Newspaper Page Text
On mi; advsnced. They no
ntort lira lW aacMatilatioMlity of i National
Vh. Mack etkm nri a boat iu expediency ; but
t he ms oypoi-tioa to it apoa higher and better
; rinltl.”
Acaia:
- Tht frideon, rJoha Howard; aball ant com
f after I bare taken a; wat, that be doea not
t*;iy and a rat aad aa. la IS3I, he and I oa thia
a National Bank, fcc.’*
And again:
“ I wee proceeding to remark when interrupted,
Mot mm parti of tbit gentleman’* re sol auo a a I ad
■"l eery mark. That portion which declares a
Vatmawl Beak ta any nhape to be naconsutalional
I pnrttenUHy admire, kc.’’
The td itor of the Courier having master
ed the foregoing, trill please turn to the
•ter Containing the opiaions id'the Hon.
Thomas* Boiler King,an>l I ask particuiar
attention to some of his remarks in the
M use of Representatives of the United
S*a es. as late as March l%th, I*4lo, which
ore warded in the Georgia Journal, No.
Hll. Vol. xxxi. He says, ‘ Mr. Chairman,
yoa are aware of my uniform opposition to
a Bonk of the United States. lam of the
•fHA’on* that Congress docs not possess the
ronMitutionn! power to create a corporation,
and I also believe, that the two Bunks
trh .~h him existed forty years since the
ad<pt;on of the Federal Constitution, have
-prnted oppress ively against the interests
<4 the $ ruth. 1 was and am, in favor of a
separation of the fiscal action of the govern
ment from the Banks, &c.”
The Courier will please glance at the
chapter containing the opinions of Hon.
t*cU Warren, ride Georgia Journal, No.
77, Vol. xxxi. In the House of Repre
sentatives of the United States, as late as
March. I* Isl, he said, “But, sir, we oppo
sed and will oppose, a Tariff made under
color of the wants of government, taxing
the industry of the people of one jmrt of
the country at the expense of other por
tions of the people. It was the Tariff for
protection,and not a Tarifffor revenue, of
which we complained, and which brought
about the compromise. That time was of
the spirit of compromise, I admit, but it was
only to fix the time beyond which the pro
tection should not exist. And now, sir, he
aflects to oppose any interference with the
Tarifi, because of the compromise. I would
he fled to have an assurance from that
Klavas, (Mr. Vanderpool) when the
jffis lobe regulated, that the principles
f the compromise would be carried out by
hha and m friends,” Ac. In accordance
with the above declarations, the Judge vo*
ted against the Tariff of 1847, which broke
up the compromise, and violated ah its sa
cred pledges. Whether he thus voted for
decency's sake, in ord< r that he mi ’ht not
be seen to turn so suddeuly, i „.n w net:
certain it is, however, that his change is
new complete, for the Courier heard him
publicly declare, in the debate at Albany
on the 4th ultimo, “If I, (Judge Warren)
bad a thousand years to lire, 1 would not
Brake such a fool of myself again.”
At a State-rights convention, held at
Beecher dt Brown’s, Milledgcrilie, Geor
gia, December l?th, 1839:
Rarolve*. mnaaimout/y. At the deliberate opin-
MM es this nretiag, that neither H 7Hi am Henry
If erri—n aer .Martin Van Burcn it entitled to the
Va of the Hute-rigbte party of Georgia.”
v-raJ] J. N. WILLIAMSON, Cbm’n.
J.Srticit, Mce'y.
The Georgia Journal, a leading State
rights paper, commenting on the above res-
utH o as late as April 21st, 1810, says,
“Niumprus are the reasons that could be
■Maced in support of the above position.
We will notice only a few.”
’ (•mm. Harriana mini for ihc Bill of Abomina
f-M. the Tar iff oi 1828, and .'=crlcd, that sooner
than he waaU ace that Ac! rrpealed. he would sec
the frees growing in the street* oi Noifolk and
Chertertea.”
-(ha. H arrtano contcnJa for the right of the
Federal (ieeenMwnt, to tax the South for the pur
peae of erecting splendid worksof Internal Inipruve
aML”
“Gea. HarrisoM is a Federalist, and hia election
te the PreiMi'tilial chair, would give to the Feder
al party each an ascendency in the administration
at the |'traarDl, aa it baa not possessed since the
fcwMMlrta of the government.'’
rHow surely alas! would this come to
l<i's but for the death of Gen. Harrison
and the impracticability of Capt. Tyler.]
• fira, Hat naan is au nrotced opponent of our
dartrmmm,” 4c.
•(mm Harriana promises nothing that will ad
senroaha sajacsalee that wo contend for.” „
win, im ana OtUWTeasons, these are Eiiffi
rirV el thrmerlvca tojortify the meeting of the 17th
lliwnhs last, in adapting the reso'ulion, and the
Was Ik saslaining that position before the country.
Tkasa ii bp little douH that the convention, when
awreabtei, wiß act in consonance with the expres
wrd ■'paataa af those who called them to assemble
tweerksv. Any other course would we conceive be
aau.Ndadta the beet in’rrests of the party. We
acmm Iherefcra reiterate the hope that the meeting,
(ika approaching June convention] will be nurucr
aady ettewded; end that opposition to the corrupt
admaasstretMa of Marlin Van Burcn will not, tchcn
we pamiblr good earn be deduced therefrom, hut
ditrord, aonrsrioo. and ditition be the inevitable re*
salt make a majorßy, er even a minority, identify
‘kimmirse with a party .”|f the Whig party,] “which
l f mtvnfel in the Presidential contest, they cannot
art with, without a total abandonment of those ptin
eilitee which it was once, and we are confident is
Mil. tkrir pride and pleasure to maintain.”
Forty odd davs afterwards, the conven
trm did meet; and, with all these awful
consequences staring them in the face, did
nominate Gen. Harrison; and, in so doing,
according to the Journal a own declaration,
••abandoned these principles which it was
-rice their pride and pleasure to main
tais.
The Journal, whose shamelessness was
equal to that of its party, wheeled with
them to the left-about; and, has ever since
V'l doing good service against “those
prim pK s which it was once its pride and
plesvrorr to maintain.”
t-ut >l to multiply these extracts, {Tor
I nil volumes] l conclude by calling
the attention of the Courier, to the ency
cal k tier ot the faithful sir^—Dawson,
Ihhcrdtam. King, Nesbit, AlfonJ, and
Mam u w herein tixoy labor through ma
ny pages te prove that the devil teas not
m bfmei m* they hoi formerly painted him.
They wore cheered, doubtless, in their dir
ty worts, by visioosof Speakcr-siuos, For
eign Mir tstrics, and fat offices ; and, had j
<Sen. Harrison lived, they would, without
a <b*iht,fcave been richly rewarded, for the
betrayal oft heir principles, and their treach
ery to the South.
And now. Me. Courier, we hare done
with you for the present. We have “set
and wn naught in malice.” We hope to
see von reform, repent, and do your first
works over. We shall expect you to re
tract yonr charge against us of deserting
oar parly; or, ifyiu still insist upon it,
that you will confess that you have deserted
your principtea.
* >se or the Deserters.
Democratic Prospects in Cherokee.
To inquiries made cf individuals from vari
ous sections oft bcr> Kee Georgia, we have
received but cne uuiturm response. The
invariable answer is, that, throughout this
region, the Democratic prospects never
were fairer—the Democratic party never
more united. There can be no reasonable
donbt that the majority in November for the
Democratic ticket will exceed any ever
given at n former election. If the Demo
cracy in Other parts of the State are as
firmly united, there need, be no fears for
the vote of Georgia. It will certainly be
given to Cass and Butler.
(X'AeroAec Advocate.
Auxxiu Doicptiih.—The “Five Soil,” or
a* tke Nastbern Democratic paper*designate it,the
•fm Dirt” party of New York, have suffered a
mimm kfcftial M their ranks. Rev. Samuel K.
Wwl, a negro delegate from Cortland countyi to
tke Buffalo CoßtruMo, since bis returns, has
cam.* eat agaiaat the nomination of Mr. Van Bu
jmk. Aeravdirg ta the correspondent of the Al
wmmv Bveamg Journal.
* Mr. Ward staled that in ■ few days he should
atMrmt a fetter to hie colored brethren who were
stew. and who miaUmed soaw four or five thou
■eal mi this Stax, advising them to withhold their
votes from Mr. Tan Buren. At Ihe conclusion of
b remarks, John Th am pair, E.-q , (chairman.)
SiMnrnf the twetiag. sad declared bis hearty ap
r-ratwiMW mt the acutiußnt- and deteituiuatioti ot
Mr Ward.
From the Augusta Constitutionalist.
TUB ISSUE MADE BY MESSRS. STE
PHENS AND TOOMBS.
These gentlemen have planted them
selves upon the position that the slavehold
er has no legal right to go into the new ter
ritories acquired from Mexico with his sla
ves, nnl enjoy them there as property.
Their position is thus distinctly taken.
Mr. Stephens’ speech is now before our
readers. They wiliPporceive that we do
not misstate his position.
In Mr. Toombs’ letter of the 25th ult,
accepting a re-nomination, is the following
language:
“ There must be legislation before we enn enjoy
our rights in these territories. We require legis
lation to remove existing legal impediments against
slaveholding .Stales, and to secure us in the quiet
and ncaccable enjoyment of our property in the
slaves which we may carry with ua. Whatever
may be the objections to the exercise of such pow
ers by Congress as may be necessary to secure
these objects, it is now bootless (o dispute it.”
I*s this the accepted doctrine of the
Whigs of the 6th Congressional District ?
We presume so, as it is the doctrine of
their candidate, and it is the doctrine of the
Chronicle & Sentinel. The issue tender
ed by the Whigs in the Bth District then,
is that Congress has ihojright to legislate on
the subject of slavery in the acquired terri
tories, and until Congress does so legislate
in favor of the South, there are legal im
pediments against slaveholding there
which exclude the, South and her slaves.
This is not the position of the Whigs of
the 7th District, judging from the following
resolution of their Convention which re
nominated Mr. Stephens:
Resolved, That we hold the Territories of the
United States common property of all—that the
citizens of each State have the right to remove
there with their property, of whatever kinJ, and
that neither Congress nor the Temtorisl Legisla
tures have any right to prohibit the introduction
there of any kind of property whatever, which
may be recognised as such by the laws of the State
from which said inhabitants may remove, and by
the Constitution of the United States, and that
the Supreme Court of the United States have no
power to adjudicate such right.
With what propriety the Whigs of that
District can support that doctrine; and
at the same time support Mr. Stephens,
we arc at a loss to conjecture.
If the right to legislate in conceded to
Congress, this by its very terms concedes
the right to prohibit slavery.
What folly—what gross contradiction is
it for Messrs. Toombs and Stephens to
talk of the rights of the Southern States,
when their argument admits that they
have no rights that can be enjoyed ex
cept what Congress may grant.
How can the South be said to have a
right which, it is contended in the same
sentence, she has no legal right to exercise,
and which is forbidden by law ?
But we here behold Mr. Toombs sur
rendering our rights in these territories
to Congress. We are to have no rights
in those territories but what Congress may
give us by legislation. Does Mr. Toombs
expect his Northern allies in Congress to
secure us any such rights by legislation ?
What Northern Whig vote has ever been
given, or ever will be given in favor of any
act of legislation “to remove existing lei
gal impediments against slaveholding” in
New Mexico and California ?
Does he. not know,os every other intelli
gent man in the United States must know,
that the Northern Whigs—not the Fill
mores, Slades, Giddings, Ashmuns, Hud
sons, Putnams, &c., only, but “the en
tire unanimously phalanx of Northern
Whiggery will utterly refuse to vote for
any such act? Why, at the time Mr.
Toombs penned the sentences above quot
ed from his letter, he well knew that if he,
or any other Soutnern man were to ask a
Northern Whig in Congress to vote for any
such act, the whole anti-slavery crew
would laugh with derision at the proposi
sion. Look at the offer of the Missouri
compromise, both in the House and Senate,
on two several occasions. This was an
attempt, in an indirect way, at legislation
to remove legal impediments ("if any exis
ted ]to slaveholding in at least a portion of
these territories—that south of 36°30.
How many Northern Whig votes did the
Missouri Compromise get? Not one.—
Nuiihern votes it did get were
Northern Democratic votes. The only
Northern votes in favor of the rights of the
South in the acquired territories, have been,
and will be, Democratic votes. This Mr.
Toombs and Mr. Stephens both well knew.
We defy them to name a Northern Whig
in either House of Congress who has vo
ted or will vote with the South on this ques
tkn. , ‘ .
‘l'd surrender to Congress then the right
to legislate on this question, is nothing
more nor less than to invite them to pass
the Wihnot Proviso, and to promise in ad
vance to acquiesce in it and to pronounce
it legal. r
We hope that the people of Georgia
will, by their votes in the Congressional
districts of both these candidates for Con
gress, show that they adhere to the follow
ing doctrine put forth And passed unani
mously in the Senate of Georgia at the last
session: v -
Be it, therefore, by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the State of Georgia, Resolved,
That the Government of ihe United has no control
over the institutions of slavery, ami that in taking
or attempting to take any t uch control, it tran
scendk the limits of its legitimate functions.
Be it further resolved by the authority afore
said, That any territory acquired, or to be acquir
ed, by the arms of the Unitod Stales, or by. treaty
with a foreign power, becomes the common proper
ly of the several States composing this confedera
cy, and Whilst it so continues, it is the right of
each and of every State, to reside with his proper
ty of every description within such territory.
MR. XVtiBATEH AT TOAKSHFIEI.D.
The Journal of Commerce of Saturday
afternoon contains the following abstract of
Mr. WebsterVspeech at “Marshfield. It
will be observed that he too has mounted
the Taylor Platform for the Rescue of the
South:
At 3 o’clock Mr.-Webster, accompanied
by Hon. Hiram Ketchum, of New York,
Hon. George Ashmun, of Springfield, Hon.
Artemas Hale, of Bridgewater, and others,
appeared upon the “stand* and was hearti
ly greeted by the people. His speech
was devoted exclusively to.the Presiden
tial question. He avowed himself fully,
unequivocally, in favor of the election of
Gen. Taylor,
He satd he believed him to be an honest
man, whose conduct had ever been mark
ed by a high sense of honor. He was a
man of little pretension, modest and unas
suming. He had been a candidate for the
Presidency a year before the sitting of the
Philadelphia Convention. He was fairly
nominated by that Convention. He believ
ed h>m to be a true Whig.. Our opponents
dhid he was a Whig, and they tried to dis
grace him and the other Whig General,
Scott, by putting a democratic civilian in
command over them. He did not believe
the slavery question • had anything to do
with his nomination. The Convention be
lieved him to be a Whig, thought him the
best man under existing circumstances,
and therefore nominated him. Mr. Web
ster spoke at some length, in vindicating
the Whigs of the Convention, and extoll
ing the character of Gen. Taylor. He de
nied the correctness of the Buffalo platform
which stated that the nomination of Gen.
Taylor was induced by a desire on the part
of the W higs of the South to he accountable
for the -nomination. Whether it be good or
bad, the free States had some sixty majori
ty in the Convention and could have nom
inated whomsoever they pleased. Mr.
Webster said that, in his judgment, the
question who shall be our President lay
between £en. Taylor and Gen.. Cass. One
of them will be elected—whom then should
the Whigs vote for? We could not all
have our personal preferences gratified, the
skies were not about to fall so that we
could catch larks. It was idle to talk about
third candidates. We had enough of them
in 1844. Every vote given for iiirney in
that election was half a vote for Polk and
the annexation of Texas, and every vote
given this year for Yan Buren, was practi
cally half a vote for Cass. He had warn
ed the people against this third party folly
in 1844, and he would again warn them of
its consequences. He spok of the Buffalo
platform—said what there was good in it,
was what the Whigs had always advoca
ted, and Van Buren and his friends had al
ways gone against: what there was new
in it, was unsound. He had no confi
dence in Van Buren. It would be ludicrous
to express confidence in Van Buren’s free
soil principles, for he had opposed every
thing that looked like free soil all his life,
and lieTrad no doubt, from the knowledge he
had of the man, that were we together, Van
Buren would laugh in his face when the
free soil question was named.
Mr. Webster went on at some length to
show up Mr. Van Buren’s conduct.
He had always been the supple tool of
the South—the aider and abetter ot slave
ry. He did more, said Mr. Webster, to de
feat John Quincy Adams, and elect Gen.
Jackson, than any ten men in the country.
He was the soul and center of the opposi
tion to Mr. Adams. He spoke of his con
duct while Secretary of State in his oppo
sition to the abolition of slavery in Cuba.
He was the only President who ever, in
advance, threatened to veto a bill, if Con
gress should pass such a one, to abolish
slavery in the District of Columbia. He
referred to his casting vote, to rifle the mails
of anti-slavery papers. He said that no
one ever exercised a more controling influ
ence over his friends than Van Buren, and
his friends all went tvith him. He was,
and so were his friends, in favor of annex
ing Texas. Southern Whigs in both Hou
ses es Congress voted against admiting Tex
as into the Union. The Van Buren men,
those who now, for purposes of private
pique or revenge, cry out tor free soil,
were the very men who were the most vo
ciferous for Texas. Mr. Webster had no
confidence in any of them. Talk about
dough-faces! Why, said Mr. Webster,
the Van Buren men in Congress had not
only dough-faces, but they had dough
hearts and dough-souls—were all dough.
He said that there were Whigs at the Buf
falo Convention whom he respected high
ly, but he thought it would have been pro
per, before they took up Van Buren, to
have required of him fruits meet for repen
tance. He spoke of Cass. He held him
to be the most dangerous man that could be
put in nomination. He was the embodi
ment of the war—he was opposed to the
treaty of Washington—he was for the
whole of Oregon, and the matter would nev
er have been settled by peaceful negotia
tion if he could have had his way, He
was for continuing the Mexican war. He
is all for Avar.
Now, saidMr. Webster, we are tochoose
between a man like Cass and onelikeGen.
Taylor. One or the other will be elected,
and no one else. It is Taylor or Cass.
Gen. Taylor has been fairly nominated
by a Whig Convention—he is a Whig. If
1 believed him, said Mr. Webster, to be in
favor of war, or of extending slavery, I
should have opposed his election. 1 be
lieve him to he in favor of neither—that is
my opinion.— [Charleston Mercury.
ELECTION BY THE HOUSE OF RE
PRESENT ATI VES.
There being three candidates for the
Presidency before the people at the pres
ent time, and the possibility therefore of
no one receiving a majority of the electo
ral votes, speculation has been awakened
as to the result of the election going into
the House of Representatives'. The con
stitutional provisions are well known. In
case of a failure to elect a President by the
people, the choice is to be made from the
three highest candidates by the House of
Representatives—each State casting one
vote. If an election is not made by tiie 4ih
ofMarch,at which time the term of service
of the Representatives expires, by the
constitution the Vice President becomes
President of the United States.
As to the choice of a Vice President,
the course prescribed by the constitution is
different. Should an election not be made
by the people in the electoral college, the
choice devolves upon the Senate, which bo
dy selects from the two highest candidates;
each Senator giving one vote, and a majori
ty of the whole number of Senators being
necessary to a choice.
Such being the provisions of the consti
tution, it becomes interesting and ..impor
tant, to enquire into the political complex
ion of the two houses of Congress. The
following is said to be the situation of par
ties ip the House of Representatives: -
Democratic —Maine, Virginia, South (Jaro’ na,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas,
Missouri, Tennessee, Indiana, Illinois, MicUig-.4,
Wisconsin, lowa—ls. ‘
Whig —Vermont, MaEsarhu*r(ts, Connectieut,
New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware,
Ma’viand, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Kentuc
ky- 1? y. *
Tied —New Hampshire, IthoJo Island, Georgia
—3.
If this classification be correct, it is ap
parent that an election might net be made
By the House of Representatives. Gen.
Cass would, be made the strongest candi-’
.date, as he would receive the votes of ..one
half of the States, and would stand astr. ng
chance of securing perhaps s me one of the
•others. The whig States’ would be di
vided between Gen. Taylor and Mr. Van
Buren—in whatproportiuns we cannot say-
Undoubtedly the “popular vote of each’
State would have a strong mfluence upon
its Representatives, and though they might
differ from it themselves, they might yet
feel bound to fulfil the wishes ofthe people.
But should a choice not he made by the
4th of March, the Vice, President would
become ipso facto, President. It is possi
ble that Genera| Butler will get a larger
vote in the popular election than General
Cass; but should he not be thus elected, we
come to the enquiry, what would the result
be in the Senate ? The following we think
would most probably be the vote:
For Birrxnß—Atherton, N. H.; Bradbury and
Hamlin, Me.; Niles, Ct; Dickinson, and Dix, N.
Y.j Cameron -and Sturgeon, Pa.; Hunter and Ma
son, Va.:Calhoun and Butler, S. C.; Johnson,-Ga.;
Yuleo and Westcott, Fla.: King and Lewis, Ala.;
Davis and Foote, Miss.; Downs, La.; Houston and
Rusk,Texas; Borland and Sebastian, Ark.; Benton
and Atchison, Mo; Turney, Tenn.; Bright and
Hannegan, fa.; Breese aid Dooglas, III.; Fitzger
ald and Fetch, Michigan; Dodge and Walker, Wis
consin; A lien, ‘Ohio-—36 votes.
Fob Fimioas—Webster and Davis, Mass.;
Hale, N. H.; Clarke and Greene, R I.; Baldwin,
CL; Phelps and Upfaam, Vt.; Miller and Dayton,
N. J.; Clayton and Spruance, Del.; Johnson and
Pierce, Badger and Mangum, N. 0.; Berrien.
Ga.; Johnson, La.; Bell, Tenn.; Metcalf and Un
derwood, Ky.; Corwin, Ohio—22 votes.
The State of lowa, not yet having elec
ted Senators, tve cannot classify them,
though they would most probably vote for
Butler, which would give him 38 votes. It
is also more than probable that several of
the southern Senators, whom we have giv
en to Fillmore, would vote in preference
for Butler. It is thus apparent, beyond a
doubt, that Butler, if no choice is made
by the people, will certainly be chosen by
the Senate.
This is based upon the belief that But
ler and Fillmore will both get larger votes
than Adams. Should he, however, get a
stronger vote than Fillmore, Butler would
be elected, in the Senate, by an immense
majority.
From this view it is apparent, that
should no election of President be made by
th people or House of Representatives,
W illiam O. Butler will be the next Pres
ident of the United Statea.
[\Mobile Register.
Samuel Hoar, whose mission to Charleston some
years since is fresh in the memories of oar munici
pal authorities, is talked of as the “free dirt” can
didate in Massachusetts. When here we made
j him “cut dirt.’’
(Clie fCniteg.
COLUMBUS, GA.
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER I*, IMS.
—)i i I ’ wm,
DEMOCRATIC NOMiNATIONS.
FOR PRESIDENT,
LEWIS CASS,
OF MICHIGAN.
FOR VICE PR!
WM. O. BD'f LER,
OF KENTUCKY.
ELECTORS.
WALTER T. COLQUITT, of Troup.
M. HALL McALLISTER, of Chatham.
JOHN W. ANDERSON, of Chatham.
LEONIDAS B. MERCER, of Lee.
| ALLEN COCHRAN, of Monroe.
’ JOHN D. STELL, of Fayette.
! LEWIS TUMLIN, of Cass.
ROBERT E. McMILLEN, of Elbert.
! WM. McKINLEY, of Oglethorpe.
I FAMES GARDNER, Jr., of Richmond.
ALTERNATES.
WM. B. WOFFORD, of Habersham.
E. R. BROWN, of Sumter.
MARK WILCOX, of Telfair,
JESSE CARTER, of Talbot.
T. M. FURLOW, Esq., of Houston.
JOHN WRAY, of Coweta.
IRA R. FOSTER, of Forsyth.
JAMES JACKSON, of Walton.
JUNIUS WINGFIELD, of Putnam.
ROBT. W. FLOURNOY, ofWashington.
FOR CONGRESS OF THE SECOND DISTRICT,
M. J. WELLBORN,
OF MUSCOGEE.
FOR CONORESS OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT,
HUGH A. HARALSON,
OF TROUP.
FOR CONGRESS IN THE gniRD DISTRICT,
JOHN J. CAREY,
OF UPSON.
THE WILMOT PROVISO.
The Democratic platform is found in
the 7th resolution of the Baltimore Con
vention, as follows :
7. That Congress has no power under the
constitution to interfere with ct control the do
mcstic institutions of the several States, and
that auch States are the sole and proper judges
of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not
prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts of
the abolitionists or others made to induce Congress
to interfere with questions of slavery, or to
take incipient steps in relation thereto, arc calcu
lated to lead to the most alarming and danger
ous consequences; and that all such efforts have
an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness
of the people, and endanger the stability and per
manency of the Union, and ought not to be coun
tenanced by any friend of our political institutions.
The Democratic candidate (Gen. Ca6s)
in accepting the nomination says :
“ I have carefully read the resolutions of the De
mocratic National Convention, laying down the
platform of our political faith, and I adhere to
“ (hem as firmly, as I approve them cordially.”
In his letter to Mr. Nicholson of Tenn.
written in December, 1847, Gen. Cass says:
The Wilmot Proviso seeks to take from its le
gitimate tribunal a question of domestic policy,
having no relation to the Union as such, and to
transfer it to another, created by the people for a
special purpose and foreign to the subject-matter
involved in this issue. By going back to our true
principles, we go back to the road of peace and
safety. Leave to the people who will be affect
ed by this question, to adjust it upon their own
responsibility, and in their own manner, and we
shall render another tribute to the original prin
ciples of our government, and furnish another
guarantee for its permanency and prosperity.
We have neither Ike right nor the power
to touch slavery where it exists. —General
Cass.
Congress has no right to say, that there
shall be slavery in New York or that there
shall be no slavery in Georgia ; nor is there
any human power but the people of those
Slates. —Gen. Cass.
The principles involved in the Wilmot
Proviso should be kepi out of the national
legislature and left to the people of ihe con
federacy in their respective local govern
ments.—Gen. Csss;
Let the people rtgulaU. ‘.heir internal con
cerns in their own way. —Gon. Csss.
Leave to the people, who will be affected
by-his question, to adjusi.it upon their
own responsibility , and in their own man
ner.—Gen. Cass.
lam opposed ? the exercise of any ju
risdiction by fc/ ress over the subject of
s hiveryl- —Gen. Cass.
Ido not see -in the Constitution any
grant of such a power to Congress.
Mr. Berrieu’s Speech will be found
on our first page. It is an able vindication
of the right of the Southern people,to car
ry -their property to the new Territories—
a right independent of Congressional per
. mission and above and beyond Congress
k nal inhibition. It is a speech worthy of
a Southern Senator. Would that the Whig
party at the South would plant themselves
upon the secure ground taken by their
Senator in preference to that of Messrs.
Stephens and Toombs, whose arguments
begin and end with a total surrender of
Southern rights, and a blind and hopeless
reliance on Congress to give the South
rights, which they say she 7tas not, but
which, Mr. Berrien contends, she already
has. Vast and vital interests depend upon
the decision of the Whig party South on
this great question.
The article signed “ One of the Desert
ers,” copied from the Albany Patriot, con
tains some valuable reminiscences which
we commend to the consideration of all
who are Whigs now, and were, a few
years ago, Slate Rights politicians.
messrs.'lstephens'and cone.
We are happy to learn that Mr, Stphens
is rapidly recovering from his wounds,
which it appears were very slight in com
parison with what they were at first repre
sented to be. Indeed the whole affair
has been much exaggerated. The wea
pon has dwindled from a bowie down to
a pen knife, and so far from the affair
being an- “ attempt to murder one of Geor
gia’s most distinguished sons,” it appea.s
that Mr. Stephens had just arrived at At
lanta in the train, and up to the moment
of the rencounter Judge Cone did not
know that he was in the place. We do not*
wish to palliate the conduct of Judge Cone.
He ought not lo have assailed so feeble a
man as Stephens with a knife. On the
other hand it is plain that Cone’s conduct
has been represented in a prejudiced light,
and when a stout man is stricken in the
face by a small one, the latter ought not to
be surprised at receiving very rough treat
ment. In this case, from all we can learn
the use of the penknife was not premedi
tated and was done under the excitement
of a gross provocation. The whole aflair
is deeply to be regretted.
the: Issue mams bt Messrs, ste.
PHENS AXE TOOMBS.
g-Hasthe South any rights in the new
Territories ? Mr. Stephens argues that
they have.not—that the local law of Mexi
co excludes the institution of slavery.
Mr. Tu ‘ .bs adopts and elaborates the
doctrine. Hu says, legislation by Congress
is essentia, to give the right to the slave
holder to go there. It these gentlemen
are right, the whole question is closed
against the Scuth, sr.d further contention
is a bootless folly rid w. ste of time. For,
if slavery depends up >n the permission of
Congress, it is forever excluded. The
free States with a majority of 50 votes in
Congress will never pass such a permis
sive law. Eut Mr. Stephens says, Con
gress has the power to establish, and shall
and must exercise it. By what sanction ?
How are we to compel this exercise? Sup
pose Congress refuses, as we know it will,
what dees Mr. S. propose ? There is no
remedy but revolution and disolution of
the Union. Even the extreme remedy of
nullification is out of place—for the most
violent advocates of that doctrine have
never thought of applying it, except to un
constitutional legislation. But if Congress
have the right, a law exercising that right
would not be unconstitutional. Such is
the dilemma into which this doctrine leads
these gentlemen.
But, we repeat, has the South any
rights ? Me say she has, and we proceed,
with care and after serious reflection, to
demonstrate it. In doing so, it is neces
sary to consider and combat the positions
of Messrs. Stephens and Toombs. We
shall do this, without stopping to impeach
or even to glance at their motives. Our
business is with the doctrine they have
broached. If thatdoctrine is impregnable,
the South is at the end of its row, the argu
ment is exhausted, and nothing remains
but acquiescence. If wrong, it is vitally
important that it shouid be demonstrated ;
for the Whig party is in imminent peril of
following these gentlemen into a fatal error.
Mr. Stephens in his speech, labors to
prove this proposition—“ that the Supreme
Court of the U. S. could not be expected
to decide otherwise than that slavery can
not be protected there (in the conquered ter
ritory) until the existing, law, abolishing it,
be altered by competent authority.” To
justify this conclusion, these are his prem
ises. The italics are ours.
“ I set out then, by stating that, according to the
best, ablest, and most approved writers on public
law, and according to the decisions of the courts in
England in analogous cases, and according to tho
repeated decisions of our own Supreme Court, to
which this bill proposed to refer this matter, (in the
absence of such legislation as I have referred to,)
tho law by which the courts would decide ques
tions ol slavery there, is the law which was in force
in New Mexico and California upon the subject at
the time of the conquest. The general principles,
which I understand to be recognized and well set
tled among civilized nations of modern times, in
relation to conquest, that all the laws which were
in force in the conquered country at the time of
the conquest, are held to continue in force until
altered or modified by the conquering power, except
such, as may be inconsistent with Uio fundamen
tal law . of the conquering power, or inconsistent
with some stipulation in the final treaty, or such
as were purely political in their character, and
concerned only the relations between tho people
and their former sovereign or ruling power.”
And he adds that “nobody will deny that
“ slavery was abolished in California and
“ New Mexico at the time of their con
“ quest by our arms.”
These are his prefniscs, and Mr Ste
phens hirnselt felt, with all his arrogant
dogmatism, that they were to be proved,
not taken f r granted Let us see what
was to be proved, before, according to his
own principles, he was authorized to draw
his conclusion. It was to be proved.
Ist. That as a general rule, the Supreme
C u'* would hold that the laws of a con
c ‘.Try remained in force, until
cf’ ’ dby tl.ee nqueror,
2d. That the Mexican slavery-abolition
law was not within any of his admitted
exceptions ti the general rule—that is to
say, that that lav was net “inconsistent”
with any, “fiu;.L n ntai law” - of tje con
queror—nor with ny “stipulation in the
final treaty,” an J that it was not a law
“ purely .political” in its character and
which “concerned only the relations be
tween the people and their former sover
eign or ruling power.”
These being the propositions, what is the
proof ? Mr. Stephens’ proof is confined to
the establishment of the first proposition, or
the general rule. He does not somuch
as argue the question whether there may
not be a “ fundamental law ” of the confed
eracy—the conqueror—inconsistent with
the abolition law of Mexico, the conquered.
Yet it was indispensable to his demonstra
tion to show that there was no such funda
mental law. In the absence of this link,
it is of course, the privilege of every logical
mind to treat Mr. Stephens’ speech, con
sidered as an argument, with contempt.
Still, the question “jumped” and jump
ed over, by Mr. Stephens is one of vast
import and deserves the serious considera
tion of the country, although, Mr. Stephens
has not thought proper to argue it. We
therefore call attention to it.
Let it be stated clearly. The United
States have obtained by conquest ('Treaty )
certain Territory from Mexico. Let it be
admitted, for the sake of the argument,
that at the date of its acquisition it was
subject to a law which forbade the exist
ence of slavery within it. Tl;6 question,
now is, was there at tho time of such con
quest any “ fundamental law ” of the
conqueror, inconsistent with that law of
the conquered ? We maintain that there
was. If there was, of course the Supreme
Court of the U. States would enforce it.—
Let us see.
Mho was the conqueror that obtained
this territory ! The U. States. Who and
what, are the U. Stales ? They are certain
sovereign, independent and distinct politi
cal communities, who have of their own
free will and voluntary motion, formed
themselves into a league, confederacy, un
ion, or partnership upon certain terms set
forth in an instrument, designated “the
constitution.” It is then confederates,
partners. Who have obtained this territory.
It belongs to them as partnership or com
mon property, just as many other things
belong to them. Such as large stores of
ordnance, any quantity of small arms, vast
magazines of military material, arsenals,
forts and dockyards, a splendid capitoland
other public edifices at Washington,many
costly ships of war, and above all a Trta
tury, raised by taxation, ‘he sales of the
public lands of the “concern” and by oth
er means. Now these do not belong to
Congress, nor the President, nor to the
Judiciary, nor yet to all three combined,
in one Government. The Constitution
gives to the government a naked power over
this property, more or less extensive, but
one, not coupled with any interest what
ever. If the government should happen
to be extinguished and the constitution to
be abrogated, still every right in all that
property would remain where it now does,
unchanged. The only difference would
be, that upon the dissolution of the partner
ship the stock would be divided out among
the partners. We do not say, that it is
by virtue of any expression in the constitu
tion, that the title to this property is vested
in the confederacy. The constitution, for
example, nowhere declares that the public
ships and treasury shall belong to the con
federacy. It was not guilty of such sense
. less supererogation. To declare that,
. would be like declaring in an ordinary
mercantile partnership, that the profits of
the business should belong to the partner
ship—that is, that what belonged to it,
should belong to it. That title is implied
by the most imperious necessity from the
mere existence of the partnership, formed
as the event has proven, for the purpose,
among other things, of acquiring territory.
Now of this political partnership, fifteen
members are slaveholders and fifteen are
not. Its acquisitions, it is seen, belong to
it. llow ? Why, surely, in such a man
ner that every partner has an equal, or at
least, some interest in them, which he may
possess and enjoy. If any law of a part
nership can be a fundamental one, this is
it. Now any law which declares that one
half of the members shall not possess and
enjoy territory which belongs to them in
common, with the other half, is ‘.‘inconsis
tent” with this “fundamental law.” But
the Mexican law claimed by Mr. Stephens
to be in force in Mexico, excludes the slave
and by necessary consequence, the slave
holder, from the possession or enjoyment
of any portion of this common conquest.
It is therefore inconsistent with a funda
mental law of the conquering partnership,
and being so, is, upon Mr. Stephens’ own
premises, one which would not be held to
continue in force after the conquest. To
put this beyond doubt, suppose the whole
thirty members of the confederacy were
slaveholders. Then if that Mexican law
continued in force, it ■would exclude every
one of them from occupying and enjoying
territory which was their own by the high
est title. The conquest would be a nulli
ty. Could any court say, that in that case
such law would not be “inconsistent with
the fundamental law” of the confederacy ?
And yet, the title of the whole 30, in the
case supposed, is not different and no bet
ter than the title of the 15, in the actual
case. Is it not absurd to say that the con
quered nation can exclude one half of the
conquerors from the fruits of the conquest?
Again—suppose the confederacy should
he dissolved by the act of such a conven
tion as made it or by other means, with
this territory in hand; can any body hold
that the fifteen slave States would be enti
tled to no part of it, for slave territory ? If
nobody, it must he owing to something
which existed before the dissolution. But
what did exist at that time .except the part
nership title, and if that title was sufficient
to give any members of the confederacy
the right to hold slaves there, after the
dissolution it was (not being any strong
er then than before) equally sufficient to
give the right from the first. The- disso
lution raised no new title*—it only severed
an old one.
Again—To understand a law or rule,
we should know the reason of it. Ad
mitting then, for the argument’s sake the
general rule, that after the conquest
of a country, its old laws remain in force
until altered by the conquering country.
Do they remain in force by virtue of their
owninherent efficacy, or nut rather, by the
implied permission of the victor. From
necessity, some laws must exist. None
can exist except such as express the will
of the conqueror. This is an essential prin
ple of conquest. If, therefore, there is
among such laws of the conquered coun
try, one that can not fairly be presumed to
express the conqueror’s will, it can have
no force. Should any court dally a mo
ment about deciding that a law which de
prived one half of the members of the con
quering confederacy of the fruits of victory,
did not express the will of the conquerors?
It will not be contended that any law of
Mexico inconsistent with a provision of
the constitution—for instance the law es
tablishing a religion—could continue in
force after the conquest. Why ? Because
such law could not, by any straining, be
interpreted as expressing the will of the
conquerors. We have, in a former arti
cle, referred to the Inquisition, and the
Peon Jaw, the one suppositious the other a
reality Would they stand as expressive
of the conqueror’s wjll ?
Again, who would insist that the revenue
laiv of Mexico remains in force in the ceded
territory since the cession ?, And why not ?
Because this country has a revenue law in
force, nconsistent with the Mexican one 1 ,
-and it must be presumed to will its own
revenue law to supplant the other. We
ask, are these presumptions any better
founded than that which assumes it to bo
the will of the confederacy, that all its mem
bers shall enjoy and possess their common
property ? These principles furnish an an
swer to the main question—what would
be the rule which the supreme court would
lay down ? This, we think. That such
laws of Mexico as could be fairly supposed
to express the will of this confederacy of
States would remain in force in the con
quered territory until altered by the con
queror and no others; and therefore, that
the abolition law of Mexico, was abrogated
by the conquest.
The cases from which Mr. Stephens’
quotes (and we must here acknowledge
our indebtedness to the counsel of a learn
ed and logical legal friend for ourauthority)
do not touch the question as to what is a
fundamental law of this confederacy; nor
the question what is inconsistent with such
law, nor the question, what is the true rule
of ascertaining what laws of a conquered
country remain in force, and what do not,
after conquest.
Ti e case in Cowpcr decides tho •ques
tion whether the king, by virtue of his
prerogative without his parliament could
lay duties upon a resident within a con
quered country —a question of prerogative,
exclusively. Tho case from Ist 1 eters
determines the question whether the law
of Spain in relation to salvage remain in
force in Florida after its cession to the U.
States ; that from 12 Peters merely de
clares that certain laws of France govern
ing real property remained in force in Lou
isiana after its purchase from France. If
any thing was said by the judges in pro
nouncing theiropinions in these cases,aside
from those questions, it was not authority,
and does not make a precedent. Besides
it is to be remembered in relation to the
two American cases, that the treaties with
Spain and France showed that it was the
will of this confederacy, that the laws of
Spain and France should govern in these
two cases.
At all events, the cases and the dicta
from Grotius and Vattel thrown in, are far
from proving that the Mexican abolition law
is not inconsistent with a fundamentol law
of this Union. And that was the proposi
tion which Mr. Stephens had to maintain
in order to warrant his conclusion.
We have shown what we think is the
law of the case, and what everybody
(excepting Mr. Stephens and seven ether
members from the South) including Barn
burners and Abolitionists, Whigs and Dem
ocrats, in the North, South, East and West,
have believed with a fearful faith, to be the
law of the case.
Hear the abolitionists and barnburners in
the Buffalo convention.
“ Resolved, That the true, and in the opinion
of this convention, only safe means of preventing
the extension of slavery into the territory, now
free, is to prohibit its extension in all such terri
tory by an t of Congress.”
Again:—
“ That the bill lately reported by tbc committee
of eight in the Senate of the United States, was
no compromise, hut an absolute surrender of the
rights of the nonslaveholdcrs ofall the States; and
while wo rejoice to know that a measure which
while opening the door for the introduction of
slavery in the territories now free, &c.”
These resolutions bespeak an abiding
conviction on the part of the Buffalo ne
grophilists, that if Congress passed no law
prohibiting slavery in the new territory,
but left it to be governed by the laws
brought into existence by the treaty, that
is the Jaws which this compromise made it
incumbent on the supreme court to declare,
slavery would be admitted into the territo
ry and be protected there.
The Wilmot Proviso itself is founded cn
the very reverse of the doctrine, Mr. Ste
phens lays down. It is based in the opin
ion that legislation is necessary to keep
out slavery from the Territories. All those
who voted against the compromise (Mr.
Stephens and the seven excepted) did soon
the avowed belief that under it, if it be
came a Jaw, the supreme court would de
cide that slaveholders might emigrate with
their property into the new Territory and
be protected there. And all who voted for
it, doubtless believed the same thing, or
their votes would have been precisely re
versed. Is it most likely that the supreme
court would concur with this singular
unanimity on the same subject, from motives
and masses so diverse and discordant, or
with the eccentricities and hair-splitting
technicalities of Mr. Stephens ?
Mr. Stephens has not defined his own
position in words. He seems to have
shrunk from the avowal of certain opinions,
which he must nevertheless entertain, in
order to •ntertain those that he does avow.
He avows that by the laws of the land as it
would be pronounced by the supreme court,
slavery cannot exist in the new Territory.
It is free. Again he says, “ I have no ob
jection to compromise the question, but I
have only two plans of compromise—one
is a fair division of the Territory, by clear
and distinct lines,” &c. &c. In another
place he says that the South is entitled to a
just and equal participation in these Ter
ritories, “ and that it is the duty of Con
gress to see to it that the’just and equal
rights, (quere, ivhat rights under his argu
ment ) of my section are guarded, pro
tected and secured by all necessary legis
lation.”
All this makes it necessary that Mr.
Stephens must believe with Wilmot and
the Barnburners that Congress 7ms power
over the question of slavery in the territo
ries, and that it is the duty of Congress to
establish slavery in Territory now free—
that is in all below his compromise line.
If he is right, the Barnburners are on pre
cisely the wrong track. They ought to
resist legislation and advocate a “masterly
inactivity.” If he is right, the Wilmpt
Provisoists are as “ blind men and fools - ”
for they believe that legislation is esssen
tial to keep out slavery from the Territo
ries, and Calhoun, Berrien,.Reverdy John
son, Badger and the other great Jurists cf
the South'are so many ninny-hammers to
be opposing the extension of the Wilmot
Proviso over territory, already pre-con
demned to perpetual freedom from slavery,
by the doctrines of Mr. Alexander H. Ste
phens.
And this indeed, is precisely Mr. Ste
phen*’ conclusion, for with a marvellous
arrogance he charges that all the Barn
burners who voted with him against the
compromise, and all the Southern men who
voted against him, in favor of it, were
“ profoundly ignorant ” of the subject;
while he alone was inspired and illuminat
ed with a clear comprehension of the truth.
We conclude then, that so far from hav
ing no rights in the Territories, except
such as are dependent upon the bounty of
Congress—the Southern right is guaran
tied by tile fundamental law of the confed
eracy—by the constitution which is the
charter of the confederacy—by the univer
sal law of nations, and as some contend, by
th£ law of God.
It was to all these guarantees that the re
jected compromise bill proposed to refer the
question. We say it was safe there; for who
wants a right not secured by such high
sanctions and glorious guarantees as these?
If the South have no rights in theTeirito
ries, it would be either by the clemency
of tho North, or by a fraud that she could
go there. If she have rights, she would
go there as an equal and independent and
sovereign member of a conquering confed
eracy. The right and the enjoyment are
as inseperable as the Siamese’ Twins.
The argument that kills the one, destroys
the other. We standfor the right.
Judge Wellborn. —We understand that
our political friends in Marion, expected
the Democratic candidate to address them
on Wednesday at Pineville, and Thursday
at Buena Vista. The Judge did not make
either of those appointments, and indeed,
was not aware that he was expected there.
Ills engagements at other points, would
have precluded such an arrangement. He
will if possible arrange to meet his friends
in Marion prior to the election. If he can
do so, he will notify them.
The Democratic Meeting on Saturday
night in this city, was large and animated.
We were happy to see a number of our
Whig friends there. Judge Wellborn de
livered such a speech as we like our oppo
nents to hear. Able, argumentative, mod
erate and respectful to those who differ
with him, yet firm and enthusiastic in the
support of his principles. It was a speech
of which his political friends are proud.
On Wednesday evening, (to-morrow)
Maj. J. H. Howard will address all who
will favor him with their presence, on the
subject of the late compromise bill, and
the course of Mr. Stephens. He particu
larly desires to see his Whig friends.
A NOTH UK LETTER.
Gen. Taylor has put forth still another,
letter dated Pascagoula, and addressed to his
friend Capt. Allison. This will be known
as “ Allison, No. 2.” We did hope that
Gen. Taylor would say something to the
point in this letter, professing as it does to
explain and cause to dovetail, all his former
epistles, and to clear up the misconcep
tions and misconstructions placed upon his
voluminous correspondence. It is however*
not to the point—not to any point. He
omits to inform us whether his friends at
the North or at the South have taken tha
proper view of his opinions on the absorb*
ing subject of the Wilmot Proviso. Know*
ing as he does, that he is represented with
two faces on this subject, and in a letter
professedly defining his position, he is as
dumb as an Oyster. That is not fair, blunt
old soldier !
The only decided thing in the letter is a
marked compliment to Millard Fillmore y
and that we suspect was the leading object
in the production. It was to quiet tho
Fillmoreites in Albany and elsewhere, on
the subject of his acceptance of the Charles*
ton nomination.
The letter in our next'—too late for this
number.
The Augusta Republic concludes a sound
constitutional commentary on Mr. Toombs*
new Stephens doctrine, as set forth in his
letter of acceptance, with the following re
mark :
Our Union is unquestionably in danger and tho
best way to presorve it and our rights at the same
time, is to hold on to the old Soutokbn doc
trine, to the constitution, and, armed with
a conviction that right and justice are with us, we
must keep our honor bright let oub destint b
WHAT IT 31 AT.
“ The old Southern Doctrine, the consti
tution".’ How true, is this ? and yet how
strangely it sounds from the pen of a Whig
editor. The “Republic” editor belongs to
a party that has long since been forced to
yield up its attachment to the “old south
ern Doctrine, the constitution.” to the im
perious will of its Federal allies in the
North.’ Whig principles are all bom north
of the Potomac—most of them in Boston.
They are all exotics to the South. They
are imported from the North and planted
in Southern soil, sw/iplanting every native
growth that savors of the “ old southern
doctrine, the constitution.”
If the Republic loves that “doctrine” he
must come out from the unclean Whig par
ty. His gods are not of the Lares of
Whiggery,if in truth he loves the “old doc
trine.”
We have -always thought there was an
antagonism between the ‘Republic’s’ prin
ciples and its position. Its course has ever
been anomalous—amphibious. Itsdevoted
advocacy ofH. Clay, with its extreme south
ern opinions was in itself a marvel; and
its relations to Toombffand Stephens, hug
ging the “Traitors while denouncing their
treason” is another absurd antic only to be
accounted for by the pressure of the party
straight jacket. The editor of that paper
(we do not know him, but speak from his
writings) was reared in the State Rights
Democratic school. He has no sort of bu
siness to he a Whig, or what is the same
thing, these days, a Federalist. His nat
ural political instincts and his principles
are one thing, while the mould into which
he is obliged to squeeze them, is quite
another thing. Now, Federal WJiiggisin
comes as natural and as easy to the “Chron
icle and Sentinel” as if it had never been
out of Boston. Not so with the Repub
lic—the “old doctrine” will peep out; the
Federal garment is not long enough to hide
the State Rights hoof. We really pity the
“Republic” editor. He is the “strong
man struggling in a morass”—whiggery is
his “slough of dispond” “Excelsior” is
his motto, but the dark Federal mountain
rises higher and blacker to his fatigued
and advancing footsteps. He will never
be easy until lie settles down into the in
dent support of a party, advocating and
practically enforcing doctrines, congenial
to his tastes and principles—the great De
mocratic party of America—the party that
“holds on to the Old Southern Doctrine •
to the Constitution.
Gkneeal Shields.— At the Ratification
meeting in Chicago, Gen. Shields was pres
ent, and in the course of his speech
made the following hit:
lam a Democrat—a Cass and Butler Dent
oCrat. lamneithera barnburner,a stable
burner or a church burner. Such names
have no fascination for me. lam content
to stand by the proud banner of Democra
cy, to fight under its broad folds, and to
conquer or die with its glorious colors wa
ving over my head. I care not who rais
es the shout of disunion; my voice will
never swell the cry. If there be any who
tremble with apprehension of defeat, let
them leavG cur ranks, let them leave atonce.
No field was ever won by cowards.
IVc shoot deserters in the army, but here
deserters shoot themselves. In victory
or defeat, in weal or wo in majority or mi
nority, I sink or swim with the great na
tional Democratic party.