Daily national Democrat., 1859-04-01
Debate in the United states Senate.

We give in to-days DENocRAr portion VI
tne great debate which took place III the
t-,.;,od State. Senate, on the 23d ofFebruary,
! ~ ,ho oo.,ion Of Popular Sovereignty. 1t
:, .h., ,on.t important debate that has occurred
in that body for many years, and the senti-
,nents ayowed by the distinguished contest
ants will arouse universal attention in all sec
tons and among all parties. 1t will be seen
that the Lecompton Senators, speaking for
the Lecompton party at large, laid down as a
principle Of their creed that Congress must
pass n slave code for the Territories, thus dis
tinctly repudiating the doctrine OF the Kansas
Nebraska Bill and abandoning the well.un-
dcrstood platform and faith of the Democrat
ic party. senator Douglas, on the other
hand, firmly maintained his old position. as
the author and defender Of the Kansas-Ne-
braska Bill, to the effect that, hy the enact
mcnt of that measure, Congress surrendered
to the pcorle of the Territories, acting
through their Territorial Legislature, the
power which it Congress- possessed over the
question Of slavery aud all other questions of
local concernment; it being we'll under
stood, at the time of the passage Cf the Kan
sas-Nebraska Bill, that the Territorial Legis
lature was to regulate the entire domestic af
fairs Of the Territory, and to do all acts and
things which it chose TO do within the bounds
of the Constitution, and that Congress was
to intervene or to interfere in no shape or
manner Whatever.
The positions of the Douglas Democracy
md of the Lecompton party are thus dis
tinctly defined, through their acknowledged
/ leaders in the Nationol Legislature. The
/ former are opposed to Congressional inter
ference with t subject of slaN cry, and con
tend that the people of the Territories should
be left perfectly free to form and regulate
their own domestic institutions 'or them
selves. The latter are in favor of direct Con
gressiona Intervention, and desire Congress
to force slavery upon the Territories wheth-
er the people oppose it or approve it, 1t is
easy to see which of these two parties remains
true TO Democratic principles The Old Line
Democrat, who went for non-interv ention in
1854 or 1856, cannot fail to perceive that the
Lecompton party, in avowing the sentiments
above alluded to, have abandoned the Gin
cinnati Platform and utterly repudioted and
rejected the whole doctrine of Popular Sow
ereignty. In thus rejecting the fundamental
article of the Democratic creed, it is the
heighth of impudence and audacity for them
to claim any shadow of title to the name of
Democrats
We asked the Express, a short time before
the last election in this city, whether it was
in favor of a slave code for the Territories
and it did not like to answer We failed to
get any satisfactory response out of it. We
believe it did manage to say that it was not
nor in favor of such a code We ask that
paper again the same question. Is it in favor
of Senator Browns and Masons doctrine, or
we are for Douglas doctrine of non-inter-
venton, as defined by him in the speech
which appears in our columns to-day. Is q
the Express opposed to that doctrine or not ?
Let us hear. Let us have no more dodging
around the bush Is that paper going to
claim Douglas as n sonnd National Democrat
or read him finally out Of the Democratic
is to say out of ITS Democratic
party? The grand severance has taken
place between the Champion of Popular
SO, ereignty and the enemies OF the principle
The lines are already drawn. Now, on which
side does the Express intend to stand? VIII
it obige us with an answer?