The Columbus weekly times. (Columbus, Ga.) 1858-1865, May 21, 1860, Image 1

Georgia Historic Newspapers

The Columbus weekly times., May 21, 1860, Image 1

About The Columbus weekly times. (Columbus, Ga.) 1858-1865 | View Entire Issue (May 21, 1860)

Page of 4

Prev Issue Next Issue

Text PDF JP2 (4.1 MB) Clip/Print Image

Page of 4

Prev Issue Next Issue

Return to Top

Newspaper Page TextR. ELLIS & CO., Proprietors. Volume XV, I). W. EVANS & CO., THE PIONEER OUT BOOK STORE, THE OLLiEiST ESTABLISHED GIFT BOOK HOUSE. A GIFT WITH EVERY BOOK, U'vrfJt />VM 60 ctnU to SIOO,OO. BOOKS: By constant additions to our stork we have collected the*]argc.*t and most varied selection of Books ever offered by any publishing bouse in the country, all of which are tresh from the publish* ™ hauda, and aro warranted perfect in every form. A CATALOGUE, which for perfection of ar rangetuent, careful selection, and classification of Ancient and Modern Literature, has never been equalled, and bar been copied and imitated by compilers of Catalogues throughout the country, is now remodeled and improved and will be mail ed free to any address on application. ■Scud lorn Catalogue. It will be mailed free to any address, and will prove an invaluable assistant in tiio formation of it library, or the selection of n.nTul and e ntertain ing reading. GIFTS: The limitless vantiea of Gifts distributed, aud their really intrinsic value will eointwoud them !*• all lovers of good taste. By buying in large quantities and for cash, we are enabled to appor tion a greater value to our patrons than others, as one trial will convince those who wi*h to test the strength of our inducements. DISPATCH. Those who regard a prompt reply to their orders will be snre and send us their patronage, as ihe central location of New York City, with its many diverging means of transportion, give ns unrival led advantages iu forwarding to tho most distant points. The business arrangements of our Es tablishment havo bceo so thoroughly perfected, that orders received by the evening mail, tho nest morning are on their wsy to their destination, and no orders are delayed over twenty.four hours from tho time of their reception. SAPETY. We take tho risk of all lo’-s through the mail, it the directions are followed as in Catalogue, vhich !s not done by other Gift Book Houses.— Money sent in tho form of draft, payable to our -rder, or letters enclosing funds, if registered according so law, are insured a safe return AGENTS. Book Agents, and tboso desiring to become .=o, should examine our terms, as ten books can be ?old, in the s&tne time that on© may bo disposed of in tho regular way, through the inducements given by us to tho purchaser. pay tho most liberal commission to Agents. ®t*Wi keep the most varied and extensive slock of Book? and Gifts, and gratuitously circu late the most complete and best clarified catalogue in the country. > 23P , We guarantee perfect satisfaction to nil wh<> may favor us with their patronage. llou to send lor Hooks Orders of five Books and upward", should be lent by express, if possible, as it ischeaper and safer thau by mail. Money, if possible, should be font in the ,'orm of drafts, as payment can bo stopped if lost through the maii. Letters enclosing money may be sent at our risk, provided they aro registered according to law. These precautions are simple, and within the ranch of all, assuring the safe transmittance of Books. SfUln ordering Book*, the title, in black let ters only, should be used. The writing should be plain, and the Name, Post office, county and State should he distinct to avoid mistake. scud tor a Catalogue. Direct all communications to 1). W. EVANS A Cos.. 677, Broadway, New York. april 30—worn. SANFORDS’ LIVER INVIGORATOR NfiVKit DEBILITATES. f T IS COMPOUNDED BNTIHELV from <mm*,aiid L has become an established (bet, a standard medicine approved by all that , have used it, and is re sorted to will) confi- a# deuce in all diseases fl>r which it it recommend- ■* ed. It ha* cured thousand* ft wtthinthe last two >ear< nbo had riven up hope of relief a* numerous unsolicited certificates 6” in my possession show. Tuedosemim be adap- 00 ted to the leiuperament of Ulcindividuailaking it and used in such quan tities as to act gently on 5 the bowel*. Lctthe dictate* of your m judgment guide you in use of the LIVER /AT- * VIGORA/nR and it will cure Liver Cbm- plaints, HiLlOUn At iarki, DYS PEPSI A, mm Chronic Dtarr hm a, HUMMER COM- PLA IXTS.I) rSEMTK MY. DROPSY, SO UR STOMACH. Hob*,. COS Tl VEM ESS. CM- te. CHOLERA CM’ nxMvrtui, CHOLERA m IMP AMT CM FI ATI - I. E.YCE. JA PA DICE, fewaU WEAK I. MSS Es t, and may be need successfully a* an Ordin ary, Aady Mediant. — B It will cure SICK HEADACHE, (a* “ thousand* can testily ) m f*ce nt y minutes, if kid tvs or three Tea * p.**fui art taken at rommcnreinent ottbe All who use it arc * firing their testimony in its favor. uni MIX WATER IN THE MOUTH WITH THF. IV VIGoRATOR. AND H WALLOW fl *TII TOC ETH ER. PRIC E ONE DOLLAR PER DOTTLE ALSO, SANFORD’S FAMILY (Imthartic Pills, COMPOUNDED FROM A'ura Vegetable Extracts, and put tip In Ula Cases. Air Tight, anti will kcp In any Climate. The FAMILY CA- a tiiatic Pill is a gen tle out active CatharticU whim Ute pioprwtor has naed in bis practice more . than twenty years. The constantly increasing 9 demand front tm.se who have long used the PILLS -and tin satisfaction which iilexpresstoregardtoth. ir H use,has induced me to pul ‘hem in the reach of ail * The profession well know that different mathanrs vet on different portion-of th boWl* Tbc FAMILY CA- >T II ART I C PI 1.1. has, with due reference to 7,.tliw well established fact beencompoumJrd from a W varietyofllie purest vege table extract*, which art ** alike on every part of the alimentary canal, and are n good and safe ifi all cas es where a Chatham*’ i* w aaeded. jmcli ** on bamoemewt* of the” HTOMACII Huwri vr.as. PAINH is the Q DACE AND LOIN ft, COHTIVENEB K. PAIN asb Robgnßn* ovn the WHOLE BODY,',, from sudden cold, which frequently, if neglected. TJ end in a longcounenf le ver, LOB OF APPE- u TITE, a CaKErtJW Hei- SATIO.H or Colo ovE|jrrfE Body. ReafLE**- xtss, HEAD M'flE or H weight tx thsHsbo, all INFLAMMATORY H Diseases. WORMs, u* cmuiat* or Anct/re, n buccMATtsM, a (rea. Purifier of the Blood, m andmanydixeitaestow hkh flesh is heir, ton uunx-rous ‘**,to mention in fhi adver tisement DOSE lto S. ‘ Price 30 Cents. THE LIVER INVIGORATOR and FAMILY CA THARTIC PILLS are retailed by Druggists generally and *old wholesale and retail by the Trade in all the large towns. T. W. IASPORD, M. D., Manufacttirer and Proprietor, une l7— W snt .316 Broadway, New York. ®te Ciliito Wielli limp. • • . t COLIMBIB, TUESDAY, MAT 13, ISM. Uemumuir Party Dissolved ; This is the cry of the opposition! And the ap peal ii now made to all good mon to anl>t under the *’ Nat ional opposition party!” The Augusta Chronicle amt,Sentinel fays the Democracy is impotent do Ju anything; the Upson Pilot prra chos its funeral, while other of the opposition journals are boastful and arrogant. No so fnst, wc reply. The .Sampson ofthe Democracy is only asleep, mid will whip the followers of the auti repcal-Mlrrauri-cumpromisa enndi date? cut of their boots before Christmas. torrre-pondent#- Personal Wc publish to-day several commituicaUotts from members of the Dcmocrarie party, reserving to ourselves the right of comment and dissent. we may see preper, at some leisure moinont. We feci no hesitation in giving our view# upon every question that may arise teaching the intercut of the democratic party, and expect to utter them boldly, let them cut where they will. Wo believe the harmony of the party can be mtorad by a little moderation and caluiarss ou the part ofthe advocates of both aides of the issue dividing us, and that tho i>ta*e Convention, by a course of wisdom and prudence, will bring about po desi rable a result, and the party yet be saved fro® annihilation and ruin. The Enquirer and Compromise fttawum of i\}o The Enquirer in its Wue of M*y oth, denying that tho “protection” resolution* f the late. Con stitutional Übiou Convention at MilledgeviUc are inconsistent with its past party creed, use# this language: “ The Oppo.ltion pm, of tV.ia State have ,|. ways protested acquiescence in, aud fidelity to tho Georgia Platform and the Compromise Meas ures of I860; and we roaintaiu that the resolu tions adopted by tho lato MiUedgowilc Cooven tion are nothing more than a re-affirman. e of ihe Territorial policy of those measures.” Again : “ We insist, then, that Congress, by the Terri torial acts ol 1860 (the Compromise Measures,} renounced for itself the control of the slavery question in tho Territories, and restrained the ierrilorinl Legislatures from assuming jurisdic tion over tho question. This is nil tho **|r- t*e liou” that tho Southern Opposition contend for and it ought to satisfy any .Suutberu man. Wo any that it is tho doctriuo of our Southern Oppo sition party, and we can point to its very ro cont affirmance by many of our bout hern (\ ri ven ticnii, and challenge the citation of a single one of them that has rejected it. The rarious State Conventions of tho Southern Opposition, held on tho 22d of February last, all (without an excep tion, we believe) re-a lli mud their adherence to the principles of the compromise acts of 1860. and Georgia ba> recently followed in iheir wake by the ton dutions that have encountered ;ho op position of tho Telegraph.” If the * cfcdcra from tho Charleston Convention had been content with this protection, tho Demo cratic party would fcavo been a. unit to-day. Wo agree with the Enquirer, that tho Southern Oppo* aitton havo asked no other protection to slave property. They have stood aa ail other p-vriios in the South have atood, upon the doctrino of non intervention. They have never asked Congress l tonal protection The Enquirer, however, ought not to denounce squatter sovereignty, and at the aamo time re-attrm ita adherence to the princi ple., of tbo Compromise of 1960. That is incon sistent and contradictory, Tho Compromise bill was the very embodiment of squatter sovereignty. It permitted the people of California to decide upon the question ol slavery before they had a j Territorial Government, and in New Mexico aud I Utah it referred the question to the decision of | ihe people in those Territories to ho decided if) they thought proper in their Territorial Legisla tures. i; did not “ restrain ibe Territorial Leg islatures from assuming jurisdiction,” ns tho En quirer says. On tho contrary, that clause in tho 10th section, prohibiting the Territorial Legisla tures from “ establishing or probibiiig African Slavery” whs stricken out. They were loft free therefore to do cither. They Lure already de cided the question for them solve.-.. New Mexico iu favor of slavery, Utah against it. If that is not squatter sovereignty, will the Enquirer tell us what ills? MODKBATOB. Communicated. Afff##/*. Editors ;--Do not be deceived by the excitement and clamor which may surround you in Columbus. The Democrat# ofthe country still stand fast by their old party. They have fought with it, suffered with it, triumphed with it too long to lose their affection for it in a moment. — They will not give it up for imaginary fears or at the first cry of danger. When it • broken and disorganized, where will they find another aa good? Will it be in Yancey*# Southern league? Will it he in the ranks of tho Houston-ICnow-Nothlngs of the gouth? Will it bo with Seward and his abolition allies? Will there be found iu the North or the .South an or ganization that is #nf*.r and sounder than the old Democrat!* party? 1 do not believe it, and the calm considerate men of our party who are not ruu mud upoua chimera, do not believe it. In stead of separating, now mure tbau ever in the history of this country, should we consolidate and knit together our ranks. You will find, too, when the s'atulard is raised, and the old Democratic : banner is unfurled, tho great mass of the Demo cracy marshalling around it, ready to bear it as i hey have borne it iu many political struggle* in the war of (be strife where the fight is hottest and the blows heaviest. They will jrat desert it to follow the little buntings that may to raised by factions or ambitious loaders. _ V KILN’D. [CoawuvicATtD.j Meet re. Editor*: —lt strike* me it would ho tho policy of Houthern democrat* to insist upon a nomination at Richmond of candidate# for the Pre sidency and Vice Presidency. Wo aro tor a sec tional party, free from all party shackle*, and ba**.-d upon the right principle. Now is tho lime for it. Let u* ml loose from and Ims ready for secession. Wa regret that the Opposition have turned their heads against us and aro crying UNION ! Tho South should uot dispair of a Southern Bepub Ic. AH proiso to our leader, Mr. Yancey, of Alabama. ALABAMA. ‘ Communicated. J/evert*. Editor! • suggestion that Geor gia send a delegation to Richmond, to proceed thence to Baltimore, is no doubt intended as a peace offering. Put no compromise of that kind is possible. If tljc “ieceders” insist ‘ n going to Richmond, two delegations will bo lent from Georgia. Those democrats who intend to hold on to the Democratic party, will send a delegation to Baltimore. Our Commotion at Milledgeville will doubtle#!’ split, and jhe two wing* each Bond a delegation to their respective political Mecca. This will be inevitable, and it will be right too, however much to be deplored. Thousand ol men ia Georgia do not intend to be driven oat ot the Democratic party whether in a majority or minority. They intend to support tie rgul*-r nominee of the Democratic party, be the conse quence* what they may. They aro satisfied too, however passion and wild uproar may rage, re flection and time will iusuro re action and wise counsels. CttAVYYORD. Yiasr Candidate run run xext Coheres*.— Hon. John 6. Phelps, member of Congress Iron) the sixth district of Missouri, has been nomina ted by the Democratic Convention for re-eloc tion. THE UNION OF THE STATES, AND THE SOY EH EIGNTY OF THE STATES. non A, fI.STEPnKNVM LETTER. Macon, Oa., May 6ib, 1960. Sir: We are alarmed by the state of things develojicd in the Democratic Convention Rt Charleston-. The-discord and disorgauiting spirit which prevailed there threaten the integrity mid overthrow of tho Democratic party. We are fill ed with painful forebodings at the prospect ofthe Democratic party heing :daugbtered in the house of its friends- .1 catastrophe which will put iu oqual peril the Union of theStntos aud the t>nfcty ot tho South. Clinging to tho fate aud fortunes of both, wo invoke your counsels iu this erisis.— Wc believe the Democracy of Georgia should be represented in the adjourned National Convention nt Baltimore. Will you please give its your view,-i C'lndidly aud promptly for publication’ Your friends aud fellow-citizen.**, ROBERT COLLINS, JOHN J. GRESHAM, .IAS. W.ARMSTRONG, JAMES DEAN, JOHN’ R ROSS, PULASKI HOLT, A. K. COCHRAN, W. K. DeGKAFFKNREII), SAMUEL lb HUNTER. Joseph cmsby, THOMAS L. ROSS, JAMES A NISBET. Wil. LUNDY. CitvwroßuviLLE, Ua., May 0,1800. Ukn ru.Mi:*: Your letter ol the 6th inst,, was received lust night, and I promptly respond to your call as clearly and fully ns a heavy press of business engagements w ill permit. 1 fluid en deavor to be no lean pointed and explicit than candid. You do not, in my judgment, overesti mate tho importance of tho questions now press ing upon the publio mind, growing out of the drintpi ion of the Charleston Convention. While I was not greatly surprised at that result, consid ering the elements of its composition, and tho general distemper of the times—-still, i deeply regret it, and with yon, look with intense inter est to th* consequence?. What ia done can not be undone or amended ; that must remain irre vocable. It would, therefore, be as useless, as ungracious, to indulge in any r< flections, as to whose fault tho rupture was owing to. Perhaps, and most probably, undue excitement uud heat of passion, in pursuit of particular ends n-nneoled with tho elevation or overthrow of particular ri vals fur preferment, more than any strong desire, guidod by cool judgment, ro necessary on such occasions to advunoo tho public good, was Urn real cause of the rupture. Vo that a* it may, however, what is now to bo done, and what ia the proper ia.uracto Le taken? To tny mind the course seems to be clear. A State Convention should bo called at an ear ly day—and that convention should consider ihe whole object calmly, and dispassionately, with ‘•the sober second thought,” and determine whether to send a representation to Richmond or to Baltimore. The correct determination of this question, os I view it, will depend upon another; and that is, whetl t r tho doctrine of non-inter veil tion by Congress, with slavery iu the territo ries, ought t< be adhered to, or abandoned by the South. This is a very i; rave and serious question, and ought trot to be decided rashly or intemper* utely. No such small matter#, as tho promotion of this or that individual, however worthy or un worthy, ought to enter into its consideration. It is great subject of publio policy, affecting the vast interests of the present and the future. It may be unnec saury, aud entirely useless, for me to obtrude my views upon this question, in ad vane# Os the meeting of rah eon re tion, upon whom its decision may primarily devolve. I can not, however, comply with your request, without doing so to a limited extent, at least. This, I shall do. In the first place, then, I assume, us an unquestioned and unquestionable fact, that non intervcn i'V, as stated, lisa been for many years received, nxogmz and, and acted upon, ns tho set ti and dociripo ot tho South. By n-n-intemention I mean tho principle, that Congress Khali pass no law upon tho subject of slavery’ iu the Terri tories, citlmr for or against it, In any way—that they shall not interfere or act upon it nt ail—or, in tho express words of Mr. Calhoun, the great Southern leader, that Congress stall “leave tho whole subject whore tho Constitution ami the great prineipio of *elf government places It." — This has been eminently a Southern doctrine. It was announced by Mr. Calhoun, in his speech in tho Senate, on tL- 27th of June, 1818; aud, after two years of discussion, was adopted as tho basis of the adjustment finally made in 1660, Ji was the demand of tho South, put forth by the South, and sine: its establishment has been again and again affirmed and re affirmed as tho settled poli ,-y of the .?ouih, by party convention* and State Legislatures, in every form that a people con give authoritative expression tu their will and wishes. This cunnot now bo matter of dispute. It is history, a.-* indelibly fixed upon the record as the fact that the colony of Georgia was settled under the i ospices of Oglethorpe, or that tho war of tho American revoiuuou was fought in ro*U- taueo tu the aujuust claim of power on the part of thu British i'uriiaiueut. I refer to this matter of history couujctcd with the subject urn lor consideration, hardy as a start ing poiut—to show Loir we stand iu relation to it. It ic not a now quest ion. It hue been up before, and whether rightly or wrongly, it has been de cided—decided and settled jut an tho South ask ed that it sboola bd—not, however, without great effort and a prolonged etrwpglo. The question now is, .-hall tho ttonth uhaudon her own position ta the decision and settle incut ? This i* the question virtually presented by tho notion of the • coders from *ho ‘Charleston Convention, und tho grounds apt.n which they b;i >c-.l their notion : or -tiled iu other word?, it amounts to this; wheth .-r the Southern States, after all that bus taken place on the subject, should now reverse their previous course, and demand Congressional intervention for the protection of slavery iu the Territories, as a condition of their remaining longer U| the Union/ Tor I take it for granted [but it would be considered by all as tbc most mischievous folly to make the demand, unless we intend to push tho issue to it* utmost and legiti mala resultc. t>hall tho rioutb, then, make this demand of Congress, and when made, in case ol failure to obtain if, shall nbo secede from the Union as a portion of her delegates, (some under instructions. ondsmeiroui their own Ireo will,) needed from the convention, ou their failure to got it granted there f Thus stands the naked question, as I under stand it, presented by the action of the aeecders, m its full dimensions—its length, breadth and depth, ia all its magnitude. It is presented not to the Democratic party alone; if is true dial a convention of that party may, fir*! act on it, but it i? presented to tho country, to tho whole people of tho South, of all parties. And men of oil parties should duly and tirucly consider it, for they uay all hove to take • ides on If sooirfcr or later. It ritH’s in importance high above any party organization of the presont day, and it way, and ought to. if need Ira, sweep them all from the board. My judgment ii againt the demand. If it wore a uew question, presented in it* present light, for iho first time, my views upon it might be different from what they ore. It i known to yon sod the country that the policy of non-inter rmthn, as established ut tho instance t f the South, was no favorite one of mine. A* to my po rtion upon it, ami the doetrine now revived,when they wereoriginni and open question*, as woll a* tnypfe* !nt views, I will cite you to an extract of t speech mado by tne in Augusta, in July last, >n taking final leuveof my constituents. I could uot re *ta o them more clearly or more briefly.— In speaking of, and reviewing this matter, I then ‘aid ; “And, afl you all may know, it (ws-tsfirMte lion,) came short of what I wished. It waq iu ny view, not the full measure of our rights hat required, in my judgment, tho enactment by .ongn.-:*', of ail needful laws for the protection of ilsve property in the Territories, So long a* the Territorial condition lasted. “liut an overwhelming majority of tho South was sgainvt that position. It was said that w aho mat ii taini-d it, yielded the whole question by /ieldingibejurisdicMoti—and that, if wo conceded the power to protect, wo necessarily nonceded with it the power to prohibit. This, by no means, followed, iu ray judgment. But such wasthe pre vailing opinion. And it was not until it was well Ascertained that a large majority of the South would not ask for, or even vote lor, Congressional protection, that lho*o of us who werwforityielded (nou-iutcrvention, because, though it came short .four whbes, yet, it cunuiued no mtcrifics of prii.eipie—had nothing aggressive in it, and *a ured, f>r all practical purpose* what was wan wd, that is, tho ttoreeL leted right of expansion ,vcr tho common public domain, as inclination, .ouvenUmce, or necessity may require on the part of our people. v * * “Thus, the settlement was made—thus the record suml-, and by it I am “till willing to stand, is it was fully up to the demands of the South, Jirough her Representative*at the time, though not up to uiy own; and, as by It the right ol ex pansion to tho extent of population and capacity is amply secured.” In this you clearly perceive what I think of the proper course now to be taken on the same sub- COLUMBUS, (IKOKGIA, MONDAY, MAY 21, 1860. ’ Ject. AYhilo In the begining of this controversy I wnfl not favorable to the policy adopted, yet I finally yielded my actant. It was yielded to the South—to the prevailing sentiment of my own section. But it never would have been yielded if I hud seen that any of our important rights, or any principle essential to our safety orsecurily could, by possibility, result from its operation. Nor would 1 uatg be willing to abide by it, if I saw in its practical workings any serious injury to the South likely to arise from it. All parties in the South, afmr the settlement was made, gave it the sanction of their a*'quiescence, if not cordial approval. What, then, has oeourrod since to cause us to chang** our position Iti relation to it? Is it that those of tho North who stood by us in the struggle from 1648 to 1850. did afterwards stand nobly by u in 1954, in taking off the old Congressional restriction of 1820, so as to have eeinnlcte non-intervention throughout tho length and breadth of the common public domain? Was this hend.-ni on their part, iu adhering to prin ciple, at the hazurd and peril of their political lives and fortunes, tho cause of presont complaint? This can not be ; for never was an act of Congress so generally ami so unanimously hulled with de light at the South aa thin one was—l mean tho Kanaos-N’ebraska act of 1854? It was not only endorsed by all parties iu Georgia, but every one who did not agree to its just provision#, upon the subject of slavery, was declared 11 bo unfit to hold party Riaociati -ne with any party not hostile to the interest of the South. What, then, Is the cause of complaint now ? Wherein has this policy worked any Injury t.. tho South, or wherein i it likely to work any ? Tho only onuso of complaint 1 have heard is, thut uottmintei ventioH, aa established iu 185 U, and carried out in 18j4, ia not understood nt tho North as it is at the South; that, while we hold that, in leaving “the Whulosubject whore the Constitution ami the great principh sos self-government place it,” the common Territories aro to rcmn.u open f*ir settlement by southern people, with their 1 slaves, until otherwl.so provided by a State Con stitution. ‘lhe friends mid supporters of ibe same doctriueat tho North maintain that, under it, the people of uu organised Territory can pro tect or exclude slave property before the forma tion of a State Constitution. This opinion, or construction o: theirs, is what is commonly dubbed “squatter sovereignty.” Upon this point of difference in construction of what arc “tho great principles of self-government,” under the Constitution of tho United States, a great deal has been said and written. We have hoard it in tho social circle—in tho fo rum—on the hustings—aud in the halls of legisla tion. The newspaper# havo literally groaned with dissertations on it. i'hnioplets have been published for and against the respective side*.— Congress has spent months in its discussion, ami may spend as many years as they ha\e months, without arriving ni any moroddiuito or satisfac tory conclusion in relation to it than Milton’s perplexed spirits did upon tho abstruse question# ou which they held such high and prolonged do bate when they rcnsnuul— “OfProvidence, foreknowledge, will, and fate; Fried fine, tree w ill, f ir'-kn.nvlodge absolute, And fourd no and in wnndciing im\z* k lost.” ft i. not my purposo now to enter tho list of these disputants. AJy own opinions upon tho subject aro know* ; uud it t# equally knowu that this difference of opinion, or nonsiructlou, is no new thiiig in tbo history of this subject. Thoso who hold tho doctrine that the people of tbe Ter ritories, according t tho great principle? of self government, under tho Constituti on ut tbo United State#, can exclude slavery by Territorial Inw, and regulate slave property ns all other property, held tho same viows they now do, when we Agreed with them tu stand ou these tevtus. This fact is also historical. Tl o Puuth held, that under the Constitution tho Territorial Legislature# could not c.xcludc slavery—that ibis required an act of sovereignty to do. Some gentlemen of tbe North held, as they now do, thnt tho Territorial Lcgi# latures could control slave property na absolute ly as tjiey could uny nihor kind <■! property, nntl by a system of law? could virttiiitly exclude slave ry from amongst them, er prevent it.- introduo liuu if they chose. That pojut of difference it was md. by both aides, to leave to the courts to settle-. There war no chest, or swindle, or fraud, or double dosliug in it. It whs a fair, honorable, and Constitution al adjustment of the difference. No assertion or declaration by Congress, ono way or tho other, could have affected the question in tho least d*i greo; for if the people, according to tho great principle? of self-government under the constitu tion, have tho right contended lot by those who would espouse that aide of tbo argument, then Cougrcss could not and cannot deprive thorn of it. And if Congress did not have, nnd doc# not have, tho power to exclude slavery from it Terri tory, aa those on our side contended uud still con tend they have not, then they could not and did not eonter it upon tho Territorial Legislature#. We of the South held, that Cougre## hod uot the power to exclude, and could uot delegate a pow er they did notpusacaa—also, that tbo poople had uot the power to exclude updar tho Constitution, and therefore the mutual agreement wa# to take the subject out of Congress, and leave tho quea tiuu ol tho power ofthe people where tho consti tution had placed it—with the courts. This is the wliolo of it. The question iu dispute Is a ju dicial one, and no act of Congress, nor any reso lution of any parly convention cun in any way uffectit, uulct-i we first abandon tii*- position of non-intervention by Congress. But it seem exceedingly strung*’ to me, that the people of the South should, nt this lute day, begin to find fault with this uorthern construction, as it is termed—especially since the decision of the Supreme Court, iu tho ch.m *>f Died Scott-- rn this connection, 1 may bo permitted to sn>, that I have read with deop interest the debates of the Charleston convention, and particularly the able, logical, and eloquent speech of tin* Hon. IV. L. Yancey, of Alabama. It was, decidedly, the strongest argument I havo seen on Ids Ride of the question. But it# great*"i pow* r was shown tu its complete answer to u * 11. Novel did a man, wftli greater fijeamess, demonstrate that “ squatter sovereignty,” the bug-boar of the day, is U"t in th** Kansas bill, ali that has been said to the contrary, notwithstanding. Th;s, ho put be yond the power of refutation. But he stopped not there—he went on, aud by reference to the decision of the .Supremo Court alluded to, ho show ed, conclusively, iu a most pointed and thrilling climax, that tbis most frightful doctrine cor Id not, by possibility, be in it, or In any other Ter ritorial bill—tbatjtis a Constitutional impossibil ity. With the name master hand ho showed thut ihe doctrine of “ squatter sovereignty” if-not in the Cincinnati platform ; then, why should we of the South new complain of non-intervention, or ask a change of platfurm ? What else have we to do but. to insist upon our allies to stand to their agreement ? Would it not have been much morenutural to look far flinching on their side than on ours? Why should we de sire or want any other platform of principles than that adopted at Cincinnati ? If those wn- stood with us on it, in the contest of 1866, aro willing sti 1 to stand on it, why should we not be oqually willing? For my life I cannot nor, unless we *re determined to bnvo a quarrel with tho North anyhow on g'aural account. If so, in behalf of common aeuse, let us put it upon more tenable j ground*! Those aro abundant. Fcr our own i character's sake, let us mnlccif upon the aggres- 1 si vo acts of our enemies, rather than any supposed short comings ol our friends, who have stood by j us so steadfastly in so many Constitutional drug gies. In the nnroc of patriotism and honor, lot us Dot make it upon s point which may so directly subject u$ to the charge of breach of plighted faith. Whatever rr.ny befal , let us ever he f'iUnd, by friend or fie, us good os our word. — These are my views, frankly and earnestly given. The great <jf|tiou then, is, shall wo stand by our principles, or sb*!l we, culling loose from our moorings where we have been safely anchored so tnauy years, launch out again into unknown sea*, upon new and psrilou* adventures, under the guide and pilotage ol thoso who prove thctnaolves to have no taorf fixedness of purpose or stability as to objects or policy than tho shifting wind* by which we shall be driven 7 Let this question be decided by the convention, and docidvd with that wisdom, coolness, und forecast which become statesmen and patriots. As for mystlf, I can say, whatever may be tho course of lutureevents, my judgment in this crisis is, that we should ,land by our principles “through woo” ns well its “ through weal,” and maintain them iu good faith, now and always, if need be, until they, we, and tho Republic, perish together in a common ruin. I seo no injury that can possibly arise to u* from them—not even if tho constitutional im possibility of tholr containing “ squatter sove reignty” did not exist, an has been conclusively demonstrated. For, ifitdid exritln them, and were all that it* most ardent advocates claim for it, no serious practical danger to us could result from it. Even according to their doctrine, wc have the unrestricted right of expansion to the extent of population. They hold that slavery can and will go, under it* operation, wberevor the people want it. .Squatters carried it to Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas, without any law to protect it, and to Texas against a law prohibiting it, and they will carry it to all countries where climate, soil, production ami population will allow. Those are the natural laws that will regulate it under non-intervention, according to their construction; and no act of Congress can carry it into any Territory against the laws, any more than it could make the river# run to tho mountains. Instead of tho #eu. If we have not enough of the right sort of population to compete longer with the North in the coloniza tion of new Territories nnd .States, this deficiency can never bo supplied by any -uoli Act of Con* Ercss as that n-v asked for. The attempt would e as vain as that of Xorxo# tu control the wa ter# of the Hellespont by whipping them in his rage. The times, as you iminiuie, do indeed portend evil. But I have no fear* for the institution of slavery, i ither in the Unipu or out ii it, if our people aro but true to themselves—true, stable and loyal to fixed principle# and settled policy ; nnd if they are not thus true, I have little hone of at.y thing good, whether (lie present Uniou lasts ora new ono bo formed. ‘There is, iu my judg ment, nothing to fear from the “irrepressible conflict,” of which we hour so much. Slavery rests upon great truths, which can never bo sue eeaafully assailed by reason or argumout. It has grown stronger iu the minds of men the more it has boon discujscd,and it will still grow strong er as tho discussion proceed# and tiino roll# on. Truth is omnipotent, and must prevail. We have only to maintain the truth with firmness, nud wii*Ui ft aright. Our system rests upon uu Im pregnable ba-is, that can nud will defy all as sault# from without. My greatest apprehension is from cause; wtthin—there lie# tho greatert danger. Me have grown luxuriant in tbeexu borunce of our well being an and Mupnrnlellcd pros perity. ; Therois a tendency every where, not only at the North, but ut tho Foil h, to strife, dissension, dl#- order and anarchy. Tt irf against this tendency that the sober minded nnd riluoting men every wb’ re should now lie called upon to guard. My opinion, tl.cn, }s, that delegates ought to be sent to theob ‘urne. 1 convention at Baltimore. The demand made at Churleston by thosecedcra ought uot ta bo in riffled upon. Harmony being restored on this point, a nomination can doubtless be made of some man whuiu the party, every* at here, can support, with tho same zeal, and the same ardor with which they entered and waged the contest iu lb.'ifi, when the same principles won? involved. If, in this, there be a failure, let the respond! bllity not rest upon us. Let our hands be clear of nil blauie. Lot there bn no cause for easting censure at ourdoor. If, in tho end, the groat Na tional Deiuoeratic party —tho strong ligament which has so long bound and held the Union to gether-shaped it# policy, and controlled its des tinies—nnd to which wo have so ofl n looked with a hope that seldom failed, a# the only party North on which to roly, in the most trying hour# when Constitutional rightp were in peril, let it not be said to us, in the midst f the disaster# that may ensue, “youdid it!” In any andevery event, lot not tho reproach of Punic faith rest upon our name. If everything else has Gy go down, let our untarnished honor, at least, survive tho wreck. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. Letter from Hon. Howell Ccbb. Washington Citt, May 9, 18C0. Get,tinmen —Your letter of the sth instant, ha.-; just reached me. The limited lime allowed lor uction, induces mo to comply with your request for a “prompt” answer, and I shall endeavor to make it equally “candid.” I sympathise fully in y*m apprehensions for the future of our country, it cannot to disguis ed. that Loth the safety ofthe South and tho in tegrity of tbo Union are seriously threatened. It is tny honest conviction thnt tho issue depend? upon tbe action of the Southern ppoplo at this important juncture. A firm, wim* and unfalter ing policy on the part of the rtouth, will give se curity to her own rights ami pence nnd quiet to ihe Union. Any other course will bo equally fa tal to tbe preservation of tho one and tho main tainanco ofthe other. Like y ousel res, 1 have looked to the nutioual Democratic party, as the political organization in which the Round : constitutional element? of tho whole country ! could be brought into united ami cordial co-ope -1 ration. With (hi# conviction 1 witnessed the | proceeding# of the late ('harlc?tu Convention, | with intouau anxiety, and deeply rag rot tod the causes which led to the its disruption. In considering the proper course now to i> : pursued, w should unriendawi, distinctly, the reason ofthe failure of that Convention to agree upon a platform, ami candidate-- for (lie .support ofthe Democratic pnrty. It the differences which led to the result# at Charleston, in; im- material und iinimportHni. then there is no cause for trouble or apprehension. Thu public mind should promptly pronounce them to bo so, and they should be dismissed from our thoughts as unworthy ol future consideration Are the peo ple of ocorgitt prepared to pronounce tldsjudg went? Tho answer to this inquiry involves in my -qiiiiion, tho future destiny of the South. There were two points of difference ut Charlur , ton which produced the dissolution of the Con vention. Ist. Tho platform of tho party ou tho the subject of slavery—2d. the nomination of a proper candidate fr the Presidency. The liltecn Southern State*, in common with the two Democratic States of tho Pacific, agreed upon a platform, which recognized tho equality **f the Southern State*, and the right ol their citizens to go with their property into tho com mon territories of the Union, dunning for them in:*! their property, the sarnu protection, which th* ‘Joustitutmn and law* ot the land extend to their brethren of the non-slnvcholding States and their property—nothing more-nothing loss.— The seven eon Slate* which, with }trl'ect una nimity, agreed upon thin platform, are all of them certain Democratic States. The candidates to be nominated by the Democratic party for President and Vice President, must receive their votes, to give them the nlighte*t prospect of sue <c . The remaining nix teen States hv virtue of their superior numbers in the Convention, relu ned t< recognize these principles. They did not assert by the platform they adopted antagonistic principles to 1 bore agreed upon by the houthern and Democratic States. Their policy was to to lejvc the question an open issue, so far as any declaration of principles war corcirued, hut to give a practical construction to their platform, i y tho nomination of a candidate, wb* *o chief claim to the nomination grew out of hi* known hostility to the doctrine for which the Southern and Democratic State* contended. The seven teen Democratic Stele* were prepared to unite upon any true Mid worthy man for tho Tresi dency. There was no disposition whatever to force upon their brethren of the other States, a candidate nnaceeptanlc to them. Tho Doe on their part was for principle and success, involv ing ro consideration of mere personal advance ment of a fuvorito carulidnto. The sixteen op potif. ii elates, on tho other hand, not ouly re fused to unite upon tho platform offered to them by their brethren of the Democratic States, but struggled to force upon the pirty, the lamina tion of Judge Douglas, against the stern and united voice of every certain democratic .State of the Union. I venture to assert that such a ppeo toclc was never before presented in the history of i party Convention. The State* were os nearly equally divided a> it was possible for them to be. On one side wasevery democratic State,and j on the other, all the opposition States, and the latter who were not certain of giving a single vote for the candidate that might be nominated, insisted upon making both a platform and a can didate for the* democratic State* to elect. There certainly could not be & mon unjust distribution of responsibility and duty. Huob was the con dition of things at Charleston. The delegtin from Georgia would not concent to tbe co .sum mation of this threatened policy of tho numerical majority of the Convention. In common with the delegates from seven other houthern States, they withdrew lrora tho body. Their action should be sustained by the democracy of the State. They were true and loyal to the trust re posed iu them, and deservo the cordial approval und renewed confidence of their constituents. If they had returned from Charleston, bearing to the people of Georgia, the humiliating terms of surrender which the majority of the convention sought to put upon them in the platform and candidati’ proposed, the people would have re ceived their report in sorrow, and spurned their cutididato with indignation. It is due to the Democracy of the sixteen Etate* which 1 have designated a* opposition States to say, that I use the term “Opposition States” in no spirit of disrespect, hut simply intend to des ignate them a* Stun** in which, unfortunately for the country, tho Democratic party is in a minori ty. In many of their delegations at Charleston, there were large minorities who condemn the course and policy of their colleagues, a.’ wrong in principle and unjust to their brethren of the South. This wits particularly the case in Penn sylvania and other Htates to whose votes, in con nection with the certain Democratic State*, wo look with the greatest confidence for the election of our candidates. The truth is, that tho sound Democracy of the North aro determined to stand by the South in this hour of trial, if the South will only be true nd faithful to herself. The unwise declaration of a few Southern men, in favor of tho nomina tion of Mr. Douglas as a matter of policy and ex pediency, ha# contributed in no small dogroe to the present unhappy state of things. These ex ceptional case# have, unfortunately, been mis taken in sotno quarters, tor publio opinion, and will account lor the ot her wise unaccountable per- PHtence wiih which the friend# of Mr. Doug in* press hi# nomination against the earnest pro test of a united Smith. I have thus briefly alluded to the dittcuUic# m Dm Charleston Convention, ami the onuses which produced them, a# proper matter for consideration in determining upon the course of action which tho Democracy of Georgia ought imW to pur sue. A# the time i* so short before the io-M->euibiiug of the Convention at Baltimore, 1 would suggest the propriety of nu immediate eall, by tho JStato Executive Committee, for the March Convention tu re-aaseuiblo. It afiords the bent opportunity at our command for ascertaining the Democratic sentiment ofthe Mtatens to our future policy.— When assembled, I would urge upon that Con vention to give the action ol our delegatee at Charleston tbeir cordial approval, and abthorize them, iu co-oueration with the delegates of thoao States with whom they acted at Charleston, to re now nt Baltimore their efforts for a settlement of tho difficulties which led to the disruption at Charleston. The coureo of the delegation has been ho true that they aro on til led to tho unqualified confi dence of their constituents, and can be #af ly trusted without embarrassing their action with specific instruction#. The endorsement of their pa t action w ill be the beat Instruction for their tutor© conduct. The same delegation should be authorized to represent the Stale in the Conven tion to be held in Richmond, and if practicable, the time sot the meeting of the latter Convention should bn postponed to ft day subsequent to the Convention at Baltimore. I would thus afford every opportunity for healing the dissensions in ono party and bringing its different portion* once more into united aud cordial co-operation upon a sound platform and in tho support ol a sou ml candidate. I believe it can be accomplished, and it only require# firmneis and decision on the part of the Southern democracy to bring It abuut.— You may rest assured tbut your true friend# at the North—the men w ho have never deserted you to sav e tbem.sclve , w ill not force upon you terms of humiliation, and the rest will not venture to press them unless you first indicate by your ac tion that you nre prepared to surrender at dis cretion. The democracy of Georgia must now choose between tbo two wing# of the party at the North. The one has been true and faithful in tho pant ami offer you every assurance of tbeir aid and support in the future. Tho other abandoned you iu the la ur of danger and trial, and invite the re newal of your confidence with notice in advance tbut you may bupoot tn iho future no Vm*w* fUk or greater security than you havo received in the past. With tbo first you will oortaioly ma Main your honor aud have a fair proßpeot of preserving your right#. If an alliance with tbe latter prom ises any greater advantage, I confess my inabili ty to discover it. I nut, respectfully, yours Ac., HOWL’LL COBB. Tu Messrs. Honanr Collins and others; Macon, Georgia. Letter from Gov. Johnson Spier’s Turnout, Oa., May 10, 1 t>CO. Gentlemen .—Tho Union is not an object to be idolized, but it# preservation if it can Ixj, consistently with the interest of tbe South, in worthy of patriotic desire. It i# wise to avoid such measures, not demanded by necessity, as tend to weaken its bonds. The overthrow of the National Democratic party would be a gi gantic stride towards dissolution. Hence, its integrity, if it can lie done honorably, should be maintained. The schism, in the Charleston Convention, wa# produced by the refusal ofthe majority to incorporate into the party platform, a resolu tion in favor of Congressional intervention for tho protection of slavery in the Territories.— Tliis presents the question whether the South ought to demand such legislation, n# the condi tion ou which she will remain in the Union. I think she ought not. 1. The South has agreed uot to do it. She has heretofore asked for ‘'non-intervention” on ly. Let uh alone—hands off—has been the language of all our leading Statesmen. We have stood nnd acted upon this ground. The South has agreed to leavo the question of slavery in the Territories, to tho decision of the people thereof, “subject only to the Con stitution ofthe United States.” On the 21th of December lb 18, Gen. Cass, in hi* famous Nich olson letter, announced the policy of “leaving to the people of any Teritory, the right to re gulate it (slavery) lor themselves, under the general principle* of the Constitution.” He was the Democratic nominee for tfee Presiden cy in ISIS, and received the vote ofthe Smtli- ! urn Democracy. Iu ISlS,shortly otter we had acquired Cali fornia und New Mexico, Mr. Clayton, a Sena tor from Delaware, ns Chairman of n select Committee, reported the famous “Clayton Compromise'’ bill, providing Territorial gov ernments for Oregon, California and New Mex ico. The 20th section of (hat bill refereed all questions under writ of Habeas Corpus or oth er cases, involving personal freedom, to the Judiciary with the risht of appeal to tim Su preme Court of the United Stales. It did not pas# both bran: **• f Cougress. but it was vo ted for by a Inru-* majority ofthe Southern members. It ex'rad the willingness ofthe South to re*t tin , estionof slavery in the Territories, in all u- aspect#, with the Judi ciary. Tho Georgia Democratic Convention of De cember IM7, and June Ib4B, distinctly com milted themselves to non-intervention, by the adoption of the following resolution*, evidently 100 !<m a rathe doctrine ot the Nicholson letter: That Congress possesses no pow er, under tho Constitution, to legh lait m out/ | way or manner in relation to the institution of eluiery. It i., the Constitutional right of eve ry citizen l remove and settle with his prop city in any t f the Territories of tho United HtMtes. •’ hr solved. That the peoplu of the South do not awl. of Congress to establish the inMiluiion of slavery in any of thu Territories that may bo acqum and by the United Htates; thy simply require that the inhabitants of each Territory shall be left free to determine for themselves whether the institution of slavery shall or shall not form a part of their social system ” In 1-60, this vast question win under consideration and as was supposed, finally de termined by what is known as the “Couipro mi*e measures.'’ The measures consisted. Jwt, in an act to establish a Territorial Govern iiient for Utah; 2d. a Terr.torial Government fir New Mexico; 3d. to settle the question of boundary between Texas and New Mexico; dth, for tho admission of California ; 6th. for recovery of fugitive slaves, and Olh, to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia.— The excitement and strife which these act* pro duced throughout the South, are yet frerii iu our recollection. How warm, especially in Georgia, were the discu-sions upon the ques tion of submission or resilience. In Decem ber, 1800, Georgia m sovereign convention, agreed to acquiesce iu these measure* as a ft nnl settlement of the slavery agitation. To appreciate fully their significance in re lation to the question under consideration, it ia important to remember the circumstance* at tending the formation oft be State of California and her admission into the Union. She is em phatically the fruit of usurpation and squatter sovereignty. Brigadier Gen. Riley, under the pretext that the safety of the people required it. constituted himself chief executive of the Territory, ordered a convention and prescri bed the time, place and mode of electing dele gates to that Convention. The people whom a represented were squatter* upon the so !, congregated there—u hetrogeneous gnthering of mixed races—to work ns mines. And what was the object of that Convention 1 It was to perform the highest act of sovereignty, to form a Male. It did form a Slate with a Coustitu non proh biting slavery, and was admitted into the Union. Thus Congress ratified tho usur pation of Riley and sanctioned practically the the doctrine of squatter sovereignty in its most odious form. And Georgia acnuiesecd—the Southern Slates acquiesced, ana all agreed to abide by the principles of these compromise measures ns a final adjustment of the slavery question. Furthermore to appreciate their significance bear in mind the principles on which they reat od and which they established. They are ea sily deduced from the celebrated report of Mr. Clay, the amendment* offered, tho debate which they elicited, and the final pelage of the several measure* iu the series. They are briefly and concisely stated in the report of the Senate Committee on Territories in January 1857, which accompanied the introduction of the Kansas nod Nebraska hill. “Ist. That U questions pertaining to slavery tn the Territories and ill the new State# to be formed therefrom, are to bo left to tho decision of the people residiug therein, by their appro priate representatives to be chosen by them for that purpose. 2d. That “all case* involving tho title of slaves” and “questions of personal freedom ” artrefered to the adjudication of tho local tri hlinnls with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Slate#. 3d, That the provisions of the Constitution of the United Statu# iu respect to fugitives from service, i* to be carried into faithful execution m all “the organized Tcrritorie.**’’ the same a# in the Statu*.” These arc the principle# ntiirnicd by the Compromise Measure# of 1660 and on which they rest The South ha# Agreed to them.- Indeed both tbe great national parties in the United States, in their respect ivo Con vent ions in IBD2, ratified and adopted them into their platform#. In 1864, Nebraska nnd Kansas Terriloriea wre organized and the net distinctly recog nixe#, ami. in terms, re atlirm# the same prin ciplea. They are di linctly recognized in tho repeal ofthe Missouri Compromise, nnd re af firmed in the declaration. “That 1 1 it the true intent aud meaning of thin act , not to legislate •Utvery into any Territory or State, nor to ex clude it therefrom, but to leave the. froj'U thereof perfectly free to form and retrulote their institu tions in their own way. subject only to the Con stitution oj the United States ‘ In the Cincinnati Convention of 1866, the .Southern Democracy, by their delegates, re newed their Agreement to the Compromise of ISSO nnd the principle# of the Nehraska-Knnsa* Act. It iftiu the following language: “"The American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing the Territories of Kansas nnd Nubrasko. as embodying the only sound and ante solution of the ‘slavery question’ up on which thegrent national idea of the people of ties whole country cun repose in its deter mined conservatism of the Union—non inter ference by Congre#H with slavery in Stntexnd Territory, or in the District of Columbia.” “That this waathe Compromize of IS*SJ. confirmed by both the Democratic and Whig parties, in national Conventions, ratified by the people in the election of 1962 and rightly ap plied to the organization ofTerritorie# hi 1j>6 1.“ And that it whs intended uud understood to apply to all future Territories i-evinced bv the following resolution of the Cinema at i Plat form “That by the uniform application of this Democratic principle to tho organization of Territories and to the admission of new States with or without domestic slavery as they may elect the equal right# of a'l ihe States will be fMrvd t. th original compact* of the Constitution maintained inviolate, andthe |>er petti it y and expansion of tins Union insured to the utmost capacity of embracing, in peace and harmony, every future Am-rican bisto that may b constituted or annexed with a repub lican form of government.” In Georgia ail parties aro pledged unequiv ocally to the principle* of tho Nebraska Kan su? Act. Thu Leu'slatiire of 1854, passed unanimously, the following resolution, which j may be read on poge 560, of'Law* ol 1053 4 • “ILeaoived by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Georgia, in General Assembly met, That opposition to the principles of the Nebraska Bill, in relation to tho subject of slavery, is regarded by the peo pie of Georgia, as hostility to the right? of the aoutli. and that all persons who partake in such opposition are unfit to be recognized as component part# of any party organization, not hoKtileto the South ” Not content wth thi* expression, tha same Legislature adopted the following preamble and resolution.-, vide Law# of 1853-4, p 500 : ‘‘The State of Georgia, in sokriu convention, Laving firmly fixed beraclf upon the priori p ee of the compromise measure* us 1850 reiatlog to the subject of slavery iu of tbe United State#, as a fin il settlement ibo that question, ib< withdrawal from tho balls of Congress and tbo political arena, and its reference to the people of lb.* Territories Interested therein, and diatinctlv tecogulziugiu those compromise measure? tho doctrine that it is not competentfbr Congrea# to impore any restrictions, as to tbe existence ui slavery among them upon tbe eiti tena moving into ami settling upon the Territo ries of tho Uniou, acquired or to bn hereafter ac quired; but thnt the question whether slavery shall or’sball not form a part of their domofltiein- Hiimtiou?, is tin them alone to dutoruiinu for theinaeivcH; and her present Executive having reiterated and uttirmed the same fixed policy iu hi* inaugural address, He it lieioleed by tbe tim,u to ami JI on re of Representatives of tho State ot B Goergia tu <reno. ral Assembly tuct, That the Legislature of Geor gia, as tho representative* ofthe people, speaking their will, aud expressing their feelings, havo bad their cunLdeuce ctrcuglhcuud in tho rettlod detor miuutiou of tbe great body of tbo northern peo ple, to carry out in good foith those principles, in the practical application of them to the bill* re ported by Mr. Douglas from tho Commit tee on Territories in ihe United Stabs Semite nt the present Reunion, proposing the organization of a Territorial pv-rr.tmi.i for the Territory nf Nebraska. And hr Ufnrtrkr Jleeolved, That our S•nntnrs m Long rest, be and they aro hereby instructed, aid our Representative* requested to vote for and support those principles, and to uso all proper mean# in th* tr power, for carrying them out, either as applied to the government of tbc Terri tory of Nebraska or in any other bill for Ttri toriiil government which assy mine f>*rc them JUtoleed further, That bis U*ed!t r’ \ ti. Gov ernor l>* r quest, and to transmit a copy us these resolution! to each of our Senators ami Represen tative* in Congress. ApprmcU February 20th, 1854.” Therefore, it facts can establish any proposi tion, the Southern States have agreed to the doc trine of non-intervention by Cuugre* , In State and Territories, and that the people of the Terri tories tony determine the question of slavery for themselves, “in their own wav subject only to the Constitution of tbc United Plntes.” They have agreed to it, not os a wetter of right on the part of the Territories, buts cowjirotnite in ordur to transfer the fu*j < t from it * bails of Con gross to tho ultimate arbitrament of th* ju diciary. They have not aduiifted *bc sovereign tv of tho Territories; they have ml admitted their right to abolish slavery or to destroy the value of property by unequal, utju’ f ai.d op pressive legislation. Butlhcyhavo agreed (hut tho legislative power of the Territories shall ex tend to all rightful subjects of legislation; and denying that the TANARUS rrit. rial Regia aiuro p<is#e - e* any right, either inh rent <*r derived fr* m Congress, to pass laws ut friendly to, or abolish ing slavery, they have agreed, it they do thus legislate, to rely upon the Judiciary to declare their acts void. T Lis ia the very gist of the compromise to wLich the boutta is a party, by almost every conceivable form of recognition.— It it consistent with this compromise, now to de maud, that Cotigrcs* shall intervene to restrain the Territorial Legislature, and to pass laws for the protection of slavery? “I speak as unto wise men, Judge ye what I say.” 2. Such intervention would be of little, if at.y value to the South. Iu Now Mexico, slavery i* protected by the direct action of the Territorial legislature, and therefore, no Congressional in tervention in needed there. Beside that, there is not a foot of territory belonging to th United States, where slavery would be ntrodmed, if guarded by a standing army* All our territory lie* In a latitude unfriendly to tho productions of slave labor. Ho bng ns negroes command anything liko present price*, r.td .tugar, rice, to bacco, and cotton,yield such rich return.! to the planter, slavery will not extend to tho great Northwestern Territories. Therefore, practical ly, we would galu nothing by Cotigrvsslonal in tervention in our behalf—]o*e m illing for the want of it 3. Congr^**-intervention Is out Mccsury. Our protection is ample, if tho Constitution of tha United States ran be enforced u the Terri* tom-'. If the Constitution cannot, bow can statute*/ Viewed in any and every aspect, ail question# touching shivery in tb territoriea, uinat finally, if prosecuted to the end, he deter mined by tho Court#. Whether they arise under territorial net# or upon a coufllct botweon them and the Congressional laws, no legislative device cau place them beyond the reach of the Judicial arm. 1h slavery safe, in tho territoriea, under the Constitution without Congressional interven tion for its protection? Or if not, will. u uch inter vention place up in abetter situation? A slaveholder removes with hie negroes into a territory of the United States. Ho tbiro meets a territorial act abolishing slavery, and, under a writ of Habeaa Corpus, nis slave- claim their freedom—mollis right* Impaired- tan he be •tripped of hi* property? According to*tho do ci*ion of the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott cigw, he cau sustuiu no damage; f"r tho Court there decided that a territorial Legislature has no power, under the C'onstittftion, to abolish slavery. Hut suppose he finds no law. either abolishing PEYTON H. COLOIJITT~ I JAMES W. WARREN, (Editor! Number 20 or protecting #l*vcry, nrd tb* statute bo<k en tirely ailent on the aubjeo . Undvr tbia irate of things, hi# uegro is emievd away, tilcn,cru •Uv maimed or killed—Lai the owner ai.yritne dy? To answer thii queitlon t orroedy on prin ciples, it roust be b jrne iu mind that the slave i# his owner*# property that tbe Constitution of tbe United btate# racogn'tei him aa prrptrty In the a feature of remaJinl statutes, Common law aotiom may be instituted fur tbe erfforrenu n> ol recoijniee i righi? and ilm rac'reri of wrongs uu..* to property. In England tboiu being no written Constitution, n atututo of Parii&mct.t ii supreu o; tbe highest authority knowu to tb* government of Great Britain. Hence, whenever a statute gives a right, tho common law affords a lose*#** rv and proper remedies. Tbia principle is so well settled, thnt it i# funilliar to every intulii gem lawyer. Now suppose ti e I‘arl Htmm ot England should, by express si mute, reaguiac slavery and declare A rlnfeo to ho hi# owmr’s ] roperty, can it be doubted that, even in tee ab sence oi statutory remedies, tho cutntuofl action would lie, for the lull protection of the right* of tiie slaveholder and tin* redraft of wrung* done re that property? Nuw look nt the question under cousid* ration in the light ot analogy. Iu tho United titntes, the constitution is the supreme law of the land. It recognize# e aves as property— it extends over tbo Territories nnd carries the recognition there; so tha* though the. territorial statute hook id si lent, yet by virtue of the constitution a slave is Lis owner*? /> pet ty in nr y Territory of the Uni tod (States. Then upon principle# are not tho “MBmon law remedies ndequa: lor Li# protec tion? If he loses his slave (he run# away or is stolen jand it i found in tho po-sesrion of toother can he not bring the common law action of tro ver, for the recovery ot hi#/iw/jfrfy? If his slave is maimed or killed, may Le not use the action of trespass on tho case and oldaiu red re*# in damages, Dr tho injury done to hi- property ?~ If common Inw notion# will not lie, surely such will lie ns are p escr bod by tho territorial legis lature for the protection ot property generally.— If the Dred Scott case hud uover arisen. I would feel less confidante; but it Is so broad that the proposition**xprtsely affirmed, or those nt-cessa rdy d* ucible lr< ui iLvui cover almost every question that can arise in relation to riavery Lo .king tu thui decision, Congressional interven tion cannot | Let, tho South in a better situation, tnn she is and.r h. Tie territories are either s vercigu, ms coutvu-bd for ou the one side, and thtref>ru havo üb*> line p< wer over tbe whole subject. **r ibuy are nt, as our rido insist, and the ref rw Lmv •• no pnwtr to abolish slavery or impair the rights of the slaveholder. If they are a .vertigo, th t <i>t luwc lor our protection pas? eihyCoigr ► woola Le void; but the Dred Hcott case sm i.s ;Le quesr t'<o of Territorial sov ereignty iu our fsvor, and therefore hey I ave no consiituti nnl power mi vet so to the rights of the Botuh. Consequently* the intervention of Congren* is wholly unnecessary. It would not place us iu a be: er condition. Hence it wai* better for tho South to rely upon the coustitution and the Dred bcoti case than to go before a free soil Congrea# with the vain cDniaudforits friend ly interposition. When the lamb can trust the Lion tor protection, then may tbe South ask Congress to throw over slavery ashcltering #ogis. 4. Few, at tbe South, deny the power of Con gress to pass I..W# for tire protection of slave property in the territories—l oertaiuiy do not.— But it is denied by many of the strongest intel lect# in tbe United Matos. Indeed, throughout the on tiro ex tout of the free labor States, thoru are but few who do not doubt it, nnd many ablo lawers be.ieve in the doctrine of Territorial #ov. ©reignty. If, then, wo awiird to others ihe same honesty which we claim for oarsrlvc*, we must admit that the right of Congress to intervene for tbe protection cf slavery D questionable. Therefore, when the South demands u, #Lr assumes an altitude of very doubtful policy. Sbe affords tbe freesoilers a plausible pretext to say she yields jurisdiction on tho subject of slavery bicb she has always denied. Sbo depart# from bee cherhthed doctrine cf strict construction by asking the exercise of n questionable power.— Sbo surrenders hurself to the mercy of an infat uated fracaoii majority. In vow of tho “Com ral State Conveutiono, in their national party Conventions, in legislative resolves, in the Ketisss and Nebraska act, and understood by uil to be a eubuiission of tbo slavery question iu the Terri tories to the people thereof, “to form and tegu lato tbrrir institutions in their own way. subject only to the Coastitution of tbe United States”— the effect of pertisiingio auch n demand, will bo to break up the National Democratic party, and to array the people of the North agttiuat the South, organized into two great seetionai parties. This will very soou bring dissolution. I have no blind devotiou to the Union, but in my judgment there Is uow no exuting cause to ju’erify diavoiutiuu. I bavo shown that the prin ciplea of the Compromiso measure* covt.r all the issues we have made, including the tion.and p i Cungrcfcffiunalprutectiuu. Tbe Sou l his hour; u honor by hor ugrccmetit to acquiesce in ti. # measures until they shall be violated by Con gress. It is true the abuliuouii's rave, and per jured judge# disregard the obiikiat on# ot Con stitutional comp&cr, and fanatics canonize >dd John Brown and the Black R. publican hosts threaten tta with prospective victory in the “ir r. preasihlo conflict,” tut us yet Congress bae done uoiLtug in the catimuiiuu u. the £>outh vio -1 live of tbe principle# of the Compromise of *3O. For when K;*n>;a-* was refused admission undot ibcLeoouipton Constitution, the English bill wa? passed with the concurrence and approt ai of tho rep esontatives of the riouth. Oougrc*e therefore, has <1 -no* nothing of which wo complain, and h- u. as no evidence or infidelity on tue part of tha Northern Democracy to the principles of the Compromise of IS6O, as they wtround rstood by all parties at the time of their adoption. True, they aro in power iu but very few of the free la bor States, true they canuot silcnoe the rage of the abuludonists nor resist the swelling flood ot Black Republicanism. That is their uiisfortuno rather than tboir fault, and furnisher no reason why we should abandon the common ground ol Compromise <>n which wohnve agreed with them tn stand. With tfceir co operation, we m*y be ablo to maintain our right? in the Union; without it is somreeiy possible. I look ut the position of in the light of the Comproroitkii t* which abe Las deliberately yielded fn in December 18-jO down to the proa on-., in order to define her best policy. I hud no sgency in putting her iu that poisilion. 11 bon urui-ly relvusod fn m the übiigstiuii# it imposes, my * pinion of her true- policy would be very dif trei:i, nud my lut'guugc un mdted by a more fi rv ffpitit. i opp* #o<t ibe mvusurvi ol 1860, and if wo stood How where wo stood then, I would ihit.k ><i and speak a I did in that time ol stormy debate ad advice tde SoU'ii uc\ or to ninks ibe B. r reuder which tbev exacted. Bui, as a tribute of devotion to the Union, ibe did it. Georgia, in Ur wisd.iut, ordaiged that she w uld acqukvee In tho policy of leaving t e poo pl. of tho lerr l< rUa pvrlectly free t** regulate iu quesdon of slavery ‘ in tbier own way. sub joct only to tho Conatliuth nos the United estates “ A* a loyal son, I bow to that determi nation, and us oiic JcnU ua of Lcr honor. I feel that good faith r quires her to stand by wbaf she has done, bhe ia plejgcd by the “Uoorgia plat form’’ to disrupt, if ceituiu tbiDg* be done by the other party to the Compromise. Let her notsaek to bold them to the I ond whilst ebcdemands n.W couditiouß at their hoods. I have no words of censure for those who differ from me—nor sentence of condemnation to pro nounce upon those of the Georgia delegation who secoded from the Charleston Convention—nor malediction ogaiost any who felt it to be then duty to follow tho lead of Alahntna. They were animated by patriotism and a burning tool -for the rights of tho Svuth. I think they erred in their conception of our true position and tbepoU icy which it indicutes, but their error challenge* my respect, because it was on the aide of our own hearthstone. There is no difference of sentiment in the South, as in the object u- wish to accomplish, tee d*Mrr. tnfrty in th* Un row if poastlk. Our division# are in relation to the beat means to t-fleet our object, If we cun harmonise upon *u*b as are reasonable and conservative, we may succeed—without it we cannot Let us tiieti, as a point of primary importance, culti vate the spirit of tolerance, and eschew every thing which tends to divide the South. Hence l am animated by no feeling ol Ulecord when I venture llie opinion 1 hat w should have a Democratic State Convention immediately, to settle the pidiev of tho parly, in the existing emergency—uot to condemn nor censure any body. hut to conai-'er the Frtsainentinl qne*- tion cnlnily and dispassionately. and deude vvhelhoror uot Wti will adhere to the National Democracy and upon what term*. That ton ventiou may return the same delegate, or ap point others, with definite instruction*, or rat ify the action of the recedera. Cut as 1 is im portant to prtnervt tho integrity ol'the National Democratic parts*, we ought to he represented Jin the adjourned ruet-ting at Baltimore. Ti*e political element', are in confusion; the count y ta in peril; all our surrounding* call for calm nes* and wisdom tu council, prudence and