Indiana State Guard, Volume 1, Number 34, Indianapolis, Marion County, 4 October 1860 — Page 1

OJLB

Mir

rm THE CONSTITUTION, THE UNION, AND THE EQUALITY OF THE STATES!

VOL. I.

THE OLD LINE GUARD. " lS PUULTSHKD rp it x W 33 33 KL Xj "V . i x- n i A MX l'OLiS .... I M I A A , IIY ELDUH & lUUKfiKSS. TRn ivr m , 1.00, untilfttier tl.c Presidential Election. In advance, in all cases. Advertisements inserted at the usual rates. SPEECH OF HON. BENJAMIN F. HALLETT, Before the National Democratic State Convention of : Massachusetts, and the Mass Meeting of the supporters of Breckinridge and Lane, at Trcmont Temple, Boston, Wednesday Evening, September 12th, ,:. 1860. :'v; ' A Phonographic Report, by J. M. Pomeroy. Mr. President and Gentlemen: I thank you for the reception that you give me. It strengthens me somewhat m the opinion that I have been able to form today, that the Democratic party of Massachusetts is not yet quite ready to lay me aside for a " substitute!" Great laughter anil applause. Gentlemen, that recalls ine to the crisis m the severance of the Democratic Convention at Baltimore, which makes us hold two Conventions to-day. An attempt was made to stille debate in the Convention by forcing the previous question, so that the voice of the Southern remonstrance to the disfranchisement of six States and two districts should not bo heard there. The chairman of the Virginia delegation rose in his seat, and, after a vain appeal to the mover to withdraw the motion, calmly and impressively said: "If the silence of Virginia" is constrained, I desire so say to the Convention that silence is ominous." For the moment reason prevailed, and the previous question was voted down by New York, who held that Convention in her hand. Debate followed, until the crisis arose when it was in the power of New York, by a single vote, to have saved the party and the country. It then fell to me, as my last act in that Convention, to rise and appeal to it, earnestly appeal to it, to stop in that mad act which it was about to perforin at that instant to sever the Northern and Southern Democracy. The Convention had passed the resolution which excluded from their body the only accredited delegates from the South, and which proposed to admit delegates who had come there without Democracy and without constituencies. The resolution it had been moved to re-consider, with the view of changing it, and changing the course of the Convention, to as to admit the original delegates as organized at Charleston. The State of New York, by means of this unit rule, absorbing thirty minority, held in its hands at that moment the Democratic party. If they had voted for the re-consideration of that resolution, and had admitted the original members, who were then waiting to enter that Convention, a nomination would have taken place by a two-thirds vote, and whoever should have been so nominated, would have been elected the President of the United States. It was then that 1 obtained the floor, and I tried a calm appeal to the " intelligence, the patriotism, and the discriminating justice" of that body. I recalled the great historic fact, that never was there a Democratic triumph in this Union but by the union of the Northern and Southern Democracy, and there never could be. I said to them : " If you do not re-consider that resolution; if you exclude those original delegations which wait at your doors from the South, you dissever this Convention and, if "you dissever this Convention, you of the remnant, larger or smaller, may make a nomination, but to whomsoever you tender that nomination, it will be to put political ruin to the man and ruin to the party that makes it." That prophecy is in the course of fulfilment; the answer to it has come already from the State of Maine. The party who made that nomination, and who made it upon the belief that, although they lost the South, they could carry more than the Democratic vote in the Northern States, arc now found to be weaker in the North than they were when they stood with the Democratic party alone, united North and South in its nationality. The accessions they hoped for from the return of Democrats who had gone off on the Wilmot Proviso, are not to be found to help their candidate for the Presidency. They said to us in that Convention : " Only let us have this 'squatter sovereignty at the North ; this little territorial Wilmot Proviso, (for that was it that was the whole of it,) only let us have this, and go into our districts with it, and we can get back Wilmot Proviso Democrats, and carry some of those districts, and even some New England States. We don't want the 'big negro' abolition doctrine that goes for prohibition by Congress ; we only want this 'little negro' of the Wilmot Proviso in the Territorial Legislature we can nurse him aud carry him about enough to secure our success in some of the districts, and get into Congress." That was the prevalent idea of several gentlemen in Maine, as it is now in other States that are to do just like Maine; and the result in Maine has been only what wc have seen an increased vote against the Democratic parly. Ii it not time to re-consider that vain expectation of success before all is lost ? UNION OF THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN DEMOCRACY. Now I desire, if you will give me your patience, to occupy some moments in considering the questions which are really those at issue. We have had the unusual spectacle of three Conventions in this Commonwealth to-day, making three nominations of candidates for Governor. That portion of the party which assembled at Springfield has nominated our former respected but unavailable candidate, Mr. Beach, the very man whom they threw overboard a little while ago for General Butler. The Bell and Everett party, in their Convention, have s:mply gone backward into Know-Nothingism. They have nominated Mr. Lawrence, a Republican and a Know-Nothing, and therefore have literally done nothing. We have come here to-day, making no boasts and no threats, in numbers much larger than we expect-' ed, and have done just what we did a year ago nom- j inated our gallant and chivalrous champion, General! Butler. Cheers. j Now, why arc there two conventions to-day in Mas-, snchusetts, each professing to be a convention of the. Democratic party ? It is because a portion of the I Democratic party have hoped for extraneous success ' by evading the true national issue. The Democratic j party must be straightforward if they intend to be a National party. They have one paramount question j before them the prominent one of the day howj will they deal with this question of slavery this "eiuality of the States" in the Territories? and in! dealing with it, they must be honest with the South,, or they must lose the South, in its association with the , Democratic puty. And, geudeuicn, let me tell you what history tells us over and over again, that when-' ever the Democratic party ceases to be made up of that national union between the Southern and North-! era Democrats which, with few intervals, has carried this country safely, gloriously, onward in progrew, and , forcrned it wisely lor sixty years which, in fifteen 'residential election has triumphed in all but three ' let me tell you that, whenever that union ceases to be kept up and sustained, then there is an end to the National Drmooratic party, and, I fear, an end to the Union also. That union of North and South has been the graud support of Democracy, and upon that Jia been luwrd the whole wiocew of this country.

INDIANAPOLIS,

Now, when Democrats undertake to act upon the I idea which is the real idea of Mr. Douglas and of the leaders of that portion of our party which has separated from us and support a divided nomination when they undertake to act upon the mistaken idea that, thev can make a great Northern partv that shall be partly anti-slavery, and denounce Southern Dem ocrats as disunionists a party tnat snail stand ueiween the Abolition Republican party of the North and the Equal State rights party of the South, and can throw the south overboard rely upon it, they attempt an impossibility. For all history shows that this North aye, this North and this Northwest never was Dem ocratic, and it never will be Democratic, to govern the Union without union with the South. Applause. It began with old federalism, and that has been succeeded by National Republicanism; by anti-slavery Whigs swallowing up the Union W higs, by political Abolition- . -.1 ,. i tr . -k-r.ii J ism, Dy t ree-souism, ny jvnow iMouiiiigism, u by Black Republicanism, intensely sectional, and only sectional. Renewed applause. And out of these elements in the North you can never make a National Democratic party to control the destinies of this count ..i -j ii.. T-i C.,i. Tlmt ivy wimout me aiu ui uie juuiuuiauu wutu. uul Democratic party to give us victory in the Union we have got to find in union with the South. And the South without that aid from the North is equally helpi. rm . j.1 1,1 less. -Lney can uu noimug wunuuu uiu tun i -actional Democratic party in the North. And, there, fore, if anv man's conscience, or ambition, or fanati cism, or sentimentality, has brought him to that point that he is really unable to associate with the south because they happen to own negroes as slaves if he has arrived at that point, the sooner he leaves the Democratic party and goes into tho ranks of the Republican party the better, f Applause. I have seen, in the course of my life, the whole pro cess of this transition, the whole course ot the. coalescing off from us of the tender-footed or over-ambitious Democrats; men that were terrified at the idea of losing popularity if they trod upon the toes of a negro. Why, sir, when the country was about to do that srrand act annex Texas Democrats in the Leg islature of Massachusetts, every man of them I believe, voted against it. They went farther with the then Free-soil Whigs, and nearly every man of them voted to amend the Constitution of the United States so as to strike out the clause giving slave representation in Congress to the South. And when we went up to the Springfield Convention, I happened to be on the committee on resolutions; and, to put a stop to this tendency to Abolitionism, I introduced a resolution there declaring our dissent, as the Democratic party, from this vote of the Legislature opposing the annexation of Texas, and, from their adoption of the Hartford Convention doctrine that the South ought to be deprived of slave enumeration in their representation in Congress one of the very conditions upon which the Union was formed. When I reported that, who rose up against ine? Such men as Mr. Boutwell, Mr. Banks the whole of that class of men now the leaders and the ablest supporters of tho Lincoln Abolition party. They talked me down, and the Convention voted my resolution down, because it wanted to eke out the Democracy by getting Abolition votes. Why, the annexation of Texas was such an enority, in the estimation of the people of Massachusetts at that time, that I remember a few of us, one Fourth of July, ran away and skulked over to Bunker Hill, and got into a little shed that they had erected for the work on the monument, in order to get away from the mob, and we passed resolutions in favor of the annexation of Texas. Great merriment. Every man in Boston that went down into Slate street and said that Texas ought to be annexed to this country was pointed at as a rascal who ought to run away, or be driven away, and "go to Texas! " Now, the sober second thought has come, and where can you find a man not in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts only, but in the United States who will undertake to say that was not a great measure, for the good of the country ? And where is there a man living, engaged in the commercial or manufacturing pursuits of Massachusetts, that has not in his pocket some money derived from the annexation of Texas? So with California. When, in the Presidency of Mr. Polk, the country was in the Mexican TV ar, and the Democratic party insisted upon indemnity for the past and security for the future, and demanded an accession of territory, what a clamor was made by these tender-footed Democrats that were afraid that we should stumble over a negro somewhere! Laughter and applause. Every effort was made to prevent that great movement; and yet the Democratic party went on straight forward and California was honorably purchased and annexed. It is true, our opponents afterwards elected Gen. Taylor; but Gen. Taylor himself, when the question arose of admitting California as a State, was driven, by force of that Democratic sentiment, into recommending the admission ot California into the Union with or without slavery, as her people should choose. Now, who cries out against pur possession of California? Judge ye from the results of that bright land of gold, that empire on the Pacific, on the material prosperity of our merchants and manufacturers, and mechanics and laboring men. Apparently the country just "then would all have gone to the poor-house but for the annexation of California. Laughter. It came in just at the time when that miserable over-issued paper-banking money, which the Democratic party had always opposed, was overrunning the country, taking the bread from the mouth of the laborer; giving him for a dollar a piece of paper which was not worth ten cents; just then the Almighty who has always in His goodness sustained the Democratic party in every great crisis of the Union put it into the minds of the people to discover the great golden resources of California, which for centuries had been hidden, and they came pouring into our currency, and giving new life to the diseased, dying, commercial body politic. That was another great Democratic act. And so if you go back to the purchase of Louisiana. Nobodv remembers that now. On the 28th of Octo ber, 1803, who stood up in the Senate of the United! States and moved for the confirmation of that treaty : which Jefferson had made with Napoleon, for the pur-j chase of Louisiana? Andrew Jackson ; cheers ; and j from him and the Democrats of that day came this great boon to our country. Who cried out against it ? j The Federal party, the " Northern party " of that day; j and the man whom the Republican party now place at their head as their great patriarch (and an honor-1 able man he is, of whom I will speak only with rover-' encc: 1 mean tne veneraoie josian viuncv, senior, j that distinguished man, then the representative man of New England, opposed the purchase of Louisiana and her admission into the Union as a slave State, and on the Hoor of the House in 1811, declared that if the bill passed admitting Louisiana as a slave State, "it' was virtually a dissolution of the Union;" and he! added, " as it will be the right of all, so it will be the j duty of some to prepare for a separation, peaceably j if they can, forcibly if they must 1 " And at another j time that same gentleman proposed, upon the floor of j the Mouse, to impeach i nomas denerson lor violating the Constitution in making the purchase of Louisiana ! Such are the venerable relics and such the principles that have come down to our times, and now mingle with this new party which calls itself the Republican party ot to-day I who intend to take possession of the Government and conquer the Democratic South by. severing her from the North. Now, gentlemen, let nie aA you and I desire you.1 young men,.to look up this history, and look over themap of your country let me ask how all this has been j done, how all the extension of this country has been . accomplished, until it has increased from thirteen to! thirty-three States ? Never was a State admitted in-! to this L'uion without the opposition of the federal party, the Whig party, the Abolition party, or the modern Republican party. The Democratic party has alwavs had to draff every State into the L nion, from Tennessee, in 1796, down to Oregon, in 185G, when the whole of this Republican arty iu Congress voted against the admission of tliat State, as a free State, because she was going to bring two Democratic Senators into Congreiw one of them honest Joe

IND., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1860.

Lane ! Cheers. And I have no doubt, though they were ignorant of it at that time, there was some strango presentiment of the future a fort of second slnrlit minrrlinrr with their ideas, that, if thev admitwe would make him President of the United States,

-v.t. l fii e .: torn rT ,.,r1itni itirlOreUOfU proilOSIIllMIB or mn-imnr rnnnni ni.it by the choice of the Senate, m 18C0. Laughter and . .11 w . ,. . , . on the COMtructiou of

J IJUKS, How, I ask, has the expansion of this country been accomplished ? Simply by letting alone that everlasting negro. The Democratic party have let him alone. They have neither gone for slavery nor against slavery in State or Territory. That is the way they have achieved all this expansion. They have established some twenty Territories, but they never said a : word, since the adoption pf the Constitution, in the organization of those Territories, about a negro ; nothing was said about a negro in organizing a Territory, until Mr. Douglas took it into his head, at the suggestion of a Whig from Kentucky, to put him in the Kansas and Nebraska bill. I That is the first touch of the negro we ever had in a Territory. And out of those Territories that were thus created have come in-; to tho Union twenty new States, adding to the thirteen all of them coming in simply by ignoring slavery ; simply, gentlemen, by. the. honest principle of treating slave States and free States alike ; simply , by carrying out the glorious motto of John C. I Breckinridge there--pointing to the motto at the foot of the hall " The Constitution and the equality of THE STATES ! THESE ARE THE SVJ1UUJ.9 u everlasting Union, theers.j "f ii ti o ,lniuv nf I nne ot the ( qua i in ot ltes have been aildwl to 1 twe?t ' .U eUe a e.. tZ ! By carrying out that doc I the States " twenty new States this Union ; and out ot those and only eight slave States. And yet here are we at the North, with the lion's share in our grasp, growling and tearing at the South, assailing her institutions, assailing her citizens as " barbarians," reviling and maligning, and teaching our people hatred to the South as their religion ! And all this when we have obtained only success, support, prosperity, and wealth from what her resources and her slave labor have given to us; when we have more free Territory than we can settle for a century; when every market that has been thus opened has been seized upon by the commerce and the industry of New England and the rest of the North, and its best fruits reaped, and the proceeds put into our pockets! That, I say, is a historical fact. All this has the Democracy done for the country. Under this policy it has lived and flourished for sixty years, till it has become the most prosperous nation that God ever made the sun to shine upon. And now, with this Northern discontent about tho very slave labor we have grown rich upon, we are becoming, like the Israelites of old getting fat, and kicking up our heels against the Lord for the prosperity we enjoy. And here comes in this exclusively sectional Northern party, made up, with some few eminent exceptions, of the smallest kind of specimens of men that we have running about, great laughter and applause, ! r ii. -.i..i .,.., 1 1 which unuei tellies lu stie ujiuii uiu icui:joi fiu.uir nient, and change its grand policy into miserable, sectional negroism. The statesmen of this party the managers of this party are they not, for the most part, ambitious, flippant young men, inexperienced, rash, and unreasoning that never read the Constitution of the United States, laughter, or never largely comprehended a sinjrfe article of it if they did read it ? Renewed merriment. They undertake to say, the wisest and the weakest of them all, that there is an " irrepressible conflict " between slave labor and free labor ; that slave States and free States, after this grand experiment of seventy yoars of pea"0 a"d prosperity, can no longer live together ; and that we must now set to work to make them all slave or all free. These are the wise men who go about to the people asking them for the power of this mighty government, that they may make a war between the slave labor of fifteen States, which produce the cotton and other materials of manufacture, and the free labor of eighteen States, that live by it. These" wise men talk about the irrepressibility of supply and demand in manufacture and production, and they are ready to say to the millions of free laborers who live and support their families by working up the great staple of the South, (which can be produced nowhere but at the South, with involuntary negro labor, and is decreasing everywhere else ;) they are ready, by their wretched sectional policy, to say to those free, white millions in the Northern States, as well as the four million of spinners in England: Starve, perish, waste aivay, a whole generation of you, in order that we wise men may put a stop to slave negroes raising cotton 1 Oh 1 if some power could only give to these men the gift of that particular self-knowledge of which an ancient sage once boasted, what a blessing it would be to them and the country; for Socrates said, "My highest knowledge is to know my own ignorance." Laughter and applause. Instead even of his wisdom in their councils, Mr. Lincoln, the "original author and inventor " of that atrocious dogma of the irrepressible conflict, is made, their Presidential candidate. Mr. Halle tt having inadvertantly used the name Of Levi Lincoln, and. being corrected by the audience, remarked Did I say Levi, I beg his pardon, for he is a true patriot and for my own part, I wish there had been common sense enough in these three conventions that met to-day to have selected Levi Lincoln for the Governoishij) we would have whipped these irrepressible men clean through the State; but there is no practical common sense, now-a-days, in political parties. Laughter. I say thev have selected a candidate for no other reason under heaven j than that he avows that dogma of an irrepressible con flict between the labor ot the Jsorth and the south ; and they are in the expectation of electing him on that sectional platform. Yes, sir, the Democratic party have been fools enough, consummate fools enough, when they had the whole country in their hands, when this sectional enemy was standing behind them, so fair a mark that they could have kicked him put of doors, by simply striking him with two heels instead of one, great laughter, as they are now doing they were fools enough to open their columns, right and left, at Baltimore, to let Mr. Lincoln march through to the White House. And here we and the Union men all over : tfiA land, to this hour, stand canine at each other, and ! wondering whether Mr. Lincoln will, after all, get there. I say it is consummate folly; and some day the country will find out who have been the authors, and persistent adherents of this folly, and unless it is ! healed by union, it will be visited upon them as like! deviations from great Democratic principles have al-1 ways been visited upon men and parties who forget the paramount duty to their country. But, though! ' " - , i l rthe columns of the Democracy, as well as the Union men are thus owned to the right and left, their opponents have, as I have told you, such small specimens of men in the management of their affairs, and such a bad cause, that, upon my word, I believe they will make a blunder, and he won't get there, after all 1 O, how easily Pennselvania and New York could close up the column by union, and head him offl Great applause. Why, men of this Union, we are called upon now to change the whole policy of this country, as I have imperfectly traced it, from the purchase of Louisiana to the present time that policy by which we have gone ou expanding our territory and letting the negro alone simply saying to the Southern men, " There is territory if you insist upon your right to go and try your negro there ; if you can make money with him there, you will keep him there if not, you will be glad enough to get rid of him if he doesn't run away from you, you will have to run away from him I " Amd if he only gets into a place where negroes bring ten per cent profit, you will find plenty of Yankees there forthwith, buying them up and working them. Talk of this specious, extra morality of the North, as against the morality and religious sense of the Southern men. It is Pharisaical hypocrisy ; but I will not go into that subject it come rather too near home to u all.

NON-INTERVENTION VS. SQUATTER. SOVEREIGNTY.nd now, you will indulge me further in taking a what graver view of these issues which I think

needlessly divide the Democracy on these rather the- . . . . , .,,, a nlatform. Tho Cincinnati platform is plain enough and sound in every word of it on tho Territorial issues. The North was satisfied with it, but the South wanted an explanation of conflicting constructions. Was that unreasonable 1 Some Democrats had undertaken to explain that platform in another way than its plain interpretation. The South simply asked of us of the North what we meant by this platform. Was it not fair to answer? Has a man any faith or opinion for which, when he is questioned, he is not willing to give a reason ? " Do you mean squatter sovereignty, or not," they ask, " by that platform ? " A portion of the Convention refused to answer, and then came a severance. Another portion of that Convention, which met in the Maryland Institute, did answer, and they answered that "the Cincinnati platform meant precisely what we have said it meant that it meant simply that every man of the South, owning property, should have the same right to go, with his property, into the common territories of the country, that a man owning property at the North has to go 'there with his property; and that both were equally entitled to protection under the Constitution." j That is the whole explanation of the Cincinnati plati form; and was it not fair to make it ? Let us see how the two candidates understand it. c0lmtl-y has witnessed in this canvass what lias rarel .fore-candidates for the Presidency addiissins the people from the stump. Without cen suring Mr. Douglas for having taken the first step, it is sufficient to say that the call made upon Mr. Breckinridge, by his home constituency, was such that he could not refuse to make a public explanation of his opinions. His opposing candidate has replied to that speech. I confess that I am sorry to have to say that such able and brave champions ot the Democracy as Breckinridge and Douglas should be opponents. Such a state of things should never have existed, and should not exist longer; but there the fact stands, and we must deal wiih it as it is. Mr. Douglas says that the objection made to him by Mr. Breckinridge is, that he is the representative of a dogma, which dogma is the principle of non-intervention, by Congress, with slavery in the Territories, and for that reason the split was made at Baltimore. That, allow mo to say, is a great mistake. The National Democracy which supports Mr. Breckinridge, and Mr. Breckinridge himself, affirm, adhere to, and maintain the doctrine of "non-interference" vith slavery in the Territories as the corner-stone of their Ter ritorial policy. The heresy of the squatter sovereignty dogma consists in this that it is only halt-way non-intervention, and makes lipn-intcrvention devour itself. It restricts Congress from prohibiting, hut licenses the lernionai Legislature to prohibit anil destroy. Congress, it says, shall not intervene with all its power, but a petty Legislature, the creature of Congress, and paid per diem by Congress, may intervene as a sovereign. Citizens of the South may go with their slave property into the Territories, iii spite of all the power of Congress to prohibit, but the Territorial Legislature may disfranchise the slaveholder and take away his property as soon as he gets there. That is the dogma which Mr. Breckinridge condemns. His doctrine of non-intervention is entire and complete that neither Congress nor the Territory shall intervene to impair or destroy the equal nir his ot hi Mates in he common territory.- this is his precise language" Hands off the whole subject of slavery by the Federal Government, except for one or t so protective purposes mentioned in the Constitutionthe equal right of sections in the common territory, and the absolute power of each new State to settle the question in its constitution. These," he adds, "are mv doctrines and those of our platform and, what is more, they are the doctrines of the Constitution." Now is this not open and square, manly, and above all misconstruction? Congress shall not intervene to prohibit or destroy ; the Territory shall not intervene to prohibit or destroy. The constitution of the new Slate shall alone lay down the fundamental law of Popular Sovereignty. That it is which gives significance to the rallying cry which our gallant leader has given the country "the Constitution and the Equality of the States." Now, then, IS SLAVE LABOR PROPERTY? Yes, says the Constitution ; yes, says the Supreme Court. We stand upon that constitutional fact. Slave labor in fifteen States of this Union is property. It was property in every State in the Union when the Constitution was formed, and by that Constitution was allowed to be imported as property,. subject to duties for twenty years by each State that choie to hold such property. Yes, sir, the trade in slaves as property was made a lawful commerce for twenty years by the votes of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Humpshire, against the protest of Virginia. Those three States voted with Maryland, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, iu the affirmative Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, in the negative 7 to 4. And this property so acquired and legalized under the Constitution, has ceased to be property in any one of the States of this Union, only by some. Constitution or State law abolishing it. It is property in the labor of the slave, not in the man himself there is no such thing as property hi man, permitted by any Southern law that exists ; it is property in the labor of the man. This is the distinction'; and that fact may do away with a good deal of the sentimentality about "property in men." You have property in horses or oxen, and may kill them, and nobody say you nay. Is there any such property in man, in any State of the Union ? No; there is no ! property in rxian; it is properly in his labor; and anyone who has an apprentice, or a minor son, has, to a certain extent, property in that apprentice or child. Now, then, we come to the "equal rights of the j States" in the common territory. Somebody has asked me if this "equal right" is not - .... . , .. . . ... .i . a slave code for the .territories, i wm answer mat, question. What we mean by equal rights of the States in the Territories, is the equal right of all citizens to settle in that common territory and take with them their property, and that is whatever is lawfully their property m the States from which they go. This only can be equal right all over the Union in regard to the Territories. A Massachusetts man can carry to Kansas everything he owns here as. movable property Why shall not a Georgia man do the same? You say he shan't carry slaves there because you don't own slaves in Massachusetts; but he has no advantage over you, for you can buy slaves if you like in any slave State on your way to Kansas, and thus have the same riglit he lias. It won't do for you to say it hurts your feelings. So it hurts the feelings of Methodists or Baptists if a Roman Catholic or an Episcopalian should take with him and use the Missal or Book of Common Prayer, but that is no argument against equal rights of conscience in religion. Now, then, the Ljgie follows inflexibly that if the States are to have eqiialrights in the Territories, they must have equal rights to carry there every species of lawful property, llence if labor in a colored man is lawful property in a State, it follows he can be carried as property into a Territory. Now take the next step in the argument and if the equal rights of the States require having an equal right in slave States to go with slave propertv which free States have to go with their property into the common Territory, does it not follow that all must have the right not only to emigrate with their property, but also, not to get robbed of it as soon as they get there ? Why shall the Northern emigrant be protected from robbery of his property anv more than the Southern eniigiant ? I that equality ?

NO. 34.

The only way to jump this logic clean over the Constitution is to go with the extreme Black Republicans, who deny the existence of property in man everywhere. I have studied this question earnestly, and I can see no middle geound between the two propositions. Either the anti-slavery doctrine of no - property - in stave labor is rignt, or our aocrnnc i? right, that the emigrant into Territories shall be protected from robbery of his property of that description, the same as all others are protected against robbery of their property. And that is all that is meant by protection in the Territories, and if we mean to be fair and constitutional and national, we must all admit that it is no more legal, just or right to rob the Southern man in the Territories of his slave property than to rob a Northern man of his horses and oxen. " Equality of the States" means no such thing as a slave code by Congress to protect slave property any more than it means a cattle code to protect property in cattle; but it does meart that there shall be no such slave code in the Territories or in Congress as will drive the slaveholder out of the Territory, or rob him of his, property when he gets there. That is the slave code which our opponents go for, and against such an unjust code comes, with sound logical force, the resolution of the National Democratic Convention at Baltimore, which affirms " that it is the duty of the Federal Government, in all its departments, to protect, when necessary, the rights of persons and property in the Territory, and wherever else its constitutional authority extends." That is every word in the Baltimore plallo. m explanatory of the Cincinnati platform which alludes to protection of property in the Territories. And here let me add that it only affirms tho same proposition in the Cincinnati platform, for that 'plaU form declares, in so many words, " that every citizen and every section of the country has a right to demand and insist upon an equality of rights and privileges, and to complete and ample protection of person and property." That provision covers the precise 'equality of the States" which Mr. Breckinridge and the platform on which he is nominated affirms. And really I should be glad to be informed how any man of common sense and constitutional honesty can deny the manifest duty of the General Governmcrt to exercise all its constitutional authority wherever it extends, to protect, when necessary," the rights of persons and property under the Constitution. The whole question is, does the Constitution give this protection ? If it does not, there is an end of the question. If it does, then it is the duty of Government lo enforce it. And hence I say, because logic says so, that there is no middle ground between the denial that the Constitution recognizes and guarantees slave labor as property, and the admission of the power of protection under the Constitution the same as is extended to all other property. And so has the Supreme Court authoritatively interpreted the Constitution, and that puts an end to all controversy on this point with men who regard law and respect, magistracy. Again, the issue is not that a Southern party or any party desires to use the General Government k force slavery upon a people who do not want it, but it is that the equal rights of the States in the Territories under the Constitution demand that a Territorial Legislature shall not rob citizens who go into Territories to settle with their property. Now, as I understand it, there are three propositions maintained touching the equal rights of the Slates in the Territories; 1. Tho Republicans contend that Congress shall prohibit the South going into any Territory with slave labor, and shall expel them or confiscate their property if they do go there. This is a plump denial of all right. 2. The squatter sovereignty dogma, which is directly opposed to popular sovereignty, affirms that the South may go into the Territories with their property but they shall have no security from robbery and cou, fiscation by the Legislature when they go there. - 3. The National Democrats, North and South, who mean to hold this Union together under the Constitution, maintain that the right existing to go there with slave labor as property neither Congress shall prohibit nor the Territorial Legislature destroy the rights of property. And this affirms just what the Cincinnati platform declares, viz: "tho riglit of the people of the Territories, (not the Legislature) whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a Constitution with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms 'of perfect equality with the other States." And here I affirm, as I have done on other occasions, that having the honor to draft that platform, and having some riglit to understand it, there is no such idea as squatter sovereignty in it. Squeeze it, and put it under the irrepressible conflict, and you can't get a particle of squatter sovereignty out of it. Applause. Nowhere does it recognize any power iu a mere Territorial Legislature to prohibit slavery or to abolish slavery. The popular sovereignty which it affirms is that great paramount populap sovereignly of a people which exist only when they begin to frame a Constitution of Government, and that is the right of self-government which belongs to the people of a Territory as it belonged to every State in the Union when it first had the power to frame a Constitution, and never before. Popular sovereignty can exist no where but in a sovereign State of this Union, and the right of sovereignty begins only when the people have a right to frame a Constitution of self-government and are admitted into the Union. All other attempts to exercise popular sovereignty is either rebellion or revolution. And this leaves the people of a Territory "perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Now, then, we National Democrats, believing in the Constitution, and its interpretation by the Supreme Court, stand upon our political faith in the equality of the States. We say leave the common Territory open to settlers with their property from all the States. They will carry such property owned at home as they please, and the people of the Territory will be left free, without robbery, without theft, without, civil war, and without revolution, to grow up to the point where they are fit to make a Constitution, forming their domestic institutions by the laws of profit and loss, supply and demand, adaptation or unfitness of climate and soil, until they are large enough to frame a Constitution, and then popular sovereignty can put in it what the people please. The difference between the Congressional prohibition of the Republicans and the Territorial prohibition is against the South in the latter. Squatter Sovereignty says Congress shall not prohibit, Dut the moment a citizen gets there with his slaves the Territory may take them away ! Which is the mast honest? which is the fairer to the Southerner? Let auy of you put the case to himself. Tran.-port yourself to Georgia, and liecome the owner of a hundred slaves. You desire to go to Kansas or New Mexico with vour slaves. You wish to know what your rights will be. You come to the North and ark the Republican party what they are going to do. " We are going to paa a law prohibiting jou from going there with your slaves at ali." Well, 1 understand that." You go lo the squatter sovereignty party, and ask them what equal rights they intend to permit you to have. uCongress shall let vou go into the. Territory with your slave property,'' is the answer. " And what will you do with me when 1 get there?" "We will extinguish all the slaveholders, and steal your negroes the moment you get there Do you not say, " I would rather have a law that doesn't put me to "the trouble of going there with my slaves, than to have the pretended right to take them there, at my expense, to be atolen?" Such a course as this would be dibonest to the South. Do you wonder that the South will not endure it ? Not one of vou -would submit to it if placed in their portion. Therefore, we wy that the only fair and