Year: 1859

LEGISLATION in the matter of slavery in the
Territories. Mr. Brown of Mississippi, Le-
eomrton Democrat declared himself opposed
to Squatter Sovereignty, and claimed that
slave property was not on a footing with
other property-th to say, that it nee lee
and should have more protection than any
other species of property Mr. Douglas re-
piled that slavery was upon the sane footing
and that the power Of the Territorial Legis
laturc extended no further over it than i
did over any other species OF property. l
slave property needs more protection thar
other property in the Territories it is tn,
misfortune of the slave owner and cannot b
helped. He (Mr. Douglas) would leave al
descriptions of property, slaves included, Il
the operation of the local laws of the Terrific
ry, and would not have Congress intcrfer
with the question at all. But, this did no
suit the Lecompton Senators, and loudly die
they demur against it. Nevertheless, this i
Democratic doctrine, and the true intent an,
meaning of the Kansas Nebraska Bill i
was the Interpretation given by James Blu
chanan himself to that enactment, and it was
the universal Interpretation. Stephens and
Orr, and various other members of Congress
and Senator's now on the Lecompton side,
boldly proclaimed that such was its interprc-
tation at the time that the bill was discussed
in 1854. We make one extract from the
speech of Senator Toombs, Of Georgia, de
livered during that discussion, in order to
show what was the Southern Democratic
sentiment on the question of Congressional
interference with slavery in the Territories
He said, among other things:


Every citizen of each State carries with
him into the Territories this equal right of
enjoyment of the common domain Whether
there be one, ten. one hundred one thousand,
or one million who may emigratc hither they
hare all the same indestructible riqht. If bit
one, he is one of the sovereign oloners, and has
the same right to look to his Government for
justice there as though there were hundred
thousand Each and all of them are equally
protected by the Constitution of the country,
and are equally clothed with the indestruc.





mtn. You have no power to strike from the
meanest Indian trapper, the basest trader or
camp follower, MS the Senator from New
York Mr. Sewa d styled the people in these
Territories, their equal privileges - this
sovereignty of fright which is the brth-right
of every American citizen. This souerciqntv
may, nay, 1t must remain in allegiance until
society brccmes sufficiently strong and stable
to be entitled to It's fill exercise as a sorereiqn
State But get, eren IN dbegance, this sorer
eighty does not belong to the General Gocern-
meHt, and its crerciSe as a naked uSurpation
and unmired despotism


"These great principles are fortified by
the republican ideas of the right and capaci-
ty of the people for self government You
leave to the people themselves the exercise
of all just powers of Government and YOU
repudiate the baleful and despotic principle
of one people passing laws for the govern
ment of freemen to whom they are in no wise
answerable or nmenable.


These principles were firmly maintained
by the acts of 1850, and met the almost uni
versal appreciation of the American people
1t was solely upon them that California was
admitted into the Union Without any ac-
ton ofCongrcss she called her own dormant
sovereignty into existence--ly her own act
| planted her own star in the constellation
of American States, where it was simply
recognised as a fact by the American Con.
gress The Free.Soiers and Abolitionists
who now oppose this bill, waived their AFRO
giant pretenSions to bind the Territories in
all cases whatsoever, because the people had
! exercised this sovereign right to mould their
own institutions in accordance with their an
ii slavery opinions vindicated her right
to mould her own institutions according to
her own pleasure upon the same principle
which am endeavoring to vindicate day" "


Mark yJu the language. Even in abey-
ance, says Senator Tombs, the sovereignty,
which is complete in the people when they
come to form a State Government, does not
belong to the General Government and its ex
ercise is naked usurpation and unmixed
despotism. "


Now, this naked ,surpation and unmircd
despotism is what the Lecompton Party are
contending for. Senator Douglas is consis-
tent. lie always opposed Congressional in
terventon with slavery. He stands where
he always stood. but those men who accuse
him Of leaving the Democratic Party do not
stand where they did in 1854 and their own
language rises up in judgment against them.


However, We are not arguing this question
at all We are only endeavoring to obtain
from the Express definition of its position
with regard to Douglas. We nre anxious to
see whether it will again read him ont of the
Democratic Party. 1t read him out for his
treeport speech but afterwards said that he
would make it all right when lie got back
into the United States Senate. and that there
he would disavow what he had said at Free
port. Instead Of that, he has reaffimcd all
and everything and added emphasis to the
principle which he then maintained He is
opposed to intervention by Congress with
the subject of slavery in the Territories, no
matter what the people of the Territory may
| choose to do with the question. If the Legis-
lature of Territory pass law in regard to
slave property which is unconstitutional, he
believes that it is for the Supreme Court OF
the United States to annul the law and not
Congress. Congress ought not to meddle
with tho question at all, and should have no
power, therefore, to repeal the enactment.
Such is Douglass position. What does the
Express think oft. The election is past, and
it is about time for that paper to be reading
the Illinois Senator out of the party again.
Consequently. we are prepared for any ana
themas that it may pronounce against him.
AssArIr An Il ,rrrnr Inr,ns pnrl.nr M .