defeat me for the Senate, but you may take me and put me to death. While pretending no indifference to earthly honors, I do claim to be actuated in this contest by something higher than an anxiety for office. I charge you to drop every paltry and insignificant thought for any man's success. It is nothing; I am nothing; Judge Douglas is nothing. But do not destroy that immortal emblem of humanity-the Declaration of American Independence.

But we have not space for further extracts from those memorable speeches. They produced a remarkable effect upon their hearers, and procured their author an extended fame as one of the readiest and most popular of popular orators. They have been widely disseminated by the Republican party since. The struggle was fierce, but it has been said that

"In perhaps the severest test that could have been applied to any man's temper-his political contest with Senator Douglas in 1858-Mr. Lincoln not only proved himself an able speaker and a good tactician, but demonstrated that it is possible to carry on the fiercest political warfare without once descending to rude personality and coarse denunciation. We have it on the authority of a gentleman who followed Abram Lincoln throughout the whole of that campaign, that in spite of all the temptations to an opposite course to which he was continuously exposed, no personalities against his opponent, no vituperation or coarseness, ever defiled his lips. His kind and genial nature lifted him above a resort to any such weapons of political warfare, and it was the commonly expressed regret of fiercer natures that he treated his opponent too courteously and urbanely. Vulgar personalities and vituperation are the last thing that can be truthfully charged against Abram Lincoln. His heart is too genial, his good sense too strong, and his innate selfrespect too predominant, to permit him to indulge in them. His nobility of nature-and we use the term

advisedly-has been as manifest through his whole career, as his temperate habits, his self-reliance, and his mental and intellectual power."

The result of the campaign was a Republican majority on the popular vote.

But owing to the apportionment of the Legislature, Douglas's majority in joint ballot was eight; three in the Senate, and five in the House; so that he enjoyed the fruits of a victory, while Lincoln had the honors, which, in this instance, were barren indeed.

Since the close of the campaign of 1858, Lincoln has been the favorite candidate of Illinois for the Presidency. Republicans too, in other states, attracted by the fame he obtained in this contest, have summoned him to aid them; and at Columbus, and Cincinnati, Ohio, he made in the fall of 1859, two powerful and effective speeches, which extended his reputation. On the 27th of February, 1860, he delivered at the Cooper Institute, New York, another speech, which the Republicans received at the time with great enthusiasm, and afterwards accepted as a sort of shibboleth of their party. It has since been repeated several times in the New England States.

SPEECH OF ABRAM LINCOLN, DELIVERED AT THE COOPER INSTITUTE, MONDAY, Feb. 27, 1860.

MR. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF NEW YORK: The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation.

In his speech last_autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in The New York Times, Senator Douglas said: "Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better than we do now."

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for the discussion between Republicans and that wing of Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: "What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned ?"

What is the frame of Government under which we live?

The answer must be: "The Constitution of the United States." That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787 (and under which the present Government first went into operation), and twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789.

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present Government. It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that time. Their names

being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated.

I take these "thirty-nine," for the present, as being 66 our fathers who framed the Government under which we live."

What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood just as well, and even better than we do now?

It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?

Upon this, Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. This affirmative and denial form an issue; and this issue this question-is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood better than we.

Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it-how they expressed that better understanding.

In 1784-three years before the Constitution-the United States then owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other-the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that Territory; and four of the "thirty-nine" who afterward framed the Constitution were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition-thus showing that, in their understanding, no line divided local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. The other of the four-James McHenry-voted against the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it.

In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only territory owned by the United States-the same question of pro

hibiting slavery in the territory again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and three more of the "thirty-nine" who afterward signed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on the question. They were William Blount, William Few, and Abraham Baldwin; and they all voted for the prohibition-thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. This time the prohibition becanie a law, being part of what is now well known as the Ordinance of $87.

The question of federal control of slavery in the territories, seems not to have been directly before the Convention which framed the original Constitution; and hence it is not recorded that the "thirty-nine" or any of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question.

In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87 including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reported by one of the "thirty-nine," Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to an unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the "thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Patterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison.

This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory; else both their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to support the Con