Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1859-03-10
WASHINGTON City Correspondence.
WASHINGTON CRY, }
Feb. 25, 1859. {

of Congress draws to a close, warm
er wakes the war between the aspi- I
rants for the succession. The friends
of Douglas are sanguine of his suc-
cess. He is remarkable manipulated
between two fires-the abolitionists
on one side, and i few extreme DEM
ocrats on the other. He parties off the
blows, manfuHy charges down On
them and often puts the whole to
flight with a single thrust of his
lance. In the Senate, last evening,
a fierce encounter took place be.
tween him and his enemies.
On the general appropriation bill,
Hale, of New Hampshire, moved to
strike out that portion Of the Kan
sas bill which says she shall not be
admitted until she has population
| of 93,420. Senator Brown, Of Mis-
Isissippi, dissented from the PROPOSE.
ton, proclaiming that the Legislature
Of Territory was only the creature
Of Congress, and if this creature does
not obey the Constitution, but denies
those rights, which are guaranteed by
the Constitution, as expounded by
the higbes. Tribunal in the land, he
would demand that Congress shonld
annul this Legislature. 1t had been
said that if this protection was ask
ed, Kansas would abolish slavery
This threat be regarded as entirely
unimportant, as addressed TO the
cowardice of Southern men, Tie en-
tirely dissented from the position Of
Mr.. Douglas, that the Territories have
1 the right to exclude slavery; that was
carrying the doctrine Of nOn-inter
yention too far.
The Hon. JET. Davis, Of Missis-
sippi, remarked that be could not a
gree with the position Of Judge Doug
las, who had based his arguments
upon the idea that there was a peo-
/ pie in the Territories. There were in
habitants there but not a people;
they were inhabitants, waiting 10 the
fullness of time, to be admitted to
the privileges of citizenship. 1t was
the duty Of Congress to discriminate
for the protection of slavery i'll the
Territories. If Congress had no right
to legislate On the subject Of slave
ry, they had no right to pass the Flu
gitive Slave Law
This brought the Little Giant up.
He commended the frankuess Of the
SeDators. He neither wished to
cheat Or be cheated; he agreed with
the Senator from Mississippi, up to
certain point, and there the divergence
commenced, and kept growing wider
and wider, as they proceeded. He
believed that the right Of transit was
the same with one piece eff property
that it was with all Others So far
they agreed-slave property stood
upon the same footing with every,
other species ofproperty. He would
never vote for slave code for any
Territory, and he had yet to learn
that there was man in any of the |
free States, Of any party, who would. !
If the people did not like the terrific.
rial laws, they could appeal to the
Supreme Court. That was the dec
trine Of non.intervention. The doc
trine of the. right Of Congress to
make laws for a distinct, uurepreseu-
ted people, was the doctrine Of the
Tories. in our Revolutionary struggle;
our fathers asserted the right Of ev-
ry colony to make its own laws = the
same doctrine which cur fathers de- b
Tended against the power of Great
Britain. Let them enjoy their own
good laws, or suffer under their own
bad laws, until they repeal them.
Mr.. Bigler, of Pennsylvania, asked
:he Senator if in the campaign of
1856, it had not been universally {
asserted by the Democrats, that the
people, when they should go into
Territory, carried with them all the
rights which they had previously en-