TEAMS OF TEL GLOBE.
Per annum in advance
Six months
Throe months
A failure to notify a discontinuance at the expiration of
the term subscribed for will be considered a now engage•
ment.
TER3IS OF ADVERTISING
1 insertion. 2 do. S do.
Pour lines or less, '$ 25 $ 3734 $5O
One square, (12 lines,) 50 • - - 75 100
Two sqbares, 1 00 '1.50 2 00
Three squares, 1 50 2 25 3 00
Over three week and less than three months, 25 cents
per Eariare for each insertion.
. 3 months. 6 months. 12 months.
Six lines or less, . $1 50 $3 00 $5 00
One square, 3 00 5 00 7 00
Two squares, 5 00 8 00 10 00
Three squares, 7 00 10 00 16' 00
Four "squares, 9 00 13 00 20 00
'Onea column, ..12 03 16 00 24 00
'One colUmn, 20 00 30 00 50 00
Professional and Business Cards not exceeding four lines,
one Sear,' osi
Administrators' and Executors' Notices, $1 75
Advertisements not marked with the number of inser
tions desired, will be continued till forbid and charged ac
cording to these terms.
THE GUBERNATORIAL CANVASS
;SPEECH OF SENATOR BIGLER,
At Clarion, On the Bth of September, in reply
to the address of the Hon. David Wilmot,
delivered at Philadelphia, on the 24th An-
=I
After giving a brief history of the demo
craticparty, showing how eminently wise and
successful its policy had been in the past,
and how it had uniformly, in all exigencies,
in.war or peace, stood by the true interests
of the country, and had advanced its growth
and prosperity, and elevated the dignity and
prowess of the nation, claiming for that party
a higher degree of purity, wisdom, and pat
riotism than were possessed by any similar
association of men in modern times; and
having also paid a handsome compliment to
the character and qualifications of General
Packer and his associates on the democratic
ticket, he proceeded as follows:
Judge Wilmot, the republican candidate,
has evinced his entire willingness to make
his views known to the people, and seems
quite unhappy that the State committee would
not agree that the democratic candidate
should waste his time with him in personal
controversy, and still more displeased that
the committee should have suggested that the
discussion of the slavery question is not es
sential in a gubernatorial contest. Failing
to secure the attractions of General Packer
to get up large meetings and excitement for
him, he has bravely dashed into the field
alone. I am in possession of a copy of his
first address, delivered at Philadelphia on the
24th ult., and published in the " Evening
Bulletin," to the leading features of which
shall ask your attention before I take my
seat. I find no fault with Mr. Wilmot for
appearing before the public to make known
his views. I think a candidate for any office
may properly do so. I sec no want of dignity
or propriety in the practice, if pursued in
the proper spirit. In doing this no candidate
properly appreciating his position will solicit
votes ; he will simply declare his views on
pending questions, foreshadowing, as Lest he
can, the policy he will maintain if elected, so
that the intelligent elector may vote for or
against him, as may seem proper. But I
have searched in vain for any such foreshad
owing in the late speech of Mr. Wilmot. It
is devoted exclusively to the subject of slav
ery, except only a brief reference to his letter
on Americanism. State'affairs seem to have
had no attractions for him. It is an almost
incredible fact that in a long speech occupy
ing columns of the Bulletin he should not
have alluded to any one of the many interests
which would come under his charge were lie
elected governor, nor discussed a single ques
tion connected with the duties of the office
for which he is a candidate, or over which
the political authority of the State govern
ment could in any way be exerted. From
beginning to end he has talked outside of the
true purpose of his appearing before the pub
lic, and has failed, therefore, to give the peo
ple the means to decide whether he would
make a good governor or not. Ile has talked
about slavery, and questions incidental and
collateral ; but not a word about State affairs.
Ile should certainly have given us his views
on the question of more banks and paper
currency. Many of the people would be glad
to know whether he intends to maintain the
policy of the present incumbent, his political
friend,,on these vital questions. What does
he think of the policy of giving away the
largest share of the public works for an in
adequate compensation, payable to the next
generation ; and, if elected, will he favor a
disposition of the remainder on the same con
ditions ? Why not give the people his views
on these State questions, as also on the sub
ject of paying the public debt, maintaining
and extending our system of free schools ; on
the granting of special privileges to facilitate
the ends of private gain, and especially on
the pending amendments to the constitution,
embracing questions of grave concern for the
people? All these subjects, vitally important,
and within the range of the legitimate duties
of the Executive, seem to have been lost sight
of in the smoke and dust of a kind of Quix
otic onslaught upon slavery and the slave
power.
But another fact, equally singular, is, that
although his address abounds with graphic
descriptions of the evils of slavery, and coarse
imputations upon the motives of its advocates,
it does not contain a single practical sugges
tion as to a remedy for the evils it laments.—
Wr. IV. declares it to be " a question of vital
practical importance, which lies at the foun
dation of everything valuable to us as free
men," and yet he has not attempted to show
the people of Pennsylvania in what way they
can apply the remedy. Not only this, but I
shall prove to you that, according to his own
showing;-- the people of a free State have no
constitutional right to interfere for or against
the evil he affects to deplore, whether in a
State or Territory. If Mr. Wilmot found it
necessary to make his address on national is
sues entirely foreign to the executive duties,
it is to be regretted that he did not devote a
portion of his time to his once favorite topic
—the tariff. The old friends of " protection
for the sake of protection," whom he expects
to rally under his flag, would doubtless be
delighted to hear from the man whom they
used to designate as the advocate of "British
free trade," the "successful betrayer of Penn
sylvania's best interests," and as a "vile
traitor to the state of his birth."
Possibly he could have convinced the man
ufacturers of iron in Clarion and elsewhere
that they are specially his debtors, and, per
mitting the dead past to bury its dead, they
should come to his rescue in this his - hour of
need. Perhaps there were among his audi
tors at • Philadelphia those who had assisted
to give Mr. Dallas to the flames in effigy for
following the Wilmot lead on the tariff in
1846, and he could have induced them to re
pent that great wrong on Mr. Dallas, as also
their oft-repeated imputations upon his bran
EMI
WILLIAM LEWIS,
VOL. MIL
motives and conduct. He certainly could
have shown those who abused myself and
others last spring for agreeing to a modifica
tion of the tariff', when we had no power left
to resist it, that they were unreasonable in
that complaint, or are now mistaken in their
support of the distinguished advocate of
" British free trade." But let that pass; we
will leave the distinguished advocate of free
tradein the embrace of the protectionist;
and the protectionists under the leadership
of the distinguished free-trader. The new
alliance only furnishes another verification of
the homely adage that political necessity
makes strange bed-fellows.
But to the speech, and I will give you its
best sentiment first, so that his friends may
not complain, it reads as follows :
"I hold that under the constitution of the United States
we have no right to meddle directly with the question of
slavery in the States where it already exists; it is a State
institution, and can only be controlled by State laws, and
we in Pennsylvania have no more right to legislate for
Virginia upon the subject of slavery than Virginia has the
right to legislate for Pennsylvania on the subject of our
public schools. But in the Territories the question is dif
ferent. The territories are the common property of the
Union, and we have the common right to control them."
Then again, speaking of slavery, he says:
•
" The question is no mere ttbstraction, nor is it simply a
question of right and wrong, a question of morals; it is a
question of vital practical importance, which lies at the
foundation of everything valuable to us as free men."
. -
Touching the Dred Scott decision, he re
marks :
"And as I am on this point, I wish to say that I bow to
the Dred Scott decision as a matter of law. I raise no ann
against the law, and I would never advise any one to do
so; but there is no law on earth which can bind my res.,•
son or my conscience. I can and will think and vote for
what I believe right."
Now let us consider the doctrines of these
quotations for a few minutes. In the first he
says we have "no right to meddle with slav
ery in the States where it already exists,"
but that " the Territories are the common
property of the Union, and we have the com
mon right to control them." In the second
he presents the effects of slavery as "vital
practical questions, involving everything val
uable to us as free men." And in the third
he informs us that he " bows to the Dred. Scott
decision as a matter of law."
Of course, I agree that we have no right to
interfere with slavery in the States, but,
" bowing to the Dred Scott decision.," how
does Mr. Wilmot propose to reach the institu
tion in the Territories? What becomes of
the common right" of the State to control
its existence ?. How can that right be brought
to bear? That decision defines the constitu
tion to mean that Congress has no right to
legislate on the subject for the Territories;
that a congressional interdiction against its
extension is unconstitutional, and Mr. Wil
mot agrees that that decision is law. Then,
what of his common right to control it in the
Territories, and of the "vital practical ques
tions" he has presented for our considera
tion ?
Now, this is the point to which I wish your
special attention. 'Though acknowledging in
his own peculiar phrase the binding effects
of the decision of the Supreme Court, Mr.
Wilmot is very careful to conceal the influ
ence of that decision upon his position and
argunients ; he has not told the people frankly
that, by virtue of the decision he so reluct
antly recognizes as binding, slavery in a Ter
ritory is almost as• completely out of the
reach of the people or the government of a
free State as it is in the State of Virginia.—
He dare not be explicit on this point ; for he
would thereby illustrate the utter impractica
bility of his doctrines on the subject. In
deed, his whole theory goes to pieces at this
point, and he must necessarily conceal as
much as possible the effects of this decision,
or the deceptive character of his speeches
would become so transparent that he would
be obliged to abandon thediseussion entirely.
Bow iug to the Dred Scott decision as mat
ter of law, it will not do to say that " Penn
sylvania has no more right to legislate for
Virginia on the subject of slavery than Vir
ginia has to legislate for Pennsylvania on the
subject of public schools." Mr. Wilmot can
not stop at this point; lie must and does vir
tually agree by that "bow" that neither Penn
sylvania nor Virginia has any right to legis
late for Kansas or Nebraska on either sub
ject, and they have no power to interfere for
or against the institutions of the Territories
directly or indirectly. The citizens of each
may go to Kansas, and when bona fide resi
dents they can give effect to their will: Ile
or I can do this ; but as citizens of this State
we cannot influence the question in either
Kansas or Virginia. Pliollp the Drcd Scott
decision, the republican party contended for
the power of Congress over the subject in the
Territories ; but that decision has settled the
question against them, and has closed the
last channel through which the free States
could reach the question. It has swept away
the entire stock in trade of the republican
agitators—the Missouri line, the Wilmot pro
viso, and every other scheme of congressional
interference. They have no occasion longer
to seek even the election of anti-slavery men
to Congress, for that body cannot touch the
question. Their long-cherished business of
agitation is, therefore, gone—gone forever.—
Wherein, then, is the fitness of Mr.lWilmot's
inflammatory addresses about slavery to the
exclusion of every other topic? Having no
power over the subject, it cannot be of vital
practical importance in Pennsylvania, unless,
indeed, Mr. W., in his feverish sensitiveness,
has allowed himself to conclude that some
" dough-faced democrat," in obedience to
" the slave powers," is about to propose to
re-establish the institution in this State. Un
til this be done the question cannot be so
practical as he alleges. But is it not singu
lar that Mr. Wilmot should seek to agitate
the public mind in behalf of measures which
have been declared unconstitutional and to
which decision he agrees ? What can he ac
complish by such effort ? Though he could
convince a majority of the people that the
measures would work practical good to the
country, the constitution, until changed, is an
insurmountable barrier to their adoption.—
Would it not be wiser to accept the philoso
phy of the trite saying, "it is useless to cry
over spilt milk ?" When the election is over
he will need the benefit of some such reflec
tion, for I think his chances are better to be
come the successor of Judge Bullock: than of
Gov. Pollock.
I do not mean to say that the candidates
for governor may not properly allude to the
subject of slavery ; but Mr. Wilmot insists
that measures which have been declared un
constitutional shall be recognized issues in
the gubernatorial contest, and continues to
discuss these measures as tho Ugh they could
be made available to the country, and insists
that the people should take one side or the
other. He says slavery is the only question
involved, and has, so far, declined to speak on
State questions at all.
He says that Virginia has the same right
to interfere with our public schools that Pen
nsylvania has with slavery in Virginia, and
that is true ; but did it not occur to his mind,
at the same time, that it would be a most sin
gular, if not ludicrous spectacle, to witness a
candidate for governor in Virginia resting his
claims to popular favor solely on his views
about public schools in Pennsylvania, and
confining his discussions to that topic alone ?
Why, the people of the Old Dominion would
get a strait-jacket for any man who might-at
tempt to play such a trick before high Heav
en. And what would Pennsylvanians think of
such impudent interference? They would
most certainly invite the Virginia aspirant to
take care of his slaves, and leave the public
schools to them. Mr. W. would be sure to
do this ; and yet he talked for hours about
Virginia negroes, and said not one word about
Pennsylvania schools, so determined does he
seem to rest his claims on questions belonging
to other States, and over which his has no
control. Perhaps his friends can explain all
this ; but I think I can safely assure them of
one thing—if he does not get more votes in
States where his address would be appropri
ate than in his own, he will be badly beaten.
He will be almost convinced that lie has not
only been speaking for other States, but run
ning for governor somewhere else than at
home.
Mr Wilmot's prompt recognition of the
binding effect of the Dred. Scott decision has
certainly surprised and disappointed some of
his fanatical adherents. But they should
notice that he dare not raise his voice against
the constitution when asking to be permitted
to take an oath to support it. That he has
yielded reluctantly, and with exceeding bad
grace, is evident from the low terms in which
he impugns the motives of the Court. He
says "it is easy enough for the Executive to
find corrupt judges to carry out corrupt de
signs."
This is coarse, exceedingly coarse, scarcely
allowable in a common place politician, and
utterly inadmissible in a candidate for gover
nor. Very many Who intend to vote for the
author of the base allegation will despise his
foul aspersions. Even they will not agree
that it is becoming in David Wilmot to warn
the country against the corruptions of James
Buchanan and Roger B. Taney. But in -his
anger at courts, he has gone out of his way
still further to make an onslaught upon tho
integrity of the supreme court of his own
State, and broadly alleges that its decisions
are _often contradictory, and it is common
talk among the bar that a decision must be
revived every five years to have binding ef
fect. The courts should take warning, for
failing to be governor, as this gentleman cer
tainly will, he may still retain the office of
judicial CCllSOriall.
Fearing to repudiate the decision of the
Supreme Court in express terms, many of
Mr. Wilmot's school of politicians are indus
triously engaged in efforts to destroy the con
fidence of the public in its integrity. As a
means of doing this, they are in the habit of
expatiating on the extraordinary circum
stance that the ordinance of 1787 should
have been declared unconstitutional at the
end of sixty years after its adoption, and the
Missouri Compromise so declared after hav
ing stood for nearly forty years. They cer
tainly know that the ordinance of 1787 did
not derive its authority from the present con
stitution—that it was the work of the Con
gress of the Old Confederation, and was
agreed to by the States, and was merely per
petuated under the present constitution as a
measure which the States had agreed to.—
This item of history they prefer to suppress,
so that the action of the court may seem the
more strange. They know, too, that the
Missouri Compromise was an arbitrary ar
rangement between the North and the South
forced by an exigency that endangered the
peace of the country, and that its constitu
tional authority, though constantly denied by
many wise statesman, had not been directly
tested prior to the late decision.
The history of the renowned proviso is
rewritten in this speech, and Mr. IV. has
manifested special delight in exhibiting what
he considers the inconsistencies of the dem
ocratic party on this subject, and more espe
cially those of General Cass, Hon. Richard
Brodhead, and myself. He alleges in sub
stance that, if the General had voted before
he reflected, he would have gone for the pro
viso, and that Mr. Brodhead had said he
would vote for it if offered to the proper bill,
and that I had been very careful to record
my name in the affirmative, when a similar
sentiment passed the State legislature. The
course of General Cass and Brodhead needs
no explanation or defence at my hands.—
Their sentiments are too well known to the
country to be successfully misrepresented.—
And, indeed, admitting all that - Mr. W. al
leges, I do not see that he makes out any
man's destruction. The wisest men in the
nation have often been wrong in their first
impressions as to the expediency of sudden
ly proposed measures, and to be mistaken on
a constitutional question is no uncommon
thing among able lawyers. As to the Penn
sylvania resolution, it certainly did not re
ceive that consideration to which it was enti
tled. Ido not believe it was under consid
eration in the Senate exceeding one half
hour before it passed finally. For myself, I
knew but little about it until it came from
the House of Representatives the day it pass
ed the Senate, and had only thought of it as
an abstract sentiment agaihst the acquisition
of territory, with the view to the extension
of, slavery and as affecting the questiqß of
peace with Mexico. As a proposition in
volving the rights of the States and the pow
ers of Congress, I had at that time given it
-PERSENERE.--
HUNTINGDON, PA., OCTOBER 7, 1857,
no thought. Reflection upon these things
soon after, and long before I knew that Mr.
Wilmot intended to press the principle as ad
missible when applied to territory which had.
been long previously acquired by the com
mon blood and treasure of all the States,
without any such original condition, convin
ced my mind that its practical operation
would do injustice to the slaveholding States,
and I discarded its doctrines entirely. Four
years after the advent of the proviso, when
the democratic nominee for governor, I cer
tainly was not charged with a want of sym
pathy for the South. The reverse was the
constant allegation of my political enemies.
The execution of the fugitive slave law and
the doctrine of non-intervention were topics
in that contest, and I advocated the affirma
tive of both on all occasions. Mr. Wilmot
himself s publicly dissented from my views
on these points at a meeting in his own town,
where we stood face to face. But it is of
little moment whether I have been consistent
or not. I trust I may always be more ambi
tious to be right, and never vain enough to
;retend to great wisdom or foresight. If I
aid not mistake the meaning of the proviso,
when first proposed, I certainly misunder
stood its author, for I thought him a demo
crat, and he has turned out to be anything
else. But has Mr. W. relieved his position
by what he has said on this point? If it
even be true that certain democrats inclined.
to favor the proviso before they had discover
ed the wrong, he was not thereby warranted
in sustaining it when the injustice of its
practical workings had become apparent by
discussion, and especially since it has been
shown to be unconstitutional.
But this candidate and his party are great
on consistency. They are in the habit of
arraigning Mr. Buchanan, Judge Douglas,
and other democratic statesmen, on the
charge of inconsistency, because at one time
they sustained the policy of settling the
slave controversy by a geographical division
and have since embraced the policy of refer
ring the question to the people of the Terri
tories, to be settled as they may deem best.—
There is very little sense and less patriotism
in such criticisms. The whole history of the
subject shows that the controversy, at the
different periods when the excitement at
tained to a dangerous height, was treated as
a subject of compromise, implying at once
the concession of principle and peculiar
views. Statesmen and patriots felt required
to yield much in the way of opinion, to se
cure the peace of the country. Mr. Buch
anan favored the Missouri line so long as the
policy of settling the question by. territorial
division was maintained; and Mr. Douglas,
in 1848, proposed to extend the parallel of
that line to the Pacific ocean as a final ad
justment of the dangerous feud. But the
very men who now, and since 1854, have not
ceased to bewail the abandonment of this
policy, were united in their opposition to its
extension and perpetuity on that occasion.—
They repudiated it, scouted and reviled it.—
Another mode of settlement became abso
lutely necessary to save the country from
civil war, and that of non-intervention, as
now found in the Kansas law, was wisely
adopted in 1550; and is maintained by the
statesmen I have named. What inconsisten
cy is there in such action? And what is to
be said for the sincerity of those who con
tinued to denounce the Missouri line up to
the time of - its repeal?—that party who in
Connecticut burnt James Lanman in effigy
for voting for it, and Isaac Toucy near the
same spot for voting to repeal it, and who la
bored to reject the principle in 1848. They
are not in a condition to talk about consis
tency. Havine , so conspired against this
mode of adjustment, and secured its over
throw, they now have Mr. Wilmot engaged
in a clumsy imitation of Mark Anthony with
the dead body of Ctusar by toting the life
less remains of this unconstitutional meas
ure from place to place over the State giving
utterance to his deep grief in pathetic ap
peals to the passions and prejudices of the
people, to draw down their vengeance on the
destroyers of this once favorite scheme.
On Kansas affairs Mr. Wilmot becomes
quite belligerent, and hurls vindictive asper
sions upon the national administration. He
talks as though he did not know that the
odious test laws enacted by the first legisla
ture had been repealed by the last; that his
party friends in Kansas are daily availing
themselves of these bogus laws; that Mr.
Robinson, the Topeka governor, had petition
ed Mr. Stanton, when acting governor to con
fer the appointment of commissioner to ac
knowledge deeds on his friend by virtue of
the territorial laws. He seems determined
to give the version of affairs that will best
suit his purpose. Having presented a start
ling picture of the wrongs and outrages
which according to his story, have been wan
tonly inflicted upon the free-State party of
that unhappy . Territory, he makes the fol
lowing sweeping declaration
"I affirm that the administration knows all about these
outrages, and yet they uphold them. They sustain the
Missourian usurpation, and they dare not be just, because
they are the slaves of the slave power who created them
and upholds them."
This is terrific, indeed, coming from a can
didate for governor, but Mr. Wilmot's lan
guage is tame and feeble compared with the
sparkling rhetoric of Col. Keitt, of South
Carolina, on the other side of the question.
The Colonel, in his letter dated at White Sul
phur Springs, imputes to the administration
altogether different action and purpose. He
alleges that its _first act was to appoint a gov
ernor to "to debauch Kansas from allegiance
to the South and deliver her into the hands of
free-soil fanatics," and that "to say that the
cause of the South, was lost in Kansas prior
to the appointment of Walker is to palliate
fraud by falsehood." Here is a wide differ
ence between big doctors. But the southerner
seems to have the best of the contest. Indeed
the best attempts -of Wilmot and his school
of orators to show the subserviency of the
administration to the slave power fall far be
low the most ordinary efforts of Col. Keitt,
the Charleston Mercury, and the New Orleans
Delta, to demonstrate its free-soil tendencies
and its treachery to the South. With such
fires in front and rear, who will say that Col.
Keitt may not reasonably imagine the fantas-
.
•
tics to be hereafter played by " shivering
cabinets" and "convulsive administrations?"
Then, again, Mr. Wilmot and his party
seem to be in great tribulation lest the slave
power should deprive some of the citizens of
Kansas of the opportunity of raising their
voices against the institution at the ballot-box
—lest some be deprived of that high and sa
cred prerogative, the right of suffrage. They
descant eloquently on the sacredness of this
right, and hurl destructive anathemas on the
heads of all who shall attempt to restrict or
usurp this proud function of American free
men. The people, and the whole people, must
be heard. Now, this is all very well, and they
cannot go further on this point than will the
democracy; but does not this sickly concern
for the rights of the people come with exceed
ing bad grace from Mr. Wilmot and his party,
who, in the convention that nominated Col.
Fremont, laid it down as a principle that not
only a portion, but all the citizens of Kansas,
should be deprived of the right of saying
whether they should have slavery or not?—
They claimed that right for Congress, and vir
tually held that, though nine-tenths of the
people might desire slavery, the interdiction
of Congress should. be conclusive. It was no
half-way business with them. It is part of
their faith to deprive all the people of the sa
cred opportunity which they falsely allege the
democracy are attempting to take from some.
They execrate the interference of Missouri
in the settlement of the slavery question in
Kansas, and yet, according to their own doc
trine, not only Missouri, but Massachusetts
and all the North and South, are invited to
interfere through their representatives in
Congress. The practical effect of their doc
trine being that the power to decide the ques
tion for Kansas is to be found everywhere
else in the United States except in that and
the other Territories--that the people of the
States who do not go to Kansas shall have a
voice on the subject, but those who do, shall
not. How absurd, then, their affected distress,
lest by design cr accident sonic citizen of '
Kansas may be deprived of the opportunity
of giving effect to his will on the subject.—
Why even now Mr. Wilmot and his party will
not say that they will be content with the de
cision of the people, and admit Kansas as a
State, unless that decision bet : against slavery.
They will agree to take her into the Union
when she obeys their dictation, and not till
then. It was in this connexion, in the con
test of last fall, that we ridiculed their pre
tensions to exclusive friendship for freedom
in Kansas, whilst holding that the people
should not be live to select their own institu
tions. We claimed that the democracy were
more the friends of "free Kansas," because
they wished to have her people perfectly free
to select all their domestic institutions. They
holding that Kansas should not come into the
Union unless she adopted their views, and the
democracy maintaining that she should come
in, no matter how she might decide as to
slavery. The question in the presidential issue
was not - whether she should be free or slave,
but simply whether her own bonafide citizens
should be permitted to decide for themselves.
That question was affirmed by the people at
the polls, and Mr. Buchanan and his advisers,
in my judgment, are honestly endeavoring to
carry out that decision, in good faith, regard
less of denunciation from the North or South,
and so performing their whole duty to the
country.
Mr. Wilmot talks very positively about
what is going on in the Territory. Of course
he knows; but I spent some weeks there this
summer, and found it difficult to obtain accu
rate,information. That wrongs have been
committed on both sides is clear; but the
idea of Mr. W., that his peculiar order have
been uniformly right on all the issues that
have disturbed the quiet of the Territory, is
absurd. No unbiased mind will come to such
a conclusion. It is not, however, my purpose
to go into a history of Kansas affairs, or give
my views at length as to the policy of the
administration at this time; but I can assure
Mr. Wilmot that the only impracticable poli
ticians I met in the Territory were of his
own school—the leaders of the Topeka rebel
lion. They seem determined to rule or ruin.
It was no uncommon thing to hear them say
that if the convention, to meet in this month,
should adopt the Topeka constitution, word
for word, they who made it originally would
reject it at the polls. But I hope and believe
that, through the agency of the present able
and patriotic executive of the Territory, Mr.
Walker, the bitter feuds dividing the people
of that Territory will be happily settled, and
Kansas be brought into the Union on princi
ples perfectly consistent with the organic act.
In this effort Gov. Walker will be sustained
by the great mass of the people, whom I
found to be moderate, practicable, and patri
otic in their views. For myself, I have be
lieved that the spirit of the compromises of
1850, as in the organic law of Kansas, con
templated the decision of the question of
slavery in the Territory by some direct action
of the people, prior to application for admis
sion as a State ; otherwise the question will
come back to Congress in the same shape in
which it was when referred to the people,
unaccompanied by any expression of popular
will. That expression should, and I have no
doubt will, be had without any official inter
ference as to what it should be; and when so
had, deciding the question of slavery as the
people wish, I shall, for one, assist to throw
wide open the portals of the Union, and wel
come Kansas as a State, slavery or no slavery.
But I shall not vote to admit her on the To
peka constitution, because the movement was
not of the people but of a. party; was not by
authority of law but in violation of law, and
therefore revolutionary. Nor am lat all in
clined to indulge the rebellious spirit of those
in the Territory who seem determined to set
the laws at defiance. If they will not act
save in their own way, and Kansas becomes
a slave State by the voice of those who do
act, the responsibility must rest upon them.
But I have been wandering from my text,
and" neglecting the republican candidate for
governor. I wish to make one more extract
from his Speech,• and then I shall have done.
It is one of his best gems, and reads as follows:
"With respect to the labor question, it is alleged by the
democracy that we have no sympathy for free white labor ;
Editor and Proprietor.
NO. 16.
that all our tears arc exhausted on the black man. Now I
leave the chivalry of the South to the noble office of Hsh
ing negroes. God has laid a heavy hand on them, and I
seek not to press the curse harder upon them. The chival
ry may have all the glory of horse-whipping women and
selling their .ballies. Democracy may trample:their rights
under foot, if they please, but I tell yeti that the interest*
of all humanity are one. God has so ordered it, that no
man can do deliberate and systematic wrong to other men.;
no man can be a tyrant or a despot without staining his
own soul, and without becoming a beast and a demon."
How idle; if not unrtidnlY, it is for is man
who uses languagd of this character, ma a
question entirely beyond the reach of those
to whom it is addressed, to become indignant
and denouce the democratic press - as "debas
ed," "venal," "corrupt,:: and "in the pay of
the slave power," because it has designated
him as An "Abolitionist," a "wild, impracti
cable theorist." What else could he expect?
What else could a truth telling press say?—
Does not the whole tenor of his address jus
tify this conclusion? Is it not "wild theorism"
to excite the minds of the people day after
day, about great evils, without telling them
how a remedy can be applied, and whilst
confessing that they have no right to inter
fere for or against such evils in the States,
and acknowledge the binding effects of a
definition of the constitution, which shows
that they cannot be reached in the Territor
ies? Is it not abolitionism to describe the
institution of negro slavery As so odious that
it should not be tolerated in And civilized
country—as involving that measure of ty
ranny and oppression, that no man can prac
tice it "without staining his own soul," with
out "becoming a beast and a demon?" Is it
not vile demagoguism thus to inflame the
passions and prejudiccs of the people of one
section of our country Against the institu
tions of another to subserve the ends of
party? Mr. Wilmot must conclude that his
sickly recognition of the rights of the State
and his ungracious bow to the decision of
the Supreme Court, will protect him in the
use of such offensive language as the forego
ing, The use of such foul aspersion can in
no way improve the morals or politics of the
country, its institutions or its customs ; can
do no good to North or South, to white or
black race.
It is not my habit to deal harshly with the
character or actions of public men, but I
should do injustice to my feelings were I not
to say that much of Mr. Wilmot's address,
whether considered as a declaration of prin
ciples or as a specimen of logic or literature,
falls far below what his friends had reason
to expect. It can rank but little above com
mon-place anti-slavery rant, as wanting in
method, and useful suggestion, as in the or
dinary graces of even partisan discussion.—
Is it possible that the. republican party can.
not maintain their principles without resort
ing to such dangerous incendiarisms ? Un
charitable crimination of the South
,se,ems to
be their only source of partisan capital. As
suming respect for the constitutional rights
of the slaveholding States, they are sure to
discourse in such way as to lead the fanatical
abolitionists to believe that in some way or
other, at no distant day through their agency
the institution is to be uprooted everywhere.
It was by such means in the last presidential
election that they gained over to Preemont,
Garrison, Parker, Beecher, tind all that
school of fanatics. Unable to devise a prac
ticable scheme to improve the condition of
the black man, they persist in the work of
agitation as their most fruitful means of po
litical power. They know that they could
do but little to'_improve . the condition of the
black man, though the whole s subject was
under their unrestrained control. Suppose
all legal difficulties to be removed, and the
subject placed within their reach by emancipa
tion on the part of the South, conditioned that
the negroes be properly cared for; what:then ?
To what country could they remove the slaves
so that they might escape the dreaded 'kicks,'
and be where none would " horsewhip the 'wo
men and sell their babies?" How could they be
clothed and fed, and how elevated in the
scale of moral being? Would they be
brought North to compete with our preserit
laboring population? I am sure the free
States would never agree to that. But sup
pose they should, would that insure an im
provement in the physical and mental condi
tion of the slave ? With what new political
and social dignities would the black man be
clothed, so that they might live easier and
happier, and attain to a higher degree of civ
ilization and christianity ? Who will stand
up for equality for them in the North?
Let us have these questions answered, and
have a practical scheme for the elevation of
the negro, or less of the agitation. The con
tinuance of these eriininations between the
North and South may readily diththrb the
peace of thirty millions of white people, but
in no way can it relieve whatever of hard
ship there may be in the condition of the
three or four millions of slaves now in our
country. Nor is it just or patriotic to allege
national sin against our country because of
the condition of the African; when the au
thors of such aspersions cannot point to the
spot on earth or name the period in history
in which the condition of the curly-haired
negro was better than at present in the Uni
ted States—when and where he enjoyed great
er physical comforts, or attained a higher de
gree of mental cultivation; or embraced bet
ter ideas of Christianity. Ilis own country
is "one of slaves and masters;" and the an
cestors of those we have were slaves of the
lowest class when taken from their own coun
try. To restore those now in the Uuited States
to that original condition, Were such a, thing
possible, would be an outrage upon humanity
and civilization. If, then, the condition of
the black man has been really improved by
even his low estate among us, wherein con
sists the national sin that so constantly besets
the consciences of these political doctors ?
TEE CAMEL EXPEIII.3IENTS.—An interesting
report has been received by the War Depart
ment from Mr. Beale, Superintendent of the
wagon road expedition from Fort Defiance.—
The camel experiment is pronoun Ced success
ful. These animals Carried seven hundred
pounds burthen, principally , provender for
mules, and were much less jaded than the
mules. They eat little except hushes, prefer
ing them to grass. Mr. B. conceives it easier
to manage a train of twenty than one of five
mules. Their temper, tractability . , capacity
for bearing burthens, and going without wa
ter, while they live on food upon which other
animals would starve, render them valuable
for transportation on the prairies. Every
unshod animal reached El Paso lame but the
camels, not one of which even exhibited fa
tigue.
There is a lawyer in Huntingdon
county, Pennsylvania, known no less for ec
centricity than his legal lore. Many anec
dotes are told of him. A man once went to
him to be qualified for some petty office.—
Said he, "hold up your hand, I'll swear you,
but all creation couldn't qualify you."
The proportion of females to males,
in. Lewistown, is about six to one.
,The best bite we ever had when we
went fishing, was the bite we took along.