Indiana State Guard, Volume 1, Number 27, Indianapolis, Marion County, 18 September 1860 — Page 1

I

MP

IAN

AM

H A CONSTITUTION, THE UNION, AND THE EQUALITY OF THE STATES! THE

VOL. I.

THE OLD LINE GUARD. IS PI J Li I jl Si IK I) rp n X "VST 33 33 EC Xj TZ" , AT INDMKAl'OMS, INDIANA, 1' EI.IElt Sc 1MHK1VESS. . I I X 33 X. 3Vt i utter the Presidential Election. . In advance, in all cases. ! i - .O0, until Advertisements inserted at the usual rates. S P i; i-: c ii OF TIIK HON, JOHN 0. BEEOKINRIDGE. Delivered at Lexington, Ky., Sept. 5, 18U0. I beg you, my neighbor, friends, and oU conji ents, to be assured that I feel pro! ound y fe'1"1 fr the cordial welcome y'1 circumstances under which l a, -ear befo e ou, a e unusual; I do i m obedience to the request of tutn Is whose wishes I nave been accusum.eu u. le it h on uiii'ftiiiinnn Mini? lor a person in uiy U lb UC ail imi-w.ii.v. v...0 I " - tion to address assemblages of the people, 1 can only t i .i: fnr.;..a u.-luli I hnll handle Say X Hope IU Uluoa mi? niv.? ......... - - tcwlay, in a manner not altogether unworthy the attitude wl ich I occupy. 1 shall certainly indulge in no language which, in' my opinion, will fall below the dignity of political discussion. The condition ot my health' makes it impossible to extend my voice over this vast assembly, but I hope it will become stronger as I proceed. . I appear before you to-day for the purpose first, of repelling certain accusations which have been made against me personally, and industriously disseminated over other States ; and next, to show that the principles upon which I stand are the principles of the Constitution and the Union great applause ; and surely, lit Iip. found bv anv U Ub cl.IV LlllIC iuontiuv. ........ . , " ....... ... oi i raKllllT T 1( IWl H. Ill X uli-u tUUfl IUi uiiiv....p I ( - I the position t oceu-.i . 0 . . .,.,,.,, wriiors nv. it Will betound m my case, auouj muus nn ..mi w!ifi. oiMTiir nrn.iors nave cuoscii iu .jv-v... : ,i,ot I nr.. a illanninnist and a traitor to mv country, anu " ' .. . . i . . i.... .i ! they declare that the atrocious form in which I have exhibited that treason makes, by compaiison with it, Burr a patriot, and the memory of Arnold respectaBut, fellow citizens, before I come to those topics, I desire to make a brief but comprehetve stoment n rt-trard to mv nosition in connection with the I res-, ,Un?v of IT ,ited States. I have been charged . . " 1 ... T o r.t.t.,Ti!iiiii.B ambition : I have been charaed with intriguing for this nomination ; I have been charged with leaping before the wishes of the people, and desiring to thrust myself before them for the highest office? in their gift. ' To all this I answer that it is wholly untrue. I have written to nobody for their support. I have conversed with nobody, soliciting support. I have intrigued with nobody. I have promised nobody. To these statements I challenge contradiction from any human being. Cheers. A voice "That's so, John C." Nav, more, I did not seek or desire to be placed before the people for the office of President by any Convention. When I returned to the State of Kentucky, in the spring of 1859, and was informed that some partial friends were presenting my name to the public in that connection, and certain editors, whose presence I see here, had hoisted my name for the Presidency, I said to them all" Friends, ! am not in any sense a caudidate for the Presidency," and I desired that my name might be taken down from the head of their columns. It was clone. A very eminent citizen of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was presented bv his friends for that office; I was gratified to see it", and united cordially in presenting him for the suffrage of the American people. At no time, in or out of the State of Kentucky, did I do an act or utter a word which could bring my name in conflict with his, or that of any other eminent American citizen who desired, or whose friends desired for him, that jiosition ; and if you have taken the trouble to read the proceedings of the Charleston Convention, you will remember when I received the vote of Arvon will remember when I received tne voie oi ailann one of Tiv friends arose and requested that Kansas, one oi my "" , , . . T ,,., IWIIISaS, V un 'iv 1 . . the vote might be withdrawn, doclanug that I woulcl not allow the use ot my name in compcuuu.. n.u that of the distinguished Kentuckian lo whom I have referred. . And when that Convention assembled at Baltimore, my feelings and my conduct were still unchanged. After the disruption which took place there, my name, without any solicitation on my part and against my expressed wishes, was presented to the country for the the office of President by a Convention, and under circumstances which certainly deserved the most respectful consideration. No man could be vain enough to anticipate, that his name would be placed before the country ; but having heard that such a thing was posK'.hln. T constantly said that " I did not desire to be sible, 1 constantly sam tnai-ttnu mn , nrcsented to the American people, but was content prcsenu.it w me ""' .i.i ' ,,, ,, ii.... ..nximi wiili the. honors which have niiv iitvnj- niaii n been heaped upon me bv my State and country. And I looked forward with pleasure to the prospect ot serving Kentucky in the Senate of the United States for the next six years. Cries of" Good." My name, however, was presented, and 1 felt that I could not refuse to accept the, nomination under the circumstances, without abandoning vital principles and bc- . : r..: 1,, rinJonanl iraying iny menus. lI'I"" -I . i Ti in s.iil tli.it I was not recularly nominatea, aim1 that an enlel'ifcltize ?HlSL wL regularly nom-! inated for the Presidency. But this is a question er ughfy K pleT I refer yot, to the a.le letter of your delegates from this Congressional District ; I refer you to the master-1 lv and exhaustive speech recently delivered by my j noble friend on whU grounds we are met. I can i cmly sav Z Convention which assembled at the j Front street Theater, at Baltimore, in my judgment, ; was devoid not only of the spirit of justice, but even of the forms of regularity. Cheers. The gentle-: , ' L j ii. man whom it nominatea, never received inc iwc ... . .... .. ! : mired by the rules ot the uemocra no organ, u ... AVhole Slates were excluded and Uislranclnsea in mat ....... i n.i t Convention not to sp.'ak ot lnilividuais. xne incwi flagrant acts of injustice were perpetrated, for the -: pi of ton ing' u,U the Democratic organization . a pirticular individual as the representative of a per-, ni' ious doctrine, which I shall lie able to show is re-i purnant alike to reason and the Constitution. Owing ' to the ross outran of these proceedings, a decided ; majority of the defegates from your own State with-1 dnw from that Convention, declaring that it was not I a National Convention of the real Democratic organ- j iration. Nearly the enlire delegations from fifteen j Soul hern States, and the enlire delegations from Cal-! ifomia and Oregon, and large aud imposing minorities ; from other Slafe of the Union, making in whole or in part delegations from almost two-thirds of the States of the Confederacy, denounced and separated themselves f,w. that ill-slarred body. The result furnishes a striking warning that the arts of political managetnent are not abvavs rn-rfc-cl Hibstitutes for truth and jllste. But, after all, the great question is, what arc the principles, which ought to commend themselves to the American people, at issue in this canvass ? I But, before I proceed further, I will group together I of nprwnal accusations, some of i State of Kentucky, and others elsewhere, bv which, through me, it is attempt-1 . a ArUnin with wliii h T m t i J 3UII.C ' I ... " 1 1 IUC U I i 1. 1. ' " " - connected. It beget.'! in me almost a feeling of humiliation to answer some of them, but as I have imtood upon niynelf the task. I will go through tbcro all as briefly as I can. Chers. Voice "(Jo on. John."

INDIANAPOLIS,

I believe it has been published in almost every Southern newspaper of the Opposition party, that I signed a petition for the pardon of John Brown, the Harper's Ferry murderer and traitor. This is wholly untrue. So muc h for that. Cries of " Good." It has been extensively charged and eireulated that I was in favor ot the efeetion of Gen. Taylor to the Presidency, and opposed to the election of Cass and Butler. This, also, is wholly untrue. Cheers. In the year 1847, there was a meeting in the city of Lexington, in which I participated, by which General Jaylor was recommended for the Presidency of the United State A difference of opinion existed at that time as to the political sentiments of that distinnni.il..nii t ma Dwrnwl. iii a manner satis factory to mo, that General Taylor's political opinions coincided in the main with those I held, and I united in the meeting. Soon afterward I went to Mexico. When I returned, twelve months afterward, in 1848, 1 found the campaign in full blast, with Taylor the candidate of the Whigs, and Cass and Butler in nomination by the National Democracy. It is well known to flinnuamla r.f ilinuo within t.lin sound of UIV voice, that as soon as I returned home I took the stump in behalf of the Democratic nominees, and sustained them to -J adTt fwo'iked all the more Vaiously' because one of the gentlemen for whose success' I labored, was a Kentuckian, my old f M J present and did not vote at the i:rtoi. in 1848. That is true. But ...itk ti.,. (,i,i.i,,it,i tlmrn nncrlit in have .rone an exula- ----- r , . nation wcU known, but which my opponents never published, that is entirely satisfactory. You well know that at that time, (before the adoption of the present Constitution,) a citizen might vote anywhere in the- State. It so happened that after the labors of the canvass and the courts, I had gone on my annual hunting trip to the mountains. There, was with me a party of six or eight gentlemen, all of them belonging to tile Whig party; and on the day of election they pi oposed to me that instead of going, as I intended, to the nearest voting place, some fifteen miles, we should devote the day to the chase. If they had voted, there would have been six or seven votes cast for Taylor, l i i f. r. unit Rnili'i-. rCheers.l I accepted the proposition, and we went hunting, laugh-1 ter,J and it every man nau uone as cu as nnKu, c mj , , - ,i ' ,i ma. won Kl nave earneu me oiuic iiui.j n... ..... , , . .,- ., 'Tnn. I re. mem member the names of my friends, Thomas S. lvedd, Nelson Dudley, Geo. P. Jouett, and others who will doubtless recollect those facts if anything were necK.rv hpvnnd mv word. TA voice " None, nothing . .. - , nM c . more needed here." Another charge, actively circulated inrougnoui inc Southern States, asserts that I was an Emancipation-: ; voted for an Emancipationist, 1 i . . T flu. it my duty to call your attention to a paper w hich I received last evening from one of the Southern States, called the Tuskegee (Alabama) Republican, and which contains a letter written by one of our own citizens, in reference to my public position, and even in regard to my private affairs. It was written by Hon. George Robertson, to a Mr. Alexander, of Alabama, and is dated August 23d, 18G0. I quote so much of it as I desire to comment upon : John C. Breckinridge has not been counted here an Emancipationist, however much he may have been suspected by some for sympathy with his uncle, the Rev. Robert J. Breckinridge. He does not keep house, and owns no slaves, unless he retains two that came by his wife. I know nothing of the investment in Ohio, concerning which you inquire. But we all know here that he was committed to squatter sovereignty ever since his nomination in 1856, until finding that Douglas would overwhelm him in the North, ho changed his creed, and, in his Frankfort speech last January, turned Southerner, and advocated protection by Congressional intervention." As to the part of that letter relating to my personal affairs, I have to say that I do not envy the taste or character of a gentleman who would be engaged m writing letters through the Union touching the private 1 1 rtf Iila liirli 1 km-U . uenuemen, m ' . J Whilst he is correct in some of these statements, I will not merit the contempt ot this audience, uy entering into details in regard to my private affairs. A voice " That is manly." That part of the letter which relates to squatter H 1 .i:..rt,l rC in nnewnvincr tllft flCnuiciciginj, - - - o cusations of other men ; but I am now on the question v.Mian.innlinn. Observe the wording of the sensovereiciuy, wui ui xu j ,.....B of Emancipation. Observe the wording of the sentence i " John C. Breckinridge has not been counted here an Emancipationist, however much he may have been suspected by some for sympathy with his uncle, Rev. Robert J. Breckinridge ! " Now, if there is an individual here, among the ti..io,,,.. wltl.In ilin sound of mv voice, who ever tUUUKIllUO ...V..... " . , , , heard or knew of mv sympathizing with the doctrines advanced by Rev.'R.' J. Breckinridge, let him now speak, or forever hold his peace. Cheers. And when Hon. George Robertson will produce one respectable man, in or out of the county of Fayette, who will say he believed or suspected that I was an - , ,.:i to write that letter. Cheers. If the gVtlean a,t thor ha always existed between Rev. Mr. .Emancipationist, l will even coniess mat n. i-.c. . 1 .. . ... mi 1 It' 1... v..iit!oTti.in HIBV MIVII. iiuj ... Breckinridge and myself those relations of cordiality, respect, and atlection which are natural aim yiui, the insinuation is true. But that is not the purpose -of the letter. It is in connection with the subject ot : Emancipation that he was speaking, and he would I convey the impression that I had been suspected of; sympathy with my uncle upon that subject. That is j t,,,'.:n r,( ,w lnttpr. Judffe RoberU-on, when ; caneo uiiun m icgiu " ,, r' replied that it dent.al etter." A voice" Confidential to be pubcalled upon in regard to the authenticity of the letter, lt think that mends the case have been even better to write it for t he public, than . as a confidential letter. Don t you think so t LAi voice ' Yes." .. . . i But I have other things to consume my time tc-day than such " confidential " Otters as that CO 1 come to the fact. The only time that the question . of Emancipation has been ra,5ed m Kon tw ky in my : day, was tn 1849 when we were clect.ng delega e -to, ,.r.f nr. ,r fr.rm a npw lions htut on. Ihen JJr.. a .t.,.. ---- - :,,: oj: it !.:.,:, i rA ATi. Shv wftrp Kmanci nation canal,C ;9,nt. ,-anvassed ; ciaies. i, us a .a -: r tri .l. ... i I.nc, rtf mv nhl llv in OnDOSltlOn 10: me. loiu.ii . -" -v - . , Emancipation, believing ; the intores ts of JJ , the Commonwealth would be. promoted by tl c contui uance of their present relations, and on tissue, as, you know, I was elected. At the polls Dr. lire. Kin-, ridire voted against me, and 1 voted against mm,, cheers. because we were representing opposite prin ciples; and just m would it be again under similar ; circumstances. So much for tliat charge. I I have seen pamphlets published nd ciirulatert all over the Union, for the purpose of proving that I was! a Know-Nothing in the year 18a5, in the ,' J Kentucky. Laughtor. I have no doubt that a very considerable proportion of tho-e listening to me werej members of that order ; and it there is a man among ; rou who belonged to, the onler, who ever saw nic in , one of your lodges, or who does not know that I was , recognized from the beginning one ot the most nr.-, compromising opponents, let him be goo.1 enough to, sav so now. A voice" He am t here. 1 . j Why, gentlemen, I believe I was one of the first in ; Congress who took position against the organization ; j and when I returned home to the btate ot Kentucky, , in the spring of 1855, finding it was PT nrocrress in the Commonwealth, although I naa wy-f ! drawn from rublic life to attend to my private atlairi. i I opposed it in repeated s t thp St.iti. rCheers.1 1 nwirhen. all over this part of i the State. fCheers.1 This statement may not Dei very acceptable to some gentlemen within the sound j of mv voire ; but I do not want to deceive any man.j I stand oprm mv principles, and am willing to avow' them without the slightest regard lo consequences. i Applane.

LVD., TUESDAY, -SEPTEMBER 18, I860.

(Jentlemen, 1 am represented, to this day, as having declared that I would make a political, discrimination between one of my own religious belief and another, and between a native and a naturalized citizen. I never uttered such a sentiment. Loud cheers. The underlying principle with me was this, that the - condition of citizenship being out obtained, no question, either of birth or religion, should be allowed to mingle with political consideration. Applause. ; I deem it only necessary to make these statements here succinctly and pass on, because I am speaking to assembled thousands who know the injustice ot the charges. But, fellow-cilizens, to come to more extended topics. It has been asserted that I and the political organization with which I am connected have abandoned the ground on which we stood, in regard to the Territorial question, in 1854 and I85(i; that we then occupied a position which is now occupied by Mr. Douglas and his friends. I deny it; aud I shall now proceed to disprove it, both as to myself and as to the Constitutional Democratic party. . . You have heard a good deal of. what is called my Tippecanoe speech. I went to the States of Indiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and addressed the people in the autumn ot 1856. . None of those speeches were ever written out beforehand, and no one of them prepared by me, except by the' briefest notes ; and of the reports which various penons chose to make, not one was ever revised or seen by me. I have been amused to see the various versions' of what they call the Tippecanoe speech. For example, I have, in my hand a paper which represents me as saying at Tippecanoe, " the people of the Territories, under the Kausasv,.i,..t,o A,.t l.nvo tin. full vioht to abolish or pro hibit slavery, just as a State would, which principle is as old as the' Republican Government itself." Not onlv did I never utter such an opinion, but. until recently, I had no reason to believe anybody ever represented me as having uttered it. It is only within a few weeks that 1 remember to have seen it in any newspaper. But I have a very high accuser upon this subject no less a person than the eminent Senator from Illinois. I have no time to spare in comments upon the propriety or delicacy of a gentleman who is before, the country for the oflice of President, introducing the name of one who is also a candidate, and giving his personal testimony as to that gentleman's opinions. I shall waste no time in the discussion of the propriety of such a course. I wish to meet the accusation. . The Hon. Stephen A. Douglas, in a public address made recently in Concord, New Hampshire, says : " There is not an honest man in all America that will deny that James Buchanan and John C. Breckinridge, in 1856, were pledged to the doctrine of nonintervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories." Mark the word as it is there, "non-intervention." "I made speeches from the same stand with John C. Breckinridge, in 1856, when he was advocating his own claims to the "Vice Presidency, and heard him go to the extreme length in favor of Popular Sovereignty in the Territories." Then, speaking of certain other gentlemen from the South, who had addressed the people in the North, he says: "In every one of their speeches they advocated Sciuatter Sovereignty in its Dioauesi sense. Squatter sovcreiD y Here in the space of twelve lines, xou have the woras -non-iniervenuui., .... and "Popular Sovereignty," all evidently intended to mm .e. same mean liar. These terms are not syntrine of non-intervention as it was originally under-

stood, and engrafted with the legislation ot the conn- "V d d , , the Federal Government to try. (Cheers.) It SSS Po tato sbvery, anil that it was, in its Federal relaslavery by Congress, and by Us creature, the territorial Hi This. li said, was not true.

. ." . - .b,ni thPV s inn ( form a Constitution and become a State, to exercise the sovereign power of defining property and admitting or excluding slave or other property. This was theBnoii-intervention of 1850 this was the non-iriter-vention of Henry Clay, as I may show presently in another connection. . But I assume that Mr. Douglas, in tins statement, meant to declare that I, in 1856, from the same stand with him, advocated the doctrine that the Territorial Legislature has the right to exclude slave property pending Jthe Territorial condition. I presume he uses alf these expressions in that sense ; and, indeed that is the question which has been the yvhole bone of dispute. , , Well, fellow-citizens, I have first my own statement to oppose to that of the distinguished Senator. At no time, either before or after the passage of the KansasNebraska bill, did I ever entertain or utter the opinion that a Territorial Legislature, prior to the formation of a State Constitution, had the right to exclude property from the common Territories of the Union. No. And no authentic utterance of mine can be found which sustains that charge. You find it stated in this extract which I just now read to you, and which I never saw until the other day, an irresponsible statement made by I know not whom, never revised nor seen by me, and, as I will show you, against the whole tenor of my public speeches. I have suffered a good deal by incorrect reports of my speeches. It would be well, perhaps, in some respects, since now, through the telegraph and the press, everything is : .i t i ir v... firt imnrfissinn. to adopt the plan uitsuru uu vj vi.v. ...... ....j. i m of gentlemen in the East, who write out their speeches before delivery. But I never do it. 1 speak as I am moved to do when I stand before the people. I do not doubt the competency or desire to be correct of of the gentlemen making reports; but it may frequently happen, from the rapidity of utterance, or indistinctness of delivery, that they fail to catch the expressions and meaning of the speaker. Indeed, it is wonderful that the errors are not greater and more numerous. I would in this connection request of the reporters to give me an opportunity of revising what is said to-day. . , Now, fellow-citizens, I will detain you briefly by as clear an exposition as I can make of the circumstances under which the Kansas-Nebraska bill became a law in 1 854- , , c ' , The friends of the measure, North and bouth, agreed that the Missouri line should be repealed and the territoiy opened to settlement. But there was one capital point on which they differed. Nearly all the Southern friends of the bill, and a few fiom the North, denied that the power existed in Congress or in a Territorial Legislature to exclude any description of prortv recognized iu the States, during the Territorial condition. Others.and among them Mr. Doug las, held that a Territorial .Legislature might exclude slave property. It was a Constitutional question, and r 1 i i.. : k:... r i.,..;.U!;vo ,t;. tney agreeu not, ro ma . "P'vrT

pute: but to provide a mode in the bill by wnica me aou mai uus u.c p u ..e.u .-v ; question midit be referred to the Supreme Court of Southern friends of the "Nebraska bill, and by a por-A-tt:-j f nrl 11 nariics were to tion of its Northern supporters. These were our opin-

l.i.IP bv the decision of that august tribunal as a final settlement of the Constitutional question, lor this settlement ot the i-onstuuiionai quesuu... x ur .m. iMirpose. whilst ordinarily an appeal cannot be taken from a Territorial court to the Supreme Court of the United States, unless the matter in controversy amounts to a thousand dollars, a clause was inserted in the Kansas bill, providing that in anv case involving .. . . i r i : i... oi,the title to a slave, an np"-' 'ji i"' Sonreme Court, without regard to the value of the amount in controversy. Now during the period between the jassage of that bill and' the decision of the Supreme Court, all persons on each side entertain their own opinions. We, in the South held that the Territorial Lesislature did not possess the power. Mr. Douglas and his friends koi,i TarrimriAl LfKrislature did possess the L lilO ' ' . ' . ' ' D .. . . 1. ..... rwiinta fill nm n n(Ht ft TTt power puwrr. ajui uu " " " ' ' . . that tbe action of the Territorial Legislature mutt be " subject to the Constitution of the United States,-" second that the limitations imposed by the Constitution should be determined by the Supreme Court; nd third, that all should acquiesce in the decision when rendered. (Cheers.) I think this is plain and trite sutciwnt. and for

the purpose of showing you what was the view taken j by the Southern friends of the measure in Congress, J

and ceriainiy ine vit.w uiivt'u ij maui., . read two or three extracts from a speech delivered by me in the House of Representatives, in 1854, before the bill passed Congress : . . "-"We demand that all the citizens ol the Limed: States bo allowed to enter the common Territory with the Constitution alone in their hands. If that instrument protects the title of the master to his slave in this common Territory, you cannot complain ; and, if, it does not protect his' title, we ask no help from Con- j gress; and, if it does not protect his title, we ask no help from Congress; and the relations of the Constitution to the subject we are willing to have decided ; by the courts of the United States.", , j Again: '.' . j nr. :,. nn n.. l.nml bmn th idea of the it Ifl DUIHIIIUIAI, ......., - equality of the States under the Constitution, and their j common property m rue -territories, mm mc hu. of the slave-holding States may remove to them with j their slaves, and that the local legislature cannot right- j fully exclude slavery while in the territorial eondi-j tion; but it is conceded that the people may establish': or prohibit it when they come to exercise the power j of a sovereign State. On the other hand, it is said that slavery, being in derogation of common right, can j exist only 'by force of positive law ; and it is denied , that the'Constitution furnishes this law for the Territories; and it is further claimed that the local lcgisla-j ture may establish or exclude it any time after the j government is organized. As both parties appeal to j. the Constitution and base their respective arguments; nn.tln .unwli-nntiniw nf that ilistl UlUCllt. tllf bill yi v wisely retuses to make a question ior jiuuciai -"-. st ruction the subject of legislative conflict, and prop-i in trilnin:i1 imp ati'd bv the Constitution itself, for the very purpose of 'deciding all cases in law and equity arising under it.'" J Then, in speaking of the equality of the States: " Oarrv the idea to the Territories. What are they? Who nrH In inhabit them. and what are their political relations lo the rest of the , . . .1 mi . ' t' ..f..c ntirtttx furl coutederacy; i ney are regions m nmnn. ..(....- by the common efforts and treasure of all the States; 1 they belong therefore, to the States for common use and enjoyment; the citizens ot tne otaies are iu inhabit them, and when the population shall be. sufficient : they are to become equal members of the Lmoti. ! I think this is sufficient to prove that at the period of, the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill I did not hold j the doctrine that a Territorial Legislature could ex-; elude slave property from the Territory during the ; T K:,. . url.Ha T lw.lit 111'PPisMv the ' J-CriltUI Utl 1 U1HUIIU11 , UU " A y.-.-y . ojiposite opinion, I was willing to refer the question to : the Court and be bound by its decision. j The doctrines announced by me in that speech were ! just such as I have ever declared in Kentucky,such as 1 made in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania, j Afterwards, when it was understood that I had been re-i ported to have admitted that this power belonged to j the Territorial Legislature, in the month of Septemberor October, 1886, the- editor of the Kentucky j Statesman, a journal published in Lexington, in allud-: ingto this charge, made the following statement, to which I beg leave to refer you. Remember, this was : before the Presidential election of 1850 : j "It. was our pleasure to accompany Mr. Breckin- i " - ., , occasion referred to, in his tour through aml Iu(Iiana nnfl t0 witne?s the warn, response vational Democracy at C ncmnati, Hamilton "he avowlll by him of exactly the antt lippecanm , to u.e l . ; , . p- , y , , , Ueniooratic i'ni i"--- , Umi, i jHU-ei't-vij '""';' .. "'"1 t Tw1,,1-v'if;M rmt'tv was noitlicr a nro-slaverv nartv nor an anti-slavery party, but a Constitutional tarty. JX rvjcClt. XI lilt! liiiGi iricuti; ui mj a v ment, whether to introduce or to exclude slavery, and left the common lerntonos oi tne union out-u w II flm Slates. lie nroceeded to say that each new State was entitled to i . .. i .... .i. : it..:. :..i.A.. i form its Constitution, anu enter ine unwn biumh, discrimination bv Conaress, on account of the allow- ; ance or prohibition of slavery. Hence, if Kansas pre sented herself witn slavery in ner oiisiuuuui., bud must be admitted ; if without it, still she must be ad-; mitted. Any other principle, he added, would be j subversive of the rights and equality of the States. j "The. allegation that Mr. Breckmridffe proclaimed j the doctrine of squatter sovereignty, is simply untrue, j 11a said nothing nnon which even a plausible charge ) of that nature could be based." j t u inhnni. if tho c:imH . par T received a slip i 11 UIO Blll'" ' ' " . t from a Louisiana paper, containing remarks made by -i... i nff:l . i:..t...it..l.u.l i.itlvpn nf tliat Ci.u u,U nl TmnMnnn and heal d mv speech. : in which he denied that I had admitted this doctrine j of the Territorial power. Ho sent me a slip contain-! in" his speech. In the same month (October, 185G,) ; some time before the Presidential election.m the course of a letter to him, I said: , "You have reported me correctly, ana l tnanx you for it. '..':.. .. I "Hands off the whole subject by the federal dov-1 ernment (except for one or two protective purposes j mentioned in the Constitution) the equal rights of j .11 ,n..t;ia tn ilio finmnmn fl'rrit(irv. and the al i clli nct-uiiio ... ..... ..v....... , solute power of each new State to settle the question j 1.1 IIS V UH.-LlimiU" 111. JV. Illl ... ..v y - i of our platform, and, what is more, of the Constitu- j tion. - - ! "I consider the assault upon me so absurd as to be un worth v of further notice." . i The recollection of my letter to tieneral allies ; i i i.u.. j',.,1,,,1 iWiin mi. mfininrv mid wiw iv.vived ! lln.l timing jtn.ii.ii in ..... ...v. . , ...... - only a few days since, when that gentleman printed it J C. . ..1 1 1 . w. . Ill a OOUlliei 11 JOUI Jlill, .1U BCin, i-"JV Now, fellow-citizens, to the statement of the distillguished Senator from Illinois, in which he undertakes; to prove allegations against me by himself, I thus op-( r. ... ..... nu.n ui t (.niim t ti p v t tin unuit' 1ii r jnjSi;, 111 llll UJi owl. ...v.... T rnished in mv'speech of 1854, pending the Kansas-Ne-braska bill in v ongress next, u.e lesu.iioni wc j:i.. 4 tl... ironl,ir.lrv ftlntpsman. who is a frentleinan of unquestioned intelligence and honor next, tbe statement ot Lfenerat nines, wno nearu uiy specc.. a. m- A 11.. lull..,, in Kim ivrillfill X ip.iecauu; ,nu niidii . iiii ivinri iv .I. m, ....... prior to the Presidential election of 1856 all these ..mC lw.tnr .nnawtunt U'illl Pni'h OtllCr. Snd AS I Soljiiuvu in nig w..tr..-v-.. emnlv afiinn. concistent also with my uniform opinions. , . ' ..XT . ...n.: n It would not be amicutt to accumulate lesiunonv o. this point to any extent, but I think I have proved muuiinivplr that the charcre is unfounded, and I will . i . . i t .1 i. . i .. . . . . r. . . .fl. 7. . .i :f: ut.i i ll ions, and they were uttered on all proper occasious , but we uia not attempt 10 lorce ouic.s .o -uv n ..w...,-. ... W e l.a.1 agreed to refer the questi judicial tribunal in the I mon. (Ui lion to the highest heers.1 v,o h, u.e "' V V, T j i that period. They will dispel the clouds and dark-, nes with which a multitude of words has obscured this .ui.;. .... Xn liistnnnal fart is more certain than that read the debates of -.r- ,v , , ,- the bouth insisted on the repeal ot the Missouri line to open the Territories to common colonization from all the States, and thatwnen met witn ine uogma oi crritorial power to exclude her, confident in the Constitutional strength of her position, fhe offered to test it by tbe opinion of the Supreme Court, aud tliat olier was solemnly accepted, and the agreement placed on the records of ihe country-. C I 1 UI 15 1TI I.UUU1I 1 . A,4 V. P:nllv..fat m.iTf and tliA Consti-i AUU 1111", 11 a . 1 1 ' . 111'. in on ... , . .. --- ..... tutional Democracy from the charge of having a'ban- j doned the position" we held in 1854-'56, 1 turn npon ! the accuser, and undertake to show that he himself) abandoned the ajrrwment he solemnly made at thej time the Kansas-Nebraska bill passed the Congress of j the United States, (great applause.) and I do not make , mvwlfa wi i gaint him to do it. I will pmve;

NO. 27.

it by himself. (Voice " Good ! good!" and applause.) In a debate in the Senate of the Lmted States, on the 2d of July, 1856, upon a bill to authorize the people of Kansas to form a Constitution and State government, preparatory to admission into the Union as a State, when a question arose as to the true meaning of the Kansas-Ncbraska.bill, and the limitation on the power of the Territorial Government, Mr. Trumbull offered the following amendment as an additional section to the bill : "And be it further enacted, That the provision in the act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, which declares it to be the true intent and meaning of said act, "not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States," was intended to. and does, confer upon, or leave to the people of the Territory of Kansas, full power, at any time, through the Territorial Legislature, to exclude slavery from said Territory, or to recognize and regulate it therein." , . ; . Against, this amendment, an overwhelming majority oftlie Senate voted, including Gen. Cass and Senator Douglas. Let me, however, do Mr. Douglas the justice to sav he voted against it, not because he did not believe the Territorial Legislature had the right to exclude slavery from the Territory, but because lie did not believe it was consistent to d cide the question legislatively, which they had agreed to leave to tin Curl. Gen. Cass says : "The South considers that the Constitution gives them the right of earning their slaves anywhere in the Territories. If they are right, you can give no power to the Territorial Legislature to interfere with them. The major part of the North believe that the Constitution secures no such right to the South. They believe, of course, that this power is given to the Legislature. I repeat that there is nothing equivocal in the act. The different constructions of it result from no equivocation in it, but from the fact that here is an important Constitutional question, tmdetet mined by the supreme judicial authority ; and in the meantime, individuals in different sections of the Union, put their own constructions on it. We are necessarily brought to that state of things. There is no power which the Senator can use no words which he can put into an act of Congress, that will remove this Constitutional doubt until it is finally settled by the proper tribunal." Mr. Douglas, in the same debate, in speaking of the attempt of his colleague to coerce an opinion from him upon the question whether the Territorial Legislature had the power to exclude slave property before they became a State, said : "My opinion iu regard to the question which my colleague is trying to raise here has been well known to the Senate for years. It has been repeated over and over again. He tried the other day, as those associated with him used to do, two years ago and last year, to ascertain what were my opinions on this point in the Nebraska bill ; told him it mis a judicial question. This would not suit them. Why ? Their object was to get me to express a judgment, so that they would charge me with having urged a different view at home, though 1 had expressed the same opinion here, pending that question, and though I had previously manv times avowed the same thing. My answer then was,' and now is, that if the Constitution carried slavery there, let it go, and no power on earth can take it away ; but if the Constitution does not carry it there, no power but the people can carry it there. Whatever may be the true decision of the Constitututional point, it would not have affected my vote for or against the Nebraska bill. I should have supported it just as readily if I thought that the decision would be one wav, as the other. He will also find that I stated I would not discuss the legal question, for by the bill we referred it to the courts." Still later, on the 15th of May last, in the Senate, Mr. Douglas said: "In debate growing out of the Toombs bill, my colleague put the question to me, after it had been answered over and over again in the previous speeches, whether or not a Territorial Legislature had the power to exclude slavery. He had heard my ojpinion on that question over and over again. 1 did not choose to answer a question that had been so often responded to, but referred him to the judiciary to ascertain whether the power existed. I believe the power existed; others believe otherwise. We agreed to differ; we agreed to refer it to the judiciary ; we agreed to abide by their decision." I think I have shown that upon the point of dispute between the friends of the Kansas bill, as to the power of a Territorial Legislature to exclude slave property, it was agreed to refer it to the Supreme Court, and when it naa been juuiciauy ueie.u....c.. that we should abide by their decision, as a settlement of the Constitutional question. Now bear with me while I read a very little from the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Dred Scott case, rendered in the spring of 1857, and three years after the passage of the Kansas bill. My friends, .x-eans of ink have been shed, and thousands of speeches have been made; all the catchwords of demagogues, and all ossible forms of stating the question have been resorted to; eloquent appeals to the passions and prejudices of the people have been mat hi in the discussion of this issue. Let us, for a moment, turn aside from this hot, seething, boiling cauldron of partisan and demagogue wart'arc, to the calm, enlightened, judicial utterance of the most august tribunal on earth. (Repeated applause.) The opinion was concurred in by all the judges, except two, and was delivered by the illustrious Chief Justice of the United States. ' In speaking of the acquisition of territory, the Court says : ." "But, as we have before said, it was acquired by the General Government as the representative and trustee of the people of the United States and it must therefore lie held iu that character for their common and equal benefit ; for it was the people of the several States, acting through their agent and representative, the General Government, who, in fact, acquired the Territory in question, and the Government holds it for their common use, until it shall be associated with the other States as a member of the Union." No cant, no demagogueism, no trash there ; but a simple, clear, lucid exposition of a constitutional truth. The court proceed to say that until the time arrives when the Territory is organized as a State, some kind of government is necessary ; but as to the power of Congress, and iu this connection, they say: "But the power of Congress over the person or property of a citizen, can never be a mere discretionary power under our Constitution and form of Government. The powers of the Government, and the rights and privileges of the citizen, are regulated and plainly defined bv the Constitution itself. It cannot, when It enters a Territory of the UniU'd States, put off its character, and assume discretionary or despotic power, which the Constitution has denied to it. , i t- " The Territory being a rt ot the United Mates, the Government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out, and the Federal (iovernment can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved." Then proceeding with judicial exactitude : " The rights of private property have been guarded with equal care. Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground bv the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and properly without due process of law. And a"n act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself, or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United State