from him, and he brings an action for its recovery, and the local court decides against him, and he brings his case to the Supreme Court by appeal, and the Supreme Court decides that the law inhibiting slavery is unconstitutional, and that he has a right to hold the slave; what redress is given to him if Congress will not secure his rights? The result is just this: that if the Senator be right, the Constitution prevails in the States, but not in the Territories; squatter sovereignty is superior to the Constitution.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I will answer the Senator's question. First, I do not hold that squatter sovereignty is superior to the Constitution. I hold that no such thing as sovereign power attaches to a Territory while a Territory. I hold that a Territory possesses whatever power it derives from the Constitution under the organic act, and no more. I hold that all the power a Territorial Legislature possesses is de rived from the Constitution and its amendments, under the act of Congress; and because I hold that, I denied last year that the people of a Territory, without the consent of Congress, could assemble at Lecompton and create an organic law for that people. I denied the validity of your Lecompton constitution, for the reason that constitutions can only be made by sovereign power; and because the Territory was not a sovereignty, that was not a constitution, but a petition. But, sir, I will not occupy time on that question. The limit of the authority of a Territorial Legisla ture is the organic act and the Constitution and its amendments. The organic act of Kansas provides, in its sixth section:

esmo vont as "That the legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposition of the soil," &c. The whole legislative power possessed by Congress over a Territory was, by act, conferred on the Territorial Legislature. There were exceptions on three points; but slavery was not one of the exep that we possessed; all that could be given under I say, then, the intent was to give to the Territorial Legislature all the power that we the Constitution; understanding was, that Congress would not interfere with

whatever legislation might enact.

Now, the Senator from Alabama asks me whether the Southern people, under the Constitution, have not the right to carry their slaves there? I answer, yes-the same right that you have to carry any other Then you ask, have they

not a right to hold it there when they get it opertyswer, the same right that

you have to hold any other property, subject such local laws as the local Legisla may constitutionally enact. you any other property without to protect it? No. Then, can you hold slave property without law to protect it? No, is the answer. Then, will Congress pass laws to protect other property in ritories? I answer, ho. We have created Territorial Legislatures for that purpose. We agreed that this Government should not violate the principles of our Revolu-a tion, by making laws for a distant people regulating their domestic concerns, and affecting their rights of property, without giving them a representation. The doctrine that Congress is to regulate the rights of person and property, and the domestic concerns of a Territory, is the doctrine of the Tories of the Revolution. It is the doctrine of George III. and Lord North, his minister. Our fathers then said that they would not consent that the British Parliament should pass laws touching the local and domestic concerns of the colonies, the rights of person and property, the family relations of the people of the colonies, without their consent. The Parliament of Great Britain said they had the power. We said to them "you may have the power, but you have not the moral right; it is violative of great principles property without through his representative." Because Great Britain insisted on exercising that identical power over these colonies, our fathers flew to arms, asserted the doo as, asserted the doctrine that every colony, every dependency, every Territory, had a right in its own domestic Legislature to pass just such laws as its people chose touching their local and domestic concerns, recognizing the right of the Imperial Parliament to affairs, as I do the right of Congress to

of civil liberty; consent is given of an Englishman, not to be affected in his

regulate the nato reg concerns of the people of a Territory.

Sir, I am asserting, on behalf of the people of the Territories, just those rights which our fathers demanded for themselves against the claims of Great Britain. Because those rights were not granted to our fathers, they went through a bloody war of seven years. Am I now to be called upon to enforce that same odious doctrine on the people of a Territory, against their consent? I Bay, ected Organize a Territorial government for them; give them a Legislature, to be by their

Mr. BIGLER. I shall not attempt to answer the honorable Senator's question but he will pardon me for asking another, which I think quite as significant and quite as appropriate, and it is this: Suppose that in the campaign of 1856, instead of saying as that honorable Senator said, and as those who acted with him said, and as I said every where to the people of the States, who were about to emigrate to the Territories, when you go there, you carry with you all the rights you enjoy in a sovereign State;" saying as he said and as I said, "it is but the extension of the great principle of self government to the Territories;" suppose we had said to those proud people, "when there, and in the matter of changing your government from a Territory to a State, you shall have the high privilege of exercising the right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances?" They would have asked that Senator and me when it was, and where it was, that the American citizen had not a right to petition for a redress of grievances, whether white or black.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I shall not answer that part of the Senator's inquiry as to whether American citizens, white or black, have not the right to petition for a redress of grievances, because I do not recognize any black American citizens. I have no colored brethren of that description. (Laughter and applause in the galleries.) I know of no American citizens in this Republic except the white people, and I trust in God I shall never know any other kind. (Applause in the galleries.)

Mr. BIGLER. I know that as well as the Senator; and I ought to have said in habitants.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. IVERSON in the chair.) If there is any more interruption in the galleries, Chair will order the galleries be cleared.

Mr. MASON. If there is any more disturbance in the galleries, I shall certainly move and insist that the galleries be cleared.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will order the galleries to be cleared at once if there is any further interruption."

Mr. DOUGLAS. I assert that in 1856, during the whole of that campaign, I took the same position I do now, and none other; and I will show that Mr. Buchanan pledged himself to the same doctrine when he accepted the nomination of the Cincinnati convention. In his letter of acceptance he says, referring to the Kansas-Nebraska act:

"The recent legislation of Congress, respecting domestic slavery, derived, as it has been, from the original and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the majority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous excitement. This legislation is founded upon principles as ancient as free government itself, and, in accordance with them, has simply declared that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits."

This extract from Mr. Buchanan's letter shows that he then understood that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, should decide for themselves whether slavery should or should not exist within their limits. I undertake to say, that wherever I went that year, his cause was advocated on that principle, as laid down in his letter of acceptance. The people of the North, at least, certainly understood him to hold the doctrine of self-government in Territories as well as in States, and as applicable to slave property as well as to all other species of property. I undertake to say, that he would not have carried one half the Democratic vote in any free State, if he had not been thus understood; and I hope my friend from Mississippi had no allusion to this letter, when he said that in the next contest he did not

desire "to cheat nor to be cheated." I am glad that the Senator from Mississippi means to have a clear, unequivocal, specific statement of our principles, so that there shall be no cheating on either side. I intend to use language which can be repeated in Chicago as well as in New Orleans, in Charleston the same as in Boston. We live under a common Constitution. No political creed is sound or safe which cannot be proclaimed in the same sense wherever the American flag waves over American soil. If the North and the South cannot occupy a common ground on the slavery question, the sooner we know it the better. The Democracy of the North hold, at least, that the people of a Territory have the same right to legislate in respect to slavery, as to all other property; and that, practically, it results in this: if the people want slavery, they will have it; and if they do not want it, it shall not be forced upon them by an act of Congress. The Senator from Mississippi says that doctrine is right, unless we pass an act of Congress compelling the people of a Territory to have slavery whether they want it or not. The point he wishes to arrive at, is whether we are for or against congressional intervention. If you repudiate the doctrine of non-intervention, and form a slave code by act of Congress, when the people of a Territory refuse it, you must step off the Democratic platform. We will let you depart in peace, as you no longer belong to us; you are no longer of us when you adopt the principle of congressional intervention, in violation of the Democratic creed. I stand here defending the great principles of non-intervention by Congress, and of self-government by the people of the Territories. That is the Democratic creed. The northern Democracy have so understood it. No Democratic State in the North ever would have voted for Mr. Buchanan, but for the fact that he was understood to occupy that position. I tell you, gentlemen of the South, in all candor, I do not believe a Democratic candidate can ever carry any one Democratic State of the North on the platform that it is the duty of the Federal Government to force the people of a Territory to have slavery when they do not want it. But if the true principles of State-rights and popular sovereignty be maintained and carried out in good faith, as set forth in the Nebraska biil, and understood by the people in 1856, a glorious future awaits the Democracy.

If we cannot stand together upon that principle there is no use of any angry excitement; no use of any violent controversy; no necessity for crimination or recrimination. The Senator from Mississippi has stated his position clearly and in a spirit of kindness. I trust that I have met him with equal kindness and frankness. I am sorry to have been under the necessity of occupying the time of the Senate in the discussion of this question at this late period of the session; but I am sure the Senate will do me the justice to say that I could not have been silent after the speech of my friend from Mississippi, without defending the position which was so severely and so ably assailed by him. I trust that I shall not be under the necessity of trespassing longer upon the time of the Senate upon these collateral questions.

NOTE BY MR. DOUGLAS.

The debate was continued at considerable length by several Senators, some of whom emphatically repudiated the idea that it was the intention of the Kansas-Nebraska act to affirm the principle of NON-INTERVENTION BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES, whereby all questions pertaining to African slavery, as well as all other matters of domestic concern, were banished from the halls of Congress and remanded to the people of the Territories respectively, to be disposed of as they should see proper, subject only to the constitution, with the right of appeal by any person feeling aggrieved by the territorial legislation, to the judicial tribunals to determine the validity of such enactments under the Constitution of the United States.

They went farther, and insisted that it is the duty of Congress to intervene and enact a code of laws to protect slavery in the Territories whenever the Territorial Legislature may fail or refuse to provide such legislation.

One Senator (Mr. GWIN) declared, that if he had understood the Kansas-Nebraska bill at the time of its passage as I now construe it, he never would have voted for it.

Inasmuch as I was deposed from the position of Chairman of the Committee on Territories, which I had held for eleven years in the Senate and two years in the House of Representatives, BECAUSE OF MY FIRM ADHERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION AND POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY in the Territories, as defined in the Kansas-Nebraska act, I should have referred to the debates in 1854, when that act was passed, and in 1856 when Mr. Buchanan was elected President on the distinct issue of "NON-INTERVENTION AND POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY," to show, by extracts from speeches and the public records, what was the true construction of the Kansas-Nebraska act, had not the debate been sprung upon the Senate suddenly, without affording opportunity for an examination of the debates and public records. But an intelligent and esteemed friend has since made a thorough examination into the whole subject, and has submitted to me his report, which I believe to be fair and impartial, and which I annex to these remarks as an Appendix.

APPENDIX.

Extract from the report of the Committee on Territories, accompanying the Nebraska bill, when first reported to the Senate by Mr. DOUGLAS, Chairman, January 4, 1854:

"In the judgment of your committee, these measures (Compromise measures of 1850) were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican teritory. They were designed to establish certain great principles, which would not only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but IN ALL TIME TO COME, AVOID THE PERILS OF A SIMILAR AĞITATION, BY WITHDRAWING THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY FROM THE HALLS OF CONGRESS AND THE POLITICAL ARENA, AND COMMITTING IT TO THE ARBITRAMENT OF THOSE WHO WERE IMMEDIATELY INTERESTED IN AND ALONE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS CONSEQUENCES."

Extract from the speech of Mr. DOUGLAS, closing the debate in the Senate, on the night of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act, March 3, 1854: "Mr. President, as there has been so much misrepresentation upon this point, I must be permitted to repeat, that the doctrine of the report of the committee, as has been conclusively proved by these extracts, is—

"First, That the whole question of slavery should be withdrawn from the halls of Congress and the political arena, and committed to the arbitrament of those who are immediately interested in and alone responsible for its existence.

"Second, In applying this principle to the Territories and the new States to be formed therefrom, all questions pertaining to slavery were to be referred to the people residing therein.

"Third, That the committee proposed to carry these propositions and principles into effect in the precise language of the Compromise measures of 1850.

"Are not these propositions identical with the principles and provisions of the bill on your table? If there is a hair's breadth of discrepancy between the two, I ask any Senator to rise in his place and point it out! Both rest upon the great principle which forms the basis of all our institutions that the people are to decide the question for themselves, subject only to the Constitution."-(See Appendix Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 33d Cong., vol. 29, p. 327.)

Extract from the remarks of Hon. W. A. RICHARDSON, of Illinois, (who, as Chairman of the Committee on Territories in the House of Representatives, reported the Kansas-Nebraska bill to that body) January 12, 1856:

"The Constitution does not, in my opinion, carry the institutions of any of the States into any of the Territories; but it affords the same protection there to the institution of one State as of another. The citizen of Virginia is as much entitled in the common Territory to the protection of his property under the Constitution as the citizen of Illinois; but both are dependent upon the legislation of the territorial government for laws to protect their property of whatever kind it may be. Thus it will be seen that though there may be upon this point a difference theoretically-involving questions for judicial decision yet there is none, practically, among the friends of NON-INTERVENTION BY CONGRESS, AS THE PRACTICAL RESULT IS TO PLACE THE DECISION OF THE QUESTIONS IN THE HANDS OF THOSE WHO ARE MOST DEEPLY INTERESTED IN ITS SOLUTION, NAMELY, THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY, who have made it their home, and whose interests are the most deeply involved in the character of the institutions under which they are to live. If this great principle of non-intervention and self-government is wrong, then indeed the American Revolution was fought in vain, and it is time we cease to venerate the memory of the patriotic dead who purchased with their fortunes and blood the free institutions of the several separate, independent and coequal States, forming the Union under which we have so prosperously and happily grown to be so great." (See Congressional Globe, 1st Sess. 34th Cong, part 1, pages 222, 223.)

Extract from the speech of GENERAL LEWIS CASS, of Michigan, (now Secretary of State of the United States,) in the Senate of the United States, May 20, 1854:

"It is up hill work, Mr. President, in this country, for any man, however splendid his talents or commanding his position, to contend against this doctrine. It landed with our fathers upon the beach of Jamestown and the Rock of Plymouth, and has been treasured in their hearts through all their trials and difficulties to this, the great day of its glorious consumation. It has accompanied the pioneers through the passes of the Rocky Mountains, and has planted itself, with the beloved flag of our country, upon the very shores that look out upon China and Japan. Oh! squatter sovereignty, where were you then?' emphatically asks its great opponent, alluding to territorial history. I was then may then be answered to this invocation. I was then in the Declaration of Independence, and I am now, as ever, in the hearts of the American people, and am firmly established in the tables of their law. The relations between the Territories and the General Government are not well defined by the Constitution.

"There are those, and I am among them, who find no authority in that instrument for Congressional action in this matter, and can justify it only from the necessity of the case. Others contend that the jurisdiction is unlimited; while many, though willing to accept a limitation, can with difficulty define it. But whatever theoretical opinions may prevail upon this subject, Congress has never practically asserted the right of entire legislation; and, indeed, with some unimportant exceptions, and a single important one-the slavery proviso-the internal concerns of the Territo ries have been managed by their local governments. The action of the General Government has been mostly confined to organize laws, laying down the principles of administration with political privileges, formerly more restricted, but latterly much enlarged.

"Now, here is room for an honest difference of opinion as to the extent of Congressional legislation. All agree that the initiatory measure of organization should be taken by Congress, though unanimity cannot be expected in its details. For myself, I concede the largest exemption compatible with the relations of the parties supreme and subordinate. But when you come to the appointment of officers to the powers of legislation, and to all the other questions involved in political society, you touch subjects necessarily giving rise to diversity of opinion. While all has not been granted, comparatively little has been withheld. Freedom-the rights of persons and property are quite as well secured in the Territories as in the States, and acts of oppression as rare, and, when happening, just as sure to be redressed and punished. The supervisory power exercises its authority with moderation; and these distant communities find their situation free from practical injurious restraint. "This state of things in its general principles was the very condition of the Ame rican Colonies, when our fathers claimed non-intervention from British interference, which was extending itself into all the concerns of life. They did not lose themselves in the mazes of political metaphysics. They did not deny there was a prac tical boundary to a principle, though they could not find a stone wall against which to break their heads. They did not claim independence at the commencement of the controversy. They did not want it. They conceded to England the just right to establish governments, and to exercise a general supervisory authority over them; but they denied to her the authority to interfere in their internal domestic concerns, claiming the right to manage these for themselves; and as they could not get that right peaceably, they sought it by arms, and obtained it by such suffering and trials as no people ever before encountered and survived. They did not protest against the appointment of the governors and some other officers by the Crown, nor against the exercise of a general superintending authority by the Parliament. And now, when a century since the commencement of this contest of weakness, and right against power and injustice, is fast hastening to its completion, we are gravely told by many citizens of New York, and by the acknowledged exponents of their views here, that this claim of political exemption was all a transparent sham; and, in affect, that the patriarchs of the Revolution were ignoramuses; for, as they did not demand sovereignty, complete release from British control, they demanded nothing worth having. And, therefore, when a local political community is connected in bonds of subordination with a more general one, and is allowed as great a measure of political freedom, as is compatible with this relation, if it do not aspire to and obtain complete independence, despotism is better than free local legislation. And I return my thanks to the honorable Senator from Louisiana, (Mr. BENJAMIN,) for the