The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1859-03-03
From washIngtOu.
wAsHrxorOH, Feb. %, 1853.

against requiring a census of Kansas TO be
taken. /
Mr.. Seward IN. " said Congress had
decided that Kansas should come in with the
Lecompton Constitution without reference
to population, but on the other hand should
not come in outside of the LecomptOn Con-
stitution unless she had 90, 400 population.
There was, therefore, discrimination BY the
Congress of the United States. as against
Freedom, in favor OF Slavery. Oregon, be-
cause she was a Democratic State, was cd.
mitted without reference to population, and
Kansas, because OF her different politics, was
excluded. He was glOd Of this occasion TO
renew Ills vote. He was glad also to hear
that so many gentlemen on the other side
will give Kansas a fair hearing. II indicates
that the time Is coming when any State np'
plying for admission will be heard on its
merits apart from oil other considerations.
He thought it goes TO show that II Texas
should be divided, or Free States, ns he
thought they would, be formed in Mexico,
they will come in as Free States.
Mr.. Brown (Miss.) held to the doctrine o!
States Rights, denied the squatter sovereign.
ty Of territories, and threatened secession,
with banners flying, il the South was de.
priyed Of her rights. His address was direct
ed TO Northern Democrats. He placed his
views frankly on record and desired neither
to cheat nor be cheated
Mr.. Douglas telt It incumbent upon him
as Northern Democrat to make reply.
He admired the frnnkness, candor and direct
ness with which Mr.. Brown had approached
the question. He Oouglos) too, would put
his opinions on record in such manner as
will acQuit him also of desire to cheat or
DO cheated. He agreed, ot the outeet, with
MIR. Brown, and with the decision Of the Su-
preme Court, that slaves are property. and
| that their owners have right to carry them
into the territories as any other property
Having the right OF transit into the Terrific.
ry, the question arses how far does the pow
er of the Territorial Legislature extend to
slave property, and the reply is, to the same
extent, and no further than to any other de-
scriplion Of property. MIR. Brown has said
that slave property needs more protection
than any other description. If 80, it is the
misfortune of the owners OF that kind ol
property.
Mr.. Douglas remarks, from the frequent
interruptions, assumed 80 much the form oI
question and reply, and running comments
on the various issues started, that we Can
only notice the salient points OF the main
discussion, which extended throughout many
hours, he sustaining the prIncipa part. Ills
general scope wos thut he would leave oil
descriptions Of property, slaves included, to
the operation Of the local law, and would
not have Congress interfere in any Wsy
herewith. II the people OF the Territory
want Slavery there they will foster and en-.
courage it, and if they do not find It to their
advantage, they will do otherwise. IL be-
couesa gu stion 0fsUil, climate, productlJ N,
&c. lie illustrated. BY saying that il any
discr minatlon is to be made in any descrp
tion OF property, the owner OF stock, or IL
quofs, or tny other, might ci, in il likewise.
After come ether iIustratleDs, he went into
discus ion Of the Kunsas Nebrasha bill,
which, he said, was passed by distinct un-
dersthnding between Northern aDd Southern
Democrats, he ever diff, ring on some PoiH'e,
to give to the Teritornl Legislature III ? full
power, with appeal to the Supreme Court,
| to test The coGstitu'ionalty OF any law, but
not to Congress to repeal it. Ii the Court
decides such law 70 be constitutional, it must
without action of Congress. That the doc.
trine of non Intervention ty Congress with
Slavery in the States and Territories has
been fundamental principle Of the Demo.
cratic platform, and every Democrat is pledg-
ed to it by the Cincinnati platform. Here
Mr. Douglas, in reply to queelion by NJ.
Clay (who uiso made the remark that, nc.
cordirg to Mr.. Douglas Interpretation
Squotter Sovereignty is superior 10 the con-
sttution) said that the !lInit OF territorial
legislation is the orgOnic act and the Consti.
tution. In reply to MIR. Clay's question,
"Can STAKEHOLDER take his slave property
into the Territory" he wouldrepy, yes and
hold it us other property. 10 the question,
"Will Congress pass law to protect other
kinds of property in the Territories" he
would answer, no; for the doctrine that
Congress is to legislate on property and per-
sons without representation is the doctrine
oil the Parliament OF George Ill. that brought
on the Revolutionary war. Wo said then
it was violation of the rights Of power to
assume to legislate for Eng gIistmen without
their consent. Now, was he (Douglas) to
be called on to force this same odous doc
trine on the people of the Territories with.
out their consent He answered, No; let
them govern themselves. Ii they make
good laws, let them enjoy the blessings if
bad, let them uifer until they are repealed.
Referring to the great battle fought and
gained in 1854 and 1856, he said he would
| like to know how many votes MIR. Buchanan
would have got in Pennsylvania or Ohio il
he had then understood the doctrine of Popu.
lar Sovereignty as he claims to do now.
Mr.. Bigler, of Pa, asked how many votes
Mr.. Buchanan would have received in 1856
had The Senat r from Illinois and those who
acted Nth him told the people that the Kan
sas act was not intended to extend to the
Territories the sacred right OF self-govern-
ment, but simply to give the people the right
to petition for redress o: grievances, right
not denied to any citizen white or black
| Mr Douglas said there are no colored
citizens, and he trusted in God there never
would be. He did not recognize the black
brothers. In 1856 he took the same ground
as now, and MIR. Buchanan, when he accept.
ed the nomination, took the same ground
His letter of acceptance to the Cincinnati
Convention shows that he thon understood
that the people OF the Territories should de-.
eide whether Slavery should or should not
exist within their limits. When gentlemen
called for Congressional Intervention, they
step off the Democratic platform. He Doug.
las) asserted that the Democratic creed was
non-intervention by Congress, and the right
Of the people to govern themselves. lie
would frankly tell gentlemen from the South
that no Democratic candidate can carry one
State North but on the principle of the Gin
cinnati platform, as construed by Mr.. Bu'
chanan when he accepted his nomination,