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 vr<y was which party was entitled to the most 1
credit in adoption ot the compromise meas
j ures of 1850. Ih" whigs were in the habit of j
• I claiming the exclusive credit, because their
| great leader, Henry Clay, was the author of the !
measure, because their godlik- Webster made '
th- argument to vindicate the measure, and be
cause their model President, I illmore, approved 1
j 'he bill alter Congress hv! passed it. On the i
other hand, I was in the ha /it of denying that
the whigs were entitled to ait the credit, or to 1
more than halt of it, ior the reason that while 1
admitted that the whig party furnished 'he j
generals, we furnished the >ldiers 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.