VOLITIE .17. NEW SERIES. /SIHE BEDFORD GAZETTE I ® IS PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY MORNING I BV B. F. MEIERS, ( At the following terms, to wit: St .50 per annam, CASH, in advance. t •s'J.OO " " il'paid within the year. \ S>.so " " if not paid within the year. r-Xo subscription taken for less than six months. . paper discontinued until all arrearages are „ Bl d,unless at the option of the publisher, it hae ' tieen' decided by the United States Courts that ths 1 I'-oppageot a newspaper without tee payment ot ar- , rparages, is prima facie evidence ot fraud aud is a t criminal offence. ...... t courts have decided that persons are ac countable for tbe subscription price of newspapers, t take them from the post office,whether 'hey ' subscribe lor them. <>r not. 1 Political. 1 188 rBESIIKSTUL CAMPAIGN'. | DtfL'&L.lM l\ THE AORTJI. Eli"* rcrrptioii KEK! speech al A'otr cord Senator Douglas in < oncord. MAGNIFICENT RECEPTION-IMMENSE GATE- j F.KING OF THE PEOPLE—GREAT SPEECH ! AND GLOiIiOUS ENTHUSIASM. [From tbe Concord (N. H.) Patriot.] Al half pas! ten o'clock yesterday ( Tuesday! j morning, the Committee of Reception, which I consisted of Messrs. H. P. Rolfe (Chairman,) T. P. Treadwefl, O. L. Sanborn..!. V. Barron, J. : S. Abbot, E ison Hill, J. E. Lang,G. ff. Davis,; and several other gentlemen, lelt the Concord , ' denot for Canaan, in order to meet and escort the Hon. S. A. Douglas to Concord. The train j reached the appointed place at halt-past one o'- i clock, and the cars from the North soon arrived. The committee entered the car ill which Mr. and Mrs. Douglas were seated, and were seve- > rallv introduced to the distinguished Senator and his lady. Mr. Douglas left Montpelier, Vt., in the mor ning and at several places on the route found large crowds oi people assembled at the depots to do him honor. This was especially the case al Northtseld, Roxbiiry, White River junction, J Franklin, Webster Place and Fisherville. At , tweral places in New Hampshire the train re- j ceived an accession 61 numbers, for many ear- ' tiet democrats were anxious to avail themselves j .il tbe opportunity to hear the able and eloquent ; exponent of their principles. Mr. Douglas j si ok" his thanks to those waiting at the depots, i bu* made no political lemarks On the arm s! of Urn cars at Concoid, an im mense crowd was waiting to welcome him, and loud vere the hurrahs as tiie illustrious visiter j left the cars and proceeded to the carriage in ) waiting lor him. A salute was fired as (tie cars j entered tlm ,I^just. A procession was formed, ; f>re C -t-d by a band, it) which Mr. Dougias, Mr. j H. P. Rolfe and Mr. Bailey, ot tbe Boston /Jer- i iild, rode in an open barouche diawn by tour horses. They were followed by the members i of the committee and fnends, in a long string of vehicles of every description, and by four or five ■ bands. The procession passed along Main street, i Washington street, State street and School' street to the State House, the band playing and j the people cheering heartily ail the way. ihe marshals of the procession were Messrs. Eleazer ' Jackson, J. !,. dough, C. H. Hill, J. B. San- j born and J. B. ClilFord. A platform had been erected in front of the Stale Hcuse, which was occupied by the com- ! inittee and friends. The people, numbering s" vera I thousands, filled the yard in front of the j buiidim*. M*. D. was escorted to the plat- j form. j MR. KJLFE, Chairman of the Committee said : j Mr. Douglas, I have the honor sir, to be the or- j gar. of this vast concourse of your fellow citi- | zns and friends who have come up from their ; farms and woikshops, their counting room' and j merchandise, to greet you and extend to you a j cordial welcome to the capital of our State.— j (Applause.) Very few of us, sir, have the pleasure of your peiscnai acquaintance, and if | this visit shall prove as pleasing to you as it is) gratifving to us, yon will not regret that you have made it. Sa long have you been in the I national councils, so ably have von advocated ; their cause, that the democracy of New Damp- i shire claim you as their champion, and we re .ice in this opportunity of testifying to you j that vour eminent services are held by us in | grateful remembrance. W r e acknowledge to , you our gratitude f>r that constant support i which you have given to the great principle of j popti ar sover H ign'_v—the foundation stone upon j -Aiiirh our institutions rest. ('-Good. I F>-om j no state man have we received, so much—and al low me to say to you what may not be so satis factory a reflection from none is there so much expected. The realization ot the past gives as stuaace of the future. For the galiant resis tance which you made to the Lecompton icheme, which if consummated would have been a great enrr", v/e thank you. In the nobi? and sue-i Cr : .ful struggle which vou made in 1858, in vour own State, against a brave enemy in the front and a cowardly troop of camp followers in the rear, you had our sympathies and rejoicings ■ and in that brilliant personal defence which you recently mad" in the Senate against that "lump of Senators who exalt the rights of property a love the personal rights of freemen, we have a warded you the prize so much coveted by states men—the jewel of consistency. (Cheers) In the life of eminent men there is no period to which parental hearts turn back with so many sweet and affectionate recollections as to that of infancy and childhood ; anil while the North west claims you as her man, and the nation as 'ier . sman. New England cherishes you as h: i c. (Cheers ) Sir, this is an occasion ■ ' il wi'h suggestions ; but I atn ad the impatience of this assembly ..o nv benefit,so I forbear. Permit me, in conclusion, to tender you assurances of the sincere pleasure which your presence affords •r . Mv fellow citizen?, 1 will detain you no longer. I have now the honor to present to ( you the distinguished American statesman.— (Continued cheering.) The Hon. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS was greeted with loud cheering as he arose to address the vast assembly. He said : MR. CHAIRMAN AND FELLOW CITIZENS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE—YOU will receive my grate ful thanks for the kind terms in which you have been pleased to welcome me ; and you will accept my grateful acknowledgements (or the cordiality with which you have endorsed those sentiments of welcome. For the first time I visit the capital of your noble State.— When I wanted to tnake a briel trip through Vermont and New Hampshire, on my way from Saratoga \o Newport, R. 1., I did not expect any public demonstration. My object was to make a quiet visit, a pilgrimage to the grave ot my father and to the scenes ot mv childhood- From the moment I trod thesod of Vermont 1 found 1 was welcomed by the population en masse. Men ot aii parties joined in the recep tion. It filled my heait with gratitude, and rendered it impossible lor me to discuss any of those political topics about which the assem blage differed in opinion. I had supposed that when I left the borders of my native state, ] would be welcomed only by a few friends as 1 passed along the road. Imagine my surprise at this vast assemblage, this imposing reception, which exceeds in its magnificence and grandeur anything I have previously witnessed. From the bottom of my heart I thank you for this demonstration ot your good will. You have been pleased, Mr. Chairman, to refer in terms of approbation to my course upon the Lrcornp ton constitution. While 1 have ceased to dis cuss the merits ot that question since it was fi nally discarded by the people of Kansas, yet i will not refrain from a slight allusion to it now lest my silence might be misconstrued. I did fight that Lecompton constitution with all the energy and with all the power that I could com mand. (Cheers.) R-luctant as 1 was to differ in opinion or action with a President that I had used all my -Starts to place in the Executive chair, vet duty was paramount to any personal fealty or obligation. [Cheers.] I stood pledged as every democrat in America stood pledged by his vote for James Buchanan, in 185b, to main tain the right of the people ot every State and every Territory to form and regulate their own domestic institutions. ["That's it.'"] In mv opinion the attempt to force upon an unwillir.g people a constitution which they did not like, was not only in violation of the democratic creed, but it violated the American creed.— [Cheers.] ft violated the republican creed.— It violated the creed ot all free men in all free countries. [Applause.] I did not oppose the Lecompton constitution on the ground of its provisions in respect to African slavery.— I held then, as I hold now, that if the people of Kansas wanted a slave State they had a right to it. ["That's good doctrine."] If, on the con trary, they did not want slavery, no poweron eartii should force it upon them. I opposed the Lecompton constitution because it was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas. I proposed that the ques'ion should be referred back to the people of Kansas, with the privi lege of voting fir or against it ; and if a majority ol ail the legal votes of Kansas ratified it, then Kansas should come into the Union with that constitution. Jl, on the contrary, a majority voted against it, the people of Ktmsa* might pro ceed to make a new constitution, with or with out slavery, just as they pl-ased, and corne into the Union. I rejoiced from the bottom ol mv heart when I saw every republican in both honses ot Congress voting for that j roposition. [Laughter and satirical cheers ] Having heard the republican party pledge themselves so often against the admission of any more slave States into the Union, it did rejoice me when I saw tbern, every man in the Senate, and every man in the House, voting to allow Kansas to come in as a slave State it the people should so decide. [Laughter and cheers.] And I will say to you now, my fellow citizens, that it is a matter of sincere iegr-t that I find the republican party now d-nouncirig rne for advocating the identi cal principle that they then voted for. All I ask ol lhem is to carry out in future, and apply to every new Territory and new State, the i dentical principles for which they all voted with me in that Lecompton controversy.— [Cheers.] The President of the United States, during tliat Lecompton contioversy, put forth a claim, which 1, as a Senator, could not recog nise. I conceded his right to recommend the Lecompton constitution if he believed it to be the act and deed of the people, and 1 should never have quarreled with hitn on that question had fie not claimtd the right to control my vote and compel me to vote against my conscience. I hold that a President lias no more right to con trol the vote of a Senator than a Senator has to dictate to a.President. The President told me that it I did not obey him and vote to force the Le compton constitution upon the people against their will, he would take the head off" of every friend 1 had in office. I told him, in reply,{that my friends were as dear to me as those of any other man could be to him, but that if I had a friend who was not willing to lose his office, rather than degrade me into a tool of executive power, he did not deserve to be my friend.— [Applause.] Here permit me to say that the great contest between the Executive and myself was tfiis: lie claimed the right to control the vote of a senator in opposition to the wishes of his constituents. I claimed that the represen tative of the people is independent and should always act independent of executive power. — [Cheers.] When you permit the executive to direct a representative how he shall vote, you convert this republic into a despotism. [That's so.] Why elect a Congress, if the President has a right to tell the members how they are tc vote ? There rs an end of representative gov ernment whenever the Executive is permittee to use or abuse his power, by controlling ths represehtative against the wishes of his constit iu( uts and of bis individual conscience. Henct BEDFORD, FA., FRIDAY MORNING, AUGUST 17, 1860. in my opinion, I was fighting a gieater battle in Illinois in 1858 than the mere question who should be Senator. [Applause.] In my person the question was submitted to the people ot Il linois, whetner or not their Senator should be the mere tool of executive dictation. ]"The\' decided it right."] Yes, they did decide it right, in opposition to an unholy alliance be tween the republicans and the federal office-hol ders. [Cheers.] It was hoped that when that L-compton controversy had been settled by the vote of the people of Kansas agamst it, that the warfare in the democratic party would ceae.— Hut instead ofthat, the war was kept up, and now we find on the national theatre the same game being played that was played in Il linois in ISSS. Now you find the question submitted whether or not the executive of this nation is to be permitted to dictate his successor in office. It is said that Mr. Buchanan natural ly feels mortified and wounded to have a man nominated by his own party in opposition to tns wishes. [Laughter.] Whether he thus feels mortified or not, it would have been well lor him to have considered when he became a can didate in 1856 in opposition to Central Pierce, who was then President and candidate for re election. Suppose Gen. Pierce had then pur sued the same course which Mr. Buchanan is now pursuing—that is, using the f&wer and patronage which the democratic partly had pla cet! in his ii3iids, foj the purpose of defeating the nominee of that party. What would every Democrat in America have said of Franklin Pierce if he had tried to divide ;and defeat his party merely out of mortification andchagrm at not getting the re-nomination? Whatever would have been said ot General Pimce in sucii a contingency must be true of James Buchanan now. [Cheers j I should not liai* referred to these things at this lime, nor doing this can vass, but for the fact that the President of the United Slates has taken the slump, uaking pub lic harangues, tor the purpose of difiding and defeating the parly which elected >irn Presi dent. [Applause.] What are tf-e reasons as signed by the President for endeavoing to di vide and break down the democrat!: parly?— He does not assign the personal r-a!n that he don't like the nominee. Hut he pits it upon the ground that he don't like the plaform adop ted bv the party. What is there in that plat form to which James Buchanan hasa right to take exception ? ft "is the identiq! platform upon which James Buchanan was oected Pres ided, and without which be neverrould have b>-en elected. There isn't an honot inan in ail America that will deny that Jamo Buchanan am' John C. Breckinridge, in 85G, were pledged to the doctrine of non intervention by Congress with slavery in the lerritories.— [Chni-r.-. j 1 maoe speeches from tbisarnesta: l with John C. Breckinridge in 1856, vt.eo he was advocating his own claims to the Vice Pres idency,and heard him go to the extreme engbths in tavor of popular sovereignty in the'l'trritories. Then again, it I recollect right, the democrats of Hampshire held an immense mass tneting at this capital, in February, 1f5.16, pievwus to the nomination at Cincinnati, at whir Howell Cobb and Joseph Lane and James } Orr ot Suth Carolina, made speeches : an.fin every one of tho-.e speeches they advocate! squatter sovereignty in its broadest sense. Applause.) 1 appeal to this audience if these fact are nut true, ("1 have the speeches in my ocket." That gentlemau has the speeches in i- pocket. They were written out hv the spfker after thev returned to Washington, and puplished in pamplet lorm by the national emocratic committee, as a true exposition of yinocratic principles. ("Yes, and in the Bosto Post") A gentleman says "in the Boston Pet," and 1 believe, in every other democratic paper in , America that had the space to spate ir politi cal speeches. In other words, lello citizens, i I stand now where every democrat i Ameri • ca stood four years ago, advocating tlj right of the people of every political coin unity to i make then own laws, to establish eir own I institutions to suit themselves. I clan no pecu • liar credit for advocating these pr ciples.— - i That principle of popular sovereignty s as old [ as free government itself. It was it princi ple upon which every battle of the Involution • was fonght. Remember, for onernoment, I what was the cause that led to the reolutiona - ry war. What was the demand c our re , volutionary fathers, the denial of wicn pro i duced the war ? It was not i ride pen dice*. In - the beginning of that controversy our re • volutionary fathers did not desire indendence. • In every petition to the crown, in evy address I to the Parliament and people of Engnd, our i fathers set up and protested their dtotion to • the British Constitution, and thei loyalty I to the Crown ot England. ("Th's God's truth.") Of course it's God's truth, cl should -j not have said it. (Applause.) Then uat were t our fathers contending for, if it wa not in - dependence ? They were contendii for the t > right of self government in the colonii They > i demanded the right in their own 10l legis t latures to pass all laws which affectethe local ; ! and domestic concerns ot their resperve colo a nies. They did not deny the right ohe Bril , ish Parliament to pass laws on alsuhjects e which were imperial and not coloni They _ did not deny the right of the Briti-Igovern e n.ent to do all acts and things whic afT-cled f | thp welfare of the empire without ierfering e with the local and domestic concer of the f people of the colonies. But they de.nd the - right of self-government in each coloi in re d spect to everything that was locaTannternal, - and not imperial. And our fathers t forth o the[Declaration of Independence "or when a they found they could not get local stgovern 's ment without it. They submitted toidepen is deuce as a necessity, in order to get -al self o government. They established theidepen ■- deuce of these colonies only as a rr.ea ol ac d quiring the rights of local self-govenent e Thus you find that the revolutionaiwar is - justified only upon the ground that tf people e of the colonies had a right to govern tnselves Freedom of Thought and Opinion. iin th?ir local matters without the interference of the: British Parliament. We are now told by the republicans of the North, and by the disunionists ol the South, that the principle of non-intervention and popular sovereignty is , y erv well in the States, but is all wrone in ; the Territories. ( Laughter and cheers.) They ! tell as that a Territory is not sovereign, and therefore has no right to exercise a sovereign : jrower or establish its own institutions, bet me isk them if the colonies weie sovereign ■when our lathers demanded the same right of self-government? Our fathers demanded the privilege, not for sovereign States, but for inde- : j pendent colonies, tor provinces, for Territeries, i wb'.le tney were dependent and remaining in a colonial and territorial condition. (Cheers) Our lathers demanded this privilege under i precisely the same circumstances that we demo crats now claim it for the people of the Territo | rien. We democrats acknowledge the right | and. duty of Congress to pass all laws which are federal, and not local or territorial in their j character. We don't deny the right of Con -1 gress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, : to make war, to collect revenue, to perform those general acts which are federal and not ; local in their character. But we demand that the people of a Territory, the same as those of ; a colony, shall be permitted to make their own ; laws and establish their own institutions to suit | themselves. (Applause.) The republicans of ! New Hampshire will tell you that the people |of the Territory have no right ol self-govern ment until thev become a State. Have no right. Why not? Because, thev sav, Con j gress has not given them that right. I have yet to learn that an American freeman, wheth er in a State or a Territory, derives his rights from Congress Cheers. lam aware that the torUs of the Revolution took the ground j that the people of the colonies had no rights j except those which the King of England gran j ted to them in their charters. And they | sa 'd that, inasmuch as the colonies obtained | their rights from the crown, why, of course, the King could take them away whenever he ■ thought proper. (Laugbeter.) What did Washington, and Jefferson, and Hancock, and Molly Stark say to that doctrine? (Laughter and cheers.) I hey told the King ot England , and the British Parliament that jthev did not get their rights from the crown, and hence that the crow.i could not take them away. They told the King of England that they obtained | their rights trom God Almighty, that he alone j could take them away. The doctrine of the ! revolutionary war was, that the right of local , government was inherent in the people ; and ; that hence all rightful government must enia- I naie from the people, and be established bv and 1 for.th* bon.-fi* ol the people. That .was j doctrine in the times of the Revolution. But ; we are now told that this inherent right of self government only pertains to States, don't b-- i long to Territories, nor colonies, nor provinces, las it did in 1776. Let us examine this claim i for a moment. I suppose that you, citizens of | New Hampshire, without distinction of party, ; ail claim the inherent right of self-government, i ('• Yes, yes,") You think it is an inherent right that no power on earth dare take from you. Well, I suppose that democrats- and republi j cans agree so far. But the republican tells you that the moment a citizen of New Hamp | shire (who possesses the inherent right of self government so long as he stays here) crosses a | State line and enters a Territory of the United States, he loieits the right. (Ironical cheers.) Is it true that a citizen of New Hampshire for feits tns inalienable right of self-government when he moves to a Territory. ("No, Sii-ee,"and laughter.) What provision ot the constitution of the United States works that forfeiture ' ("None.") Then upon what ground is it that an American citizen is deprived of his rights wh*n he goes in to a Territory under the con stitution and the American flag? Will it be said that the people ot the Territories are not capable of sell-government? Who are the people of the Territories ? Where did they come from ' Many of them are your sons, vonr brothers, who left the granite hills ot iheir na tive State and went to Kansas. They were capable of sell-governmerit, were they not, when they left home? When t did they lose their capacity to govern themselves * (Laugh- ! ter and cheers.) Were they any less- capable ' of self-government after thev got to Kansas than they were when they started ? D ; d thev lose all their sense and intelligence and the virtue they possessed while on the terry boat crossing the Missouri river ? (Laughter.) Where and when, I ask, did the native-born citizen, who was capable of self-government when he started, lose that capacity ? (•'He aint lust it yet." J will not pretend to say what may be the opinion of the people of New Hampshire as to the ca pacity of the people of the Territories and of the new State to govern themselves. I wiilon ly say that we, who have spent a whole man hood on the frontier, do think that we are capa ble ol sell-governrnent. A'e will never admit that j on are any wiser, better, or more capable ol self-government than ourselves. We have a j great respect for you of"the old States. I think we love you better than you do us. (Laughter.) i And J will give you good reasons (or it. lam a native of New England, and 1 left the land of my birth, the scenes of my childhood, the giave of my fat hers, and went to the extreme North- : west. And yet New England is my native land, and I love her on that account. Illinois' is not your native land, and you don't love her therefore, as much as I do. who live tnere. Hence I say to you that the people of the North west who emigrate from New England, from Virginia, from the Carolinas, from any of the old States, remain loyal in their affections to the States trom which they removed, while thev love still dearer the States where they have planted their wives and children. Yet we think we are just as capable of self-government alter we get out there as we were before we stated. With all due lespect, we think weaie : quite as competent as you are ; and I will give | you a reason for that. ' I think the New Hamp- ! shire boy who moves to the West when he is ' twenty years ot age, is just as capable of self government a> file brother that remains behind. I Just cast you, eyes round this neighborhood, ar.d i find an old gentleman who had two sons, — j The one was an ambitious, restless, energetic (..daring boy ; the other was an amiable, kind, lazy, good fellow. (Laughter.) Which ot these boys do you think went out West?—j t\ Inch stayed at home, anil, lived with daddy and mammy ? (Laughter.) The bold and am- j • bitious young fellow went and dug ur the prai- i rie : or iri tile wilderness he carved out his own I fortune, made his own farm, put up hisjown fen- I ces and perhaps split his owu rails. (Laughter I and cheers.) He cultivated his own fields, e- ; reeled a school house and a church—yes, and j made his own cabinet work, too. Bv that time 1 reckon the wild boy had sown his wild oats pretty well, and was fully as capable of self government as the one that staved here and ac ted under lather's and mothers advice. And what more? Very likely that young fellow,' after he had made a home for himself in the West, found himself a little lonesome and con- j eluded to come back and see the old people. It j he did, ten to one that he put his eye on the] prettiest girl that could be tonnd in the neigh- i borhood, and took her out West with him, thus : taking away from the old New England | State not only the smartest boy, but also the prettiest girl in the district. [Laugh ter and Cheers.] Now, are you going to tell ] me that such people are not capable ol self-gov ernment, merely because they live in a Terri tory {"Not we.'| f hold that every politi- cal community, State and Territory alike, has, | under out system of government, the right to govern itself j n all things that are local and do- 1 mestic, and not federal. And, what is more, j Mr. Buchanan thought so in 1.856. The re-! publicans all thought so when they voted for ' the Crittenden bill in the L-compton controver- : sy. [Cheers.] The democratic partv thinks so now. [Applause.] This principle of popu ler sovereignty and non intervention is a cardi nal plank in the democratic platform. Every democrat has heretofore declared and consider ed it a fundamental article of his creed. But; here L must be just, toother parties. We dem- 1 crrats aie not entitleJ to the exclusive claim and exclusive credit of this doctrine ol non-in- i tervention and popular sovereignty. In 1852 i • it was adopted as a plank in the whig platform ! Clay and Webster established it in the compro- ! I mise measures of 1850. General Pierce was ■ I nominated upon it in 1852, and elected upon it. j J remember Well that iri the contest between II Pierce and Scott, iri 1852, the whole contro- 1 ■ j vrldiers that voted'and ; passed the measures through Congress. But it I cannot be denied that both the whig and demo- | cratic party, in 1852, stood pledged by the platform, to this principle of non-intervention by ! Congress with slavery inthe Territories of the J I nited States. Will any man deny the truth of , these tacts ? ["No."] How then does it hap pen that so many old whigs. so mauy old demo- i crats, have strayed awav from the path whpre j both parties used to tread in peace and harmony ' Whigs and democrats were in the habit of quar relling about the distribution ot the public funds and the specie circular ; but at the same time they agreed on the slavery question. Non-in-' tervention was a plank common to both parties. You whigs agreed to stand by that, and so did we democrats. I want to know whether you, I old whigs, are going to jump off the onlv plank ; remaining in die platform merely because you I find me standing on it ? I give you fair notice ! ihat I never intend to abandon it, if [ find everv I whig in America on it. [Laughter and cheers.] . So it was with the American partv in 1856. You Americans and we democrats differed about other inatters, but agreed on non-inter vention. Remember the twelfth art i cle in that celebrated American creed, in which you "pretermitted" the slavery question.— "Pretermit" was the word used. Now f want to know il you are not willing to pretermit it now? Pretermitting, I ieckon is about the same as non-interference. Let every old line whig, every democrat, every American, every conservative man, rally on this principleof non- ; interference by the federal government with slavery in the Territories, and vou will have peace and harmony all over thi lanr. Re member, there has never been sectional strife in this country except when the federal govern- ! ment attempted to take power over the local and , domestic institutions ol the people. So long as i Congress has confined its act* to those few ob- : jects specified in the constitution as being fed j eral, and not local, there has been peace. But i now you find this country threatened with sec . tional slrite, and why ? Because vi>u are now realizing what the Father of his Country, in his farewell address,cautioned his countrymen against. You now find this country divided in ; to two sectional parties, one North and another South. The republican party appeal to pass ions, prejudices, and the ambition ot the N'orth ! against the South and her institutions. Seces sionists of the South appeal to passions, prejudi ces, and to the ambition of the sovereign people against the North and our institutions. 0 There publicans demand that the federal government i shall take charge of the slavery question. The j Southern secessionists also demand that the fed- . eral government shall settle that question. The republicans want the federal government whole \mntK, 9io. to wield its power against slavers everywhere. And the secessionists want the federal force wielded for slavery everywhere. Thus you find an irrepressible conflict produced between those two sectional parties. The one is the an tipodes 'o the other; and yet the one is necessa ry to the existence o' the other. The republi cans of the North and the secessionists of the South occupy precisely the same relation to each other as the two blades of a pair of shears. They both turn on the same pivot, but cut in opposite directions. (Laughter and cheers.) Interference by Congress with slavery in the Territor-ps is the pivot on which both turn. The republicans tell us that Congress must pro hibit slavery wherever the people want slavery no matter about prohibiting it where the peo ple don t want it—they prohibit it themselves. Hence, the republicans want Congress to pro hibit slavery whenever and wherever the peo ple want to have it. The secessionists on the other hand, demand that Congress shall maintain and prot-ct slavery wherever the peo ple don't want it. They say that they are go ing to have it protected by Congress wherever necessary, and that is not necessary so long as the people want it, for it they want it they will protect it themselves. It is only necessa ry when the people don't want it, and that is the only time they are going to interfere to pro | tect it. Thus, both ol those parties rest their respective claims on the doctrine ot interven , '' on hy Congress with slavery in the j in opposition to the right ofthe people in all cases. The demociatic party, on the other hand, proclaim the doctrine of non-interference : by Congress with the domestic institutions of ( the people every where. (Applause.) Wesay to the federal government, "Hands off' T#ich not the focal affairs of the people!" We say ' to the federal government, what our fathers said ; to the British Parliament, "Mind vour own bu ; siness. ("That's right.") Passing through Ver gennes the other day, a gentleman in the cars I called my attention to an old piece of Continen . tal money. "Did you ever mind those words— ; 'Mind your own business." Another gentle man in the cars called my a'tention to an old Massachusetts coin, on the reverse side of which was, "Mind your own business." (-'That is a , very good crepd. ') That was the creed of our lathers in the Revolution. That was what thev , said to the British Parliament when tbey at tempted to force slavery on the colony of Vir ginia, against its will. That is what our fathers ; said to the British government when itattempt | ed to control our people in their local and do • mestic afiairs, and to dictate what kind of pa per they should write on. Our fathers said to the British government, "Hands off. Mind ; your own business." And in o-der that they might perpetuate that motto, and render it fa miliar to their children, thev placed it upon j their paper money and on their coin, in order that every child should learn to read it. Let j us now act on that principle. Let us sav to Con ■ gress, "Mind your own business, and let the i erritories alone. I have a word more to say to you, and then 1 have done. I presume that i many of you have business before Congress of , some kind or other. Perhaps one of vou has a claim for a pension. It so, ask your represen tative, when he comes home, what became of your bill. He'll tell you that he did the best he could for you, but that it was lost for want oftime. "Why lost lor the want of time?" "Oh, Congress occupied the whole time in dis cussing the slavery question, and there was no time to pass your pension bill." Another may I have an interest in the French Spoliation bill. Ask your representative what became of that bill. "List for wani of time ; slavery question j occupies the whole time ; no chance for any | thing else." Ask your representatives why i they did not remodel the tariff in ordrr to raise j money enough to defray the expenses of the government without borrowing twenty mil lions of dollars a year. They will tell you the I only reason that the bill'was lost wa3 for want ; oftime. The negro question occupies the whole time :no chance for the tariff. Ask them why ; they did not pass a Pacific Railroad bill and at the same time remind them that Fillmore was pledged to a Pacific railroad when a candidate in 1856, and Fremont was pledged to it, and ! Buchanan was pledged to it—ai! three parties pledged to it. Yet the very bill, the very roea sure to which all parties were pledged," could not get a majority in either house of Congress. Ask vour representatives— Why ? "Lost for the want ot time ; the negro question takes up all the time, and there is no time left to attend to the material interests of the country" at least to the interests of the white folks, as my friend in the crowd says. In my opinion, the government ol this country is the while man's government. It was made by white men for the benefit of white men, and ought to be ad ministeied by white men. (Cheers.) And f think the white men have a right to a small portion ofthe time, at least, so that their busi ness may be attended to. Vou never will have appropriate legislation on any ol these questions before Congress—and 1 am not d'senssing the question as to what the legislation ought to be hut vou never will have the subjects considered and acted upon untif you banish the negro qoes" lion troin the halls of Congress. Let us banish that question from Congress forever. Remain} it to the people of the Territories who are inter ested in it. Let them do as thev please, sub ject to the constitution ot the United States, and there will bp no cause of controveisy be tween the North an.l the South. Maintain the doctrine ol non-intervention and there will be peace and harmony between ai! sections ofthe country. Why can we not now live m peace as we did in loiiner tines? You will all re member that during the Revolution the Nor thern armv was command-d by a Southern gen eral, anil the Southern army by a Northern general : and on the battle field Southern and Northern men fought shoulder by shoulder in a common cause, (mured out their blood in a com mon battle, in order that they might transmit a common inheritance to their children. Why VOL. 4. N0,3.