Rensselaer Gazette, Volume 3, Number 20, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 September 1859 — political. [ARTICLE]

political.

SPEECH OF ISON. THUS. CORWIN, At Ironton, 0., August 19, 1859. [We devote a large portion of our space this week td> copious extracts from the speech of Hon. Thomas Corwin at Ironton, Ohio. Mr. Corwin has always been con-_ sidered as sympathizing with the American movement, (although he voted for Colonel ' Fremont in 1856,) and he is supposed to represent the views of the liberal portion of the American party in Ohio. He is nowstumping the State, electioneering for the Republican State ticket. Mr. Dennison, j Republican candidate for Governor had just .•■ddreUw-d the meeting, when Mr. Corwin . i spoke as follows:] - . LETROSI’i'.CTIVE. 1 Wh’at have you been doing now, to go no | further back than the last few years—six- | teen or seventeen’ All of you ol mature, age, retftembier the vear 1840 very well.’ What did all the people of the United States; do then? They rose up, and with mingled; feelings of merriment and indignation —for it was difficult to tell which prevailed that ' vei.r. the events of the administration ol Gen. Van Buren had been so s'ngularly out of the way, nowise* conformable to anj’body’s notions of things, it was difficult to i say whether it was looked at with indignation, contempt, or merriment; every one of the officers was running away with the people’s money- —you know how we used to ’wist his song-legged measures (laughter)"— and three-quarters of the people started up and declared, we will have no more Democratic government; we will have Whig government. The principles upon which these two parties were contending, then, foryour suffrages, were diametrically opposed;' upon due deliberation and solemn considera-. ti*.>ll, (for Ido hope you sometimes consider these things) it was determined by an unex- ; anipled maj rity of the country, that, hence- ; forth. Whigs-and their principles should be tlie rule of conduct in the United States. It was so! Ymir decree, when you make it, is ' always omnipotent. Four years pass away —they go by—and - what happenacthen? You have again to appoint a President of this great joint st ck company of ours. The people have two men, presented to them. One has been alluded to by my friend, Mr. Dennison—Mr. Clay, ol Kentucky—a man who has been I spoken of so much, that it would be idle to attempt to employ terms adequate to express the feelings with which one who knew him as well as I did, regarded the great loss I we have sustained by his death; a man of; whom the nation was proud, a man who had a European reputation, who was regarded as the great champion of regulated liberty, by men of intelligence, all over the world; in addition to this he had endowunents which it has pleased God very rarely to give t i mortal man,an integrity as pure as the highest integrity of the highest and best of the ancient people who have descended to us as demi-gods. Nobody questioned this in the election at all. It was named and repeated every hour. He did not. like the annexation of Texas to the Unitxrd States; not because he himself had any personal objection to any accumulation o's Slave States in the country, but because he believed that it would disturb the harmony of the Republic as it then existed. The harmony and prosperi’y iof this land were to him the idols of his ; heart. Another man was also presented to 'the American people—-a very ordinary man. |(I wish to speak ol him in no terms of dis- ! pa: ageineht.) You al! know something of i Mr. Polk, lie never pretended to be the equal of Mr. Clay. Mr. Poke dilf re I with ■ Ilin on this subject. lie desired that t lat i in li’pendentßepublic. living under the shadiow of our wing, slimiltl be annexed to the United States. He was a Detnocr tof the Democrats. I knew him w’ell. You know that I speak truly of his history. As a politician he was opposed to everything now proposed by the Opposition in the slave States, and by the Republican party in the free States, as to the proper system of gov ernment in this country. Well, Clay proposed to the country to continue the Whig government begun by Mr. Harrison, and but partially carried out by his successor. You had determined fouryears before that henceforward we would only have Whig princi pies and Whig rulers. Four years passed by, and with the mighty difference between the two men, you determined by a very large majority you would have no more Whig government, even when yon could have the i pleasure an-d the pride of voting for one of ' the greatest statesmen the world ever knew. I The stockholders have changed their opinion

greatly in these four years, or else they did not vote their principles at all. Well, as we know human nature is ful] of imperfection, and men are gaining light every day in the world, we fondly hoped by the school-houses and churches, that we had erected, we would gel some intelligence. VVe would begin to suppose that we were mistaken in 1840, and that we had learned that the Democratic was the true rule of government in the country. Four years more rolled round,which brings us to 1848. The country, in the mean time, had been involved in a foreign war, and it is very rare, when the ambition of a nation is concerned and that ambition is put. into conflict with another nation, it is very rare that the men of the nation do not take sides with him who wages the war. Mr. Polk was to be re-elected, or rejected. What did we in 1848? Wit'n about the same unanimity as before, we declared that we would have no more Democratic government, we will have a Whig government, even though we have l o deposit this great power of statesmanship in the hands of a man fresh from the battlefield, who was never in the councils of his country. The stockholders have changed back again! Four years more rolled around, conies upon us, and finds us still increasing in light and knowledge. Mind, in 1848 we jumped back just eightyears. We found, I suppose, that the light had been leading us astray —that we failed in 1844. Now we are at the sjand-point of 1840 again. Instead t.f continuing our resolution to continue a Whig government, we have found out that we were mistaken a second time, and we take not General Scott, by no means an ordinary man. He was a Whig, .nd you put away that, illustrious General and that eminently qualified statesman, and took a man ho, it is true, had been on a battle-field, and on his back on a battle-field. (Laughter.) He was such a brave man that he couliTlie down and just drop off his horse on the bat-tle-field. I rrish to speak in no way disrespectful of Mr. Pierce, but I say that you fell so much in love with Democratic government, that you threw away a Whig who was eminently qualified as a statesman and renowned as a warrior, and took a man not renowned in either way. A go-df.vil illustration. Now this, and all of this, is applicable to all of us. What would you think of any man—to illustrate—of any farmer, who would make one ot those fine patent plows and plow down his barren ground, and raise a good crop upon his land which he had thrown aside as useless. He gathers his crop into the garner, reaps the reward of his labor, thanks God for his fruitful harvest and pockets the money it brings to him; and that same man, when he had another crop to raise, should say, “By that plow I got a good crop, a better one than I expected, but as I have the power to do as 1 please with my own land, I will try the old ‘go-devil’ plow this year.” You all know what a “go-devil” is. You know it is a harrow with three prongs, a very good thing in its way, but by no means a good thing to break up ground with. (Laughter.) Well, he takes his “go devil” and he kicks his ground about, and he gets no crop, and tell you he can’t get much ot a crop that way, anyhow. Well, he gets in debt,- He says: “Well, I was a great fool to take that‘go-devil;’ I will get that patent plow to work again.” The third year he uses that plow again, and he gets a good crop, and gets out of debt. He gets his money into his pocket, and goes to his thanksgiving dinner,* eats his turkey am! thanks God for his goodness. The fourth year, however, he says: “Have I not. a right to do as I please! 1 will take that old ‘goth vil' again.” (Laughter.) That is precisely what you the people of the United States have done with your power of voting. That is exactly what you have done. Do you wonder that those veteran old statesmen in Europe, such fellow as Metternich, or Walewski, in France, and Palmerston and Derby, in England, who have read over and over again all that is said about popular government and all that has been written, and have seen it always remarked that especial care must be taken to o-uai-d against the carelessness and vacillation of the people—do you wonder when those old fellows see what you have done, how you have acted with the exercise of this right of suffrage, as if you did not care what became of your country, or did not know what ought to be done, changing four times in four successive elections from Whig to Democrat and from Democrat to Reptib(ican, should despise your discretion ! It seems as if you did not know how to do —this work. Do you suppose that any man that, was to act with his plows as I have stated to you

could ever make a will in the world! I tell you no judge would allow such a man’s will to go on record, because such a man must be insane. If that min was to make a deed of a house and lot, ami his heirs were to prove this, it would be declared null and void. If his heirs should want to set aside such a man’s deed, let them send for me and I will set it aside before any intelligent jury in your country, because the man must be insane. Yet you have done the same thing with this right of voting. You have acted in_just that way, and now when we lift up our hands with indignation, at the bad conduct of our rulers, don’t let us blame the “go-devil” because he did not go twelve inches into the ground, because he can’t. That is what we have done. Let us cast the bean; out of our own eye, and then we will see clearly the mote that is in old Buck’s eye (laughter.) At least, it looks that way to a man up a tree (Jaiighter.) Now, my lellow citizens, it is because of this subject, and this absence of the exercise of that great office which we hold, and because Lam, as a man, interested in this matter, that' I have the impudence at all to come and speak to you on tlifs subject, We arc going to elect a President and Directors soon again, and I am interested in it, ami if you are weak enough to listen to me. I am going to tell you, as I have told others, something about that. The power of congress!. The opposition to Administration on the other side of the river have been chiefly concerned in a dispute as to what shall be done with the slave property in the South You have heard what friend Dennison has said. He says it is the doctrine and resolute determination ot the Republican party of Ohio, and he might have added, of all what is called the free Slates of the Union, to exert the power which they hold belongs to them, under the Constitution of the United States, by Congressional action to prohibit slavery in any Territory, where slavery does not already exist. My own impression is that that ought to be done. That is my belief about it. I am not so very particular about this, as a mere matter of doctrine, because I think that there will be much more important duties for us to perform when we get to Congress, than to dispute about this abstract proposition. Slavery exists, as you know, in certain portions of the United States. The only Territories that can ever be subject to slavery are those of Utah, New Mexico and Washington; that is, all we have got left. Kansas has settled the question for herself, after fighting a pretty hard battle, under this beautiful doctrine of “Squatter Sovereignty.” SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. Did any man ever-read the Constitution of the United States and find that phrase in it—Squatter Sovereignty I Yet it is said that it is a constitutional doctrine put in there. Now, do you suppose that if the men who made that Constitution, when they enacted the clause “Congress shall have power to make all needful rules and regulations for the government of the territories,” would not have just added that every Territory should have had ‘‘Squatter Sovereignty!” Don't you think that they would, my brother Democrats, you that have adopted this new doctrine! This is a new doctrine. It is only eleven years old. No man ever heard of it more than eleven or twele years ago —since 1847. I was there when it was done. I "was in the council of the nation when it was first started. You .perceive, my fellow-citizens, that there is ahistory belonging to this question, just the same as that theie is a history belonging to the Christian Church. What does every propagator of Christianity do when there is a a dispute about a text! If he can find out that St. Paul, Matthew, or or any of the Apostles cr Disciples ot Christ had that subject under consideration, ;r d gave an interpretation to it, by thett conduct cr words, he does not dispute about the philological criticism that could be made on the word. We have too much sense, if not too much conscience, for that; for all men are understood in the sense inwhich they use a word themselves. A man may use a word in common use, to mean very different from what the lexicon may give its meaning. So the men that made the Constitution said that “Congress shall have power to make all need'ul rules and regulations for the government ot the Teirit* ries.” These men were not common men. They knew that in every instrument in the world, men used words appropriate to the sense intended to be conveyed, and that they must use those words appropriate to the sense

I they would convey. If you were writing I about a fracture, and understood what a 1 fracture was, you would use the words of the books treating upon fractures; but an j unlearned man, by the same words, might i mean a very different thing. These men I were not only wise men, they were learned ; men. The man who reduced that Constitution to words was probably one of the i most learned men that ever lived under this i government—l refer to Governor Morris, then of New York, a very distinguished man.. They gave it to a committee, of 'Which he was chairman, to put in the right , English words; and you will observe, there is i not half as much “hifalutin” in it, as you ' have heard from me since I stood here. (Laughter.) Governor Morris knew that | Sir William Biackstone had written four I volumes of commentaries on law in Eng- ; land. He knew that all the lawyers that i would expect to use this instrument as law, i would expect to see in it those words com--1 mon to law, and he would look to See what Blackstone meant by “rule,” when spoken 'of in ri'iercnce to the legislature. .Congress was the national legislature. Sir William i Black-tone asks the question, What is law! I and says it is a rule of action, prescribed by , the superior power of the State, cotninand- ] ing that which is good and prohibiting that : which is evil. Law is only a “rule,” prescribed by the legislative power. When they said, then, that Congress should have power to make all needful “rules,” they added‘“regulations,^which is but a synonlyi't for “rule” —for the Latin word regula is interpreted to be ru-le. What did they mean by that word when they came to act upon it! That is the question I would propound to my friends over the river. This is a question of law about v.hich on one side they hold one opinion, and this side they entertain another. I appeal from any interpretation put upon it in the latter days of the Church, and go back to the Apostles . and see what they mean. If I can find that out, no man shall come in the way of my following them. THE OLD AND THE NEW. They say that Congress has no power to make laws for the Territories. That is Mr. ; Douglas’ idea, I believe—not that I under- ■ derstaiid it so —but I understand that some ' Douglas Democrats think it is. I have been trying to find out from my fellow-citi-zens of the Democratic creed, what they mean by “Squatter Sovereignty.” Now, in j the 1803, you know we acquired the Territory of Louisiana from France; at the same time slavery was in it, as one of its domestic institutions. I say they had a right to the terms of the treaty under which we acquired it, to come into the Union with slavery, for Napoleon, the First Consul, I would not sign the treaty unless that was in ; it. Slavery being in Louisiana, Congress thought, by the terms of the treaty, that j they had no right to expel it. Tlje treaty i was tliQ supreme law of the land; the faith ! to the nation required that they should come i in, but in the meantime they were a Terri(tory. Now, you will observe that by the ; Constitution the slave trade was allowed to Igo on for twenty years, within a State, but ' in 1804, getting hold of this 3’erritory pecu- ; liarly interested in the importation of ne- ; groes, Congress believing slavery ought not to be extended, passed a law prohibiting the importation of slaves into the Territory of Louisiana. Many men were in Congress that year who helped to make the Constitui tion. What, they understood by Congress making rules and fegu lat ions I tt Territories was that Congre-s-sb.oulii m ike laws. They I understood that and practiced upon it, and I prohibited Louisiana from importing slaves. They did not say to the Territory of Louisiana, you have “Squatter Sovereignty,” do !as you please, did they ? Such a tiling was never thought of. There was not even a i demagogue wild enough to utter such a ( thing. The old men that made the Constitution were there, and they knew they were present to confront them. They enacted a law, saying that any man who took a negro into that Territory for sale, should pay a fine of three hundred dollars, which was then] about the value of a negro. They did not do that in a State, they did not pretend to do it; but they had omnipotent power over the Territories, and they acted over the Territories as if they were in a legislative capacity, making laws for a State in the State. MONROE AND HIS TIMES. That they did in 1803-4-5. They had also some little experi nee at a later date. This same Territory of Louisiana forms a State and calls it Missouri. Their southern line was described by saying it should be on 36 deg. 30 min.—that it was the southern line of the State of Missouri, a part of this Louisiana purchase. This was about the

year 1820. You know who was the President. It was during, ohe of those halcyon periods of our country to which all of us so much love to refer; we had gone through the second war with Great Britain, and although not always triumphant, we had vindicated our right to demand ot Great Britain that she should not impress our eeamefl and compel them to serve in her navy. We made peace upon honorable terms at last. Mr. Madison had retired from the Presidential chair, and it was filled by Mr. Monroe. Missouri was told by the vote of Congress that she must take her Constitution back and expunge from it the article concerning slavery. The country was then in a state of great agitation. It was then held that Congress might, or might not, admit a State as she pleased. I know she has power to declare war against the whole human race, to-morrow. I know she has the power to refuse any State—she might have refused admission .to Ohio in 1803, but the question is whether it is her duty or right to do so. I say a State has a right, when she forms a Constitution for her internal government, to make it after her own wishes. That is not a matter of much account now, because the question will ■ never arise. JOiik Q. ADAMS ON TREATIES. In 1821, therefore, Missouri came back and said, we will not expunge that article, and we demand admission upon our ConstiI tution, because it was in the treaty that we [should be admitted upon an equality with the other States of the Union, and the Constitution says that a treaty shall be the supreme law of the land. I can show you that old John Quincy Adams held to the truth of this. I suppose that my friends who are very much given to free-soilistn—-who are strong abolitionists— will not deny that old Mr. Adams was “some pumpkins” in his way, that he even backed Slavery; he had gone through" a- terrible conflict about the right of petition, and if angry opposition could have moved the understanding of that old man, he might have changed many an opinion upon that subject, but when Arkansas came to be admitted, that very man, aitt?ng by the side of me, rose up at four o’clock in the morning, quoted the treaty, and offered a resolution in about these words: “Resolved, That in admitting Arkansas, with Slavery, into the Union, we do not intend to say that we approve of Slavery.” The resolution, of course, was voted down. He then said, I must vote for Arkansas to come into the Union with her Slavery.) Why? Because my country’s honor is con-* cerned in the matter. The treaty gives them the right to come in with or without Slavery, and he voted for the admission'of Arkansas, as I did—as the Quakers say in their discipline, “I did it by convincement,” although I don't approve of slavery in any country where a white man can live. (I don’t say that I approve of it any way, and may give my reasons by and by.) THE CABINET DECISION. Wei), now in 1822, Mr. Monroe being President, this law came to his cabinet for I his signature. There had been a violent [controversy, and all the problems that could [cluster around and between the interests of i the free and slave States, had been discussed iby some of the ablest men in the world. Mr. Monroe asked his cabinet to give him, every man,their opinions upon this question, “Has Congress the power to prohibit Slavery in the Territories north of 36 deg. 30 min’” Who were in the cabinet! Let us see if tlmy were equal to the men who have iched this modern idea—l speak of all . men concerned in propagating this doci trine. John Quincy Adams was Secretary of State; William H. Crawford, a slave-hold-er, of Georgia, Secretary of the Treasury; John C. Calhoun —my Democratic friend, my partner, my brother, you that believe in “Squatter Sovereignty,” was not John CCalhoun a man of considerable head, and ( was he not a great friend to Slavery, as much l as any of you can be! He was Secretary of War. William Wirt—l wonder if the young lawyers now-a-days who adopt this new idea of “Squatter Sovereignty,” young gentlemen only let loose from school yesterday, and who in a course of study have looked so far as to read Espinasse’s Nisi Prius, two or three chapters in Blackstone’s Commentaries, Swan’s Treaties on Justices of the Peace, and Wilc ox’s Forms—certainly they i know more of this thing than Mr. Wirt, a | man who was born in a slave State, and, as I tint Tennesseeans sometimes say, “rared” up in a slave State, educated to the highest point of qualification of the hunian faculties, with a heart open as charity itself to every impression, and with a cultivated head, as I have said, the like of which has rarely appeared among the most distinguished of our jurists and statesmen; he was Attorney General. S. L. Southard, of New Jersey, was Secretary of the Navy. John McLean was Postmaster General, but at that time, that office was not a Cabinet office. Do you remember these men! Do you know anything about them! If you do, do you see no evidence of the decadence that takes-place in the public men of our times? Write down those names, read their biographies, and then write down the names of the present Cabinet, and then compare them. The one generation has gone away. I say nothing disrespectful of these men; I think that they areabout the best Buchanan could get; hut of course those gentlemen nearer-to•

the ti-me whe-n the Constitution was made than we are, would know a little better what was meant by it than we would. Monro-, himself did not entertain a do,.bt upon the•ubjeet (and he was something of a man.) that if any Legislature Could expel or admit Slavery into the Territories, Congress could do lt. There was no other legislative function to be performed by any body, and no I body to perform t. Mr. Wirt, Mr. Son'h*rd, Mr. Adams, Mr. Calhoun-, Mr, CraW’ord, all of them agreed. Some of these gentlemen I had the honor to know, and I do not - knojyof those who held to the doctrine <> the Bred Scott decision, any that could be •aid to be their equal, or the eq >al of any or them. It was so in 1823. I ask you, my fellow citizens, is there ever to be an en.i oi this qu •slion! What d >es the judge tell you when he decides a case! He tells you in the language of the law that -~‘it is expedient lor the country that there •houid be an end to the question.” Your law - titles depend upon that. Would you not consider it strange if twenty years after another court should come .and decide the contrary’ A sensible court would say thi.has been decided twenty years ago, argued legally, and “it is expedient for the country that; there should be an end to the question.” If you want t > have a writen Constitut on that you can rely on at all, you must have an interpretation put upon the words, and let it read that way until the people choose to change it by altering the words, otherwise a written Constitution will be made to read this thing one year, and another thing another,year. It war settled then in 1803, in 1805, in 1822 in th great issouri restriction, by the judgment solemnly given of an entire Cabinet, one of ttie profoundest lawvers we have known in the country being Attornev General. WISCONSIN AND MICHIGAN. But what else did you do about it? I tell you 'you did right on the same thing to the year 1850. In the year 1836 Wisconsin came as a Territory; you organized her.' Michigan came as a Territory, and you or-1 gunited her, and you provided n that organic i law, that while the Legislature might‘make laws and send them to you, if Congress disapproved of those laws, they should be null and Void. President Jackson signed bills of thia kind. Did not “Old Hickory” know a thing or two about this matter ! President Adams signed such a bill—both the Adamses signed such bills; Monroe sighed such blils; Madison signed bills like it. Alloftho.e bills involving that question, and all deciding them one way, and even in 1850, in that compromise, as it was called, it is enacted that New Mexico and Utah shall send theii laws to Congress, and if Congress disapproved of them-, they should be null and v«id. Now, my brother Democrat, what becomes of your “Squatter Sovereignly!” Do you know more than all those men! Are you egotistic enough to believe that you understand the words of the Constitution better than all the statesmen, public men, lawyers, and private men that have lived before you for seventy years! Have you that confidence in yourself’ If you have, God have mercj* Upon you! You are past praying, and lam done. (Laughter.) folk's doctrine. Don’t you know we acquired the Territory of California under Polk’s administration,' and put the Wilmot proviso on it! Did not Polk know as much about it as Mr. Dou- ; glai? Did not Jackson know as much about thia thing as Stephen A. Douglas! Did not Mr. Monroe and his cabinet! So far about the legislative power on-this question. THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION. The question came up from Florida in perhaps 1824 or 1826, in the case of Canter j against an Insurance Company. You will, find the case in Howard’s Reports. John! Marshall was Chief Justice of the United, Slates then. Mr. Story was on trie bench;! a man whose law books on the subject of ; our laws, and on the subject of law and chan eery in gener I, have been read with the highest'commendation of any man that has overwritten law books during the last century, in the Court of King’s Bench in West minster) Hall. John Marshall was on the .bench, and the man that does not know something of him ought not to be allowed to vote. The very question was brought into the: Court as to whether a lav. being made by a Territory was valid or not. The Court sjaid it was not; tint there was no power under Heaven to make laws in a Territory bu Congress. Now, my bro.her Democrat, what was the reasoning of Cine! Justice Marshall! He was n<> >poi; but, ii th re was an intellect ever vouuhs:*. -U by G d to man. that was competent to unr-.v 1 the sophist ics of men, it Was John Marsh til to whom it was •riven. Why, he said, how is this; how cun this be! I Congi ess has ttie power to acquire territory ■by treaty, and who will the territory be con•veyted to! To the Territory! No! To any •State? No! To the United States the cession iis ,-ma-le. Mexico conveys New Mexico and CaMornia to the United States. What .follows? ii there is any law to be made for ■that Tertitcuj that was yesterday a foreign 'Tewupnyidt is by the legislativie department of the government to whom the Territory is .conveyed. -What is the legislative department of the government of the U nited States i Congress! That was his reasoning. It is very simpile.very plain, and utterly and hopelessly conclusive against those who have got up this new doctrine. Well, is inot .that-enough? Must there ittet.be ,end to .the -question some day? Must we sot ..know -some day what is the meaning of our 'Constitution! For sixtyfour years the Courts of the United Sta es have so .decided, and'Congress has so decided, and- Cabinet Ministers have so decided; Presidents, of every complexion and degree of political partisanship.,-have agreed to it, powbill.ajt once, we throw it away, and we are told tfaattiUey did.nut know anything •bqut it aJI Jhe time. That ,ia pitying at the old game of “go-devil” and pateox plow, over agjun. Tiejtt year suppose Chief Justice Taney 4o die. Will not thnt.dediaion be reversed! Now I wish you -to under at ar. d that I don’t believe that the Court has decided that question at all),.because the question was not before it, and we never regard a decision of a court updn any point of law, unless that point was in the case. But if they have, what hare they done"’ Overruled their own

f decision: overruled their predecessors—and - such predecessors. I hold to the judgment lof Marshall, my brother Democrat, before that of Mr. Tart -y, if he has decided it. I held it is a Case where every brother has a right to hl’s private judgment, seeing that the same court has decided otherwise, when they Were more likely to know more about i it than we do or can. DOUGLAS AGAINST SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. Well, my friends, have you ever seen the honey bee. after having sipped honey from the rose, th ■ carnation or the j iponica, light down upon the Jarned >wn weed and finish its meal! I have seen it when a boy, and wondered why it did not commence on that and top off with the best. lam about to do something of that kind. lam coming from the sayings of a great man to the sayings of a man not quite so great. Here is a speech delivered June 2d: “Sir.” said he, “1 do not hold the doctrine that to exclude any species of property by iaw from any Territory, is a violation of any right of property. Do you not exclude hanks from the most of the Territories??’ Yes, and I was on the Committee of Territories once, when Wisconsin sent a law with five or six bunks. I voted for them, but the Democratic brethren associated with me. nullified the law. It went back to the Territory,and squatter sovereignty that it was, it ceased to be a law. “Do you not,” continues he, “exclude whisky from being introduced into large porti >ns of the Territories!” Do you take up Washington Territory, and it there is a tribe of Indians in it, and any man sells them whisky, ’hey go back to a law of 1802, and punish The man for doing it. That law was made by Congress, yet they say Congress has no right to make the laws for the government of anybody in the Territories But the In dian Intercourse act instituted by Jefferson himself, is in force in every Territory, and “Squatter Sovereignty” veils her diadem, and then it is in humble compliance for the United States to make the laws. If the Terr tories have the righty to make laws for the Territories, why don’t you say to the people: Sell what you pleas. ! Squatter Sovereignty did not think of that. Squ itter Sovereignty : s but a youth yet, and he had no time to think about that. Possibly he will think over these things some day, gather himself up and slink away. The speech continues tab'es, which are property, recognized as such in many of the States, are they tolerated in your organic laws! And has any one found that the exclusion of ardent spirits was a violation of any constitutional privilege or right!” Yet you will perceive that the gentleman is.so certain of his conclusions that he puts them into the interrogatory form. “And vet it is the case in a large portion of Territorv of the L‘."”?<! States, but there is no outcry about it.” ‘‘The law also prohibits certain other descriptions of business from being carried on in the Territories. 1 am not therefore, prepared to say that under I the Constitution we have no power to pass : laws excluding~Slavery from a Territory.” My brother Democrat, who do you suppose s'id that! I said something like it, but I did not say that. That was the speech of Stephen A. Douglas in 1850. You can read it in your books in the debate. A Voice—Just before he sprung the trap. Mr. Cornwin—l don’t say that, but I believe it, though. Well, now 1 have given you, my fellowcitizens, as it has been decided by every department, of the government for sixty years, upon the doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty—the decision against it by the very man who is now appealed to as the leader of that doctrine. He has changed his opinion; he wants to get back to the “go-devil.” That is what he is after. Douglas is a respectable gentleman, and a man of considerable talent—so am I, (laughter;) but I differ with him on that point, a.id I have the advantage of standing by the side of Washington, who put his hand upon my head and said: “Mv son, you are right;” and 1-id his hand on Stephen’s head, and said: “You must go to school.” T-'at is what Washington, Jefferson. Madison, M'>nr-e, J ickson and Calhoun would say, too. While 1 am in company like that. I am content to remain. I say this, if it be the constitutional rule that the Constitution of the country carries the relation ot m ister and slaves into the Territories, it is the bouden duty of Congress to n-ake laws to protect that right. I cannot comprehend that a man has any conception of tiie harmony that was to reign in our country that, don’t believe that. If they Can establish that proposition, that the sacred panoply of the Constitution cu r ries slavery into Kansas and Nebrrska, what Squatter Sovereignty dare raise its paracidal hand to destroy its validity. Has it provided that a man sha 1 have the right to go wherever a State Constitution does not prohibit it, and sit down and exercise dominion over the black man who was his slave in Virginia, upon the theory that a focal legislature shall overrule the Constitution and destroy it! What sort ot a Ki kenny cat fight is that, swallowing each oth.'r! It is revolting to a man’s common sense. I can’t treat it with patience. I cannot a:gue with a man that will say you have armed the government to commit suicide—it must kill itself, it shall kill itself. Oh! 1 have nothing to say upon that. I won’t condescend to mention it again to a sensible man. If the Constitute >n carries it there, it is sale there. No State or Territorial Legislature can touch it; but if the Constitution is as they say, it carries it there only to remain us a visitor-*—goes there to rest itself a little while, but as scion as the Territory seeks to be a State, take nj? your niggers and walk Spanish, for they cun drive you out. (Liughter.) I don’t like to say much about that, because I like the. men on the other side of the river, who call themselves the Opposition to this Administration doctrine. NEW TERRITORY. If you won’t look into the decalogue which forbids you to covet your neighbor’s property, But will acquire more Territory, then the North will tell you you shan’t do it and carry your slaves there. I tell you that you may roast us at stakes until our fingers blaze in tne fires of martyrdom, like lighted candles, and we shall still believe it is better to have a free State, where white men can labor and live. It we are fools, we are fools forever, and there are two and a half mi I lions of just such fools in Ohio. All you t in Kentucky and the slave States have got

to di is to put an end to this vexed question, and see to the cultivation of the farm you have got—it. is very large. Keep what you have got; let further acquisitions, at least for this generation, go. You don't wan’t Cuba more than you wan’t a hornet’s iest about your heads. I see in the Democratic platform that it would be very desirable to have Cuba a- a matter of national defense. Would it not be much better to go to Canada and Nova Scotia, that are right, before us! The English are much more likely to come in by a land boundary like that, than to do us any harm in the Carribean Sea. You have got afraid suddenly, that some nation will come and take you, and that she will stop at Cuba and take a drink when she is coming. Do you want Jamaica for the same reason! Do you want St. Domingo for the same reason! Why do you not want them! Because there is no negro slavery there. The negroes in the one havebeen made free, and in the other have freed themselves. That is the reason why you are afraid of them. Just drop that sniveling pretense, my brother, you who want Cuba, and say that you want to possess it with its slaves, because it would not be worth a cent without them. Leave it alone. It is not yours—it don’t belong to you. Mr. Corwin concluded by recommending Kentuckian s when men meddled with their State politics, to give the party a gentle hiqt to leave by showing a handspike; but insisted that he should hold to his right to dis< uss national politics anywhere in the Union.