Litchfield enquirer., 1860-08-16
Communications.
DEMoCRACY--wHAT IS TIT

pOrtS ana eVenIudiiy luuuCe HiNu Io leHu HIS il
 and influence on the side of liberty, justice an
 truth My former article was directed to tn present position of the democratic party, lookin to see what democracy was, and is, as develope from that position. 1 did not touch upon dc mocracy in it's essence, as I did not think tha necessary in view of its present position, bein as it is but the caricature of what democrac once was.
 Jefferson talks of the old democratic party, an' of the old federal party, and means to deduc therefrom, that democracy now, as exhibited D. the present democratic party, is the same as il the days of its orign and purity. However. Jefferson can find any consolation, in searching for similarity between the present democratic party, and the party as it was in the days or its origin, far be it from me to interpose obstacles to 6is full endowment of the same. deal with the present, going back to the past only so far as may be necessary, to proper and brief examina ton of the article of Jefferson. The present concerns us much more than the past.
 Jefferson says, In all arrangements for Presi dential and other elections, &c. the democracy has openlu proclainsd abeir principles in pIat forms aud otlter erplich dro,odls."
 This deny most emphatically, and think can satisfy Jefferson that he has fallen into an error in this respect. The criterion of what a party principles are is shown in it's political and lGR1EdIIN0 dCJlOu, uluCu luOT0 Ccft oA"A III it's platforms. Do not understand me as saying that the democratic party do not put forth prin- ciples in their platforms, but do say this, that if the political and legislative action ofthe party before and subsequent to the making of the plat form, does not correspond and harmonize with the principles contained in the platform, then we may know for a certainty, that the plotforms does not contain the principles. of the party.
 Platforms are no evidence of the principles of
 party, unless the political and legislative action of the party corresponds herewith. To go back only few years The democratic platform Of 1856 did not contain the principles of the demo- cratic party, and for the reason above given. The political and legislative action of the party, and the leaders of it, has not, prior and subsequent to it's formation, harmonized with it, but has been antagonistic to it. From 1854 down to the present time, we have heard much, and seen much contained in democratic platforms, democratic speeches and democratic platforms about the sclfgoverning right, of the people of the territo- ries, while in 8 territorial condition the demo- cratic party having assumed to be their special champion. Their platforms, their speeches and their Journals, cave been crammed full of this selfgoverning principle. Democratic politicians have taught us that the people of the territories possessed this selfgoverning principle, over sub jects of territorial concern, to the full extent as did the people of the states over subjects of state concern and never have they until recently, in plain and open terms claimed that slavery was not subject of local concern, and over which territorial legislation did not extend. They have told us that slavery in the territories was local institution, that it was not exempt from terrlto- rial legislation, and in no platform shall we find any condition, limitation, or restriction upon, or over the right of the people of the territories to treat slavery as they would any other matter ot local concern. They have told us, that this was an inherent right, resting in the local body poli- tic and could not be invaded even by Congress itself, so long as the local organization existed. The platform of 1856 does not exempt slavery. It does not say that the people of the territories may not legislate upon it, as local institution. It does not say that slavery not local nstltu- ton, which they may not touch-but non-inter- ference by Congress was the claim, Popular Sovereignty of the people was tho cry. That platform says nothing about restrictions upon their self-governing rights.
 All this, Jefferson knows as well as do-and peradventure, he may say, what Of all thls what does this signify? Simply this, that all this is no part of the principles of the democrat ic party. True, they put 1t into their platforms, talk it in their speeches. and resolution, and in their journals, but when we come to that which truly tests the principles of the party, when we come to their acts, these professions oi faith dis appear instantly.
 i have three sources, yea four, from which to deduce proof of the truth of what 1 say. First, I deduce it from the Kansas Nebraska act. What was supposed by the people, to be the great feature of that act, was the incorporating into it, of this great selfgoverning principle, the right of the people of the territories to regulate their domestic affairs in their own way, and we were led to believe thatthat act, conferred or n- vested the people of those territories with this selfgoverning right, subject to no condition, lim tation or restriction. This what was professed by the democratic party. But upon looking at the act tself we find that it imposes restrictions upon this right. They were to be left pes7ect yfree' to regulate their domestic affairs, but at the same time, that freedom of action was to be subject to the constitution of the United States This was prior to the formation of the platform, and that contains no such restriction makes no mention of such restriction, as is contained in the act. Which contains the true principle of the party, the Kansas Nebraska act or the plat form of 1856. Here is the recorded act of the leaders of the party, and does it not speak the sentiment of the party upon this subject? If the act spoke the sentiment of the party, why were not those restrictions incorporated into the plat form? The platform then, does not contain the principles of the party-for the restriction impos- ed by the act would take from the people of the territories all egislatives power over the subject of slavery, which the party had taught was do- mestc institution in the territories, and the plat form had inculcated no different doctrine.
 But to go one step further From the second source of proof we have positive legislative act, upon this restrictive provision in the Kansas act. While the matter was under consideration in Congress, on the 2d day of March, 1854, Senator Chase offered an amendment to that section ol the act containing the restriction, providing that the people of the territories might if they saw ht, "prohibit Ne existence of slaoery Aterein." This amendment was to the point. It intended to confer upon them complete legislative power over the subject of slavery, and would have de- stroyed the restriction itself, as it is apparent that the restrictive clause was intended to cover only the one subject of slavery. What was the vote of the Senate upon thls amendment? The record shows that 36 democratic senators voted against it. 1hirty-six democratic senators say by this vote, that the people of Kansas and Ne braska n,uy not prohibit the existence of slavery therein, and why not? Because the act itself says, that their legislative power shall be restrict ed, and made subject to the constitution of the United States. Why then was not the platform conversant about this restriction upon their leg islative power? Did it contain the true princi ples of the party and "openly proclaim" them
 Go one step further. Look at one further leg islative act of the leaders of the democratic par ty, done subsequent to the formation of the plat form. July 2d, 1856, Senator Trumbull offered an amendment to the same section of the Kan