Daily national Democrat., 1859-04-06

"The Democrat called upon us the other day
to define our position on a certain question: Which
we unhestatingly did. We now ask Tue Demo-
crat whether it thinks minorlties hayeany rights,
aud if so what they are '-EfPFess
The Lecompton organ concludes with the
above quoted words an article oo the rights
Of fmfnorities 1t is very proper that that pa
per should insist upon the rights of minori-
ties. since its party is decidedly in the mi
norty in this city and county. No doubt,
according to its very peculiar feelings at this
time, it thinks that it would be very fine
thing to put down majorities altogether. The
great trouble with the Lecompton party has
always been that it came in conflict with
popular majorities 1t was troubled with an
majority of ten thousandin Kansas,
and was still more badly troubled by an op-
posing majority in Illinois, when Stephen A.
Douglas was elected to the United States
Senate. 1t was opposed by very bother
some majority in Pennsylvania as well as in
nearly all the States in which elections have
been recently held on the Atlantic seaboard.
1t well may hate majorities, and eXtol the
rights of minorities.
Consistently with Its notions that mnori-
ties ought to rule, the Leeompton party voted
in the Senate of the United States to sanction
and uphold the action of pitiful, swindling
minority in Kansas against the known wishes
of an overwhelming mass of the sovereign
people of that Territory. Mindful of the in
terests of minorities, it now goes for forcing
an institution obnoxious to a majority of the
American people upon them at all hazards
and in spite of all consequences. The mi
nority want slavery in the Territories, and
this Lecompton party exerts its utmost
strength to plant slavery there in spite of the
objections of the majority. Nomatter if there
were ten thousand opposed to slavery and
one in favor of it, this party goes for favor
ing the wishes of this one man against the
ten thousand. This is the spirit and intent
of the Congressional slave code which it
Instead of leaving the whole
question alone, as was promised in the Kan
sas \ ebraska Bill, it insists on taking the side
of the minority and legislating in its favor.
1t is the old Federal doctrine The CID Fed
eral party always hated majorities and al
ways favored minorities 1t always desired
to place the Representatives of the people as
far above the reach of their constituents as
possible, and TO make them Independent of
the masses 1t always feared the people,
and consequently trusted, favored, encour-
aged and fostered the power of minorities.
Therein it approximated very nearly to aris-
tocratic and monarchical policies, for in all
arstocratic and monarchical countries mi
aorities invariably rule. The power of mi |
norties over majorides, by means of the
qualifications of property, hereditary titles,
standing armies and the usual concomitants
of tyranny, is in those countries complete and
absolute. The Lecompton party is the old
Federal party revived, and we repeat that it
does and may very consistently prefer the
,ower of minorties to the will of the masses
It large.
The Express asks us if we think that mi
critics have any rights, and if so what they
re We grant that minorities have rights,
,hich are well defined IN the Federal and
tate Constitutions, but beyond those well
efned limits, minorities have no rights at
II. Our government is founded upon the
rinciple that the majority shall rule, and the
nan who opposes that principle is no true
riend of liberty. The Democratic party, in
to the Old Federal party, al.
ways insisted that the majority of the people
hould have their will. 1t is the very es-
ence of free government, and such is sup
)osed to be the character of the republic of
he United States. Whenever the President
md few of his paid, hireling adherents, can
assume to crush out the will of
najorities our republican institutions are at
an end, and whenever the representatives of
the people assume to disregard or trample
upon the wishes of those who elected them, it
is time to designate our free government as
an oigarchy.
Such are our views about minorities. The
difference between the Express and us is a
wide one. II believes in giving the power of
the government to minorities. W. are for
in its purity that fundamental
of our free Institutions which says
he majority shall rule. Wheneverthe mass
IS submit to be controlled by aristocrati tic and
self fconceited minorities, liberty sat an end,
md the era of monarchical or oligarchical |
rule has begun. If we are for free govern
ment, we must repose political power in the
hands of majorities. If we are for tyranny
and despotism, we must place it in the hands
of minorities When power gets into the
hands of minorities, the majority of course
suffer. The effect of government becomes, not
the greatest good to the greatest number,
but the oppression of the many fer the bene-
fit of the few.
CB- Judge Field, it is said, made some
very severe personal remarks. on the street