The press. (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1857-1880, November 05, 1859, Image 1

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
<ish to insure economically as well os safely.
Fortherpartioulars may be obtained on application to
any of the Direotors or at the Office of tho Company,
No. 5 SOUTH FIFTH STREET,
Benjamin Malone, T. Ellwood Chapman,
John J. Lytle. James Bmedley,
William Bedell, William Hawkins,
Caleb Clothier, Thomas p. Rowlett,
Robert E. Evans, Joseph Hayward,
Ellwood B. Davis, Frederick Cadmus.
1 MALONE, President.
KDLEY, Vice Presidont.
trer.
ary.
BENJAMII
JAMES BK
John J. Lytle, Treasi
T, E. Chapman. Secrel
CIGARS, TOBACCO, Ac.
2WTSSLER & FIOEILLO,
125 NORTH THIRD STREET,
Have for sale alarge supply of
CIGARS
. OF THE REST
HAVANA BRANDS.
TOBACCO, SNUFF, PIPES, &o.
AGENTS FOR GAIL & AX,
GERMAN SMOKING TOBACCO AND CIGARS.
oo2<-3in
MERINO.
140 SOUTH FRONT STREET,
Has is store and bond, and
"tV- -KfQtwt it* Bale, * Large Assortment ef
CIGARS,
Received direot from Havana, of ohoioe and favorite
Brands. auB-tf
DRUGS, CHEMICALS, Ac.
JJBUGS, GLASS, PAINTS, &0.
ROBT. SHOEMAKER & CO.
NORTHEAST CORNER
FOURTH AND RACE STREETS,
WHOLESALE DRUGGISTS,
Import.™ and Deal.™ in WINDOW GLASS, PAINTS,
&0,, invite the attention of
COUNTRY MERCHANTS
To their large stock of Goods, which they offer at the
lowest market rates. 005-tf
LAMPS, CHANDELIERS, Ac.
QORNELIUS & BAKER,
MANUFACTURERS OF
LAMPS, CHANDELIERS,
GAS FIXTURES, Ac,
STORE, 710 CHESTNUT STREET.
MANUFACTORIES,
S2l CHERRY ST., AND FIFTH AND COLUMBIA
sS-th* tu-fraj AVENUE.
HAUDWAIIE PACKAGE HOUSES.
|JANDY & BRENNER.
NOB. 23, 2G, AND 2T NORTH FIFTH STREET
PHILADELPHIA,
WHOLESALE COMMISSION MERCHANTS,
For the sale of all kinds of
AMERICAN MANUFACTURED HARDWARE,
AND IMPORTERS 07 #
GERMAN, BELGIAN, FRENCH, AND ENGLISH
HARDWARE AND CUTLERY,
Keep constantly on hand a large stock of Goods to sup*
ply Hardware Dealers.
BUTCHER'S FILES,
By the oask or otherwise.
BUTCHER'S EDGE TOOIJL
BUTCHER’S STEEL OF VARIOUS KINDS.
-WRIGHT'S PATENT ANVILS AND VICES,
SHIP CHAIN,
And other kinds in every variety.
SOLI AGENTS FOB
HARP'S REPEATER PISTOL,
WEIGHING ONLY 8X OUNCES.
SHARP'S NEW MODEL RIFLES AND PISTOLS.
fDWABP 8, BAWDY* JNO, Q, BSSftSXS. C, T. BBXNSSB,
aulfl-tf
PACKAGE HARDWARE HOUSE.—We
would respectfully call the attention of thivGene
rat Hardware Trade to our extensive Btook of BIR
MINGHAM HARDWARE, which we offor at a small
advanoe by the package. . ..... . . ,
Orders for direot importation solicited, and Goods de
livered either in this city, New Orleans.
41? COMMERCE Street,
importing and Commission Merchants,
orVoreign and Domestic Hardware^
BOOTS AND SHOES.
JJAZELL & JHARMER,
MANUFACTURERS
AID
' WHOLESALE DEALERS
BOOTS AND SHOES,
NO. 138 NORTH THIRD STREET.
A full assortment of City made Boots and Shoes con
itantlyon hand. slO-tf
W. MoOURDY & SON,
SSI CHESTNUT STREET, (2d FLOOR.)
LADIES', MISSES', AND CHILDREN’S BOOTS,
SHOES, AND GAITERS,
Manufactured expressly for the Retail Trade. anll-Sm
MARTIN & QUAYLE’S
ITJL STATIONERY. TOYjA»bFANCY GOODS
10M "walnut STREET,'
nl-3mfp BBL ° W '‘''“^'"PHILADELPHIA.
Constantly on hand Perfumery and Toilet Artiole..
g'IOAL 01L.— 5 bbls
Coal Oii, i»«^ fo i|»NER. A CO..
o2C n Nn.l(i Booth WHARVFa.
mAR received, a large invoice of
.aL J"’ i 0 ““’'"''’'wEa'vEh! pfTLER.'t Sol.
Al 7 Wn. »W. WATER and MH. DELAWARE Av.
iVBW VORK SYKUP—uOO bills, assorted,
L J to Ml. * uxu 0 YeYKm..
C lj £ f r t& i .
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1859,
Hon* Iteverdy Johnson on the Rights
of the People in the Territories.
“We subjoin tho following unanswerable ar
gument from a pamphlet entitled « Remarks
on Popular Sovereignty, as maintained and de
nied respectively by Judge Douglas and At
torney General Black \ n and attributed to the
pen of Hon. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland.
TVe submit it with the single remark that we
regard it as the most triumphant defence of
tho great principle upon which the Democratic
party fought the battle of 185 G that has yet
appeared, excepting only that which has pro
ceeded from Senator Douolas himself, and as
powerfully sustaining the latter, in that it pre
sents many new points and many new tacts:
V.—The remaining and last quostion I propose
to examine, Is : Can tho Territorial Government
admit, protoot or cxcludo slavery at any time du
ring its existonoo ?
1. It would seem to be an anomaly in our insti
tutions if these powers do not exist That slavery,
an artifioial instead of a natural condition, should
be beyond tho reach of human power, under any
form of government, and should bo admitted, pro
tected, or oxcluded, in violation of tho wishes ortho
people with whom it is oris to bo, and in disregard
of tho wishes of all brnnehos of tho Government,
and of all general or looat power, is a doctrine so
extraordinary that it almost defies human judg- ,
moot. No proof short of demonstration can bo
given to bring such judgment to a satisfactory con
clusion in its support; and when wo reflect on tho 1
length of timo during which this state of things is
to prevail, tho doctrino becomes yet more start- '
ling. The Territorial Government may exist as
long as tho will of Congress shall have it exist.
Admittance as a Stato into tho Union depends on ;
Congressional discretion. No population, bowevor 1
largo, or other condition, gives legal titlo to suoh 1
admission. Tho language is : ‘‘Now States may
be admitted by Congress into this Union.” Tho
Territorial state may thus ho practically mado per
petual, and no power bo found anywhere to put an
end to African slavery. What renders this hy
pothesis stUI the more extraordinary is, that in
1787, when this great charter was adopted, such
slavery, even for its peculiar labor, had compara
tively but a slight holdren the public mind, and
little, if any, on tho moral sentiment of tho South j
or North; indeed, it is not to oxaggorato to sny
that tho ropugnaneo to it with Southern slatesmon
was then muon greater than with the statesmen
of tho other Statos. In somo of the latter tho trade
was proving a fruitful source of pecuniary profit, (
which they or the people wore unwilling to
surrender, as! the people of Liverpool wero at ’
ono period, as evidenced by thoir lung-continued,
untiring efforts and unceasing zeal to defeat the 1
abolition of the slave trade, by the British Parlia
ment. It is impossible to believo that such rnon
designed to placo thiß then almost universally ad- 1
mlttod blot beyond thb possible reaoh of removal.
Feeling as they then did, that it was wrong, and
in every way mischievous, it nevercouM havo been
their purpose to porpotaate it. They could not but
have supposed it would bo within the reach of somo
power; and if not to be found in Congress, at t\
vow where else oan it be hut with tho
people in whoso midst tho wrong is found ? It has,
nowever, been thought, and this, too, by gentle- i
men of unquestionable ability, that the Supremo ■
Court, In tho case so often referred to, has dooided 1
that such power doos not reside in a Territorial 1
Government. This, it is submitted, is a miscon
ception of the dcoislon. Tho single question before :
the court in this connection, was, whether Con
gress possesses tho power to prohibit tho introduc
tion of slave property into a Territory. In ruling
it adversely, the court does not sny or intimate
that such property in a Territory has other safe- '
guards, or that tho owner is entitled to any furthor
protection in its enjoyment than exists in regard to
other kinds of property. A sentonoo or two from
the opinion of tho Chief Justice will, it Is believed,
mako-thts plain.
It had been contondod that thoro was a peculi
arity in slave property that placed it on a different
footing from other property. For this tho laws and '
usages of other nations, ami the reasoning of states
men and jurists upon tho relation of master and '
slave, had been referred to. These, says tho Chief
Justice, cannot. “ onlargo tho powers’of tho Go- i
vernment, or take from the citizens tho rights they 1
havo receivedand as “tho Constitution recog- (
niscs the right of property of tho master in a slavo, '
and makes no distinction uktweentihs dkscrip- :
tion of property and other propertv owned by
a citizen, no tribunal, acting under the authori
ty of tho United Statos, whothcr it he le
gislative, executive, or judicial, has a right
todrawsuch A DISTINCTION, or to dony to it tho 1
benefit of the provisions and guarantees which havo :
been provided for the protection of privato propertv ■
against the encroachments of tho Government;*’ 1
and v aftor referring to the fugitive olauso 1
as expressly “ affirming tho right of property in a i
Blavo, :> 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?,