New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-05-16

insisted on Their swallowing IT, es necessary Y ne
PASSAGE Of The easu.-e-for the bill declared
that the people of the T.rrtores snou.a os lee
free to do as thew pleased M der the Conatution-
the Courts to determine tbs mesnin Of the Constitution.
Non-interyenon by Congress was tle oocsrlne OF .no
bill that Congress should never interfere ior any Pur
pose whatever, either 10 introduce. prohibit, op
Slavery; andexpressly stipnated that The o'd
law protecting Slavery should not be revived. Mr.
Badgers amendment was put in for this express Yur
pose. The only point Of difference at that time was
as to the extent of the limitation imposed by the Con-
Legislature, and and 'ii t was agreed that the
Courts should determine that and the question
come again into the Senate lie qlioted from hr.
Hunters speech to snstain this view. He then pro.
ceeded to show that the Southern peo5le UNDERWOOD
the matter at the time just he did lie reed the
luons Of the Georgia Legislature of 1854, after tho
passage of the Kansas bill ndorsng that legislation 10
platform as he wanted. He willing. 10 accept
them; without dotting croseingat. Tie country
then understood the measure as he UNDERSTOOD ~ Tho
House of Representatives understood it in the same
way. Mr.. Richardson, who reported the bill in the
House, made the Democratic candidate for Speaker
at the next session, against Banks. He was opposed
the ground Of being Squaer Sovereignty man, and
wrote letter in which he clearly announced the doc
trne of the absolute power Of the people Of Territory
Slavery. Yet after that he received the vote Of
the Southern Democracy with one or two exceptions
A distinguished gentleman of South Carolina, who, UP
to the time OF writing this letter. had refused to vote
for Mr. Richardson, now came to bis sup:
port on the IOsth ballot. ILaughter;J He believed
he was as sound on the question Mr.. Richardson:
Who had changed since then7 Was il he No. IL
Southern changed their opinions, he had no fault to
find but if they had done 10 they ought honestly 70
avow it. If he could forgive them for changing could
they not magnanmously forgive him for adherng con-
sstently to their former doctrnesl In 1856 Alabama
also insisted upon the declaration at Cincinnati of the
doctrine Of non-interventon. She sympathised with
Mr. Richardson, the leader Of the Kansas bill in the
House, and Endorsed the support given him by the
Democratic members of Congress. The Alabama
Convention of 1856 construed the Kansas-Ne-
braska bill just he did, and instructed the
delegates to Cincinnati 10 withdraw nnless platform
adopted in cOnsonance with this view. He stood
on that platform now yet Alabama now seeded be-
cause the majority of the Charleston Convention
adopted the Alabama resolutions of 1856. He did not
believe the Democracy of Alabama approved this &C.
ton, and would follow the lead Of Mr.. Yancey any
more than she did in 1913.
Mr.. PUGH read extracts from the bill.
Mr.. DOUGLAS resumed They repealed the Mis-
souri Compromise because il was inconsistent with
the nonntervention doctrine and for the purpose Of
applying that principle, and banishng the Slavery
question from Congress and remandng it TO the people
of the Territories That the only object. Every
Senator who voted for it declared that noninter-
vention was the rule of the Compromise measure
of 1850.
Here Mr.. Douglas became 30 much exhausted that
he gave way to an adjournment.