fused and blended. Men who had been accustomed to the sharp antagonisms of former political conflicts now found themselves working harmoniously together for a high and common object.

Conventions were held, the Buffalo platform and candidates indorsed, and electoral and State tickets put in nomination. Massachusetts was early in the field. On the 6th of September, the Free Soil State convention met at Boston. It was large in numbers and strong in talent and character. Edward L. Keyes, provisional chairman of the State committee, congratulated it that the North had been discovered by the "voyagers to Buffalo," that at last the north star had appeared in the heavens. "We have come," he said, "at the call of honor and humanity, to offer our devotions at the shrine of Freedom. We have come, like streams, from different fountains; but we come, like Avon and Avoca, to meet and mingle in peace."

Mr. John Mills of Springfield, who had long been one of the honored and trusted leaders of the Democratic party, was made president. A convention of the Liberty party met the same day, which, after a brief consultation, formally dissolved, and its members at once took their seats in the Free Soil convention. This ready abandonment of its old organization by the Liberty party, and its prompt acceptance of the new, drew from Charles Allen the remark, so enthusiastically applauded, that "without tasting death that party has been translated."

The convention sat for two days. Unity and enthusiasm marked the proceedings. Speeches of rare eloquence and power were made by Stephen C. Phillips, John Van Buren, Charles Sumner, Charles Allen, John A. Bolles, John C. Park, and others. At the head of the electoral ticket were placed the honored names of Samuel Hoar and William Jackson. Stephen C. Phillips was nominated for governor, and John Mills for lieutenant-governor. A series of comprehensive resolutions and a long and elaborate address to the people were reported by Mr. Sumner, and unanimously adopted.

A few days afterward, the Free Soil convention of New York assembled at Utica. The spirit of the Buffalo convention pervaded it, and seemed to inspire its deliberations. The principles it enunciated were in harmony with those of that convention, and its speeches were of the same high tone and tenor. It placed at the head of its electoral ticket Robert Emmet, nephew of the great Irish martyr, and General James S. Wadsworth, who afterward fell in the battle of the Wilderness, and who had indignantly declared, when the Wilmot proviso was throttled in the Syracuse convention, that, "though it is too late to do justice to Silas Wright, it is not too late to do justice to his assassins." It nominated for governor General John A. Dix, then United States Senator, afterward Secretary of the Treasury, major-general in the war of the Rebellion, minister to France, and governor of the State; and Seth M. Gates, who had in Congress battled by the side of Adams, Giddings, and Slade, for lieutenant-governor. With such sentiments and such candidates, and with speakers and presses of such commanding ability, the Free Soil party of New York made a most vigorous and brilliant canvass, placed the vote of Mr. Van Buren ahead of that of General Cass, and seemed almost to have annihilated the Democratic part of the Empire State. Who could have then imagined that within one brief year the very men who had made this gallant fight, achieved so much for freedom, and had left such a record, should return to the ranks they had so effectually broken, and, without any guaranties for the security of the principles and purposes they had so earnestly and eloquently advocated and defended, aid by voice and vote in again placing in power the men who were found ready to indorse the wicked compromises of 1850?

The State convention of the party in Ohio, embracing in its ranks so much of character and worth, was inspired by a similar spirit. Led by such men as Chase, Giddings, Root, Lewis, and their compeers, they made a vigorous canvass. Securing the balance of power in the legislature, they were enabled so to control affairs as to sweep the infamous "black laws" from the statute-book, and to place Salmon P. Chase in

the Senate of the United States. Like conventions were held in other free States, organizations effected, and candidates placed in nomination.

A State convention was held in Maryland. Local conventions and smaller meetings were held in Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Missouri. Though few in number, there were in the Border States earnest and fearless men who deplored the evils of slavery, and though surrounded by the most serious difficulties and menacing dangers gave pen, voice, and vote against extending to new regions a system that had so cursed their own. In Missouri an able address was issued to the Democracy of that State, written by Montgomery Blair and signed by several of the citizens of St. Louis. Without considering the humane and religious aspects of the question, they urged the economic arguments derived from the facts that slavery paralyzed industry, degraded labor, and impeded the diffusion of knowledge. Viewing it in these relations, they contended that it was neither honest nor democratic, that it was not just, either to present or future generations, to fasten and entail such a system upon the vast regions held in trust for unborn millions. These moderate and practical views were received with favor, even by many who still clung to the Democratic party, and especially by the Germans of St. Louis.

The new party, with its principles clearly defined and its policy and objects distinctly avowed, went into the contest with strong purpose, unfaltering resolution, and unwavering faith. Under the inspiration of the sacred cause, with leaders of acknowledged ability, eloquence, experience, and tact, it conducted a canvass of unprecedented vigor, and achieved results not to be measured by the number of votes it cast. Though restricted by constitutional obligations which it fully, if reluctantly, acknowledged, it went into the conflict unhampered by any affiliation with a " Southern wing," and pleaded, with unbated breath and without restraint, for the largest rights of humanity and the ultimate emancipation of the nation, though its immediate and proximate purposes were the defeat of slavery extension and the absolute overthrow of the

Slave Power.

With no expectation of victory,—indeed, with the certainty of defeat, more than two hundred and ninety thousand men cast their votes for a principle. Though this new party of freedom secured no electoral vote, and but five members of Congress, "its success," in the language of Edmund Quincy, "was unprecedented, taking into consideration

its brief existence and formidable foes."

Death of Mr. Adams. His earnest advocacy of the right of petition. - Change of views concerning Abolitionism. - Democratic defeat in the State of New York. Radical utterances of Mr. Seward. His election to the United States Senate. Ohio early in the antislavery ranks. - Prominent part taken by Mr. Chase. Friends of freedom hold the balance of power in the new legislature.-Adroit management. Repeal of "black laws."- Election of Mr. Chase to United States Senate.

ON the 21st of February, 1848, John Quincy Adams was stricken with apoplexy in his seat in the House of Representatives. He was borne to the Speaker's room, where, two days afterward, the aged statesman died. It was, in his own touching words, his "last of earth," a striking but fitting close of a long and illustrious career. Indeed, had it been left for him to choose the mode of his departure, he could hardly have chosen a death in richer harmony with his life. On the very spot of his grandest triumphs, under the roof that had so often resounded with his ringing words, "the old man eloquent " passed away.

Though Mr. Adams was distinguished above all others in his earnest, persistent, and finally triumphant vindication of the right of petition and freedom of speech, he was not, at least until near the close of life, in hearty accord with Abolitionists, with whom he never affiliated, from whom he often received severe criticisms and censures, and to whom he sometimes applied words indicating little confidence in their plans, if in their purposes, of action. Yet he was a trusted leader in their great fight for freedom of speech, while it was his voice that first enunciated the doctrine-novel to all, and greatly distasteful to slaveholders of the right of the government, under the war power, to emancipate the slaves; the