The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-05-25
THE WEEKLY PIONEER AND DEMOCRAT

whole country. You will recognize at once
that mean Alex. II. Stephens of Georgia
Since the adjournment of the Charleston
convention, MIR. Stephens has responded to
letter from his friends, giving his counsel
the counsel of pat riot-to the party and
the country in this emergency. 1n the let
ter he reviews the doctrine OF non>nterven-
ton, and shows that he was originally op-
posed to it, but submitted to it because the
South demanded it that it had southern
origin is southern doctrine; was dicta-
ted to the North by the South; and he ac-
cepted it because the South required it. He
shows that the same doctrine was incorpo-
rated in the Kansas n ebraska bill, that it
formed compact OF honor between north>
ern and southern men by which we are all
bound to stand. He gives history Of the
kansas-Nebraska bill Identical with the
one L gave to you yesterday, without know
ing that he had written such letter. Mr.
Stephens has right to speak as to the
meaning of the Kansas ebraska bill. No
man in the House of Representatives exert
ed more influence in securing its passage
than Alex. H. Stephens. l ask that the
whole of his letter, long as it is, be read, for
it covers the entire ground, and speaks in the
voice OF patriotism, cOunseling the only
course that can preserve the Democratic
party and perpetuate the Union of these
states.
[Mr. PUGH here read Mr.. STEPHENS letter.
portion of which we have already published. I
Mr.. Douglas. Mr.. Stephens has given a
true, veritable history of the compromise
measures of 1850, and of the Kansas Me-
braska BILL as understood by the supports
ers of the measures when they were passed.
He has stated fairly and truly the points of
difference between us, which points were to
be left to the courts to decide and he has
said, what think he was bound to SAY as
patriot and Democrat, that the Cincinnati
platform is all that the south ought to ask
or has right to ask, or that her interests
require in this emergency. On that platform
the party can remain unit, and present al
invincible end irresistible front to the Re-
publican or Abolition phalanx at the North.
SO certain as you abandon non.intervention
and substitute Intervention, just so certain
you yield power into their hands that will
sweep the Democratic party from the face
of the globe.
Sir, l believe that the safety, the peace,
the highest interests of this country require
the preservation of the Democratic party
on its old creed and its old platform
Whenever you depart from that platform,
which was adopted unanimously, you never
will get unanimity in the formation of an
other. The only objection l have heard
urged against that platform is that it is
susceptible of two constructions, when, in
point of fact, there are no two construc-
tiOns--there can be none on any one of the
political issues contained in it. The only
difference of opinion arising out of that plat
form is the judicial question, about which
we agreed to difer-which we never did
decide because, under the Constitution, no
tribunal on earth but the Supreme Court
could decide it. We differ only as to what
the decision of the court will be ; not as to
whether we will obey it when made. How
can you determine that question by plat-
form J.? 1t has been suggested that this
difficulty was all to be reconciled by the
adoption of resolution which find in the
papers under the title Of the Tennessee
platform. Will my friend read it?
MIR. Pugh read as follows:
RESOLVED, That all citizens Of the United
States have an equal right to settle with their
property in the Territories, and that under the
decisions of the Supreme Court. which we re
cOgnize as an exposition of the Constitution.
neither their rights OF person or property can
be destroyed or impaired by congressional or
territorial legislation.
Mr.. Douglas. We have had predictions
that the party was to be reunited Dy the
adoption of that resolution The on y OBJ.
lection that | have to it is that is liable to
two constructions, and certainly and inevi-
tably will receive two, directly the opposite
of each other, and each will be maintained
with equal pertinacity. The resolution
contains, in my opinion, two trueisms, and,
fairly considered, no man can question them.
They are first, that every citizen of the
United States has an equal right in the
Territories that whatev right the citizen
of one State has, may be enjoyed by the
citizens of ali the States that whatever
property the citizen of one State may carry
there, tie citizens OF ali the States may
carry and on whatever terms the citizens
of one State can hold it and have it pro.
tected the citizens of all States can hold it
and have it protected, without deciding
what the right is, which still remains for
decision. The second proposition is, that
right of person or property secured by the
Constitution cannot be taken away either
by act of Congress or of the Territorial
Legislature. Who ever dreamed that either
Congress or a Territorial Legislature, or any
other legislative body on earth, could de-
stroy or impair any right guaranteed or Sc.
cured by the Constitution No man that
l know of. This resolution leaves the same
point open that remains open for the courts
under the Cincinnati platform, and under
the Kansas.N ebraska bill. My objection
is that it bears upon its face the evidence
that it is to be construed in two opposite
ways in the different sections of the Union
l want no double dealing or double cons
struction. | am willing to stand on the
Cincinnati platform, as you agreed to it.
and as it was re.enacted at Charleston.
will give it the same construction l have al.
ways given to it; you may give it yours
We differ only on a law point; let the court
decide that, and | only ask that you will
bow to the decision OF the court with the
same submission that l shall, and carry il
out with the same good faith. want nc
new issue. l want no new test. l will
make none on you, aud l will permit you tc
!