Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-09-15
!. u. m you Account For It.

When the subject of the Kansas Ne
 br.ska bill was being agitated Tn the pen
 .te if was contended by the black repupi-
 can Senators that the powers of the 'erfi-
 tory over the subject of slavery were not
 clearly defined. Mr. Douglas and the entire democratic part of that body argued that the declaration in the bill, that the people of a territory should manage 'heif
 domestic affairs in their own way NS@ye'' to Me constitution" pointed out sutilciently clear the power of the territory over the subject of slavery. This very phrase "s~5;ect to the constitution, applied to the question of slavery in the territones IS the hone of contention in the democratic ranks' Douglas and his followers contending that the constitution imposes no restraint to 'he power of territory over the question ol slavery, while the democratic party stlii holds that the constitution recognizes slavery in the territories, and that thelr legislation upon the subject should be su5;ect 10 a. But the black republican Sen stors were determined to test the matter, and ascertain as far as possible, what the democratic sentiment was, in regard to thls phrase-s s.suBiect 70 the constitution" 50 Salmon p Chase, of Ohio, one ot the leaders of that party, moved to add "un@er which" (i.e. under the constltution) "Me ,,eonle Of the territory mag, throeegh Me'r rep reseotot;ges erclude slavery 1 they choose. :" This is the very doctrine which Mr. Douglas ,o,r dafands in his canvass over the United States, the very doctrine whlch his friends even in the South contend IS the lone recognized policy of the democratic marty. Now who voted for that black re- publican amendment? Every black repuo- Ecan Senator. and but two democrats, Morris and Shields. Who voted against it? .Stephen 4. DougIas and the remainder ofthe democratic Senators. If the terrlto- ries are sovereign, as MT. Douglas and his confederates assert, they have perfect right under the constitution to "erclude slauery # Mey choose" Mir. Douglas no@ says they have that right, and refused to accept the nomination upon any platform which did not recognize such right. Why did he not vote for Chase's amendment, when it enunciated so plainly his favorlte hobby of popular sovereignty? Why dld he not vote for the black republican amend ment if it is true that he has ever been consistent in his advocacy and defence ot the dogma of popular or squatter sover- eighty? There and then was presented Tn Chase's amendment the very question, upon which Mr. Douglas is striving to dlsorgan- ize the democratic party; Mr. Douglas 0ofed aqainst a. We ask also, y it is true that this heretical dogma of squatter sovereignty in the territories has always been recog- nized principle of the democratic party, why did not the democratic senators vote for it? It proves what has been asserted over and over again by Benjamin, Breck- inridge, Green, Davis and others, that the question was left open for the decision of the Supreme Court, both sides agreeing to abide by it when it should be made-and disproyes the oft repeated assertion ot Mr. Douglas and his friends, that their peculiar notions upon the subject, have always been the recognized principles of the entire democratic party.
 The truth is that such a dogma never was considered with favor by any con- siderable portion of the democratic party until Mir. Douglas seduced many honest and well meaning democrats by the gilt tering but deceptive bubble of inherent sovereignty; which to the South is but a polished Pandoras, box; and when opened by Douglas administration, will vomit all the evils of black republicanism upon us, and strike fatal blow at constitutional