from federal authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution, stood in the way; or they may, without any such question, have voted against the p. ohibition, on what appeared to them to be sufficient g ounds of expediency. No one who has sworn to support the Constitution, can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote against a measure which he deems constitutional, if, at the same time, e deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the standing, any proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution forbade the Federal Government to control as to Slavery in federal territory.

without the United States, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves so brought. This act passed both branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read and Abraham Baldwin. They all, probably, voted for it. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to it upon record, if, in their understanding, any line dividing local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to Slavery in federal territory. In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisi-prohibition, as having done so because, in their under ana country. Our former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804, Congress gave a Territorial organization to that part of it which now consti.utes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable towns and settlements, and Slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act, prohibit Slavery; but they did interfere with it-take control of it-in a more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi. The substance of the provision therein made, in relation to slaves, was:

First. That no slave should be imported into the Territory from foreign parts.

Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1793.

Third. That no slave shall be carried into it except by the owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave.

This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which passed it, there were two of the "thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without recording their opposition to it, if, in their understanding, it violated either the line proper dividing local from federal authority or any provision of the Constitution.

The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered. have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of the control of Slavery in the federal territories. But there is much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not have appeared different from that of their twentythree compeers, had it been manifested at all. For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested, by any pe son, however distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any of the "thirty nine" even, on any other phase of the gene al question of Slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slave-trade, and the morality and policy of Slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the direct question of federal control of Slavery in federal territo.ies, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were several of the most noted antislave. y men of those times as Dr. Franklin. Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris-while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina.

The sum of the whole is, that of our "thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original Constitution, twentyone-a clear majority of the whole-certainly understood that no proper division of local from federal authority nor any part of the Constitution, fo bade the Federal Government to control Slavery in the federal territories, while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question better

In 1819-2, came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases of the general question. Two of the "thirty-nine"-Rufus King and Charles Pinckney-were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for Slavery prohibition ani against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted against Slavery prohibition and against all compromises. By this Mr. King showed that, in his understand-than we. ing, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress prohibiting Slavery in federal territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that in his understanding there was sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in

that case.

The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover.

To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, three in 1757, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20-there would be thirtyone of them. But this would be counting John Lang ion, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read, each twice, and Abraham Baldwin four times. The true number of those of the "thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question, which, by the text they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any

way.

Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our "thirtynine" fathers who framed the Government under which we live, who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirins they understood just as well, and even better than we do now;" and twenty-one of thein-a clear majority of the whole "thirty-nine"-so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety, and willful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to Slavery in the federal territories. Thus the twentyone acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions under such responsibility speak still louder.

Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of Slavery in the federal Territories in the instances in which they acted upon the question. But for what reason they so voted is not known. They may have done so because they thought a proper division of local

But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of Government under which we live consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that federal control of Slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Died Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that "no person shall be de prived of property without due process of law;" while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that the powers not granted by the Constitution, are reserved to the States respectively and to the people."

Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed b, the first Congress which sat under th Constitutionthe identical Congress which passed the act al eady mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of Slavery in the no.thwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they were the identical, same individual men, who, at the same session, and at the same time within the session, had under consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting Slavery in all the Territory the nation then owned. The Constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after the act enforcing the Ordnance, of '87; so that during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were also pending

That Congress consisting in all of seventy-six nembers, including sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were preeminently our fathers who framed that par of the Government under which we live, which. is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to control Slavery in the Federal Territories,

It is not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to afirm that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other? And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with the other affirmation, from the same mouth, that those who did the two things alleged to be inconsistent understood whether they really were inconsistent better than we-better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent ?

It is surely safe to assume that the "thirty-nine " framers of the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be fairly called "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to Slavery in the federal territories. I go a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century (and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the present century) declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to Slavery in the federal territories. To those who now so declare, I give, not only "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live," but with them all other living men within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with

them.

Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misanderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so, would be to discard all the lights of current experience-to reject all progress-all improvement. What I do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we.

If any man, at this day, sincerely believes that a proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to Slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no right to mislead others, who have less access to history and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," were of the same opinion-thus substituting false hood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local from federal authority or some part of the Constitution, forbids the federal government to control as to Slavery in the Federal Territories, he is right to say 80. But he should, at the same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that they "understood the question just as well, and even better, than we do now."

In

licans." In all your contentions with one another, each
of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "Black
Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to.
deed such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensa
ble prerequisite-license, so to speak, among you to be ad-
mitted or permitted to speak at all.

Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves?

Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue: and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section-gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started-to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in piactice, would wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No? Then you really believe that the principle which our fathers who framed the Government under which we live thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is, in fact, so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration.

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the prohibition of Slavery in the northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of the Government upon that subject, up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it he wrote Lafayette, that he considered that nibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should sometime have a confederacy of free States.

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or, in our hands, against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you, who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it.

But you say you are conservative-eminently conservative-while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? But enough. Let all who believe that "our fathers, We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the who framed the Government under which we live, under-point in controversy which was adopted by our fathers stood the question just as well, and even better, than we who framed the Government under which we live; while do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon you, with one accord, reject, and scout, and spit upon that it. This is all Republicans ask-all Republicans desire-old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. in relation to Slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that subit be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be stitute shall be. You have considerable variety of new tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting actual presence among us makes that toleration and pro-and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of tection a necessity. Let all the guaranties those fathers you are for reviving the foreign slave-trade; some for a congave it, be not grudgingly, but fully and fairly, main-gressional slave-code for the Territories; some for Contained. For this Republicans contend, and with this, so gress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within far as I know or believe, they will be content. their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the TerritoAnd now, if they would listen, as I suppose they will ries through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinnot, I would address a few words to the southern peo- ciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third ple. person should object," fantastically called "Popular SeI would say to them: You consider yourselves a reason-vereignty;" but never a man among you in favor of fede able and a just people; and I consider that in the general ral prohibition of Slavery in Federal Territories, according qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Bepub

to the practice of our fathers who framed the Government under which we live. Not one of all your various plan can show a precedent or an advocate in the century with in which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and

your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on | ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emanthe most clear and stable foundations.

Again, you say we have made the Slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, re-adopt the precepts and policy of the old times. You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it, or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable to not designate the man, and prove the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable to assert it, and especially to persist in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply a malicious slander.

cipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.

Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only.

The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution-the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from Slavery. John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with many attempts related in history, at the assassination of Kings and Emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than in his own execution. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry, were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case, and on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things.

The

And how much would it avail you, if you could, by the use of John Brown, Helper's book, and the like, break up the Republican organization? Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against Slavery in this You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling-that sentiment-by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire, but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot box, into some other channel? What would that other channel probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation?

Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair; but still insist that our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declarations, which were not held to and made by our fathers who framed the Government under which we live. You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charg-nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. ing the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common with our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live, declare our belief that Slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood and thunder among the slaves.

But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your constitutional rights.

That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right, plainly written down in the Constitution. But we are proposing no such thing.

When you make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed constitutional right of yours, to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is Slave insurrections are no more common now than specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument they were before the Republican party was organized. is literally silent about any such right. We, on the conWhat induced the Southampton insurrection, twenty-trary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Coneight years ago, in which, at least, three times as many stitution, even by implication. lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was got up by Black Republicanism. In the present state of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive slave insurrection, is possible. The indispensable concert of action This, plainly stated, is your language to us. Perhaps cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed communication; nor can incendiary free men, black or Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. white, supply it. The explosive materials are every-But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and where in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable connecting trains.

Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave-revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of Slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes, for such an event, will be alike disappointed.

Ir the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is, that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.

decision, the Courts have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The Courts have substantially said, it is your Constitutional right to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property.

When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided Court by a bare majority of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact-the statement in the opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."

An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in it. Bear in mind the Judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such is right is impliedly af firmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is distinctly and expressly affirmed there--" distinctly," that is, not mingled with anything else-" expressly," that is, in wo ds meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning.

If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that

A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty. we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them? Will they be satisfied if the Territories be uncondition-here in these Free States? ally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarce y mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now, Will it satisfy them in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? know it will not. We so know because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.

MR. BRECKINRIDGE ON NATIONAL
NATIONAL POLITICS.

SPEECH AT FRANKFORT, KY..

THE HON. JOHN C. BRECKINRIDGE delivered | pealed, and we passed the act known as the Kansas-Nethe following speech on the general political topics of the day before the Legislature of Kentucky at Frankfort in Dec. 1859. Mr. Breckinridge had been recently elected to the United States Senate, by the Kentucky Legislature; and after returning his thanks for the distinguished honor, and promising to serve the State to the best of his ability, he continued as follows:

The election took place on Monday. The day before I received a letter signed by a number of gentlemen in the Legislature, asking my opinion in reference to the DRBD SCOTT decision, in reference to Territorial Sovereignty, and the power of Congress to protect the property of citizens within the Territories. I received that letter with profound respect, and only regret it did not come to my hands in time, that I might answer it before the election. But yet I am glad that I could not answer it before that day, for your choice is a sort of indorsement of my soundness upon those questions. I confess I was somewhat gratified that the election took place before I had those questions to answer. It was utterly impossible for me to have returned an answer before the time fixed by your law for the election, but, I never intended to fail in this answer. I never should have failed. Had it been one who signed it, instead of twenty, the result

would have been precisely the same.

Besides this, it would have been of but little consequence, be the answer before or after. I belong to that school of politics that believes in instruction, and whenever I am not ready to receive the instructions of the State, I stand ready to give back the trust confided in my hands.

THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. Gentlemen, I bow to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon every question within its proper jurisdiction, whether it corresponds with my private opinion or not; only, I bow a trifle lower when it happens to do so, as the decision in the Dred Scott case does. I approve it in all its parts as a sound exposition of the law and constitutional rights of the States, and citizens that inhabit them. (Applause.) It may not be improper for me here to add that so great an interest did I take in that decision, and in its principles being sustained and understood in the commonwealth of Kentucky, that I took the trouble, at my own cost, to print or have printed a large edition of that decision to scatter it over the State, and unless the mails have miscarried, there is scarcely a member elected to the Legislature who has not received a copy with my frank.

To approve the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case would seem to settle the whole question of Territorial Sovereignty, as I think will presently appear; but, in order that no one may misunderstand my views on that question, I will, with your leave, detain you with a brief review of what was done as to the Slavery question up to the time of that decision, referring also to the duties imposed by it.

braska bill. The Abolition, or quasi Abolition party of the United States were constantly contending that it was the right of Congress to prohibit Slavery in the common Territories of the Union. The Democratic party, aided by most of the gentlemen from the South, took the opposite view of the case. Our object was, if possible, to withdraw that question from the Halls of Congress, and place it where it could no longer risk the public welfare and the public interest. In the Congress of the United States it South; accordingly (I have not a copy of the bill before had been agitated all the time, to the disadvantage of the me now, but I remember its leading provisions), a bill was passed, repealing the Missouri line, and leaving those Territories upon the contract and the assertion that the bill made. Did we intend by it to legislate Slavery into Kansas and Nebraska? We denied that, and denied it upon the face of the bill itself. The settlement thus made, afterward received the approval of the people of the whole country. The bill said within itself, not that we intend to legislate Slavery into the Territories, but to leave the people free to form their own domestic institutions, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. That was as much as we could agree upon. There was a point upon which we could not agree. A considerable portion of the Northern Democracy held that Slavery was in derogation of common right, and could only exist by force of positive law. They contended that the Constitution did not furnish that law, and that the slaveholder could not go into the ize him in holding his slaves as property, or to protect him. Territories with his slaves with the Constitution to authorThe South, generally, without distinction of party, held the opposite view. They held that the citizens of all the States may go with whatever was recognized by the Constitution as property, and enjoy it. That did not seem to be denied to any article of property except slaves. Accordingly, the bill contained the provision, that any question in reference to Slavery should be referred to the court of the United States, and the understanding was, that whatever the judicial decision should be, it would be binding upon all parties, not only by virtue of the agreement, but under the obligation of the citizens to respect the authority of the legally constituted courts of the country.

WHAT HE SAID IN 1856.

It was under these circumstances, while the Territory of Kansas was in a state of commotion, and when that question had not been determined by the courts, that the canvass of 1856 came on. It became my duty, by the request of my friends, to visit the States of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania. In all those States I made speeches. In all those States I uttered the same opinions and declared the same principles that I have ever done in the commonwealth of Kentucky, and am ready to do again. None other!

It has been charged that the Democratic party of the country, and particularly of the South, desired to employ the Federal Government for the purpose of propagating Slavery and slave legislation in the Territories. I denied that the Democratic party desired to use the Federal Government for the propagation of Slavery, and I never conceded what we believed to be our constitutional right to its protection, and what the decision of the Supreme Court has allowed to be our right, I said yes! I did say that the Democratic party of this country, in its federal aspect, was neither a Pro-Slavery nor an Anti-Slavery party, but I was in the Congress of the United States when that a constitutional party, and I repeat it here to-night. (ApMissouri line was repealed. I never would have voted for plause.) I do not believe it is. I do not believe that the any bill organizing the Territory of Kansas as long as that Federal Government was organized for either purpose, but All odious stigma upon our institutions remained upon the to protect the rights adjudicated by the courts. statute-book. I voted cheerfully for its repeal, and in do- these belong to the States themselves. ing that I cast no reflection upon the wise patriots who These were the declarations that I made, of which someacquiesced in it at the time it was established. It was re-thing has been heard in all the States. I made the

THE MISSOURI LINE.