The Nevada Democrat., 1859-04-06
The Political Debate In the U. $. Senate.

The Political Debate In the U. $. Senate.
During the debate in the IT, S. Senate, Feb.
23d, on the construction of the Kansas-Nebras-
ka bill, Mr. Douglas, in reply to question
propouuded by Mr.. Brown, of Miss, said:
Now, sir, stand upon the Kansas-N Nebraska
bill as it was eXpounded and understood at the
time, with this full power in the Territorial
Legislature, with the right of appeal to the
Supreme Court to test the validity of its laws,
aud no right whatever to appeal to Congress
to repeal them in the event of our not liking
them. l AIN ready to answer the inquiry of the
Senator from Mississippi, whether if believed
the Maine Liquor Law to be unconstitutional
and wrong and if Territorial Legislature
should pass it., | would vote here to annul it?
tell him no. If the Wople of Kansas want a
Maine Liquor Law, let them have it. If they
do not want it let them refuse 10 pass it.
If they do pass it, and any citizen thinks that
law unconstituti tiona let him make u case aud
appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Court
sustains his objection, the law is void. If it
overrules that objection, the decision must stand
until the people, who alone are TO be affected
Dy it, who alone have an interest in 1t, may
choose to repeal it. So say with reference to
slavery. Let the Territorial Legislature pass
just such laws in regard to slavery as they think
they have right to enact under the Constitu-
ton of the Uited States. If do not like these
laws, will not vote to repeal them; II you do
not like them you must not vote to repeal them;
but anybody aggreved may appeal to the Su.
preme Court, and if they are constitutional,
they must stand; if they are unconstitutional,
they are void. That was the doctrine of nom
Intervention, as it was understood at the time
the Kansas-Nebrasks bill was passed. That is
the way it was explained and argued in the
Senate and in the House of Representatives,
aud before the country. 1t was distinctly un-
derstoOd that Congress was never to intervene
for or against slavery, or for or aginst any 9TH
er Institution in the Territories but leave the
courts to decide all constitutional questions as
they might arise, and the President to carry the
decrees of the court into effect and in case OF
| resistance to his authority in executing the Ju-
dcial process. let him use, If necessary, the
whole military force of the country, as provided
| by existing laws
know that some gentlemen do not like the
doctrine of nou-intervention as well as they
once did. 1t is now becoming fashionable to
talk sneeringly of "your doctrine OF non-inter-
vention." Sir, that doctrine has been funda-
mental article in the Democratic creed for
years. 1t has been repeated over aud over again
in every National Democratic platform-non-
Intervention by Congress with slavery in the
States and Territories. The Nebraska bill was
predicated on that idea-The Territorial Legis-
lature to have jurisdiction over all rightful SUBJ
jects of legislation, not excepting slavery, with
no appeal to Congress, but right to appeal to
the courts; and the legislation to be void if the
Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional; and
valid, no matter how obnoxious, if the court
said it was constitutional.
Mr.. Davis replied to MFR. Douglas elaborately,
denying that he (Douglas) rightly interpreted
the obligations of the Democratic party.
Mr.. Pugh said Mr.. Brown had asked if North
ern Democrats would vote for Congressional
iuterve vention to protect the people against local
legislation. He would answer, never. 1t is
monstrous. 1t is against the plghted faith both
of the South and the North. Mr.. Pugh discussed
the question at length, and said he stood on
the platform Of bis party with the Interpretation
which he explained.
Mr.. Gwin said if the Senator from Illinois
had given the same Interpretation to the Kan
sas-Nebraska bill when it was before the Senate,
he (Gwin) would not have voted for it, and he
believed those around him would not. When
the Senator proposed to speak for the Democ
racy of the Free States, he had no right to
speak for California, which thought otherwise
Mr. Broderick said he fully agreed to every
thing that had been said by the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Douglas) and from Ohio Mr.. Pugh)
and hoped every Senator would be compelled
to define their position. He was surprised at
the Interpretation of the Nebraska bill given
by his colleague, for the Democratic party in
California bad interpreted il in accordance with
the views of the Senator from Illinois.
Mr.. Gwin replied that he was sent here to do
bis duty in representing the Democracy Of Cal
ifornia, and he knew that they indorse the ac-
tion of the Administration, and do not at all
indorse the Interpretation given by the Senator
from IlIinoic