THE BLOCKADE. 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 Can 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, hasada, where the freight may be at a discount, 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 authoritative contradiction which has been given to this clever American fabrication was scarcely necessary, 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, merchant vessels would practically VOL. II.-Doc. 9 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 honesty 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. For 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. -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. 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 With the sincere hope that these, my conscientious convictions, may coincide with those of my friends, I am, very truly, yours, 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 par-be a true Democrat unless he is a loyal patriot. tisan 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. 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, 8. 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 remely 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 then, 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 restor ed; 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. ME. 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 66 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 a subsequent part of your letter you call my attention to certain grievances endured by the South, and conclude your commentary thereon as follows, viz.: "Is it wise, if we do not intend 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 property -in 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 should ever execute any law within her borders, unless at the point of the bayonet, and over the dead bodies of her slain sons." their main design, they have sought to break up the democratic party; that their means for accomplishing this end were to act with it, and force upon it every possible issue obnoxious to the general sentiment of the North; that they have dragged after them the true Union men of the South, partly through their fears of being considered laggard in their devotion to Southern interests, and partly through ambition for political distinction; to make the democratic party as odious as possible at the North, they became the advocates of slavery on principle, justified the African slave trade, and denounced the laws prohibiting it. By these acts, and frequent threats of disunion, they enabled the enemies of democracy in the North to denounce them as pro-slavery men, and to all this they added occasional taunts that they were no more to be relied upon for the protection of Southern rights than their opponents. By these means the democratic party was reduced before the last presidential election to a minority in most of the Northern states, and in the residue had the utmost difficulty in maintaining their as cendency. In the mean time, the union men in the South had measurably ceased to consider the democratic party as friendly to the Union; and the union sentiment in the border slave States, whose interest in its preservation is preeminent, sought expression through the AmerThere seems to me to be, in the course re-ican party. To such an extent had the democommended to the South, in the event of Mr. Lincoln's election to the presidency, a fatuity little short of madness. Would you pull down the canopy of heaven because wrong and crime exist beneath it? Would you break up the earth on which we tread because earthquakes sometimes heave it and pestilence walks its surface? This Union, sir, is too precious to the people it protects, North and South, East and West, to be broken up, even should a black republican be elected President next November. Should the attempt be made, a united North, and three-fourths of a divided South, would spring to the rescue. No, no, the remedy for the evils of which you justly complain are to be found within the Union, and not among its bloody ruins. I shudder at such sentiments coming from one whose sincerity I cannot doubt. The time was when 150,000 men tendered their services to the President to aid him, if necessary, in executing the laws of the United States; the time will be when 200,000 will volunteer for a like purpose, should resistance be made to his legitimate authority, no matter by what party he may be elected. cratic party been weakened by the insidious policy of their disunion allies, that they had the utmost difficulty in electing an old practical statesman over a young man who had nothing to recomend him beyond a few successful explorations of our wilderness territory. There were those who foresaw that longer affiliation with Southern disunionists would inevitably destroy the ascendency of the democratic party, and a feeble and fruitless effort was made to induce the President to lay the foundations of his administration on the rock of the Union, and cut loose from those who were seeking to destroy it. For reasons, no doubt patriotic, but to me inexplicable, the reverse of that policy was pursued. The support of the Lecompton constitution, which the country generally believed to be a fraud, was I admit that the grievances which you enumerate are hard to be borne; but a few South-made the test of democracy; one leading demern men are not without responsibility for their existence. The general sentiment of the country, North and South, at the close of the Revolutionary War was anti-slavery. It has changed in the South, but remains unchanged in the North. There, however, it has been roused to unwonted activity by the preachings of fanatics and the denunciations of political demagogues, aided not a little by the arts, the language, and the violence of Southern disunionists. It is needless to give in detail all the causes which have brought the politics of the country to their present deplorable condition. Suffice it to say that you have long had in the South a small party of able men whose aim has been to destroy the Union; that, as a preliminary to ocrat after another was proscribed because they would not submit to the test, and, as if to deprive Northern democrats of the last hope of successfully vindicating the rights of the South, an act of Congress was passed for the admission of Kansas into the Union at once, provided she would consent to become a slaveholding State, but postponing her admission indefinitely if she refused. In your published letter you justly condemn the seceders from the Charleston convention, who, you think, ought to have remained, and prevented the nomination of a candidate who is obnoxious to the South. Do you not perceive, sir, that the secession was a part of the programme for breaking up the democratic party? And is it not palpable that after vacat- | whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ing their seats at Charleston, they went to Bal- ten miles square) as may by cession of partimore for the mere purpose of more effectually ticular States, and the acceptance of Congress, completing the work of destruction by drawing become the seat of Government of the United off another detachment? I, sir, entertain no States, and to exercise like authority over all doubt that the secession was the result most places purchased by the consent of the legisdesired by the disunionists; that the object of lature of the State in which the same shall be, the new issue then gotten up was merely to for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, form a pretext for secession, and its adoption dockyards, and other needful buildings." was the last thing they desired or designed. Glance a moment at a few facts: Alabama, led by an open disunionist, went to Cincinnati, in 1856, under instructions to secede unless the equal rights of all States and Territories should be conceded and incorporated into the platform of the democratic party. The concession was made and they had no opportunity to secede. They came to Charleston under the same leader, again instructed to secede unless the convention would put into the platform a new plank, the effect of which, if adopted, would be further to disgust and alienate the Northern democracy. In this instance the sine qua non was not complied with, and the disunionists floated off on the rejected plank into an unknown sea, unfortunately carrying with them a large number of good and true Union men. And what is this principle, the non-recognition of which has riven asunder the democratic party, and apparently threatens the dissolution of the Union? It is, that it is the right and duty of Congress to legislate for the protection of slave property in the Territories. Now, I take it upon me to say that a more latitudinarian and dangerous claim of power in Congress never was advanced by federalists of the Hamilton school. Look at it in a constitutional and practical light. If Congress have the right to legislate for the protection of slave property in the territories, tliey have a right to legislate for the protection of all other property; and, if they have a right to legislate for the protection of property, they have a right to legislate for the protection of persons. The assumption that they can legislate for the protection of slave property leads, logically and inevitably, to the conclusion that they have power to legislate for the territories in all cases whatsoever. If you can put your finger on the grant of this power in the Constitution, please put it also on its limitations, if any can be found. Upon this principle, Congress may acquire an empire outside of the organized States, over which it may exercise unlimited power, governing it as the Roman Senate did their conquered provinces. And this under a constitution, which jealously restricts the exclusive power of legislation by Congress to a few spots of land purchased, with the consent of the States, for specified objects, and grants no power of general legislation over a territory whatsoever. To verify these positions we need only advert to the Constitution. Among the grants of power to Congress is the following, viz.: "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases Mark the jealousy with which this power is restricted. For the protection of the Govern ment even, it is limited to a territory not exceeding ten miles square, and it cannot be exercised over "the forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings," situated within the States, unless the land on which they may be located shall be first purchased with "the consent of the legislatures" of those States. Is it conceivable that the wise men who restricted the exclusive power of legislation in Congress to a territory not exceeding ten miles square, did, by any indirection, grant that power broadly enough to cover the whole continent outside of the organized States should it be annexed by purchase or conquest? The following provision is the only one in the Constitution which has been chiefly, if not exclusively relied upon to sustain the position that Congress has any power whatsoever to legislate over the territories, viz. : "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States." The word "territory," used in this provision, obviously means land, and nothing else. The United States, at the time when the Constitution was adopted, owned an immense amount of land north of the Ohio River, and these lands Congress was authorized to "dispose of." That the word "territory" means property, is conclusively shown by its connection with the words "and other property "-" territory and other property." The territory spoken of, therefore, is property in lands. "Rules and regulations" are a grade of legislation somewhat below the dignity of laws; but admitting them in this case to have the same effect, on what are they to operate? Simply on the property of the United States, not on any other property, nor on persons, except so far as they may be connected with the public property. To this extent, and no further, is the power of Congress to legislate over a territory granted to Congress, and whenever all the lands and other property are disposed of, the rules and regulations" become obsolete, and the power of legislation granted in this clause, is thenceforth in abeyance. Moreover, this grant of power extends as well to property within a State as within a territory. In a State the general power of legislation is in the State Legislature; yet the power of Congress to make "rules and regulations" respecting the public property, is the same in a State as in a territory. The scope of |