sorry Democrats would permit
cd solely for the purpose Of breaking down the
Democratic party--the only party able to resist
the Republican organization. Party was to be sus-
tained solely for the good of the country and whom
it ceased to subserye that interest he ceased to be
Il party man, 1t behooved them to pause and re-
fleet, and while considering their differences to do
80 Ms brethren.
The time might come when the South would
the necessity Of asking the Intervention Of Con-
gress in the Territories for the protection Of slave
property, and he was sorry the Senator from Illi-
rnois had declared he would refuse that intervsn-
ton, while he the loudest advocate of nterven-
ton in Utah to put down polygamy.
Mr. Douglas denied ever having advocated
Intervention in Utah for such a purpose. He
had advocated in his Springfield speech the repe"l