Whole No. 2549. A NEW STOCK OF Ajths, Cassimeres AND VEST! N C S, Hai just been received at the Lewistown Emporium of Fashion, which will be made up to order by experienced workmen. £jGentlemen art requested to call. WM. LIND. Lewistown, April 21, 1859. Resumed to the Stand lately occupied bv Kennedy v Junk in. jLi *-- y" -VsISS Lj-y,,. V SAUGkAJITSi A Year's Credit to Responsible Men ! A—#k The subscriber having now on band one of the best and largest •7 between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, in order to accom a.jlate business to the times, offers for sale a complete assortment of saddle*. Harness, Bridles, Collars, Trunks, Rhip.--, Haines, Valises, Carpet Bags, ther articles in his line, which will be - <•. 1 of. when purchases are made to the : f $lO or more, on the above terms for ve J paper. Among his stock will be found some highly .' i-iied sets of light Harness equal to any man jtactured. Let all in want of good articles, made by ex . ' enccd workmen, give him a call. JOHN DAVIS. Lewistown, April 7, 1859. New Fall and Winter Goods. ]) F. FLLiS, of the late firm of McCoy lA. Ellis, ii.isjust retqrited from the city a choice assurtnjent of Dry Gaodß Groceries, with care and purchased for cash, are offcrpd to the public at a small ad oa cost. The stock of Dry Goods em r;ii .-.a ail descriptions of 1 ALL AM) WINTER GOODS - il;.iuie for Ladies, Gentlemen and Children, with many new patterns. 11 is (Groernre ."3iprise Choice Sugars, Molasses, Java, Rio iidLaguyra Coffee, superior Teas, &e. Also, b ts and Shoes, Queenswqre, and ail other ".<■>? usually found iq stores—ail which customers of the late firm and the public nil are invited to examine. R. P. ELLIS. L. Salt, Plaster and Coal alvvavson y Produce received As usual and the mark t price allowed therefor. 1. nistown, Sept. 22, 1859. iOKE RT \V. PATTONJ *OITH H)F, 6F fIARRET STREE'f, LEWISTOWN, PA. HAS just received and opened at his es- ! __ tab!ihment a new supply of Clocks, Watches, Jewelry, 1 mm Fancy Articles, &c., he will dispose of at reasonable ppices. • ' s jiil to giyo hiiß ij gall and examine •k. which embraces all in his ,; r. i i: efficiently large to enable all to '"Unions who desire tq purchase. SaPFLPAIRINU neatly and expeditiously -y -vi t . and all wurk warranted. inkfu! f/r the patropaga heretofore re '"" L !;e respectfully asks a continuance of •una, and will enjeaypr to please all who Lv r him with their custom. fob 2 EDWARD FRYSINGER, "SDLLSUE BEiLER & SIXI'FICTCRER. OF lit tRS, TOBACCO, SMPF, &0., &c., J 9 I?i.o _ Orders promptly attended to. jelfi i 7r. ELDSK, Attorney at Law, v \"; e Market Square, Lewistown, wit! ai • "' ;t in Mifflin, Centre end Hunting JNO. R WEEKES, Justice of the Peace, 'I • , J est street, Lewistown, next Irwin's grocery. ap29 REMOVAL. $ s. 3. CUMMCZZVaS w b 1 leave to announce that he has re- T, h|S office to Mrs. Mary Marks' if."a h"" ariet J Store, OQ east Market street, T p r " r>e^ow Union House. ■ os/ Office has also been removed to the ,i,ace ' mh3l ** Wanted! Wanted! ) IU Uk PERSONS of both sexes to " ' m ike money by buying cheap bn-ket-. Tubs. Buckets. Churns, ' r <' urjß. Brushes, &r. at ZF.RBF.'S. 1 ' J the gallon, for sale bv s®raKß ASTO ssr WBUMKI Hmranwom# IHBWIIS®®WSJ 9 anmrans? a>A irajgHiieit, THE MOUNTAINEER'S FAREWELL. ! havp ftwn the mountains ofthe okKlranitoStam. wrmrc the hills are so lofty, magnificent ami jrreat: i I 've left ktudrtMi spirits m the land of the 1.1.-st W tiefi I hade them adieu for the far distant West' j O. tne mountains. O. the vallevs, la luy own native State: ■O, tiiv hills and dry valleys are era-red all to mo. No matter in what lauds of other.- I may be: Imay view scenes so sunny, so fair and so siuooth, 1 lien I II think of tny cottage that stands in the grove, i O, my childhood. O. that homestead, In my own native State.' When I think of tin- fair one who once was mv pride, i As she roved among the mountains, so closely by my Then I sigh for the day.- that never will conic back tor -he sleeps ... . shores of the bold Mcrrimac. " i one. O, that gmv.-yard, I ti in v own native fstate! A r deal I've lost —-he has gone to the grave— ! She was the dearest blessing that .lis 1 ever gave; Now 1 go to the spot where buried is the loved. And I seem to hear her singing with the angels above. 'my mother. I bless her ashes, In my own native State 1 mmui. | Douglas and Popular Sovereignty, A SPEECH BY CARL SCHURZ, OF WISCOYSIY. Delivered at Springfield, Mass., January 4th. When great political or social problems, difficult to solve and impossible to put aside, i are pressing upon the popular mind, it is a common thing to sep a variety of theories j springing up. which purport to bg unfail- | insr remedies and to effect a speedy cure. : Men, who look only at the surface of things, will, li%p bad physicians, pretend to re move the disease itself by palliating its most violent symptons, and will astonish the world by their inventive ingenuity, no 'e than bv their amusing assurance. Hut a close scrutiny will in most cases show that the remedies offered are but new forms of old mistakes. Of all the expedients which have bdpjj unfitted fqj- thp settlement of thp slavery question, Mr. Douglas' doctrine of Popular Sovereignty is certainly the most remarkable, not only by the apparent nov elty of the thiqg, bqt by the pompous a3- \iith which it was offered to the nation as a perfect and radical cure. Form erly cotpproiqiscs were made between the two conflicting systems of labor by separa ting them by geographical lines. These compromises did indeed produce intcrva's of comparative repose, but the war com menced again with renewed acrimony, as soon as a new bone of contention present- | ed itself. The system of compromises as a whole proved a failure. Mr. Douglas* doctrine of Popular Sovereignty proposed j to bring the two antagonistic elements in- ■ to immediate contact, and to let them strug gle hand to hand on the same ground for the supremacy. In this manner, he pre dicted the slavery question wquld settle it splf in the siuooth way of ordinary business, lie seemed to be confident of success; but hardly was his doctrine, in the shape Of a law lor the organization of territories, put I upon the statute-book, when the struggle grows fiercer than ever, and the diffi culties ripen into a crisis. This docs not disturb him. He sends forth inanife-to ' upon manifesto, and even during the State campaign of 1a..-t fall, f)p jpounts rqs- i trurs in Ohio, in order to show what he can do, and like a second Constantino he points his finger at the great principle of , Popular Sovereignty, and says tolri-s follow ers : In this sigrj yqy will conquer. But j the tendency of events appeared uuwilling | to yield to his prophecy. There seemed to I he no charm in his command; there was certainly no victory in his sign. He had hardly defined his doctrine more elaborate j ly than ever before, when his friends were ' routed everywhere, and even his great par- j ty is on the point of falling to pieces. There certainly was something in his theories that captivated the masses. I do not speak of those who joined their politi cal fortunes to his, because they saw in him a man who might be able some day to scat ter plunder and favors around him. But there were a great many, who, seduced by ! the plausible sound of the words ' Popular Sovereignty,' meant to have found there , some middle ground, on which the rights of free labor might be .protected aud secur ed, without exasperating those interested in slave labor. They really did think that j two conflicting organizations of society, j which are incompatible by the nature of; things, might be made compatible by leg islative enactments. But this delusion van ished. No sooner was the theory put to a practical test, when the construction of the ' Nebraska bill became nc> less a matter of; fierce dispute, than the construction of the Constitution had been before. Is this pro slavery, or is it anti-slavery ? it was asked. The South found in it the right to plant slave labor in the territories uncondition- J ally, and the North found it the right to drive slavery out of them. Each section ; tion of the country endeavored to appro- 1 priate the results of the Nebraska bill to 1 itself, and the same measure, which was to j 1 trasfer the struggle from the halls of Con- ! gress into the territories, transferred it i from the territories back into Congress, and 1 there the Northern and Southern versions < of the Nebraska bill fitrht each other with < the same fury witb which the Southern and Northern versions of the Constitution have 1 ! each other before. What does the j Constitution mean in regaid to slavery ? j That question remains to Be set tied. What , 4aes the Nebraska bill mean '( This ques tion depends upon the settlement of the former. Of* all men, Mr. Douglas ought to be the first to know what the true intent and meaning of the Nebraska bill and the prin ciple of popular sovereignty is. He is said to be a statesman, and it must be presumed that his measure rests upon a positive idea; for all true statesmanship is founded upon positive ideas. In order to find out 3lr. Douglas' own ; definition of his own 'great principle,' wo are ! obliged to pick most lucid of his statements as we find them scattered about in numerous speeches and innnifetoo. After multifarious cruisings upon the sea | of platforms and arguments, Mr. Douglas has at last landed at the following pofnt: i ' slave, says he, m his famous Harper Magazine article, ' a slave, within the uiean ' ing of the Constitution, is a person held 'to service or labor in one state —' undei ' the laic* thereof,'' —not under the Consti ' tution of the United States, or under the ' laws thereof, qor by virtue of any federal 'authority qhuteypr, but under the law* 1 of the particular State where such service 'or labor mag be due.' This is clear, and with his eyes firmly fixed upon the people of the Nort} 1 ., b.P 'goes on: -'lf, as Mr. ' Buchanan asserts, slavery exists in the ■ ' territories by virtue of the Constitution | f of [he T. nited States, then it becomes the ' imperative duty of Congress, to the per ' formance of which every member is bound 'by hi 3 copscier.ee and his oath, and from ' which no consideration of policy or ex ' pedience can release him, to provide by 1 luw such adequate and complptp protection ' as is essential to the enjoyment of an im 'poitant right secured by the Constitution ; ' in one word, to enact a general slave code 'for the territories.' But Mr. Douglas is not satisfied with this. In order to strength- PR his assumption, and to annihilate Mr. Buchanan's construction of the Nebraska bill still more, he proceeds : ' The Con stitution being uniform everywhere with ' in the dominions of the United States, be ' ing the supreme law ofthe land, anything in ' the constitutions or laws of any of the I ■ States to the contrary notwithstanding,— ' why does not slavery exist in Pennsyl •vania just as well as in Kansas or in ' South Carolina, by virtue of the same Con ' stitution, since Peunsylvaniaiasubordinate •to the Constitution in the same manner 'and to the same extent as South Carolina ' and Kansas V j Just so. Mr. Douglas having been so i positive, he cannot deny us the privilege j of making a few logical deductions from : his own premises. We expect him to pro ceed in the following manner : ' Since a 'slave is held under the laws of a State, 'and not under the Constitution or laws of 'the I nited States, slavery exists only by 'virtue of local laic,' or, as J.he court of appeals, of Kentucky, expressed it, / the 'right to hold a slave, exists only by posi tive law of municipal character, and has fpo foundation in the law of natur.e or the 'unwritten or com mop law.' If slavery cannot exist except by virtue of local law of a municipal character, it follows as an irresistible consequence, tfiat a slaveholder I caqoot hold a slaye as property in a Terri- | tory where there is no local law of amu- I nicipal character establishing that right of • property. And further, the right to hold a slave having no foundation in the law of nature or the unwritten and common law. j we are forced tq the conclusion, that a slave brought by his owner upon the soil of a Territory, before the territorial legislature j has enacted law® establishing slavery, be comes of necessity free, for there is no lo cal law of a municipal character under j which he might be held as a slave. This ; principle is recognized by the decisions of ; several Southern courts. Having gone so ; far. (and, indeed, I cannot see how a logic al mind can escape these conclusions from Mr. Douglas' own premises) Mr. Douglas would be obliged to define his popular sove reignty to be the right of the people of a j Territory, represented in the territorial leg islature, to admit slavery by positive euaet ment, if they see fit, but it being well un derstood that a slaveholder has not the least shadow of a right to take his slave proper- J ty into the Territory, before such positive ! legislation has been had. This definition i would have at least the merit of logical ■ consistency. But what Joes Mr. Douglas say? 'Bla- ; very,' so he tells us in Lis Harper Maga zine article, 'slavery being the creature of j 'local legislation, and not of the Goustitu-j •tion of the United States, it follows that | 'the Constitution does not establish slavery 'in the Territories, beyond the power of the 'people to control it by law.' The Consti tution does not establish slavery in the Territories beyond a certain something! What does that mean ? If slavery is the creature of local law, how can the Consti tution by its own force permit slavery to go into a Territory at all? Here is a dark mystery, a pitfall, and we may well take care not to fall into the trap . of such sophistry. Why does he not speak j of the admission of slavery by positive en actments? Why not even with the power of the people to exclude it by law? We look in vain for light in Harper's Maga THURSDAY, MARCH 1. 1860. ' ' . * . ' ; i -i'uc (and it ig indeed true, what Judge Black intimates, that that article is one of* t the obscurest documents by which a politi cian ever attempted to befog his followers); : but we may gather Mr. Douglas' real opin ion from another manifesto preceding this, i In his Mew Orleans speech, delivered after h.is recent success in Illinois, he defined his position in substance as follows: 'The 'Democracy of Illinois hold that a slave 'holder has the same right to take his slave 'property into a Territory as any other 'man has to take his horse or his merehan 'dise.' Y\ M at I Slavery is the creature of local law, and yet the slaveholder has the right to take his slave property into a Territory before any local law has given him that rightA slave does not become free, when voluntarily brought by his owner up on the soil of a Territory, where no posi l tive local law establishing slavery exists ? llow is this possible? How can even the elastic mind of a democratic candidate for the Presidpnpy unfip, thpse contradictory assumptions ? [Applause.] And yet there it stands, and nothing that Mr. Doug- j I las ever said can be more unequivocal in its meaning. And here again we may claim t',,c pfiyilggg of drawing a few logi cal deductions from Mr. Douglas' own pre mises. If, as Mr. Douglas distinctly and emphatically Ulls qa,' a slaveholder has a right to take his slave as property into a ' I erritory, and to hold him there as proper j ty, before any legislation' on that point is bad, from what source does that right arise? Not from the law of nature —for the right 'to hold a slave is 'unfounded Jhh Wtf of 'nature, and in the unwritten and common 'law; little as he may care about nature and i her laws, he will hardly dare vo assert that the system of slave labor is the natural and normal condition of society. It must, then spring from positive law. But from what ' kind of positive law ? Not from any pos- 1 , itiye law of a local and municipal charac- ! ter, for there is none such in the Territorj so far. Where is its source then? There is but one kind of positive law to which tfye Territories are subject, before any local legislation has been had, and that is the j Constitution of the Unit-a State*. If, j therefore, Mr. Douglas assorts, as he docs, j that a slaveholder has a right to take his j sUve as property into a Territory, he must at the same time admit that, in the absence of local legislation positively establishing ; slavery, the Constitution of the United ' States, the only valid law existing there. ! < must be the source of that right. What < vise does Mr Buchanau assert, but that ' 1 ; slavery exists in the Territories by virtue ! of the Federal Constitution ? Where is, ' i then, the point oj difference between Air. , i Buchanan and Mr. Douglas? Why all : this pomp and circumstance of glorious i war ? Whence these fierce batUgs between , thp Montephi and Calpuletti of the Demo cratic camp ? Are ye not brothers ? Mr. Douglas is a statesman, (as they arc , i all, aii statesniei),) and pretends that the j i Constitution does not establish slavery in ; i the territories, 4 beyond the power of the s people to control it by law.' WJizt does j j that mean ? It means that a people of a i territory shall have the power, not to ex- i elude slavery by lay, f.Q? Mr. Douglas ncv- j i er uses that expression, but to embarrass ; i the slaveholder in the enjoyment of his ] right by 4 unfriendly legislation.' The s right to Jrold slaves, says he, in another < place, 4 is a worthless right, unless protec- < 4 ted by appropri ite police regulations. If I 4 the people of a territory do not want sla- i 'very, they have but to withhold all pro- ' 'tection and all friendly legislation.' In- 1 deed, a most ingenious expedient! : But alas ! Here is one of those eases 1 where the abstract admission of a right is < of decisive importance. Supposing, for . < argument's sake, a slave might escape f rom : his owner in a territory, without being in : actual danger of a re-oapture, would that i in any way affect the constitutional right ] of the slaveholder to the possession and en- < joyment of his property? 4 If,' says he, i 'slavery exists in the territories by virtue i 4 of the Constitution,' (that is, if a slave- i 4 holder has a right to introduce hjs 4 slave < 4 property'' where there is no other law but j 4 the Constitution) then it becomes the im- 1 1 •perative duty of Congress, to the perform- I 4 ance of which every member is bound by 1 4 his oath and conscience, and from which ] •no consideration of policy or expediency ' s 4 can release him, to provide by law such ( adequate and complete protection, as ises- < 'sential to the enjoyment of that important 'right.' - • it And Mr. Douglas having emphatically i admitted the right of property in a slave, t where that right can fcpjiijg from no other i law than the Constitution, then dares j to speak of unfriendly legislation ? Where 1 is his conscience ? Where is his oath ? 1 Where is Ms honor ? [Applause.] I But Mr. Douglas says more : 'The Con- j 'stitution being the supreme law of the ' land in the Stales as weli as the territor- \ 4 ies, then slavery exists in Pennsylvania 1 'just as well as in Kansas aud in South t 4 Carolina, and the irrepressible conflict is j i ' there ! ? Aye, the irrepressible conflict is e there, not only between the two antagonis- 1 tic systems of labor, but between Mr. a Douglas' own theories; not only in the I States and territories, but in Douglas' own i head. —[laughter and cheers.] Whatever j 1 ambiguous expressions Mr. Douglas may * invent, the dilemma stares him Lu the face, (and here I put myself on his own ground.) cither slavery is excluded from the terri* tories so long as it is not admitted by a special act of territorial legislation.—or if a slaveholder has the right to introduce his slave property there before such legislation is had, he can possess that right by virtue of no other but the only law existing there, the Constitution of the United States. Either slavery has no rights in the territor ies, except those springing from positive law of a local or municipal character, or, according to Judge Douglas' own admis sion, the Southern construction of the Con stitution and of the principle of popular sovereignty is the only legitimate one; that the Constitution by its own force carries slavery wherever it is the supreme law of the land; that Congress is obliged to enaet a slave code for its protection, and that po pular sovereignty means no laws against it. There is no escape from this dilemma. Which side will 3lr. Douglas take ? ill he b? bold enough, say that slavery, being the creature of local law only, is ex cluded from the territories in tli A abren.ee ,of positive law establishing it jor ,nil"he be honest enough to concede that according to his own proposition in b"L Ncqy Orleans speech, slavery exists in the territories by virtue of the federal Constitution ? He will neither be bold enough to do the first. ' nor honest enough to do the second ; he will be cowardly enough to do neither. [Applause.] He is in the position of that Democratic candidate for Congress in the west, yyliOj when asked : 'Are you a Buch anan or a Douglas man ?' answereu, 'I am.' [Great laughter and cheers ] If you ask j 31r. Douglas, 'Do you hold that slavery is ' the creature of local law, or that a slave j 'holder has yhe right to introduce his slave I ' property where there is no local law ?' he wijl anstver, ' I dp.' [Contipped laughter and applause.] Buch is 3lr. Douglas'doctrine of popu lar sovereignty. But after having given you 3lr. Douglas" own definitions in his J own words, I sec you puzzled all the more, and you ask me again : ' What is it?' I will tell you what judgement will bp pass ed upon it by future historians, who miy . find it worth while to describe tl/i- impor tant attempt to dally and trifle with the logic of' things. They will say : 'lt was the dodge of a man who was well aware that, in order to be elected President of the I nfTed States, the vote of a few North ern states must be added to the united vote of the South. Knowing by experience that the Democratic road to the White House leads through the slaveholding ri P States, he broke down the last geographi cal barrier to the extension of slavery. So he meant to secure the South. But in eon ceding undisputed sway to the slaveholding interests, he saw that he was losing bis foothold in the Northern States necessary to his election; he availed himself of the irresistible pressure of the free State move ment in Kansas, and opposed the Lecomp tQW Constitution. So he saved his Senator ship in lllinoise, 33 the chapjpiop of free jabor. But the South frowned, and imme diately after his victory he went into the slaveholding States, and admitted in his speeches, that slavery may go into the ter ritories without a special act of territorial legislation. Believing the South satisfied, and seeing his chances in the North en dangered, he wrote his Harper 3lagazine essay, assuming that slavery can exist only by virtue of local law. The South frown ed again, he endeavored to make his peace with the slaveholders by declaring that he would submit to the Charleston Convention, and instructing his nearest friends in the house to vote for the Administration can didate for the Speakership. So he endeav- ! ored to catch both sections of the Union successfully in the trap of a double faced sophistry. He tried to please them both in trying to cheat them both. But he placed himself between the logic of'liberty on one and the logic of slavery on the other side. He put the sword of logic in to the hands of the opponents, and tried to defend himself with the empty scabbard of ' unfriendly legislation/ [Applause.] Unfriendly legislation, i)*hich> in* cne case would have been unnecessary, in'the 'oilier constitutional—the invention of a mind without logic and of a heart withotit sym- , pathies; recognized on all sides as a mere , substitute, behind which the moral cowar- | dice of'a Presidential candidate entrench- j ed itself.' [Cheers.] Such will be the verdict of future his- ! torians.- They will indulge in curious spec- j ulatious about the times when such doc- ! trines could be passed off as sound states manship,~(a statesmanship indeed, the prototype of which may be found, not in Plutarch, but in Aristophanus,) but they will be slow to believe that there were peo- ; pie dull enough to be deceived by it. [Ap- ' plause.] Leaving aside the stern repudiation which 3lr. Douglas' popular sovereignty J has received at the hands of the people at 1 the last State elections all over the Union, , it is a characteristic sign of the times, that j even one of his political friends, an anti- 1 Lecompton Democrat, recently went so far i as to declare on the floor of Congress that he would not vote for 3lr. Douglas, if nom- i inated by the Charleston Convention, un- j less a clear and unequivocal construction j were affixed to the re-affirmation of the I New Series—Vol. XIV, No. 17. Cincinnati platform. A wise precaution in deed ! But whatever construction might be given to the Cincinnati platform, what will that gentleman do with the double faced platform, which Mr. Douglas has laid down for himself? What will the ab stract pledge of a convention be worth to him, if Air. Douglas'own pledges are worth nothing? What will he do with a man, who when pressed to take an unequivocal position, is always ready to sneak behind a superior authority, declaring that ' these qre questions to be settled by the courts?' and applause.] Mr. Douglas s situation is certainly a very perplexing one. On one side he is ostracise!* by the administration democracy for his il |ogicai q-id unconstitutional doctrine, that the legislature of a territory has control over sla very : and on the other hand, one of his near est friends, Mr. Morris of Illinois, in his re cent speech on the President's Message, de nounces the doctrine that slave property may be darried into the territories, just like other property, r.s an atrocious 'abomination/ Was Mr. Morris not aware that this 'ahemination' is tfie identical doctrine advocated by Mr. Douglas in his New Orleans speech ? Let Mr. Morris examine the record of Judge Douglas, and he will find out, that whatever abominatii ns Mr. Buchanan brings forward in his message, he advocates none that is not a direct logical consequence of Mr. Douglas' own admissions. 1 see the time coming, when those who ral lied around Duugla.Vs coloix because they be lieved in his principles, will, from bis most devoted friends, become his most indignant accusers. They are unwittingly denouncing hi# doctrines when they intend to defend him; they will not be sparing in direct denuncia tions as soon as they discover how badly they have been deceived and how igromir iously they were to be s<dd. 3Ve wight indc d feel tempted to j/ity him, if we had not to reserve that generous emotion of our hearts for ihoße who aie wrong by mistake and Unfortunate without guilt. [Applause.] Mr. DoiVglas' ambiguous position, which makes it possible for him to cheat either the north or the soutfi, without adding a new inconsistency to those already committed, makes it "af the same time necessary for [lira to'put his double faced the ories upon an'historical basis, which relieves him 6t the necessity of expressing a moral conviction on the matter of slavery either way. To say that slavery is right, would cer t:i::/y displease the north: to say th:rt slavery • wrong, would inevitably destroy him at the south. In order to dodge this dangerous dilemma, he finds it expedient to construe tfia history of this country so as to show, that this question of right or wrong in regard to slavery had nothing whatever to do wjfti the fundamental principles upon which the Amer ican Republic was founded. Dealing with slavery only as a matter of fact, and treating the natural rights of man and the relation between slavery and republican institutions as a matter of complete indifference, he is bound to demonstrate that slavery never was seriously inconsistent with liberty, and that the black never was seriously supposed to possess any rights, which the white man was bcuud to respect. But here he encounters [he declaration of independence, laying down the fundamental principles upon which the republic was to de velop itself; he encounters the ordinance of 1787, the practical application of those prin ciples ; both historical facts, as stern and stub born as they are sublime. But as 3lr. Doug las had no logic to guide him in his theories so he had no conscience to restrain him in his historical constructions. To interpret the declaration of independence according to the evident meaning of its words, would certain ly displease the south; to call it a self evident lie would certainly shock the moral sensibili ties of the north. So he recognizes it as a ven erable document, but makes the language, which was so dear to the hearts of the north, express a meaning which coincides with the ideas of the South. We have appreciated his exploits as a lo gician ; let us follow hiui in his historical dis coveries. Let your imagination carry you back to the year 177 G. You stand in the hall of the o)d colonial court house of Bhiladelphia. Through the open doo? you see the continental con gress assembled ; the moment of a great de cision is drawing near. Look at the earnest faces of the men assembled there, and con sider what you may expect of them. The phi losophy of the 18th century counts many of them among the truest adepts. They wel comed heartily in their scattered towns and plantations [bp new ideas brought forth by thai sudden progress of humanity, and, med itating them in the dreamy solicitude of vir gin nature, they had enlarged the compass of their thoughts and peopled their imaginations with lofty ideals. A classical education (for most of them are by no means illiterate men) has put all the treasures of historical knowl edge at their disposal, and enabled them to apply the experience of past centuries to the new problem they attempt tc solve. See oth ers there of a simple but strong cast of mind, whom common sense would call its truest representatives. Wont to grapple with the dangers and difficulties of an early settler's life, or, jf inhabitants of young uprising cit ies, wojit to carry quick projects into speedy execution, they have become regardless of ob stacles and used to strenuous activity. The constant necessity to help themselves, has de veloped their mental independence, and in ured to political strife by the continual de fense of their colonial self government, they have at last become familiar with the idea, to introduce into practical existence the princi ples which their vigorous minds have quietly built up into a theory. The first little impulses to the general up heaving of the popular spirit, the tea tax. and 6tamp act drop into insignificance; tbej are almost forgotten ; the revolutionary spirit has risen far aiiove them. It disdains to jus tify itself with petty it spurns dip lomatic equivocation; it places the claim to independence upon the broad hasi3 of eternal rights, as self evident as the sun, as broad as the world, as common as the air of heaven. The struggle of the colonies against the usurp iug government of Great Britain has risen to
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers