the worst possible logic, as to applaud the speaker to the very echo? What is to be thought of the average intelligence of the American people that permitted to go unchallenged the declaration that such a speech, with all its false assertions and false olgic, ranks with the best efforts of the great Webster? It was the madness of the zeal of Lincoln on the slavery question that won out that night. It was not fact. It was not reason. It was

not law.

On that night in the Cooper Institute Lincoln appeared in the role of An Actor. The title of the play was "An Effort to place the Republican Party on Constitutional Ground," a mere dream. What a picture is this of "honest Abe" in a new role! his brow sits Candor! In every word is the ring of truth! every act is aggressive Earnestness! Himself the personifica

On
In

tion of all that is noble, exalted and true, his success is wonderful-magical! Completely successful, he is greeted with applause upon applause, and is proclaimed a prince among the princes of oratory. Laurel-crowned, his triumph widens! Hero of the Republican Party, all other names do obeisance to his. He steps from the Stage the nominee of the Republican Party, for president. Alas! that the cruel hand of history should lift the veil!

THE COOPER INSTITUTE SPEECH

CONTINUED.

It is a very remarkable fact that Mr. Lincoln now assumed that he had "disclosed a majority of the 39, "including George Washington, who were untrue to their convictions when formulating and signing the Constitution of 1787. The wonder grows when it is remembered that the Philadelphia Convention consisted of statesmen, the acknowledged peers of the noblest, the ablest, the purest, the best the world has ever known. It is no small matter to impugn names like these,-great and illustrious names, that gave to the world that matchless charter of human rights and human liberty, known as the American Constitution. When it is realized that some of these great names "disclosed" their true characters in advance of the Philadelphia Convention, and some after that Convention had given to the world its best model of government, the very acme of assurance and absurdity is reached. Are not such accustaions as these born of some Constitutional defect rather than of sound reasoning? Besides, by what means did Lincoln determine when these men were sincere? Or how did he know when they voted their true convictions?

That he may be the more effective Lincoln in this speech imagines, for a time, that the Cooper Institute assembly is a truly Southern audience, and proceeds to address it as such.

Anticipating the South's just demands, as to her Constitutional rights, he says, "But you will not break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your Constitutional rights?" What is the meaning of this question? Does it not mean that his policy, and that of his party will be to antagonize the decision of the Supreme Court? that to anagonize this decision is absolutely necessary to put the new party "on Constitutional ground?"

As if fearful that this sentence may be construed as disloyal to the Constitution, and the Federal Government, he immediately adds: "When you make these declarations you have a specific and well understood allusion to an assumed Constitutional

right of yours to take the slaves into the Federal Territory and hold them as property." Does he not know that what he terms "an assumed Constitutional right of yours" has been placed beyond the pale of mere assumption by the Supreme Court? He knows it. Must we question his motives? He breathes not again before these other crafty words follow: "But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution." Does he not

know that one of the best established facts about the American Constitution is this: That what it omits is just as important, (and often more so) as what it contains? Does he not know that what is "Specifically written in the Constitution" refers to the Federal Government and its authority, and all the rights "not written" in it refers to the States and their authority? Will Lincoln never learn that the Philadelphia Constitution is like no other Constitution, that it confers no authority whatever on the Federal Government except what the States in convention assembled saw fit to give it, and that in "specifically written" terms?

We call these words of Lincoln "crafty" because "the right of property" does not depend on its being written in the Constitution. Long before this decision of the Supreme Court had disturbed his dreams and those of his party, Alexander Hamilton had said: "The Federal Constitution"-mark the words, "the Federal Constitution"--"therefore decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves when it views them as in the mixed character of persons and property. This is in fact their true character, bestowed on them by the laws under which we live." (The Federalists. No. 53, Davidson's Edition, p. 379). .

Note, Hamilton states this as the conclusion of commonly admitted facts, and not in the spirit of controversy. Did not Lincoln know that every State in the Union, North and South, also regarded slaves as property for more than 100 years? Did he not know the Northern slavers and the Northern slave-markets, as well as its existence in the South, proclaimed it such? Had not slavery existed from time immemorial, and, when during all that time was it not rightfully regarded as property? Yet who can say that, during any part of that long period, it was written

in the American Constitution? written in the Constitution.

Nor did Hamilton say it was

Lincoln's one great fundamental false dogma was, what is not written in the Constitution belongs to the Federal Government. No other living man of eminence would have made such a statement. A great Constitutional lawyer like Webster, or Clay, or Calhoun would have been incapable of making it. It would not have been made by Lincoln but for the emergency. More than a million of his party followers stood ready to indorse any utterance he might make for the vast majority of them knew as little of the Constitution as they did of the Chinese language. Hundreds of newspapers also were ready to herald his remarks as the efforts of a master mind, while the South read and listened with alarm.

He next goes a step further, and says, "But we, on the other hand, deny any such right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication." The Supreme Court may declare that the reserved rights of the States give you "the right to take your slaves into the Federal Territory and to hold them as property," but we on the other hand deny that any such right has any existence in the Constituion, even by implication." Let it not be forgotten that the Supreme Court of the United States with its decision is on the one hand, and the "But we" with his decision is on the other. On which end is the weight? When one end of that beam goes down if Lincoln doesn't hit the stars it will not be the fault of his egotism.

Proceeding Lincoln says, "When the obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their notice is it not reasonable that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion?" The Obvious Mistake! Mark it well. For if it is a mistake at all, it is the mistake of no ordinary set of men:of men whose duty it is to find mistakes and correct them—not to make them. What a spectacle is this! Here stands a man fresh from the wilds of Illinois before an audience of the great American Metropolis, assuming that his legal lore is greater than that of the Supreme Court of this Great Republic, of Repub.

lics.
He says to this Court.
thing. Drink deep or taste not the Pierian Spring."

"A little learning is a dangerous

He ridicules the Court's decision as "The Obvious Mistake," yet he does not point out that "Obvious Mistake." He asks "when the obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their notice is it not reasonable that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion?" and yet he makes no attempt to bring the "Obvious Mistake" to the notice of the judges. However he may deride this decision, whatever be the grounds he may state for their correcting it, there is one well established fact which admits of no discussion. It is this: Just as soon as that Court's decision was published it became the law of all the States of all the Union. Whoever then disobeys that law is disloyal to the compact of the States,that is to the Union. No mathematical demonstration is clearer. Is not the burden of this speech against the law? We beg to say that the Supreme Court made no "obvious mistake," but that it pointed out with such consummate clearness "the obvious mistake" of the Republican Party as to render necessary the assembling of the Republican clans in the Cooper Institute on that Occasion. We also beg to say that no denunciations of the Supreme Court by any one, and especially by a political speaker with no responsibility, can annul this law reaching into every hamlet and every district of every State in this great American Union.

Chief-Justice Taney, the scholar, the statesman, and the jurist, rendered this decision. Of what breach of clearness was he guilty, that "its own freinds differed one with another as to its meaning?" Of what breach of fact was he guilty, that it was called the "obvious mistake?" The following correct summary of the salient points of this celebrated decision, as made by an eminent statesman and author, is herewith given for the satisfaction and enlightenment of our readers. viz: (1) That the persons of the African race were not and could not be acknowledged as 'part of the people,' or citizens under the constitution of the United States;