The Nevada Democrat., 1859-04-06
nm. Dc,nocrntIc Platform.


February, is like ly to exercise considerable In
Hueuce upon the political future Of the coun-
try. The question under discussion, was the
right of Congress to enact slave code for the
Territories. Six or eight leading Southern
Senators repudiated the doctrine of the Kansas
Nebraska bill, and contended that II was the
right and duty of Congress to pass laws for pro-
tecting pro perty in slaves. in case the Terrific
rial Legislatures refused or failed to provide
adequate protection. Senators Douglas, Pngh,
Broderick. and Stuart, contended for the doc
trne of non-interference by Congress in the
domestic affairs of the Territories. The posi-
tions of the latter Senators are substantially
the same as will be found in an extract from
the speech of Douglas in another column.
The radical difference Of opinion among the
Sena tors upon this question would amount to
but little in itself, were il not for the fact that
this difference extends to the rank and file Of
the party. The determination expressed by
the Senators from both sections, not to acqui-
esce in any other Interpretation Of the Demo-
cratic creed except that given by themselves
respectively, indicates disorganizaton of the
party as at present constituted. In this view
it is matter Of little consequence which wing
is in the ascendency in the Charleston Conven-
tion; men will not support the nominees if the
Convention adopts platform that they do not
approve.
With Senator Pugh, we say, that the doctrine
of interference advocated by the Southern Sen
ffsc ho
grated as plank in the Democratic platform.
When the Kansas-Nebraska bill was adopted, it
was well understood that the people Of the Ter
ritories were to be left free to form their own
institutions. subject only to the Constitution of
the United States If they enacted unconsttu-
tional laws, the Courts were the proper tribu-
mails to set them aside; but in any event, Con-
gress was not to interfere. The mere fact that
slave property requires peculiar laws to pro-
tect it, makes no difference; for if the people
want slaves they will enact laws to protect the
institution; if they do not want them, they
will legislate against he institution, or let the
question alone, which practically will amount
to the same thing
The Democratic papers and speakers of Cali
fornia have heretofore given the same interpre-
tation to the Democratic platform, as is given
10y Senator Douelas-Senator Gwin TO the
contrary. Notwithstanding. A reference to the
fourteenth section of the Kansas Nebraska bill,
will show that Douglas has given it the only in
depreciation of which it is susceptible. The
section reads MS follows:
States which not locally napplicabe shall have the
force and effect in the said Territory of Nebraska as
elsewhere within the United States except the eighth
ton Of the act preparatory TO the admission of Missouri
into the Union, Approved March 9Th 1870 which, being
inconsistent with the principle of non.nervention by
Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories as rec
ognzed by the legislation of 1885, commonly called the
Compromise measures hereby declared imperative and
void being the true intent and meaning of this act not
to egisate slavery into any State Territory to
clude it thererom but to leave the people thereof perfect
y free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in
their own way subject only to the Constitution OF United
States"
The following resolution of the Cincinnati
Convention, which nominated Mr.. Buchanan,
makes the above section portion of the Dem
ocratic creed:
"Thc merican democracy recognize and adopt the |
principles contained in the organic laws establishing the
Territories of Kansas and Nebraska embodying the only
sound and safe solution of the slavery question upon
which the great national idea of the people OF this whole
country can repose in its determined conservatism Of the
Interference by Congress with Slavery State
and Territory, or in the District of Columbia"
In 1856, Mr.. Buchanan held to the same doc
trine as is now sustained by Douglas and his
of the Democratic creed was ac-
quiesced in by the entire party, both North and
South. In his letter accepting the nomination,
speaking of the section of the Nebraska bill
above quoted, he says:
The recent legislation OF Congress- respecting domestic
slavery, derived, it has BEEN from the original and
pure fountain Of legitimate political power the will OF the
jory, promises long aay the dangerous excite
ment. This legislation is founded upon principles as an
cient free itself and in accordance with
them has simply declared that the people of Territory
like those of State shall decide for themselves whether
slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits"
The above extracts are sufficient to show
what the universally accepted Interpretation of
The Democratic doctrine was in 1856 and SEN
'tor Gwin is falsfying the facts when be says
hat the Democracy of California have given
he Nebraska bill a different Interpretation
rom that now given it by Senator Douglas.
This doctrine of Congressional interference in
he domestic affairs of the Territories to protect
slavery, was never thought of until within the
past year, and sounds strangely, indeed, COM
ing from pretended Democrats.
The sudden change of front upon this ques-
Iion, by the leading Southern Senator'S shows o
ieep-laid scheme to disorganize and break
Down the Democratic party.
ST. PATRICK'S DAY.-When the editor of the
Journal undertook to show bis erudition by cor
'ecting an error that appeared in the DEMOCRAT,
we retorted. by alluding to some errors of his