committee of a caucus of the friends of Judge Douglas, charged with a resolution which his friends desired to be reported to the convention, in order, as the chairman said, 'to help the southern friends of Judge Douglas.' One member of the committee on resolutions (General Butler) immediately raised a point of order. He said that the committee of the convention of the whole democ racy, could not act under the dictation of a caucus of anybody's friends; that his self-respect would forbid—that the report of the minority of the committee would lose all moral power, if they adopted such a resolution thus presented. The point of order of that member of the committee was overruled, and the caucus resolution was received and adopted in the minority report, almost in the words in which it was presented and passed in the caucus, as follows:

"Resolved, That all questions in regard to the rights of property in states or territories, arising under the constitution of the United States, are judicial in their character; and the democratic party is pledged to abide by, and faithfully carry out such determination of these questions, as has been, or may be made by the Supreme Court of the United States.'

"This resolution was insisted upon by the committee, as then constituted, because it would give aid and ground to stand upon at home to the southern friends of Judge Douglas. Not advocated on principle, not claimed for the North, but a concession to the South, which, as the sequel showed, the South neither desired, would adopt or accept. A piece of expediency, which your delegate would neither adhere to nor carry out.'

"To him it seemed quite immaterial whether a slave-code was made by congress or the decision of the courts. He had seen some of the most obnoxious laws made by judicial decisions, both in England and in this country. Indeed, a congressional slave-code were preferable to one made by a court, because the former could be defined, and if unjust, could be repealed, while the latter might be indefinite, shifting to meet the exigency of the case, and only limited by the partnership, or restrained by the consciences of judges holding office by a life-tenure, even if they were appointed like the midnight judges of John Adams,' in the last hour of an expiring administration, upon which the people set the seal of reprobation."

So the committee could not agree. General Butler adhered to his proposal of the Cincinnati platform; the majority adhered to their demand for a slave-code for the territories and protection to the slave trade; the minority adhered to the resolution framed by Mr. Douglas, which left all questions relating to slavery in the territories to the decision of the Supreme Court. On returning to the convention, therefore, the committee furnished three reports, one from the majority, one from the minority, and one from General Butler; all agreeing in recommending the Cincinnati platform as a basis; all differing as to the nature of the additional "planks."

The majority report proposed four additional resolutions re specting slavery:

"1. Resolved, That the democracy of the United States hold these cardinal principles on the subject of slavery in the territories: First, That congress has no power to abolish slavery in the territories. Second, That the territorial legislature has no power to abolish slavery in any territory, nor to prohibit the introduction of slaves therein, nor any power to exclude slavery therefrom, nor any power to destroy or impair the right of property in slaves by any legislation whatever.

"2. Resolved, That the enactments of state legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the fugitive slave law, are hostile in character, subversive of the constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.

"3. Resolved, That it is the duty of the federal government to protect, when necessary, the rights of persons, and property on the high seas, in the territories, or wherever else its constitutional authority extends. (Designed to protect the reopened slave trade.)

"4. Resolved, That the national democracy earnestly recommend the acquisition of the Island of Cuba at the earliest practicable period."

The minority report, introduced by Mr. Payne of Ohio, also presented the Cincinnati platform, with sundry additions, of which the following are the important ones:

"1. Resolved, That all questions in regard to the rights of property in states or territories, arising under the constitution of the United States, are judicial in their character; and the democratic party is pledged to abide by and faithfully carry out such determination of these questions as has been or may be made by the Supreme Court of the United States.

"2. Resolved, That the democratic party are in favor of the acquisition of the Island of Cuba, on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves, and just to Spain.

"3. Resolved, That the enactments of state legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the fugitive slave law, are hostile in character, subversive of the constitution, and revolutionary in their effect."

General Butler reported the two resolutions given in his narrative.

Such were the three reports. The first was supposed to express the sentiments of the party who afterward selected Mr. Breckinridge as their candidate. The second was the Douglas platform. The third conveyed the sense of northern democrats, who were aware that the Cincinnati platform conceded all to the South, that the North could concede. Mr. Douglas perfectly understood that, and he invented the device of the Supreme Court, to delay or confuse the issue. Each of the reports was explained and advocated at much length; the first by Mr. Avery of North Carolina, the chairman of the committee; the second by Mr. Payne of Ohio. Toward the close of the day, General Butler obtained the floor, and spoke in support of his views to a house crowded and excited beyond description, amid interruptions more entertaining to the audience than helpful to the speaker. His speech was ingenious and amusing, particularly that part of it which aimed to deprive the Douglas men of capital borrowed from the Supreme Court. Some of the personal hits produced prodigious effect.

He began by asking members around him why, if the Cincinnati platform was so defective, they had given it such enthusiastic indorsement in 1856. "I am told that it may be subjected to two interpretations. Will any man here attempt to make a platform that will not be subject to two or more interpretations? Why, sir, when Omniscience sends us the Divine law for our guidance through life and our hope in death, for 2,000 years almost bands of men have been engaged in different interpretations of that Divine law, and they have sealed their honesty of purpose with blood-they have burned their fellow creatures at the stake as an evidence of the sincerity of their faith." (Laughter.)

Adverting to the resolution which was evidently designed to throw the protection of the national flag over the slave trade, he humorously affected to be ignorant of its real purpose. "Our carping opponents," said he, "will see in it what I am sure southern gentlemen do not mean the reopening of the African slave trade,

and it will be so construed that no man can get rid of the interpretation. It will be proclaimed from every stump, flaunted from every pulpit, thundered from every lyceum in the North, until we, your friends-and in no boasting spirit I say, without us you are power less--the last refuge of the constitutional rights of the South within the Union are stricken down powerless for ever; so that without farther modification it would be impossible for me to adopt the majority report."

He proceeded to show the utter nothingness of the minority resolution, referring questions in dispute to the Supreme Court: “Now, men of the North, suppose that the Supreme Court should decide upon questions of property arising in the states-and I hope that there is no danger of their so deciding-that slavery exists in Massachusetts, and that it was forced upon us by the constitution of the United States-are you ready to carry out that decision? You might have to submit to that, but would you not move at once for an alteration of that state constitution to prevent such decision taking effect, and adopt such other remedies as your good judgment might devise? You, men of the South, suppose you were foolishly to go apart from us, and Mr. Seward were to be elected president. There sit to-day upon the bench of the Supreme Court nine judges, eight of whom are seventy years old, three of them so debilitated that they may never take their seats again. What happens? Without any act of congress, Mr. Seward being president of the United States, that court is reorganized, and it decides that slavery nowhere exists by natural law, and that man can hold no property in man. What are you to do then? Are you to abide by the

decision ?"

Here, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, made a remark implying that it became the representative of a state which never gav a democratic majority to be modest in offering advice to a demo cratic convention. The retort was ready:

"You may taunt me with the fact that I am speaking for poor old Massachusetts, that has never given a democratic vote since the days of Jefferson. She did give a democratic vote then. By that vote the South acquired the rich inheritance of Louisiana, and I see here from the gulf states men who but for that vote I never would have had the pleasure of meeting, except as subjects of Napoleon III. Then do not taunt me with speaking for a state that can not give an

electoral vote. I feel mortified enough about it. I do not like to be taunted with it; I do not think it quite kind in my friend from Maryland to make the remark he did. I would have thought it more unkind if my friend from Mississippi had said anything of the kind, but I thought it especially unkind in my friend from Maryland, because he violated the well-known maxim in my country, that the "pot should never call the kettle black." (Laughter.)

Mr. Johnson: "While Maryland obeys the laws of the Union, as she has ever done and does now, she considers herself equal to all other states; but when she refuses to acknowledge even the force of the constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, she will then be more modest in the expression of her opinions."

General Butler: "Comparisons are odious, but I say that any man in Massachusetts can walk up to the polls and vote for anybody on earth without having his head broken by a cudgel." (Great laughter.)

Mr. Johnson attempted to reply, but General Butler would not yield the floor.

"Very well, then," said the Marylander, "have it so."

The speaker continued: "I will say this to the gentleman, that everything that the democratic party could do in his state has been nobly done to protect men in their rights. Will he give old Massachusetts the same credit, that everything the democracy of Massachusetts could do to stand by the constitution and the Union, the rights of his state and my own, has been done without fear, favor, affection, or hope of reward? (Applause.) Therefore, I say again, that I do not like to be told that this platform is only represented by states which are sure to give electoral votes for the democratic candidate. Let me call the attention of the gentleman from Maryland to the fact, that by the vote from his state the house of representatives got a black republican organization. (Applause.) And my gallant friends from Tennessee-are your skirts quite clear? And how stands Kentucky-the dark and bloody battle-ground? She has five to five in the house of representatives, is a cipher there, and if they do not take care, will be a cipher in the electoral vote. And how stands the old state of North Carolina. Four and four in the house of representatives. These states I have enumera ted were never reliable democratic states, and, therefore, I have ventured to say, that I have a good right to speak here for the