tone of the English press towards America has been respectful and friendly, an example which has been set by the leading journal, and followed by newspapers reflecting every shade of political opinion. one hundred millions sterling in one year, and which imposes an income tax on real and personal property, is certainly a model which Englishmen ought neither to admire nor imitate." Now, is not this asinine? We appeal The kind of criticism which we see indulged to our readers, whether this stupid effusion in by Conservative and Liberal organs alike, is left us a choice of similitudes. It is purely not calculated to shorten this struggle but to and outrageously donkeyish. We were not prolong and embitter it. It may require a great aware that a Democratic Republic of any sort effort on the part of certain ambitious candi- ought to be admired, or imitated by Englishdates for a seat in the House of Commons to men. We are satisfied with our Constitution, refrain from abusing the ballot, and universal asking only that it be perfected and developed suffrage, as they exist in America, but good in harmony with its native spirit. We are taste as well as good feeling ought to induce attached to our monarchy, and should start them to make the attempt. These and all at the idea of exchanging the throne for a other public questions will bear a good deal of President's chair. Are we to infer that, if we discussion at the proper time; but it is not could only obtain solid guarantees against exfriendly, nor neighborly, nor just, to open a travagant expenditure, the Post would go in broadside of invective against these and similar for a Democratic Republic"? But the sting features in a Republican form of Government, of the objection is that this extravagant expenwhen that government is engaged in fighting diture is raised for "warlike purposes," -we as for its own preservation. Two or three years a people loving peace so well that we never ago a similar course of policy was pursued by spent and never will spend a stiver upon armathe bulk of the English press against the per- ments. Why, the objection is disarmed in son of the Emperor Napoleon, when Lord Pal- stating it. The "Democratic Republic" over merston, Lord Russell, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. the water was never more like ourselves than Bright-politicians of the most opposite views it is now. Yesterday it was thrifty, economi-declared in Parliament that if these attacks cal, raising a miserable revenue, denying itself were continued, it would be impossible to pre- the luxury of a standing army and navy, except serve peace between England and France. on a scale ridiculously small. To-day it has These attacks were not levelled so much at the an army almost as big as the Queen of England people of France as at the head of the chief maintains for the defence of her wide dominpersonage in the State; but the French nation ions, and it is spending money on just such felt insulted when their monarch was assailed, a lavish scale as we were only six years ago. though they might have serious grounds of dis- The Americans and we are brethren at last; satisfaction with him themselves. It is the equally warlike, equally prodigal. Ah! but same with every nation. We are just as much look at the burdens which this extravagant inclined to praise and glorify our own institu- expenditure imposes upon the people. This tions as the Americans are their own, and we Democratic Republic is actually levying an quote with avidity from foreign journals what- income tax on real and personal property! ever contributes to our own self-esteem. This Wherein consists the grievance? Is it that national vanity, so far from being censurable, is, the incidence of the tax is on income? or that within certain limits, to be respected and ad- personal property is taxed? or that real propmired, and as we so largely indulge in it our-erty is taxed? Well, we have the tax in all selves, we ought at least to make a liberal allowance for those who follow our example, and, it may be, exceed it. -European Times, Aug. 17. AN ENGLISH COMMENT ON ENGLISH CRITICISM. The battle of Bull Run has produced an extraordinary effect upon our English asses. Ever since the news arrived they have been lifting up their voices in one huge bray, and there is no telling when they will give over. It is not a bray of sympathy, of sorrow, or even of triumph. On the contrary, it is a highly moral bray, articulating lofty lessons for the advantage of all people, Englishmen especally. Yesterday we dealt with one of these big utterances, which had just been bellowed forth by the monarch of the race; to-day we pay our respects to the tamer creature which lowers its ears to the salutations of the dowagerduchesses and political flunkeys of Belgravia. Thus ruminates the Post: "A Democratic Republic which, for warlike purposes, raises these shapes, and have had it these last eighteen years. Suppose, when the Russian war was at its height, some of our New York contemporaries had said: "A Constitutional Monarchy which, for warlike purposes, raises one hundred millions sterling in the year, and which imposes an income tax on real and personal property, is certainly a model which Americans ought neither to admire nor imitate "-what should we have said to the argument? Should we not have derided their pettifogging estimate of human interests, and held them up to contempt as a miserable race, incapable of sentiment, chivalry, and glory? Yet this is precisely what Englishmen are now told they ought to have said themselves. We do not wonder that Balaam struck his ass, if the animal he rode was half as stupid as ours. Having been furnished with this new test, let us apply it by the aid of a few figures to the glorious Constitution under which it is our priv ilege to live. The raising of a hundred millions er. The practical inference from the foregoing comparison is, that of all known forms of Government, a "Democratic Republic" is the best because it is the cheapest; and we presume the verdict in its favor will not be disputed because, though economical as a rule, it is nevertheless ready to spend money to any extent when necessity requires an exceptionally large expenditure. This is not our verdict, nor is it our be lief, but it is a conclusion which flows irresisti bly from the premises furnished by our assailants. On these principles we ought to pull down the British Constitution, since, with all its virtues, it is unquestionably the largest spending machine ever constructed by the wit of man. For ourselves, we deny altogether the relevancy of the facts to the conclusion which has been forcibly wrung from them. We deny that the merits of this or that form of Government can by any ingenuity be legitimately imported into the contest now waging in the United States. The law of self-preservation acts with equal force upon all Governments. They are made to live; they make no provision for their own sepulchre; when assailed either from within or from without, they will fight to the last to defend themselves against extinction. It is so with Governments of all shapes, autocracies, mixed monarchies, and republics. The inference to be drawn from the money expend for warlike purposes in a single year is the fact | under the instant pressure of war dooms one selected to excite our horror. Well, the reply form of government to perdition, what shall is that we have done it again and again. In we say of another government which spends 1813 we raised and spent one hundred and eighty millions on the mere expectation that eight millions, and one hundred and five mil-war may break out in a year or two? lions the year after. For eleven years together, during the war with Napoleon, our average expenditure was not less than eighty millions per annum, and the aggregate of our expenditure for the fourteen years ending 5th January, 1816, was upwards of one thousand millions. Twenty-seven years before the commencement of that period we also had an American rebellion on our hands. The population of the United Kingdom was not half what it is now. The whole number of our colonists in America did not much exceed three millions, and they were separated from us by the breadth of the Atlantic; yet to suppress that rebellion we borrowed one hundred and two millions sterling, adding it to our permanent debt, besides the extra sums obtained by increased taxation from the people. At the beginning of the war with Napoleon, our national debt was two hundred and thirty-three millions; by the close of the war we had trebled it. Every farthing of this money was spent in war, and hundreds of millions besides, the accumulating debt being bound, like a millstone, round our necks forevThe Russian war shows that we have only to get our blood heated to be as extravagant as cver. In 1856 our expenditure was eighty-four millions, the year after nearly as much, and the whole expense of the war has been estimated at not less than one hundred millions. And what was the object for which we threwed and the sacrifices incurred by any Governaway such vast sums of money? The integrity of the Empire was not threatened. An insurgent host was not encamped within thirty miles of the capital. We were not called upon to wage a struggle for national existence, and to preserve intact the glorious traditions of our country. No, the object which aroused us to such sacrifices was a paltry dispute in a distant corner of Europe. We fought not for the integ. rity of the British Empire, but in defence of the Turks. If Englishmen are told that they ought not to admire a Democratic Republic which spends a hundred millions in maintaining its own existence, what attitude must they assume towards a Constitutional Monarchy which lately expended the same sum in fighting Mahometan battles? A model which, when exhibited by others, we are bound neither to admire nor to imitate, we are also bound to destroy if it should unluckily prove our own. Here is a task worthy of the flunkies of Belgravia. In the name of the Morning Post, upset these extravagant institutions, and give us, ye powdered heroes, a cheaper form of government! Why, at this moment we are raising seventy millions a year on the mere surmise and suspicion of possible hostilities, besides sanctioning an expenditure of ten millions more on fortifications. If a hundred millions raised The ment in defending its existence against inward -Manchester Post. THE BLOCKADE. We believe that we are only stating a simple truth when we say that every dispute which has existed between this country and the United States, during the present century, has arisen from the susceptibilities of the American people with respect to some supposed invasion of their national dignity and rights. The war of 1812 was occasioned by the right of search -a question which the treaty of Ghent and the Ashburton capitulation alike left unadjusted. The affair of the Caroline, McLeod's trial, the Maine boundary and Oregon disputes, and the recent San Juan difficulty, (now happily forgotten,) are all examples of the boastful and offensive spirit in which successive Presidents have endeavored to assert the national dignity and rights of the once great American people. In the civil war which at present afflicts the United States the Cabinet at Washington has acted in strict conformity with public law, at least in intention, if not in actual practice. It has adhered to the declaration of neutral rights annexed to the Treaty of Paris, it has abolished the odious practice of privateering, and, in imitation of the policy of European nations, it has practically conceded belligerent rights to the enemy. It has not treated captured secessionists as traitors, but has extended to them the usual courtesies of war. The Southern authorities, on the other hand, have commissioned letters of marque, and these sea rovers, if the account be true, have proved in a very satisfactory manner that the Federal blockade, extending over a coast of more than two thousand miles, is only valid on paper. An American correspondent writing from Pensacola the other day, not only stated, but professed to give, the text of a letter in which Admiral Milne, the commander of the British squadron, had officially notified to the Admiralty that the blockade of the Southern ports was altogether ineffectual. On a former occasion we expressed a doubt whether so discreet and experienced an officer as Admiral Milne would have committed an act so obviously beyond the pale of his duty. The authoritatire contradiction which has been given to this clever American fabrication was scarcely necesary, because everybody knows, as a matter of fact, that the Federal Government does not possess at present a naval force sufficient to close all the Southern ports from Virginia to Texas. All that it can hope to do is to blockade the most important points, such as the mouths of the Mississippi, and the great seats of the cotton export trade. We are, however, now informed that by means of gunboats, and other vessels of little draught, an attempt is to be made to enforce the entire line of blockade. If the Federal Government can accomplish this object, neutral nations will have no cause of complaint, because the blockade would then be effectual. If, on the other hand, the attempt should fail, inerchant vessels would practically VOL. II.-Doc. 9 share in the immunity which the Southern privateers appear at present to enjoy. Of course it is extremely annoying to neutral commerce to be warned off the coast and compelled to return home, or to sail to New York or Canada, where the freight may be at a discount, and a return cargo cannot be obtained without a great sacrifice of time and money. But these are necessary evils which spring from a state of war; hard, we admit, to be endured by innocent parties; but so long as the action of the Federal Government is in conformity with public law, no one has a right to complain. When the American courts condemn foreign vessels for the breach of a mere paper blockade, the intervention of diplomacy will then be requisite, but at present no case has occurred either to merit or command the interference of neutral Powers. If Admiral Milne had made the report which has been attributed to him, the Federal Government would have a just right of complaint, because questions of the validity of blockades are not within the jurisdiction of an admiral commanding a squadron in the neighboring seas, but belong to those great courts which, either in belligerent or neutral countries, administer the law of nations. Knowing and fully appreciating the feelings with which the people of America regard every expression of foreign opinion, we are, upon the whole, glad that this idle story has received not only timely but official contradiction. If Admiral Milne had volunteered the statement which has been attributed to him, the Northern people, who are not likely to be much pleased with English criticism and comments upon the recent battle of Bull Run, would say that England preferred the pursuit of cotton to the obligations of hon esty and fair play. As Lord Palmerston at the commencement of the contest stated, every question of neutral rights must be decided when a fitting case arises. This contingency has not yet arrived; and if the Federal Government can succeed in efficiently maintaining so enormous a blockade, it will in all probability never occur. It is the duty of this country, in the terms of her Majesty's declaration, to observe strict and impartial neutrality. simply doing this England has been abused and vilified by the Northern press, and Canada was to be annexed to compensate for the loss of the South. We can afford to despise all this ludicrous and impotent malice, but as happily we have hitherto escaped all difficulties about American native dignity and rights, let us leave the two contending parties to fight their battles as best they may, without the slightest interference or even advice on our part. If the blockade be ineffectual, neutral commerce will comparatively suffer little injury; if effectual, the first principles of public law tell us that we must obey with a good grace, however disagreeable the restriction may be for one great staple of British industry and British wealth. For -London Post, (Government Organ,) Aug. 14. Doc. 11. SENATOR DOUGLAS'S LAST LETTER. CHICAGO, May 10. MY DEAR SIR: Being deprived of the use of my arms for the present by a severe attack of rheumatism, I am compelled to avail myself of the services of an amanuensis, in reply to your two letters. It seems that some of my friends are unable to comprehend the difference between arguments used in favor of an equitable compromise, with the hope of averting the horrors of war, and those urged in support of the government and the flag of our country, when war is being waged against the United States, with the avowed purpose of producing a permanent disruption of the Union and a total destruction of its government. All hope of compromise with the cotton states was abandoned when they assumed the position that the separation of the Union was complete and final, and that they would never consent to a reconstruction in any contingency -not even if we would furnish them with a blank sheet of paper and permit them to inscribe their own terms. Still the hope was cherished that reasonable and satisfactory terms of adjustment could be agreed upon with Tennessee, North Carolina, and the border States, and that whatever terms would prove satisfactory to these loyal States would create a Union party in the cotton states which would be powerful enough at the ballot box to destroy the revolutionary government, and bring those States back into the Union by the voice of their own people. This hope was cherished by the Union men North and South, and was never abandoned until actual war was levied at Charleston, and the authoritative announcement made by the revolutionary government at Montgomery that the secession flag should be planted upon the walls of the Capitol at Washington, and a proclamation issued inviting the pirates of the world to prey upon the commerce of the United States. These startling facts, in connection with the boastful announcement that the ravages of war and carnage should be quickly transferred from the cotton fields of the South to the wheat fields and corn fields of the North, furnish conclusive evidence that it was the fixed purpose of the secessionists utterly to destroy the government of our fathers and obliterate the United States from the map of the world. In view of this state of facts there was but one path of duty left to patriotic men. It was not a party question, nor a question involving partisan policy; it was a question of government or no government; country or no country; and hence it became the imperative duty of every Union man, every friend of constitutional liberty, to rally to the support of our common country, its government and flag, as the only means of checking the progress of revolution and of preserving the Union of States. I am unable to answer your questions in respect to the policy of Mr. Lincoln and cabinet. I am not in their confidence, as you and the whole country ought to be aware. I am neither the supporter of the partisan policy nor the apologist of the errors of the Administration. My previous relations to them remain unchanged; but I trust the time will never come when I shall not be willing to make any needful sacrifice of personal feeling and party policy for the honor and integrity of the country. I know of no mode in which a loyal citizen may so well demonstrate his devotion to his country as by sustaining the flag, the constitution, and the Union, under all circumstances, and under every Administration, regardless of party politics, against all assailants, at home and abroad. The course of Clay and Webster towards the administration of Jackson, in the days of nullification, presents a noble and worthy example for all true patriots. At the very moment when that fearful crisis was precipitated upon the country, partisan strife between Whigs and Democrats was quite as bitter and relentless as now between Democrats and Republicans. The gulf which separated party leaders in those days was quite as broad and deep as that which now separates the Democracy from the Republicans. But the moment an enemy rose in our midst, plotting the dismemberment of the Union and the destruction of the Government, the voice of partisan strife was hushed in patriotic silence. One of the brightest chapters in the history of our country will record the fact that during this eventful period the great leaders of the opposition, sinking the partisan in the patriot, rushed to the support of the Government, and became its ablest and bravest defenders against all assailants until the conspiracy was crushed and abandoned, when they resumed their former positions as party leaders upon political issues. These acts of patriotic devotion have never been deemed evidences of infidelity or political treachery, on the part of Clay and Webster, to the principles and organization of the old Whig party. Nor have I any apprehension that the firm and unanimous support which the Democratic leaders and masses are now giving to the Constitution and the Union will ever be deemed evidence of infidelity to Democratic principles, or a want of loyalty to the organization and creed of the Democratic party. If we hope to regain and perpetuate the ascendency of our party, we should never forget that a man cannot be a true Democrat unless he is a loyal patriot. With the sincere hope that these, my conscientious convictions, may coincide with those of my friends, I am, very truly, yours, STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. To Virgil Hickcox, Esq., Chairman State Democratic Committee. -National Intelligencer. Doc. 12. A DISUNIONIST ANSWERED. LETTERS OF J. L. ORR AND AMOS KENDALL. EX-SPEAKER ORR TO HON. AMOS KENDALL. ANDERSON, S. C., Aug. 16, 1860. MY DEAR SIR:-I have received your favor of the ninth inst. Your age, experience, and ability entitle your opinions to great weight on every reflecting mind, and I regret to learn from your letter that your dissent from my recommendation that the honor and safety of the South require its prompt secession from the Union, in the event of the election of a black republican to the presidency. You say your "mind is equally clear that the South has long had a peaceful remedy within her own reach, and has it still, though impaired by the recent conduct of some of her sons." You would greatly oblige me by a full exposition of your opinions upon that point, as well as the remedy to be resorted to by us, should the Government, in November, pass into the hands of a party whose declared purpose is to destroy our property, amounting in value at the present time to not less than three billions one hundred and fifty millions of dollars. Can it be prudent, safe, or manly in the South to submit to the domination of a party whose declared purpose is to destroy such an amount of property and subvert our whole social and industrial policy? In glancing at the evil and remedy, I invite specially your attention— 1. To the persistent refusal of many of the free States, and to large bodies of men in all of them, to execute the fugitive slave law. 2. To the untiring efforts of fanatics who come to the slave States under the guise of preachers, teachers, &c., in inveigling away our slaves, and to the general sympathy with their nefarious purposes, evinced by the facilities furnished them by the underground railroad in spiriting away our slaves beyond the reach of their owners. Is it wise, if we do not mean to submit to such consequences, to allow a black republican President to be inaugurated, and put him in possession of the army, the navy, the treasury, the armories and arsenals, the public propertyin fact, the whole machinery of the Government, with its appendants and appurtenances? If the South should think upon this subject as I do, no black republican President would ever execute any law within her borders, unless at the point of the bayonet, and over the dead bodies of her slain sons. In your letter you say that you have not taken me to be of that class of men in the South who for years past have been making and seeking pretexts for destroying the Union. You have not misjudged me nor my designs. I have a profound and abiding affection for the Union of our fathers, and deeply deplore the existence of the causes which are rapidly tending to its destruction. During the whole of my congressional career, I sought to tranquillize sectional strife. When I first entered the House, the abolition party, headed by Giddings and Wilmot, numbered eight; ten years have rolled away, and now that party is a majority of the whole House. Is it not time that the South should begin to look to her safety and independence? I trust that the impending storm may be averted; that our rights and the Union may be saved; that fraternal regard may be restored; and that our country may go on in the highway of prosperity that it has so successfully trod for the last seventy years. This is the aspiration of my heart, and yet I am painfully impressed with the conviction that it will never be realized. I am, very truly, your friend and obedient servant, JAMES L. ORR. Hon. AMOS KENDALL, Washington, D. C. MR. KENDALL'S REPLY. WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 1860. HON. JAMES L. ORR-My Dear Sir: Your letter of the 16th ult. reached Washington while I was absent in the North. 3. To the raid of John Brown, and the sym- Though I did not contemplate, when I wrote pathy which his well-merited execution evoked. you on the 9th ult., any thing beyond a limited 4. To the recent insurrectionary movements private correspondence, yet having no opinion in Texas-projected and carried out by aboli- on the portentous condition of public affairs tion emissaries, where the incendiary torch of which I have a motive to conceal, or am ashamthe slave lighted by abolition traitors, has re-ed to avow, I cheerfully comply with your sugduced to ashes one million of dollars' worth of property, and where the timely discovery of the hellish scheme alone saved the lives of thousands of men, women, and children. These are the natural and necessary results of the teachings of black republicanism; and if we have such developments under an administration which professes to guard our constitutional rights, in the name of Heaven what may we not expect when a great party takes the Government and its machinery under its control, avowing openly its purpose to be the extirpation of African slavery wherever it does exist? gestions. You quote from my former letter the declaration that "my mind is equally clear that the South has long had a peaceful remedy within her reach, and has it still, though impaired by the recent conduct of some of her sons," and you ask of me a full explanation of my opinions on that point as well as the remedy to be resorted to by us-the South-should the Government, in November, pass into the hands of a party whose declared purpose is to destroy our property, amounting in value at the present time, to not less than three billions one hundred and fifty millions of dollars." You ask, "Can |