EXOEPTBB) •/. BV JOHN W. FORNEY, OFFICE NO. 41Y CHESTNUT STRKBI. ' DAILY PRESS. Tw«tv* Gxnn nt' Win, piiibla to th» Ourien. . Mailed to Subsoribora out of the Git, at Six Collars »ra AmnoK. Fora Uollabs waft Bwax Month.; Tubes Bollaei sob Bie Mouth.—lnv»ri»blr in &d -mot for the time ordered. TIU-WEEKLY PRESS. M&ifed' to sutMoribors out of tito City st Tits* i}Ot~ laes fee abnl’m, in advance. ■ COMMISSION MOUSES. pROTHIN GHAM DWELLS, 31 SOUTH FRONT. . AND 35 LETtTIA STREET, Are, AGENTS for the sale of Goods Manufactured by -the following Companios, vis: Massachusetts,- • Laconia, 1 Great Falls, Lyman, Cabot, Dwight, PebXins, , Jpswicir, Bartlet. Brown, Bleached, and Colored Sheetings, Bhirtinga, Jeans, and Drills. ROBESON’S BLUE PBINTS, HAMPDFN COMPANY’S TWEEDS AND COTTONADES in great varietr. WASHINGTON MILLS (Formerly Bay State) Shawle, Piano and Tab'o Cover., Printed Felting., FlannolS, AU-Wool and Cotton Wam Cloth., heavy blk and bine Beaver., Cauiroere., and Tricot.; Also, Ker .eys. Satinets, and Tweeds. ol stuth-6m gHIPLEY, HAZARD, & HUTCHINSON, NO. US CHESTNUT ST„ COMMISSION . MERCHANTS FOR. THE BALE OF PHILADELPHIA-MADE GOODS. .3-6 m 01, A HE'S SPOOL COTTON. Inst received. A FULL ASSORTMENT IN WHITE, BLACK, AND COLOKS, For sale by CHARLES YIELD, NO. SO .NORTH SIXTH STREET, AGENT FOR PHILADELPHIA. MILLINERY GOODS. MARKET STREET. RIBBONS, Of ovary kind* in immense variety; NEW BONNET MATERIALS, - ■ BONNET VELVETS, BATINS, «KO BE NAPS, LINING SILKS, ENGLISH CRAPES, of the best makes, FRENCH & AMERICAN ARTIFICIAL ' . FLOWERS, FEATHERS, RUCHES, ko Also, newest Fall styles of STRAW AND FANCY BONNETS, And STRAW GOODS, of every description. Nov open, and presenting altogether the most com plete itook of MILLINERY GOODS in this market. Merohants and Milliners from every seotion of the country are cordially invited to call and examine our •took* which vre offer at the CLOSEST POSSIBLE PRICKS. ROSENHEIM, BROOKS, * 00., 431 MARKET STREET. anlb-tnovlO J ( HILLiBORN JONES, Importer and Manufacturer of FANCY SILK STRAW BONNETS, ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS, FEATHERS, RUCHES, Ac The attention of City and Country Dealers is invited to a large and varied stock of the above goods,'at 433 MARKET STREET, Bolow FIFTH. iffe J. HAMBEBGER, No. 116 North WSiSECOND Street, is prepared to exhibit the most complete stock of Milliner; Goods, comprising Ribbons, Flowers, Feathers, Blonds, Laces, Huohea, Velvets, 'and other Bonnet Materials. .Also, a handsome assort ment of Pattern Bonnets, to all of which he would in vite the attention of Merchants and Milliners. N. B.—Goods daily received from Auction,and sold at the lowest prices. s«7-2m* . GENTS' FURNISHING GOODS. JW. SCOTT—late of the .firm of Win e Chester A Soott—GENTLEMEN’S FURNISH ING STORE and SHIRT - MANUFACTORY, SI OH&STNjjjTStreetf (nearly opposite theGirardflouse ' JiW»i£wonld respeetfuUy call the attention of his former patrons and friends to his new store, and is pre pared tonll orders.for SHIRTS at.short notice. A LOOKING-GLASSES. GLASSES. Now is store the moat extensive and elei&nt assort mentof - - j LOOKING GLASSES, For every op aoe and. every position, and at, the moot moderate pnoes, LOOKING-GLASSES lathe mo«t elaborate and the most simple frames* LOOKING GLASSES Framed is the best taste, and in the moat aabatantlal maimer. LOOKING GLASSES Furnished by us, are manufactured by ourselves in on own establishment. - LOOKING GLASSES la MAHOGANY and WALNUT frames for Country Bales. JAMES 8. EARLE A BOH, 16 OHESiTNUT STREET, Ml-tf PHILADELPHIA. PAPER HANGINGS, &c. pAPER HANGINGS. HOW IS THX TIMS TO PAPER YOUR HOUSES. HART, MONTGOMERY, & CO., NO. 332 CHESTNUT STREET, j Have for *&le every variety of PAPER HANGINGS, BORDERS, &0.. Which trill be sold at the lowest rates, and put up by careful workmen. aiO-dtnolO HATS, CAPS. Arc. 1859. FALL * KADB -1859. O. H. GARDEN & CO, Manufacturer* of and Wholesale Dealers in HATS, GAPS, FURS. ARTIFICIAL FLoWEBS. FEATHERS, RUCHES, Ac., Ac., NOS. 809 AND 603 MARKET STREET, Southwest corner of Sixth. ' KXTENBIVE STOCK. BEST TERMS* LOWEST aolß-Sm . PRICES. MEDICINAL. IVf RS. WINSLOW, „ iTJL an experienced Vurse and female PhTfioiam presents to the attention of mothers her Soothing sykup FOR CHILDREN TEETHING, Vhioh cnMlr faollit&ta. the ProoM. of W ethin*. i? wft •unj tho.gim,, redamqg all inn&minatioa i mil tula; BOWELS. Depend upon it* mothers, it will sire rest to pounelTes “relief and health to your infants, Weh&vaputjuandaohl • this artiole for over.ten ‘vears,and o&nY&jr, moon P* fidenoe and truth of it, what we have never been ta able to say of any other medioineTNEVEß HAS 2 IT FAILED, in a BIN -SLKINBTANOE,TOEF C$ FECT A CURB, when timely used. Never did we know an instance of dissatisfaction t>y any one who used it. On the con trary,, all are dahkbled CQ with its operations, and epeakm terms of highest - K commendation of its m&ti eaielTeotsindmedicalvir® toes. We speak in this matter “ what we do hr know,” after ten yearr eipenenoe.and pledge onr r] reputation for the fulfil ment of what we here de ” plare. In almost every Estanoewhere.the infant 03 Wsnffenns from pain and •xtraostion, relief will be cj found in fifteen or twenty minutes,alter the Syrnp is adnumstered. . g S&Hrartii^ NURSES in Now Midland and hu been nud mth “OF CASES. . , ft not only relieves the OT phild from pain, trot in vigorate* the itomaon and " bowels, correct* acidity. ► M\W ra THi . BOWELS AND WIND O COLlCattdove roome con vulsion*. WMoh, if. notlj speadily remedied, end jn .death. We behove it thel" bestand Burnt remedy m Sxe foregoing complaintslfe do not let your prejudices, nor the .prejudices ofp othfl rfl. stand between lour suffering child and) , the relief that will be ABSOLUTE! cd LY BURE-to_fo Iw the mse of ftds medicine, if] _I timely used. Full direo .toon* fa using will aoopm « pany kitt e. None genuine unless the factlaS simile of CURTIS® PER jtINB, New York, Isoni” the outside wrapper. ■at. Sold by DniKiitts throughout the world,. Princl ffUtßfioe. No. IS CEDAR Street, NewYerk* JjS*ly «■ aenta a hottfa. HOPE COAIi OIL WORKS. FIRST PREMIUM, AWARDED AT PENNSYLVANIA STATE PAIR, FACTORY WOOD STREET, WHARF BCHUYL KILL, OFFIOEI2T WALNUT STREET. R. S. HUBBARD » SON. CARRIAGES OP THE MANUFACTURE OF WILLIAM D. ROGERS. REPOSITORY, 1009 OHKBINOT STREET. XOU - VOL. 3.—NO. 82. * Beelzebub. BT THE BARD OF TOWER |!aLL, Ev’rywliore throughout creation, From and to the midnight hour, Beelzebub la ever busy, “ Seeking whom he may devour.” This we learn from Holy Scripture— Therefore none its truth can doubt; So. when rings the bell of conscience, Then for Beelzebub look out. Though he have a foot that’s cloven, Yethe gently, lightly goes; And, when he for souls is seeking, Is not apt to stub his toes. Sura of foot.-and stepping softly, Not a footfall you may near; Yet old Beelzebub will reach you, Amt be roaring in your ear. Yes! for he. “ ofliara th’ father,” Will with fiendish zest rejoice, If, by roaring like a lion, He can drown your inward voice. Don’t you listen to the demon; If you do, he will deceive, 'With the sophistry so subtle Whisper’d to our mother Eve. Do not eat of fruits forbidden By the laws oi God ami man, •Though the sly, old serpent uttor, “ Freely eat of nil you can I” To a friendship for y our neighbors, Sympathy for ail distressed, Charity and kind forbearance, Give a home within your breast. Constancy and love’s devotions Cherish as of self a part; , Let not Satan drive the angels From the ohambers of your heart. Let tlje Right be aye your armor. While the sword of Truth you wield ; Then, by Heaven made strong in valor, You shall stand and never yield. Though the very ” Prince of. Devils,” With his legions may assail; Not a shaft shall reach your bosorn Through your trußty coat of mail. Such a coat. I must acknowledge. Is a coat much better far Than the best they manufacture At the Tower Hall Bazaar. That is saying much, yes. very Much indeed—the truth is bold! For the coats at Tower Hall are Firmly stitched, and cheaply sold. As a Bard who’s well intentioned, We to ev’ry man would call— . Wear the coat ot mail we'vo mentioned, O’er a suit from Tower Hall. The largest and most complete assortment of Clothing in Philadelphia now on hand, adapted to the present and approaching seasons, and for sale at the usual low prices, at TOWER HALL, No. 618 MARKET Street, Philadelphia, by BENNETT fc CO. INSURANCE COMPANIES. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY. PHILADELPHIA, INCORPORATED, MARCH, 1859, Is now prepared to make INSURANCE upon Build ings, Furniture, and Merchandise generally. AGAINST LOBS OR DAMAGE Y FIRE B This Company transacts its Business on the Mutual Exclusively, all the insured being alike inte- rested, thereby offering great inducements to those who tho Chief Justioo thus concludes j “ And • no word oon bo found in the Constitution which > gives Congress greater po'wite over'slave 1 property, on wmen entitles property of that > KIND TO LESS PROTECTION, THAN PROPERTY OF ANY ' other description.” AH. therefore, that tho court haß decided, is that slaves are property, as I much so as anything else that may be owned by • man, and that suon property is cntitlod to tho : samo—not to loss or greater—constitutional guaran- < tees as any other description of proporty. This being obviously the dootrine of the court, it neces sarily follows, that whatever ft Constitutional Government can do in regard to any othor kind of ; property, it can do in regard to this. If any other kind may be oxoluded, this may be excluded ; if any other kind may bo more, or 1038, or not at all, protected by legislation, tho samo is true ns to this. If any other, aftor its legal introduction, oan bo, upon public grounds, oxoluded or abolishod, it is also tho oase (\3 to this. It is hut sameness, identity of titlo and protection, which tho court maintains, not inferior or paramount—that all stand on the same footing, liablo alike to tho same restrictions and limitations, and entitled to tho same guarantees. What is there in this spooled of property to oxompt it from territorial legislative power ? What is thoro to mako it tho peouliar and single duty of such a power to legislate for Its ad- ■ miesionor protection? If it bo but proporty, and, as suob, only embraced by constitutional guaran tees, it must share tho condition of ail other proper- 1 ty, and therefore bo subjoot to tho legislative power. If this is not true, the territorial stato would bo almost without laws—bo ono of nature. The peace and prosperity of tho people depend < upon laws defining and regulating proporty. Without such a power, property itself would bo in a great dogroo out of the palo of protection. But if tho power exists, it roust depend upon those who possess it, how thoy will, in any particular case, exert it, or whetbor thoy will exert it at all. These must rest with their intelligence and sense of duty. Congress has no power but to recognise the Territorial Government, apower which is theirs for the samo reason that proves tho power, in tho first instance, to crcato it. Korean it ho properly said, that tho authority thus contended for exists upon tho assumption that sovereignty “ resides with such a people.” If by sovereignty is here meant an absoluto and paramount power over all other power, it certainly is not possessed. But if it iB used in a restricted sense, ng involving only tho power to do the things supposed, when legislative power is granted to them, in relation to thoir own internal concerns, subject to tho prohi bition to be found in tho Constitution, and which in tho language of tho court in another passngo of the opinion, in some instances “ It would bo more advisable to commit” to them, ns boing tho most “ compotont to determine what was beat for their own interests,” then certainly such sovereignty is thofrs. And this, and this only, Is tho sove reignty contended for by Judge Douglas in his ar ticle in Jlnrpor. The Attorney General might have saved himself the troublo of searching tho speeches and writings of the Judgo, with a view to disprove, upon his own authority, that sovereignty, in its more comprehensive moaning, did not reclde with such peoplo. The article itsoif, which was so cri tically and, no doubt, with intended fairness, ob served upon, would have answered his purpo9o. Tho right thoro assorted was stated as pertaining “ to tho peoplo collectively, or as a law-abiding and ponceful community, and net to tho Isolated indi viduals who may reside upon tho publio domain in violation of the law, and such as oan only bo exor cised when there are inhabitants sufficient to con stitute a Government, and capablo of possessing its various functions and duties, a fact to ho ascer tained and determined by Congress;” and that thon it was a right to he exeroisod, “ subject to tho Constitution of toe United States.” That a power, whose very existcnco depends upon somo other au thority, and which is to bo used in subordi nation to admitted paramount oontrol, is not sov ereign, in tho sense imputed by the Attorney Goncrai, is too obvious to need proof. Tho whole doctrino of the article Is inconsistent with such an assumption, and the orror of construing it other wise oan only ho ascribed to that goncrai failing, which often is tho weakness of a controversial wri ter. Tho powor olairaod is exclusively that which belongs to a legislative authority, granted without limitation ns to any particular subjeot of legisla tion, and by an authority which has no Congressional jurisdiction to impose a limitation, and which, therefore, kuows no restriction, except each ns is common to every othor kindred subject. In this view, and in this only, i« it a sovereign powor, n Sower, in tho lnngungo of tho Supremo Court, “ to etormino what is best for their own interests,” or in that of Judgo Douglas, that whloh belongs to ii title. “ to all the rights, privileges, and immuni ties of solf-govornment, in respect to their local concerns and internal polity, subject only to tho Constitution of tho United States.” Ho who con tests these propositions, or their application to slavo proporty, is bound to establish that such property lin3 other guarantees, and is entitled to other rights than bolong to other proporty. Suoh a task iB boyond tho roooh of any conceivable reading of tho Constitution, and Is, consequently, a hopeless undertaking. At Us dnto tho repug nance of slavery to tho public sentiment of tho time, tho general wish for its ultimate extinction, the provision to arrest, in a few years, Its increase, and tho absence of any other special power in re a- | tion to it, it may bo considered ns clear, that a proposition in tho Convention to scouro It by other guarantees than such os wero provided for other property, and, more particularly, with suoli as would greatly delay, if not prevent, its extinction, would, perhapß, not havo received tho support ot any roomber of tho body. Certain it is that no suggestion of the kind was made, and that thin proporty stands but secured by tho provisions whioh equally embrace and protect all othor kinds. As has been seen, this doctrino is not only not in consistent with tho opinion of the Supremo Court, but maintained by its principles. It is now proposed to Bhow that it has tho clearest Congressional, and Domooratic, and Executive sanction. As to tho first, this might ho dono by rm examination of tho Compromise of 1860. The terms of that legislation, and tho grounds upon which it was supported and opposed, from its pro posal to its consummation, would, it is submitted, 022-stuth2m PHILADELPHIA, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1859. without other proof, establish the fact of Mich ft sanotiou. But It is sufficient for the purpoao to refer to the ensuing legislation of 1854. The Kan* sus-Nobrnskn not—tho principles of that act, as it was passed, and thoso of tne Sonate amendments, pro* posed and advocated by Judgo Douglas, and his opposition to tho antagonistic propositions offorod by the Senators from the States in whioh slavery doea,not provail, nil demonstrate that he, and those who agreed with him, then olnimed for tho people of a Torritory tho very right for whioh ho now contends—tho right, without other restrictions than tho Constitution contains, to legislate concerning slavo proporty, ns a concern belonging to them, during their territorial condition, in like manner ns thoy could legislate concerning other proporty. And, whatever doubts might then hnve prevailed ns to tho establishment of this right by tho princi ples of tho former compromise, it is not for those who concurred with tho Judge, and voted for tho pnssngo of tho Inst aot, now to deny that such not, ns far as such proporty was involved, but oarriei out the dootrino of tho former, now to deny that tho doctrines so carried out involvo tho powor which tho words used in it cloarly include. Nor is it for those who opposed tho lattor aot, on tho vory ground that such would bo Us effeot, and pro posed amendments to avoid it, now to maintain that such is not its operation. What, thon, is tho meaning ns to this question of tho Kansas and Ne braska not? Does it maintain Jndgo Douglas’s dootrino? Unioss language has lost its use, nnd sorvos only to misload and dcludo, no other mean ing onn be given to it. Bcforo quoting it let ua sco the slnto of things existing whon tho aot was under consideration. Tho admission of slavo labor into tho Territories, and tho right of Congress to prevent it by particular prohibition, wore agitating tho nation. Tho hopes of those who, with patri otic motives, devised tho Compromise of *3O were not fulfilled. The Territories now to bo organized, of Kansas nnd Nebraska, again presented the disturbing ques tion. Tho consultations in both branches of Con gress woro warm nnd oxciting. Tho advocates of 'restriction and its opponents alike displayed groat ability. From day to day. in tho Sonate particu larly, propositions woro offered, presenting in vari ous forms tho views of each. The friends of State equality, from tho States whero slavery did not exist, as well as Southern Sonntor3, and who wore equally desirous of freeing Southern States from this badge of degrading inferiority, implying dis* graco, because imputing injusdioo end wrong, tcal ously labored to effeot their object; and this, in tho opinion of almost every Southern momber, would be effected by tho last amendments suggested by tho Committee on Territories, of which Judge Douglas was chairman, in their report of tho 4th of January, 1851. Aftor stating what they supposed were “ the principles established by the inensuresof 1850,” and how theso had served to allay agitation, and restore peace and harmony* l to an irritated and distraoted people,” they said: “In the judgment of your oommittco, tho*o measures woro intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effeot than tho mere adjustmentof tho difficulties arising outof tho reoont acquisition of Mexioan territory. Tdby WERE DESIGNED TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN GREAT PRINCIPLES, WniCII WOULD NOT ONLY FURNISII ADE QUATE REMEDIES FOR EXISTING KVILS, BUT, IN ALL TIME TO COME,’AVOID TIIB PERILS OF A SIMILAR AGI TATION, BY WITHDRAWING TIIB QUESTION OF SLAVE RY FROM THE nALLS OF CONGRESS AND, THE POLITI CAL ARENA, AND COMMITTING IT TO TUB ARBITRA MENT OF THOSE WUO WERE IMMEDIATELY INTEREST- ED INLAND ALONE RESPONSIBLE FOR. ITS COXBF.- QvisNCfes. With a view of conforming trf.ir ac tion TO THE SETTLED POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT, SANCTIONED BY THE APPROVING VOICE OF THE AME RICAN PEOPLE, VOl’n COMMITTEE HAVE DEEMED IT THBIII DUTY TO INCORPORATE AND PERPETUATE IN THEIR TERRITORIAL BILL, THE PRINCIPLE AND spirit of those me\m iiKHand the amendment whioh waa reeommonded und adopted to accom plish this object, with a proviso'offercd by Mr. Bad ger, was in these words; .“That tho Constitution, nnd nil laws of the United Slates which aro not loonlly inapplicable, shall have tho Bnme force and effect within tho said Territory ns elsewhoro within tho United States, except tho eighth section of tho net preparatory to tho admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March Cth, 1820, wmen BEING INCONSISTENT M ITH TIIB PRINCIPLE OP NON INTERVENTION nr (Joxohess. with slavery in the States anti Territories* as recognised by tno legis lation of 1850. commonly cnllod tho ‘ Compromise Measures,’ is hereby declared inoperative and void, IT FIFING THE TRUE INTENT AND MEANING OF TIMS ACT, NOT TO I.EGISHTF. SLAVERY INTO ANY TERRI TORY or State, nor to exclude it therefrom. BUT TO LEAVE THE PKOPi.K THEREOF PERFECTLY FREE TO FORM AND nKGULATE THEIR DOMESTIC IN STITUTIONS THEIR OWN WAY, SUBJECT ONLY TO the Constitution of the United States, pro vided that nothing heroin contained shall bo con strued to rcrivo or put in force any law or regula tion which may have existed prior to the act of tho flth of March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, or abolishing slavery.” Tho prohibitory seotlon of tho Missouri not of the oth of March, 1820, was, for the reason alleged, repealed, aud the principles and motivo of the repeal stntod to be, to offqot tho true intent and moaning of Congress, and whioh wasdoclnrcd to bo twofold : first, “not thorosolvea to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nr»r to exoludo it thorefromsecqnd, to loavo tho peo plo thereof perfectly free to regulate their own do mestic .institutions, in their own way, subject only to tho . Constitution of tho Uuited Staterf.- Tho bill as thus nmondod was passed by tho Senate by a vote of tbirty;sovon to fbur tocn, tho majority inoludlug every Southern Senator present, except Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, nnd Mr. Houston, of Texas, and twelve Senators from the other States; nnd on the 22J of May, after a long and able disoussion, 4 w* B paused by the House, by a voto of one hundred and thirteen to one hundrod, there being, in tho majority, every Southern member but seven, nnd most, if not all, of these were opposed to' it, not because of tho principles contained in the particular amendment quoted, but on other grounds. Unlosa words be used, ac dicers' oaths, to deceive, Find Congross in tended by false pretences to delude, is it pot clear that tins amendment declared, and sanctions the dootrino of popular sovereignty as maintained by Judgo Douglas 1 That dootrino is, that a Ter ritorial Government has a right to logislato in re lation to their local concerns and internal polity, subject only to tho Constitution of the United States. Tho amendment declares its vory purpose to be, “to leavo tho pooplo thereof (n Territory) perfectly free to form nnd regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to tho Constitution of the United States:” nnd this pur pose was especially avowed in regard to jira party. Sqoh property, indeed, gn*e riso to the very agitation whioh it was tho object of Congress to terminate. That alono constituted tho dnngor in which tho country was supposed to bo, and, con sequently, the prjDmpJo was tho more particularly proparod to moot that danger. It was decided to loavo tho peoplo perfectly freo to regulate it as a domestic institution of their own, in their own way. It declares, first, what is not tho intont nnd meaning of the a3t • “ It is not to legislate slavery into nny Rtato or Territory, nor to exclude it secondly, what was its intont: “To leave it ns a domestic institution to tho people, to be settled in their own wny, with no other restriction than the Constitution of the United Status may impose.” One or the other of those two conclusions is in evitable : That if Congress believed they had tho powor thomsolved to legislate upon tho suhjoet, thoy thought it wiser to surrender it to tho pooplo of the Territory} or, that thoy believed that they had not tho power, and declared it to bo in the people, so as to settle all doubts as to tho right of tho latter to exercise It. Tho powor which, upon clthor bypothesK they refused to exert, was to legislate slavery Into any Territory or Stnte, or to excludo it therefrom ; and that which they declared to bo In the people was tho power “ to legislate slavery into or exclude it from such Territory or Slate,Jt will ho coon, too, that In this regard tho people of a Territory aro placed in tho same 1 condition with the peoplo of a State, and that the power in question is not more disclaimed as to the Inttor than ns to tho former, and that tho power loft to oaeh is left in tho samo terms and to tho fliuno oxtont. Whatever, therefore, undorthis act, tho peoplo of a Stato can da, tho peoplo of n Terri tory onn do- tbo solo limitation upon tho authori ty of oltlior Is declared to bo in tho Constitution ol tho United Si/itra. What Js tho oxtont of such limitation? Taking privato property for public uso without compensation, or tho implied one of pro hibiting tho ingross into tho Torritory of privato property ? Is oither more appHcablo to au organ ized Territorial Government than (on State? Is private prflporty appropriated to public use by laws abolishing slavery, or prohibiting tho right to bring such property into oither i Certainly not, — such legislation is to be found, to a greater or less extent, In almost every Stato in tho Union, and no one has had tho temerity to call it in doubt. This was, of ooursc, known to Congress in ’54, and they could not, thorefore, have imagined that tho valid ity of such legislation could ho questioned on any such constitutional ground. They thought that slavery was a dotno'dlo institution, inoroly depend ing, for its oxistehco or exclusion, upon tho legis lative will of those with whom it was, or was to bo domiciled, Thoy, therefore, not only did not ox copt it from tho will of tho people, whowero to ho left ls porfeolly froo to form and roguhito” their domestic concerns “in their own way,” but. in language so unambiguous as to admit of but ono in terpretation, it was evidently that very institution which induced them to declare this princijdoof popular sovereignty. This view, if possible, becomes tho more nppnront, whon wo consider tho object and effect of tho Budgor pro viso. Tho Territory to ho organized was slavo territory when admitted into tuo United States, Suoh property wn* thon known to tho ‘laws of Franco and .Spain, and had boon for years, and was held within tho torritory at tho titno of ocbslon. If Congress had tho power to pass tho Hth section of the aot of tho (Uh of March, 1820. (tho Missouri Coniproiui°c.) .such laws wore by that section re pealed, nnd’tho entire territory north of tho pro scribed lino thoroby permanently dovoted to freo labor, whatever might he tho wishes of Jta people. ThU. of course, would not linvo left them “ per fectly free to form and regulate that” domostio in stitution “in’lhelr own way," and it was there* foro necessary, in order to consummate tho policy of tho net, to annul the restriction, and this was ex pressly done by tho amendment of tho committco. But Mr. Bndgor, an neuto and able lawyer, as well ns an enlarged and conservative statesman, saw, or thought ho saw, that somo further provision was no ecs«ary to attain tho objoot. He, evidently, cup* posed that it might thereafter, upon a prinoipte known to tho books, ho contended that tho reponl of tho restrictive section, without more, would hut revive tho laws of tho country, whatever thoso were at tbo date of tho onnetment of that section, and thus revive the agitation whioh tho majority were so anxious to extinguish forover. Tq guard against this, ho proposed his proviso, declaring “thatnothlngheroißcontained should bo oonstrued to rovlvo or put in foroo any laws or regulations which may havo existed prior to tho aot of tho 6th of Mmoh, 1821), either protecting, eitahihhln?, or abotvihing slavery," and it was adopted by a vote of thirty-flvo to six. Every Honator from tho froo States, except Gov. Dodgo, of Wisconsin, voting in tho nfllrinntlve, nndhutfivoSonatorsfrom tho slavo States in tho negatlvo, and theso were Messrs. Adams and Bnowv, of Mississippi, John*- son and Sr.nARTiAN, of Aukanhas, and Busk, of ; Texas. The purpose of this amendment, Its solo 1 was to submit tho very question of domes* i tic slavery to tho peojdo of tho Torritory, untrain > moiled, as n domcstlo institutionofthoirown, whioh i Congress was olthor without tho powor to control, • or was resolved not to control. Itwas to bo Choirs, to bo disposod of " In their own way," a* tho same fs disposed of by tho poople of a State; that is to say. it was for them “ to legislate it into, or ox olado it” from tholr Territory. All antecedent laws existing before that of 1820, inconsistent with such a right nnd power, were, by tho proviso, ro poa lod, as by tho original amendment was repeal ed tho interfering section of that act. It was os teemed to bo not only their true polioy, but to bo aa just as it was truo, to leave the quostion to the Territorial people, and to leave open for emigration the Territory to overy citizen of tho United States, without being subject, in regard to slavery, or any othor domestic institution, to Congressional waste ry» but only to that authority wniob, in the lan guage of President Buchanan, in his lottor of ac ceptance, beroafter rnoro particularly quoted, is “ derived from tho original and pure fountains of legitimate political power, the will of the majority.” It is uanifost that noithertbo mover of the amend ment, nor any member of oither llouso, then sup posed that tho Constitution would oither establish, orenuso to exist, or protect, or prohibit slavery in tho Territory, if tho looal laws prohibiting or au thorizing it, which prevailed at tho dato of tho ces sion to the United States, wore revived. If such nn opinion was then entertninod, tho amendment, in its body ns well ns tho proviso, would have boon merely idle and nugatory legislation; since, if that was tho oaso, tho law ncithor could give nor tnko away tho constitutional right to move and hold slaves in tho Territory. It was, on the contrary, the design to submit that right to tho judgment alone of the Territorial Government, nnd, with that objeot, to romove all possible objootion to its oxer* oiae, by annulling tho entire looal law regarding jt, whatevor that might bo, whether to bo found in tho ngt of 1820, or in tho antecedent laws of Franco and Spain. But if thero can' be no legislation by tho Territo ry, what law is to rogulato tho rights and to fur niA tho remedies? Aro these to do ns various as ars tho laws of,tho scvoral States from which the property was takon ? Are the rights to hold and dismso of Fueb or any other proporty, to depend on suer,-laws? Then, an emigrant from one Stato each slave single, whilstonofrom anoth er could not soli at nil, or soil If tho sale soparated man and wife, paront aud child. In one case slavos wmijd bo liable to execution for debt in tho lifo tiiu* of tho owner, or to sale at his death, for pay ment of his dobt3 or distribution, and in tho other not. In ono they would bo subjoot to a iudgmont lion, in tho othor not. In ono tho children of a slavo mother might belong to her owner, in the other not. In ono thoy might bo free, in the othor not. In ono trover might bo the remedy, in tho not. In ono resistance by tho slave to tho owner might bo punished,with death, in the othor not, In the ono the modo of feeding, clothing and working might be prescribed, In theother not. Iu the ono color might bo presamptivo evidence of slavery. In the other not. In tho ono slavos might bo considered as real estate, and so to he disposed of, during lifo or at death, in tho othor not. And what is truo ns to this species of property is true of all. Its title mny originate in the State whonce itonmo, but its roguhtiou, its continuance, and its protection must depend upon tho laws of tho place whore it is. . When tlicro oxist in such a placo a le gitimate logislutivo power, unrestricted except by tho Constitution of the United States or a State Constitution, it Is subject to such powor Boing property os long as tho territorial existence re mains, it cannot bo conflsoatod or appropriated to Jublio use without compensation, Nor is there in udgo Douglas’s paper a word, fairly considered, tendmg towards a different doctrine. Tho intro duction, in tho future, of slavery into the Territo ry, maybo prohibited. But this is not publio ap propriation of privnto property. It is not donied that this-can bo done by Stato powor, although be sldo tbe prohibition in the Constitution of tho Gen eral Government, there is a like ono, it is believed, in the Constitution of every Stato. Why then, as must bo admitted, is it in that caso legitimate ? Booauso it is a lit subject of legislative power, nnd is not within tho words or object of snob a prohibition. Tho same thing is oqually true of every other species of property. Gambling may be authorized, and its implements, its oards and U» dloo, bo property in a State. Can theso bo taken to an organized Territory nnd thero held and used In defiance of its legislative power? Polyga my may be legal in a Stnte, thero being nothing in the Constitution of tho United 6tatcs against it, and tho issue of onch marriage, legitimate; can tho husband tako his two or moro wives into such * Territory, irid there live with them all, and his children there bo legitimate heirs to hifl ostate, in equal defiance of its logialativo power and tho pub lic sentiment of its people? Lotteries are lawful now in somo States, ana may be made so in all, should tho promptings of a just and moral policy, now so general, conso to prevail. Can tho dealer tako Into such a the emblems of hla trade, property, whero ho emigrates from, nnd vend them in defiance of territorial powor, and tho almost unanimous wish of its people ? In eomo States’a dog may bo property, in pome not. lias tho emigrant from New York’ whoro it hns rooent ly boeti judicially decided that a dog is proporty, the onvlcd constitutional privile?o to tako with hir.i his dumb companion and friend and servant, and to enjoy his society and tho fruits of his labor, not only unquestioned by territorial powor, legislative, executive, qr judicial, but with tho duty of each nnd all to protect him ? and has tho emigrant from South Carolina, whero such property may uofc bo recognised, no such right 7 If there bo such n dis paraging and unjustdistlnotlon, it is almost a just cause for rebellion. But if tho doctrino bo sound, how is it practically to •operate ? Tho laws of tho several States aro ofton, and may even be qn tho samp subject, conflicting. conftiot must giro ris* in utq Territory to constant controversy inca pable of judicial adjustment, if but the one law is observed, IVhat is to bo done ? Can any peace ful results bo attained 7 Certainly not, if both laws are to bo equally regardod, and what then is inevitable—confusion and vtolonco; and then, too,what a singular appearance would qp oditlon of their statutes and common law present; what a heterogeneous mass its oontonta. Its title would bo, tho statutes and othor law of tho Territory; open it and you find statutes of Massachusetts and of Georgia, of Pennsylvania and of Mississippi, find of tbe common law of eaob, with a head note i that these apply respectively only to tho citizens who have emigrated from such State. Toatho is , still, and must remain not only against tho will of the Territorial Government, but his own, as to all his rights nnd obligations, a citizen of Massachu setts or Georgia, Pennsylvania or Mississippi, until tho poriod shall urrivo when nil will bo merged into ono people, to bo governed by tbe laws of their own ndoptim, through the necromancy of a fctato Constitution, tho only remedy for tho in consistencies, tho absurdities, and tho paralysing effects of tbe doctrino that Territorial loglslntivo power hns, if any, a most limited sphere for its operation. Iu fact, tho more tho principle is examined, tho more qntennblo, if not absurd, it appears. Will any man with any regard to his reputation, whether he has mastorod the primer of »olitical scionco or not, answer these inquiries In the affir mative ? If suoh a ono is to bo found, ho can point to no othor dialectics ns the source of his error and his apology, tbnn those of tho Attorney General. In ft word, tho whole question resolves itself into this; What is legislative power 7 What aro it* legitimate objects 7 If property, its existence, its regulations, and its uses, and it* protection by Inw, subjeot onljr to suoh constitutional limitations as may exist, is not, thon is it divostod not only of ono but of its chief olcmonts, its very life-blood. It can then deal only with man, his physical efforts, his mere animal capacities, nnd hardly at all with his moral nnturo and its obligations, and not at all whero theso involvo proporty and jt" application. Tho Attornoy General, inbU appendix, tells us that “ no ono who hns mastered tho primer of political scicnco.” will deny that n Govern ment unrestrnined nnd unobookod by any constitutional prohibition, has ‘Mho powor to confiscate private proporty, oven without com pensation to tho owner.” That this power can only be obviated by limitation, nnd thnt this is ac cordingly done in tho Constitution of the United States, and in every State Constitution. Is this so? If it bo, tho present writer lia* not mastered tho primer. Are thero no groat principles of jua* tieo which lay at tho foundation of every form of rooiety, nnd fashion and control it without express incorporation into its organic law? And if thero be, is it not one of them that privato property onn not he taken for public use, without compensation? Such principles may ho violated. Property may bo confiscated, ana persons too imprisoned ana o.vceutod without cause, in tho moro gratification of a tyrannical will. Hr voit facto lauu may bo ennoteil ami enforced, ami nota declared a crime, which in Uiq eyo of umn nnd of God wero not only not criminal, but laudablo when they occurred. But are tl eie justified 7 Thero may be no physical powor to loiist thorn, but aro thoy on that uccount, in human or divino iudgmont, legal 7 Are thoy not rostrainod by a voice which in tno eyo of olvilx latlon is mightior than armies, tho voice of jus tice issuing from tho “ bosom of God,” to preservo “ the harmony of the world 7 ” Could thon such acts bo perpetrated without redress, had there been no suoh prohibition in tho Constitutions of tho several States, and of the General Govern ment? Chief Justlco Marshall, who, Mr. Attorney perhnps will admit, hnd at least mastered tho ‘•primer of polilical science,” in tho caso or Fletcher and Prato, Q Cra., speaking, too, fur tho wholo court, his co-students of tho some primer, says: “It may well be doubtod whether the n si tu™ of government and society does not prescribe some limits to a legislative power; and if any bo prescribed, whero aro thoy to ho found, If tho pro perty of an individual fairly and honestly acquired, may ho seized without compensation?” Tho historical rcforence, too, of Mr. Attorney, it is submitted, ho clearly misapprehends. “Great oharters, bills of rights, and Constitutions to limit tho sovereignty” of tho Governments under which our Saxon ancestors lived and suf fered, wero obtained bocuuso tho titlo to them was to be found “in the nature of society andcivil government,” In tho judgment of all after times, and of tho groat and good men of tho day, it was on this ground that tho labors, plans, nnd battles of our English ancestry, “ during seven hundred ! years,” oommonded them to just approvnl and ad miration. It is because sovereignty is not “in its nnturo irresponsible nnd nbsoluto ” that tho money nnd blood spent to restrain it wore vindicated in tho eycß of a civilized and enlightened world. To consider tho oxfttnTdo otherwise, and ns teaching tho lesson which Mr. Attorney reads us, is to bring to its application rather tho logio and philosophy which oolong to ft ploddor in special ploas, than tho enlarged anu liberal views which attend tho re searches of tho historical student nnd statesman. Tho great charter nnd bill of rights wore claimed' and acquired because tho principles of political and civil frooJom contained In them woro our ances tors’ before and independent of such recognition. Those date not from charters and hills of rights, but from “tho nnturo of socioty nnd of govern ment.” In this latter thoy arc inherent as tho bii th-right of tho social man. But if, in this ago of tho world, such a doctrino could exist any whero, can it prevail with us 7 Our institutions arc redolent of freedom. I’orfroodom, | our ancestors, during seven yoars of trial, fought, bled, nnd died. It washer teaohlngs thnt Inspired ami supported them during their fearful struggle. By them no sovereignty was recognised in any form of government thnt might ho adopted, which could legitimately not on property or persons with out tho restraint of theso just principles of justice and socioty, in wbloh nlono society can bo onjoyod or tolerated. These, they well knew, must bo tho implied conditions of nil social powor, nnd as effec tual to limit and restrict it ns if in words, repeated again and again, in its particular Constitution, If thia bo not so, they also wore not “ masters of the primer of political science.” In suoh company it is pleasant to err, even though tho error shocks the 1 larniog and profound re3earchcsof a high law ofR . cer, who, bis friends imagine, has traversed the whole of tho circle of the scienco, and sounded its depths as woll as its shadows. It ha* also Domoor&tio sanction, and in a form and under circumstances that no member of the party loyal to his faith, and no member'of the present Administration, can consistently repudi ate. Tho party, by its National Convention, held in Cincinnati, in 1856, by the unanimous vote of tho mombera from every one of the States, de clared : • The American Democracy recnpnise and adopt the rrntnples contained in the oraamc laws establishing tno Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, as ombodymg the only sound and safe ao/wfian of the ‘ slavery ques* tipn. upon whioh the great national idea of the people ol this whole country can repose m its determined con servatism of the Union— non-interventton by Congress *J nx '* r V *ft »S(nf« Territory, or in the District of Columbia. “ That this was the basis of the compromises Of 1850, confirmed by both the Demootatio and Whig parties in National. Conventions; ratified bv tho people in the election of 1862, and rightly applied to the organization of thn Territories in 1864: That by the un\formappltca tion (if this Democratic principle totht organization of Territories, and the atlmtssion of neto States, with or without domestic slavery, as they may elect, the equal rights of all will be preserved intaot, the original compacts of the Constitution maintained .inviolate, and tho perpetuitf and expansion of this Union insured to its utmost capacity of embracing in peace and harmony any future (American State that may be constituted or annexed with a republican form of government.” Can it be said that they merely meant that slavery might be introduced or oxcluded by the pooplo of a Territory, when assembled to form a Stato Government, when no one ever doubted that power, and that, to such time, it was to exist there by virtuo of the Constitution of the United States, not only entjroly exempt from their control, but with an obligation, on thoir part, to protect it by legislation? Was that the Demooratio “prin ciple in the organisation of Territories” whloh they designed to approve ? Wax that the only sound and safe solution of the slavery ques tion upon which the groat national idea or the whole country can roposo In its determined con servation of tho Union, “non-intervention by Congress with slavery in State and Territory, or in tbo District of Columbia?” Did the dele gates from the froo States suppose that that only was tho meaning of their doclaration—that slavery is to exist in each Territory, notwithstanding tho political or conscientious repugnance of tho peo ple ’? Was that the feast to which they had boen invitod, and to which they invited their constitu ente ? Was that, In the honest judgment of the Convention, tho panacea whose wisdom and result wore attested not less by its “ salutary and benefi cial effeota in allaying sectional agitation, and re storing peaco and harmony to an irritated and dis tracted people, than by the cordial and almost unanimous approbation with whioh it has been re ceived and sanctioned by the whole country,” “ that slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, and that Kansas is, at this moment, as muob a slave State as Geor gia or South Carolina ?” Imagine a delegate orasod enough (5 have proposed, as an amendment to the approved dootrlne, “ non-intervention by Congress with slavery in State or Territory, or in the District of Columbia,” this proviso as a reason for non-intervention, “ that Kansas and Nebraska, by virtuo of tbo Constitution of tho United States, are now” as much slave States as Georgia or South Carolina. How, think you, would it have been treated, and how many votes. South or North, would it have commanded ? Would not every oor uerof tho hall haye resounded with a unanimous and indignant nogative ? And yet, by a mon strous perversion, portions of the party, and the Attorney General, nowendoavorto attribute to the Convention that very meaning. Had this beep then avowed, how many votes in the froo States would have been cast for the nominee of the Con vention ? Is any man wild enough to believe that he tjould jtpre rooeived tho vote oven of the State pf his nativity, his over-constant admirer and sup jiorter f As it was, tho declaration of Congres sional non-intervention which he endorsed, though coupled with tho dear ayowal (j* it in tho senso contended for Uy judgo Doug ina, of “ popular sovereignty,” nearly cost him her and yet more endangered his success in the other free States, where there prevailed for him no particular regard or admiration. Hopes, and those of the Democra cy, as it was, were nearly shipwreckod; haw utter and enduring would have been tho disaster, bad tho Convention, or had he, in his lottor of accept ance, declared that, by tho principles of hfa party, ns thus authoritatively announced, “slavery ex isted in Kansas, and that it was as much a slave Stato as Georgia or South Carolina J ” As it was, comparatively a moro youth, with no reputation as a with no publio service to have enabled him to become one, with nq hold, in apy State, upon tho popular hoart, and with no particular claims upon public conf.deuy©. was near winning tho prizo of tfcft contest. What oontest would it have boon, if tho doctrine now attributed to tbo Con >ontlon, and, under gross misapprehension, after wards proclaimed by tbo President, r.pyii tho au thority of the Supreme Court qf tho United States, and as right in itself, and now endorsed by his Attorney Goneral,h&d boon then declared? It would hardly havo raorited tho name of a contest. The majority for Col. Fremont, it is cs*ggoro tion to say, would havo been largor than was over given in any former serious strugglo. If this be so, and what fa;r mnu will deny it, how unjust to those Hho supported Mr. Buchanan, how abusive of the confidence which they reposed in the fair dealing and frankness of himself and of tbo Convention in regard to this very slavery quostlon, now that the victory is won, to to mid bv him kod hlsiaw officer that to,ey had boon dolndou, that the languago of tho Convention, and his own, did not q\oau what every unsuspecting and intelligent man throughout thocanvass was known to havo attributed to it, hut that it had anotbor, and a totally different, though carefully concealed, menning, which, had it teen apparent or diaolosod, would hayo been al most universally diaappoved of by them. What sorry return for consistent, aoaloua, and porsevo rlng efforts to elevate the Incumbent to the highest and most dignified office known to man! Third. The Kxeoutivo sanction to the doctrine of Judgo Douglas, proposal to bo shown, (and which has been in part anticipated,) is as obrious as tho Congre.-sional and Convention and party sanoiion. 1. Tho approval of tho act of 1851, by President Pierce, ovidenceshissanotloja ; nor, osfar as tho writer knows, doeß that distinguished states man now, nor has ho any time stated that his interpretation was not its popular and received one, and certainly, as has been shown, that was the nensoin which it was considered by tho subsequent National Convention But beside his approval of tho act, his opinion ofits principle is more distinct ly given in hla special messngo to Congress, of tho 21th January, 1856, relating to J\nn*ns. He there says: “The act to orgauiso tho Territories of Ne braska and Knnsaawaaa manifestation of Ms le gislative opinion of Congress on two general mints of constitutional construction.** Tbo first ias no bearing on the present discussion, but the socond was said to Uo, “ that the ‘inhabitants of any such QVrritory, considered as an inchoate S(aU, aro entitled, in the exercise of sclf-govern ment, to decide, for themself wiiat shall he THEIR OWN DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONS, subject only to the Constitution, and the laws enacted by Con grin under it, and tho power of the existing States to deoide, according to tho provisions and princi ples of tho Constitution, at what time tbo Territory shall be received, as a State, into the Union.” Can tho most roftned ingenuity construo this as moan ing anything clso than the very doctrine of Judge Douglas, which tho Attorney Uenoral Is now, with moro zeal and ingenuity than truo regard for the reputation of President Pierce, assailing? One of the only two limitations to which alono, the Prosi dont says, tho power of a Territorial pooplo Is sub joct. demonstrates that it is to be oxeroiscd duriug the Territorial condition, and during thatoondition alone. Congress is to dcoido at what time the Ter ritory is to bo a Stato of the Union, and for all tho time previous to such decision, says Mr. Pierce, if his words have any meaning, tho Territorial people pro considered as an inchoate State, and entitled, in tho oxortinn of solf-govornmcnt, to dclermine for themselves what shall no their own domestic insti tutions Tho particular institution, indeed the only one, that led to tho legislation, it is to bo remembered, wasdoraestio slavery, and upon this, sayß tho President, Congress had given the pooplo the power to “ dotormino for themselves as a right,” in tho exoroiso of self-government, “ bo longiDg to them as an inohoato Stato,” and, be oauso of such State's existence, consequently from Its origin to its extinction. The principle which ho is said to have then Intended is. that the power is possessed only when such ft people moot in Con vention to establish a Constitution, in order to bo admitted as a State into the Union. If this bo so, it is clear that tho President was opposing a moro figment of his own brain. Who, either wise man or fool, ovor imagined that such a power as that did not exist? A Stato Constitution nooessarily implies Stato sovereign powor, and such power, and for the vory reason that it is State power, in cludes tho powor to deal as it socs fit with slavery or any other domestic institution. Such was not the question which was then troubling the public inind. It was tho ono whioh, in this particular, tho Territorial condition presented, and upon that question, if tho President designed what he said in his message of January, 1856, if ho designed sin cerely then to express his real opinion, it was that tho “ constitutional construction ” ovidouced by “ tho legislative opinion of Congress ” in tho Kansas and Nebraska act was, that upon this ques tion of domestic slavery tho right and power of a Territorial pooplo wero tho same with the right and power of tho people of ft Stato. 3. Of Mr. Buchanan's sanotlon, bis lottor of aocoptanoo of tbo lfith of June, 1856, furnishes conoluslvo evi dence. Aftor alluding to tho agitation by which tbo question of domestlo slavery” had too long distracted and divided “ tho pooplo,” and stating that it aeoiued to be “ directed chiefly to tho Ter ritories,” and anticipating that it was “rapidly approaching a finality,” ho says: “ Tho rooent legislation of Congress respecting domestlo slavery, derived ns it hns boon from tho original and pure fountain of legitimate political powor, tho will of tho majority, promises ero long to allay the danger ous o*citomont. Tho legislation is founded upon principles ns ancient as free govornmont Itsolf. and in accordance with them has simply declared that TUB rEOPLK op A Territory, likb those op a State, suall decide for themselves whp.tdrr SLAVERY SHALL OR SII VLI. NOT EM ST WITHIN their limits.” Is it within humon powor, even plausibly, to pervert theao words from their clear and obvious meaning* Slavery agitation was, says tho Prosidont, “ directed chiefly to tho Terri tories.” It was thoro a enuso of continual quar rel. In tho States, ns far na rogarded the States theinsolves, tho question was at rest. They wore almost universally considered ns freo to “decido for themsolves ” whother it should exist with them or nol. To deny that powor, or to control or regu lato its exorcise, it was conocded was impossible— Stato authority wns, in this connection, absolute and exolustvo. But tho difficulty was as to tho Territories Thoro tho strugglo was going on, and its agitation thoro, though In ono senso local, was distracting and dividing “ tho peoplo of this Union, and alienating their affeotions from each other.” ’J ho rcoont legislation, (tho acts of 1851.) founded on tho original and pure fountains of political jus tice. “tho will of tho majority,” promises, says tho Prcsidont, oro loDg, to allay tho dangerous ex* citemont. By that legislation, vindicated “by principles as anoiont as freo govornmont itself,” it won declared to bo, by tho President, not only tho doctriuo of tho country, but tho law of tho land, whioh all men wore bound to obey, whother pea- F i&nt or President, “ that tho people oCa Territory, TWO CENTS. (ike those of a State, shall decide for them* SELVES WHETHER SLAVERY SHALL OR SHALL HOT EXIST WITHIN THEIR LIMITS.” Mark the Word#, and doubt, if you oan, Mr. Buchanan’s tlun mean ing. The people of a Territory have, on this disturb ing 9^ e 8 V on * LIKE POWDB WITH THOSE OF A STATE. As the latter can decide it for themselves, un trammelled and unquestioned, so can the former. The principlo on which the power rests with each is identical, and founded equally upon “ the original and pure fountains of poutieal power, the will of the majority ” The former, the people of a Terri tory.therefore, likk those of a State, are to decide for themselves, whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. What limits? Territo rial limits. Daring what period? Territorial ex istence. As a State can deride it within State limits, and during State existence; to, satd the President, if he designed to be sincere, (and who dare question this?) can the people of a Territory, within their limits, and daring their existence. In conclusion, then, the writer submits, that the doctrine of popular sovereignty, maintained from first to last by Judge Douglas, ami now so assailed by the Attorney General, nos bad the clearest and most explicit sanotion of Congress, the Convention, and President Pieroo, and, above all, of President Bacbanan ; and it is with equal conviction of its truth that ho asserts, that without the bolief in the sincerity of such sanction, and especially the last, President Bacbanan would now be enjoying the quiofc and leisure of Wheatland, gratified only by remembering the services rendered his country at home and abroad, in other public, but, perhaps, in his estimation, subordinate and less desirable sta tions than the one in which be now, as his friends assert, figure's so conspicuously and honorably, be fore the world as well as the nation. If the writer has been successful, he has made good these propositions: I.—That Congress has no power to establish or Trohlbit slavery in a Territory of the Doited States, before giving to it a Territorial Government, or to protect it after that period. f!-*“That the right of acitixen to emigrate into such Territory with slave property is not by virtue of any express constitutional provision, but be cause such Territory is the common property of ail the States, and there is nothing in the Constitu tion donying the right. 111. That tho right only exists because slaves are property, and their owner entitled to the same privileges, guarantees and protection, that apper tain to the owner of any other species of property. IV. —That this being the reason and limit of the right, it is subject to all legitimate local power to which other property is subjoot, That, being property, and In this regard no thing elso, it is within tho local legislative power, wherever such power legitimately exists. Vr—Tbat a Territorial Government clothed with legislative authority, unrestrained except bv the Constitution of the United States, can legislato re specting such property, in like manner, and to the same extent, that it can legislato respecting any othor proporty. Vll.—That Congress, having no power itself di rectly to establish, regulate, or prohibit the intro* duction of suoh property, they cannot, in granting a Territorial Government, and vesting It with legis lative authority, direct that authority to da either, as that wotfld be— to do themselves i.vdirectly prohibited fVom doing at all. YlH.—That slaves being in thu view but pro perty, they are the fit subieotsof legislative power wherever that is constitutionally lodged, and there fore the proper subjects of a Territorial legislative power. ° IX. That the very polloy and principle of giving such power to a Territorial Government in regard to slaveyv, »» » doraostio Institution of their own, to be regulated, or prohibited, as they might deem advisable, and thereby to remove it per manently from Congressional interferenoo and con troversy, and consequent general agitation, was the sole purpose of the section of the aot of ISM which, amongst other things, repeals the Missouri restriction, and which, on account of that purpose exclusively, it is believed, received the almost unanimous vote of the Senators and Representa tives of tho Southern State*, and the votes of the Democratio Senators and Representatives of the free States, who gave it their support. X. That tblajpripriplewas in words affirmed by the Cincinnati Convention, not merely as one of expediency, but of constitutional obligation. Mr-Thet besides receiving, when the act wa3 passed, and afterwards, the sanction of President Pierce, it was, m the strongest terms which our language supplies, endorsed by President Buchau an, in bis letter of acceptance of his nomination, of the loth of June, and, finally, that upon Una principle, la regard especially to slavery in the Territoflw Donum the Territorial state, the 1 icsidontial canvass was conducted in every State of the Union, and resulted in the rieotlon of Mr Buchanan, at least as far as bis votes in the free Mates wero concern®!, because, and only because, of the coavlotlon of the voters in those States that Cangrew, the Cincinnati Convention, and himself, wero sincere in its adoption, and that the same would be carried out in good faith, and forever terminate, as they all alike proclaimed to the peo plo would ho 1U result, the almost fatal convulsion in which it had already involved tho oountry. If these govern! conclusions have been maintained, as »bo writer conscientiously believes, he submits that it is not only now too late to deny the doctrine thev support, or to avoid it, with any hope of de luding an intelligent people; but that suoh an ef- I** l will be considered, equally repugnant to the dearest obligations of priVate and publie morality. And, with such a stain upon its gdod nnrae, and Hpo# tho frankness and boner or its leading MAteamen, neither the party nor they mil uesenre to be hereafter confided In; and the good sense and virtue of the people will, on the very first occasion, proclaim thotr sentenoe of condemnation upon both, But the writer docs not share in the apprehensions of those who antldpnte such folly, as well as abandonment of duty. Re does not be lieve that a great parly, claiming for itself, and, in regard to this question, justly claiming tho vir tue of nationality, will bo so regardless of its re float polloy and pledged faith as now to violate both. A few, from montal weakness, or ultra opinions, or personal hostility, or private rivalry, may advise suoh a courso, but it ia confidently be lieved that it will, and by a judgment approxima ting unanimity, bo instantly and absolutely disap proved and rejected. But should it be otherwise, and such counsel prevail, the party will bo cer tain to emerge from the oontest. and deserve the fato, u loan, rent, and haggard,” and what will bq infinitely a more dire result, our Government will also bo tent from apex to corner atone. PERSONAL AND POLITICAL. Jj?“The Richmond Enquirer intimates that thero is little probability of tho pardon of John Brown, by Gov. Wise. It says r “The Constitution of Virginia has placed the weroy soat in the enlightened conscience of her Ex ecutive, and that the nigh prerogative of pardon ba3 not been mercilessly exercised, we point to a long list of Executive clemencies that grace the Administration of Gov. Wise. But in all the par dons granted by him neither the crime nor the mo tives of Brown find any place. To cool and calcu lating crime, to murder, pillage, and plunder, to servile wars and its attendant horrors, the Execu tive of Virginia will always turn a deaf ear, and soil not the robes of mercy with the crime of per mitting such wickedness to go unpunished. “ Violatod lawß and murdered citizens demand a victim at tho hands of justice If Brown is a crazed fanatic, irresponsible either io morals or law, thero nro yot guilty parties, lie is, then, the agent of wicked principals. If the Northern peo plo believe Brown insane, what punishment is due to those who have poisoned his mind with the ‘ irrepressiblo conflict,’ and spurred his fanaticism to deeds of blood and carnage ' lie may bo insane, bnt there are other criminals, guilty wretches, who instigatod tho crimes perpetrated at Harper's Ferry. Bring these men —bring Seward, Gree ley. Giddings, Hale, and Smiui to tho juris diction -of Virginia, and Brown and his de ludod victims in tho Charlestown jail may hope for pardon. In the opinion of Virginia tho five Republican leaden above mentioned are more guilty than eron John Brown and his associates. An ignorant fanaticism may be pleaded in pallia tion of the orime of Brown,'but the five Republi can leaders would spurn such a stultifying plea! Thev would not compromise their intelligence even at the cost of their morality. Lot the friends of Brown, let all who believe him to be insane, and all who intend to reprosont him as a crazy fanatic, for whose folly no party is responsible, aelivrr up • Senwrii, Greeley, (tidthngi, Smith, anti Hair. A fair trial, at their own time, with their own counsol, will be froely given them ; and if Virgi nia does not provo thorn guilty, they, too, shall go unhurt.” Kentucky.— The next Democratic State Con vention in Kentucky, which will appoint delegates to tho Charleston Convention, will be held at Frankfort in tho month of January next. Thero is something of a controversy springing up among the Democratic papers, as to whother these dele gates should support Mr. Breckinridge or Mr. Guthrie for tho Presidency. The Louisville Courier, which is a strenuous advocate of Mr. Guthrie’s nomination, thinks the delogates should be instructed for that gentleman. The Kentucky Stateiman, on the other hand, says : “ Wo believe the true desire and purpose of tho Democracy of Kentucky is to send a delegation to Charleston who will so employ tho vote and influence of the Stato as to securo the nomination of any ono of those prominent statesmen who command so large a share of their oonfldonoe and regard. Our plat form, then, Is a free and untrammelled State Con vention, and an uninstructod delegation to Charles ton. Let tho Convention bo a full and fair repre sentation of the party, oomposed of men from all localities—mon acquainted with the will of their constituents, and honest enough to reflect it with out Imperious instructions; and let tho Charleston delegation consist of ablo, intelligent, and honora ble men, who will so oxort their influence And cast tho voto of the State as to promote the nomination of cither of Kentucky’s distinguished citizens, be ing governed by tho oircumstancc3 of tho occa sion. A correspondent of tho Sacramento Union says Joseph C. McKibbin leaves for tho East on the steamer of the 20th. He will attend to the sottlcmont of Mr. Brodorlck’s affairs in Washing ton and New York. V-1F Judg© Black has writton another long nr tiele in reply to Senator Douglas’s last pamphlet. It hasbcon published in the Constitutioti. Conjugal Blessedness. —At about eleven o’clock on Thursday evening, Androw McDonald, residing at No. 621 Jefferson street, in the Twen tieth ward, went homo in a state of intoxication, and, after creating a disturbance among the furni turo, and committing several acts of lawlessness, turned his daughter and his wife Into tho street. Tho wife rotumed to hor liouso, whereupon the brutal husband bant hor in an outrageous manner. He then gathered together her clothing, and, stuffing them into tho stovo, sot fire to them. The timely ap pearance of a pollcoman alone saved the building from destruction. Andrew was taken into custo dy, and yesterday was committed to Moyamonsmg , prison, by Aid. Killings:, _THE WEEKLY PRESS. P * ,, “ 'rtn b« «wt to B»t»ciftej» tv J**D (Mrwnuu. u Uniti.) a»^_.i Tint Cents, “ “ Fire Copiee, •* •* ~~ g w Tan Copier, ■“ “ n» TvastyCopiaff** ** (toneaddreu) XLO Twenty Copie*, or cm " (to addrwe of Mch gahapritUr,! T - , T ... ~ , lip For aClab of Twenty-one or orer»ve will tendon extra eopf to the setter b; of the Ciab. tr fostsutan are reenaeted.lo act u scents for Tax W&ixly Faaea. CALIFORNIA FXEIS. lamed Semi-Memtb!y in tin* for (be California Bteunen. religious intelligence. The Noon*day Prayer .Meeting. The noon-day business-men's prayer . nesting was agate, last week, rammed from Jaynate Hall to Sansom-sfcreet Baptist Church, Sanaam: afreet, below Ntetb. We dropped in a few momenta yes terday, and found that large edifice nearly filled. Tbe chair was occupied by Rev. Wm. J. B. Taylor, pastor of the Third Reformed Butch Church in this city. The exercises of these raid*day gather ings for public worship continue to be condoiled as usual, being varied by singing, reading a very small portion of Scripture, receiving and reading requests for the intercessory prayers of those as sembled, prayers by the brethren, and three-minute exhortations from any body that will abstain from introducing “controverted points of doctrine.” At the suggestion of Rev. Dr. Kennard, several days ago, prayer for a “ revival of religion” was made a specialty of these meetings every day during the present week. With the exception of a statement made by Her. J. Wheaton Smith, there was nothing of general interest transpired at the meeting yesterday. Mr. Smith informed the congregation assembled that yesterday, the 4th of November, was the pjg*h an niversary of the first onion prayer-meeting es tablished in the world. He referred to the meeting established in the Old South Chapel, at Boston, as early as 1850, bnt which languished, in a com paratively unheard-ef state, antil-within ■ the past two years. For seven years a few faitfaftxl souls had met together in that place, uncheered by popu lar Christian sympathy, and today (yesterday) they had sent a request to be remembered by the Chriattefes of Philadelphia In*their Applications st the throne of grace.' Mr. Smith said it was not assuming too much to say that from the prayers whieh had been offered in the Old South Chapel union prayer-meeting, in Boston, had sprung every other union proyer meetteg now in existence. The meeting was dismissed with a benediction, pro nounced by Rev. Dr. Bill, a member of the Irish deputation. Firm Anniversart or the Tocso Men's Christian Association —The fifth anniversary of the Young Men’s Christian Association of Phi ladelphla will be held at Jayne's Hall, on Thurs day evening, the 17th instant. We tatderst&nd that extensive preparations are making to render the occasion one of unusual interest. The plan adopted last year of having short speeches from a number of clergymen, of the varioos denominations repre sented in the Association, we learn, is again to be adopted. Would it not be better to vary the pro gramme in this respect, and, instead of having half a score of short and necessarily superficial exhorta tions or anniversary rhapsodies, appoint some com petent person, reverend or ir-reverend, to prepare a “ live ” address upon the past doings, the pre sent condition, and best future policy of this organi sation? The jealousy of no truly Christian man could be awakened by adopting this plan, the interest of the occasion would certainly be enhanced by doing so. We may state in this connection that the Rev. H. Grattan Guinness, a young Irish preacher of repu ted ability, who is expected to arrive in the stea mer “ City of Baltimore,” earlj next week, will be present and take a part in the anniversary ex ercises. Astronomical LxcrraiJ nr Processor 0. 31. Mitchell. —The religious community will be pleased to learn that a course of four lectures on astronomy will be delivered at Musical Fund Ball on the evenings of November 15th, 23d, 24th, and 29th, by the celebrated American astronomer, Professor 0. 31. Mitchell. Thee leeures will be delivered under the auspices, and for the benefit, of the Young ilea’s Christian Association. The lec tures of this gentleman delivered in this city last year at Jayne’s Hall and the Academy of Music, were not second to any of the season, and the As sociation, by securing their repetition, hu placed the pnblic under obligations. “Tun Sabbath in India.” —Under this head a correspondent sends ns an interesting fact of what the Rajah of Kapurthala Pucjaub, in North tndia, is doing, under the promptings of Christian mis sionaries, at least, if not from personal convictions upon the subject. It appears that his Highness R&ndhir Singh has forbidden labor on the Lord's Baj throughout his territories. It is *l** stated theg this awakened Rajah is now sustaining a Chris tian mission in his dominions, at his own personal expense. We shall not be surprised, in a little while, to hear of India and other heathen lands sending their misrionariee to Christianise America! “ The Evangelical Repositort.”—This is the title of a neatly-printed forty-eight page monthly, devoled to the principles ef tha Reformation at set forth'ln the formularies of the Weetsdostar di vines, and held by the United Presbyterian Church of North America, the November number of which we hare just received. This well-conducted publica tion isnow in its eighteenth volume, and is at pre sent edited by Rev. Thoa. H. Beveridge. Mr. Wm. S. Young is its publisher and proprietor. The con tents of the present number are of a raried and interesting character, and will, doubtless, be a welcome visiter to the numerous Christians whoso ecclesiastical peculiarities it represents. Meeting or Irish Bishops.— From the Irish correspondence of the Boston Pilot we learn that a general meeting of the Irish Bishops will take place on the 19th of this month. Their lordships hare already been summoned. The object of the meeting is to consider the reply of tho Government to the resolutions submitted to them after the re cent Synod of the Catholic prelates. It is expected to be an important meeting. Catholic Increase in* Australia.— From ac counts it appears that Catholics and Wesleyan Me thodists have increased in number in Australia, whilst, according to the Melbourne Argus, all the other religious denominations have fallen off since the census returns of 1557. There are now 65,9.15 Catholics in the colony. Of the three nationalities, English. Irish, and Scotch, the increase of the im migrants is of tho Irish. PftEACniNO BY THE IRISH DEPUTATION.—The three Irish clergymen now in this cify, constituting the “ Irish Deputation,” will preach in nine of our pulpits to-morrow. This will probably be the last opportunity of hearing them in Philadelphia. Dn. Scupper Resolutions —On Tuesday eve ning, November 1, 1559, a large audience as sembled in the Musical Fund Hall, to hear a lec ture by tho Rev. H. M. Scndder. D. D., on India, hor Races, Language, and Religion. George H. Stuart, Esq., occupied the chair, and Dr. Edgar, of Belfast, introduced the lecturer by a short and telling address. After the lecture, the Rev. Dr. Jones wa3 called to tho chair, and John W. Clsg horn, Esq . was elected secretary, when the follow ing resolutions were moved by the Rev. T. W. J. Wylie, D. D.: , Resolved, That we hsT« listened with tho deep est attention to the intensely-interesting lecture delivered by tho Rev. Dr. Scudder, and we desire to express our unanimous and hearty thanks to tho eloquent lecturer, whose luminous exposition of HinJu : stn tends so much to show the excellence and value.of Divine Revelation and excite cur sym pathies on behalf of tho degraded cations who do not enjoy that sacred light. Resolved, That we earnestly recommend the de livery of this lecture in all parts of our land, as eminently calculated to counteract insidious and dangerous errors, and establish the authority of our holy religion. Retolved, That it would givens great pleasure to hear this lecture again, and we respectfully and earnestly request Dr. Scudder to repeat it in this place, before his return to India. Tho resolutions were carried by a unanimous voto. The Chestnut-street Bridge. (For The Pres*.] As long as Councils obstinately refuse to give us additional bridges across the Schuylkill, U be hooves us to take good care of the perishable structure at Market street, on which our western c onoections depend. Riding out, on Thursday eve mug, beyond the river, I met a firemen’s, torch light procession in full march for the bridge—some with uncovered torches, and others with cotton lan terns, even more dangerous. As they were bound for a reception of some returning company, which I observe took place at the Pennsylvania Railroad depot, at Eleventh and Market streets, I have no doubt that these lights were carried across the bridge, among whose open timbers a single spark might have been sufficient to sever the only acces sible means of communication between the eastern and western portions of the city. Moralizing on the continual liability to rich accidents which ex ists, I could not but wonder at the fatuity of our municipal government, which refuses to provide in time for whai must eventually happen. Is there nothing. Mr. Editor, which will arouse our members of Councils to a sense of what their constituents expect of them in this matter? Correction. Editor of Tiie Press : In looking over the co lumns of the Evening Bulletin, this afternoon. I read a notice of a meeting held by the People's party, in Beverly, New Jersey, on Thursday even ing last, stating that an attempt had been made by some rowdies connected with the opposite party, to break up the meeting; that there were several persons injured, and one man shot. As I happened to be present on that occasion, I deem it my duty to correct the misstatement —nothing of the kind having occurred during the whole evening, every thing passing off very quietly. What the object of the informant of our cotemporary was in misrepre senting the quiet people of Beverly I do not know, but certainly he has drawn upon his imagination for his ‘•facts.” By giving this communication a place in your columns, you will confer a favor upon the citizen* of Bevarly. New Jersey. W. I*. B- Friday, Nov. 4, Rtf?,