Holmes County Republican. [volume] (Millersburg, Holmes County, Ohio) 1856-1865, 1859-03-03
Have We n Democracy Amongst
Us!
WHO SHALL DECIDE WHEN
DEMOCRATS DISAGREEs
Cheating Playing Never Prospers.

4
We refer our readers to the Senatorial
debate of the 2sd as given by US. This i
the first time that the great fraud in tn
framing OF the Kansas-Nebraska Bill! ha
really cropped ou.-as geologists woulC
say. That bill was conceived in sin anG
brought forth in iniquity-and it is bu
righteous that the effect of such rascalit,
should be 10 blow its fathers and its moth
ers "out of water" The Northern Demo
Gratis, in their section. claimed that unde
the Nebraska bill the Territorial Legisla
lures bad power over slavery; the South
ern Democrats, in their section claimed jus
the reverse. On that great fraud was tn
Presidential election carried, and now .th'
rogues who concocted the villany hay,
fallen out-and great is the fall thereof.
Senator Hale did good service in rub
bing the ears of the Democratic bull dogs
for a nice fight has come of it, and it mat
tiers NOT which whips. Modern Democrac.
has "gone up" But read the debate.
WASHINGTON, Feb. %, 1859.
SENATE.-The question recurred on Mr.
Hale's amendment to repeal the restrictive
clause of the Kansas Admission Act.
Mr.. Stuart (Mich- said he would vot'
against requiring census of Kansas to b.
takeu.
Mr.. Seward On. Y. said Congress hat
decided that Kansas should come in will
the Lecompton Constitution without refer
ence 10 population, but on the other hanc
should not come in outside of the Lecomp
ton Constitution unless she had 92,40(
population. There was, therefore, a dis
elimination by the Congress of the United
States, as against Freedom, in favor o
Slavery. Oregon, because she was {
Democratic State, was admitted without
reference TO population, and Kansas, be
cause of her different politics, was excluded
He was glad of this occasion to renew b.:
vote. He was glad also to hear that SC
many gentlemen on the other side will give
Kansas fair hearing. It indicates that
the time is coming when any State apply
ing for admission will be Leard on its mer
its apart from all other considerations
He thought it goes to show that if Texas
should divide, Free States, as he thought
they would, be formed in Mexico, they will
come in as Free States.
Mr.. Brown (Miss.) held to the doctrine
of States Rights, denied the squatter SOW
ereignty of the territories, and threatened
secessions, with banners flying, ifthe South
was deprived Of her rights. His address
was directed to Northern Democrats. He
placed his views frankly ON record, and de-
sired neither to cheat or be cheated.
Mr.. Douglas felt it incumbent upon him
as Northern Democrat to make a reply.
He admired the frankness, candor and di-
rectness with which Mr.. Brown had ap-
preached the question. He (Douglas) too,
would put his opinions on record in such a
manner as will acquit him also of desire
to cheat or be cheated. He agreed, at the
outset, with Mr.. Brown, and with the de-
cision cf the Supreme Court, that slave are
property, and that their owners have a
right to carry them into the territories as
any other property. Having the right of
transit into the Territory, the question arises
how far does the power of the Territorial
Legislature extend to slave property, and
the reply is, TO the same extent, and no
further than to any other description of
property. Mr.. Brown has said that slave
property needs more protection than any
other description. If so, it is the misfor-
tune of the owners of that kind of property.
Mr.. Douglas remarks, from the frequent
Interruptions, assumed SO much the form
of question and reply, and running COM
ments on the various issues started, that
we can only notice the salient points of the
main discussion, which extended through
out many hours, he sustaining the princi-
pal part. His general scope was that he
would leave all descriptions of property,
slaves included, to the operation of the To-
cal law, and would not have Congress in-
terfere in any way Herewith. If the peo-
pie ofthe Territory want Slavery there they
will foster and encourage it, and if they do
not find it to their advantage, they will do
otherwise. 1t becomes a question of soil,
climate, production, DC. He illustrated,
by saying that if any discrimination is 10 be
made in any description of property, The
owner of stock, or liquors, or any other,
might claim it likewise. After some other
he went into a discussion of
The Kansas-Nebraska bill, which, he said,
was passed by distinct understanding be-
tween Northern and Southern Democrats,
however differing on some points, TO give
TO the Terri:Qrial Legislature the full power,
with appeal to the Supreme Court, to test
The consti,uiionality of any law, but not
10 Congress to repeal it. If the Court de-
,ides such law to be constitutional, it must
stand; if not, it must fall to the ground
without action of Congress. That the
doctrine of non-intervention by Congress
with Slavery in the States and Territories
has been a fundamental principle of the
Democratic platform, and every Democrat
S pledged 10 it by the Cincinnati platform.
Here Mr.. Douglas, in reply to question
oy Mr.. Clay (who also made the remark
hat, according to Mr.. Douglas intorpreta-
ion, Squatter Sovereignty is superior to
he coustitution) said that the limit of ter
itorial legislations is the organic act and
he Constitution. In reply to Mr.. Clay's
question, "Can STAKEHOLDER take his slave
property into the Territory" be would re-
,ly, yes; and hold it as other property
70 the question, "Will Congress pass
aw to protect other kinds of property in
he Territories" he would answer, no; for
he doctrine that Congress is to legislate
IN property and persons without represen-
alton is the doctrine of the Parliament of
ieorge III. that brought on the Rsvolu-
ionary war. We said then it was vio-