Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

Lausas liters.—Fv*<cli t-f Hr. TtUuiil.—\*-• ^eigntyiu 1*4. We had no now theory on that diraflon of the President. [ subject. We said: “Here is a law excluding ns Remarks of Hon. Robert Toombs, of Georgia, in ! from the T-.-rritorh -: rc.-ea! it." After con-nit*- the United States Senate, on Tuesday, tiie ‘id of February, on the motion to refer the special message of the President, communicating the constitution of KauBas, to the Committee on Territories: Mr, President, but for the character of the as sault -which the honorable senator from Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull] has thought proper to make on the message of the President of the United States, I should have been content to let it go to tlib coun try and vindicate itself; but on account of the na ture of that assault, I deem it to be my duty to express my hearty co-operation with the policy which the message vindicates , and at the same time to express my gratification at the signal abil ity and power with which the great principles lying at the bottom of that policy have been presented to the American people by the Chief Magistrate of the L'nicn. He has proposed to the American Congress, as becomes bis duty under the constitution, that the Territory of Kansas be admitted to her place as one of the sovereign States of the Union. His policy is that it shall be done now. Upon the point that Kansas ought to be admitted into the Union, it seems that all the people of Kansas, and all the representatives of the people of the United States, iu both houses of Congress, for the last three years, have agreed. Since 1856, there ap pears to have been no question with any portion of the inhabitants of Kansas that it was their de sire to„come into the Union. A large portion, said to be a majority by those gontlenn n who repre sent what is kuow-u as the republican party, form ed for themselves, nearly three years ago, a con stitution known ns the Topeka constitution, aud came here and asked for admission into the Union under that instrument. A very considerable por tion of both houses of Congress, a majority in the other branch, a* I a large minority in this, voted to admit Kansas into the Union under what was known as the Topeka constitution. Another por tion of the people of Kansas, acting under the authority of the territorial government, and in obedience to law, took no partin the action on the Topeka constitution. Then the territorial legisla ture submitted the question to all the people of Kansas, whether they would come into the Union or not, anda verv large majority of the then inhab itants said they desired to come into the Union. In e< nformity to their wishes, thus expressed, the ter ritorial legislature called the Uecompton conven tion. That convention met iu pursuance of this set of the legislature, which had for its authority the expressed w ill of the people ot Kansas at an election where all had an opportunity of voting, and where, as far as I am informed, no man com plained that he had not a fair opportunity of vo ting. Then, those of the people who were on the side of law and order, on the side of the territo rial government recognised by every department of the government of the United States, said: “We, too, desire admission into the Union.” In 1850 this body seeing that this w as the de sire of all parties in Kansas, the Topeka party being before us with a constitution seeking ad mission, and believing it to be illegal and not in proper form to justify her admission into the Un ion, other propositions were then made Irom vari ous quarters. The Senator from New York, [Mr. Seward,] acting in behalf of the friends of the Topeka constitution, the senator from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas, j probably other senators, and my self, suggisted plans for doing that which it was settled everybody in Kansas wanted us to do, and everybody here was willing to do, if we could agree on the mode of doing it. I say, therefore, the admission of Kansas is conceded to be neces sary, proper, and desirable, by all the people of Kansas, and also by ail the representatives of the sovereigns among whom sue desires to take her place. Then, I suppose, there can be no difficulty about so much of the policy of the President as recommends that Kansas shall be admitted into the Union. Waiving all question as to the number of ber people, for various and sufficient reasons, it is admitted on all iiauds that it is proper to admit her into the Union. The point of dispute is, how shall she be admitted? The ’ President of the United States says she ought to be admitted under the Lecompton constitution. Why? Why ought she to be admitted under that constitution rather than under the Topeka constitution .’ The President stales historical tacts, w hich no man can deny. Those persons who framed the Topeka constitu tion, for reasous which I do not pretend to say were true or false, as I am simply giving the his tory of the affair, said: “We we will trample un der foot the territorial legislature and the sena tor from Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull,] to-day, endor ses aud defends their action for doing so: “We wiil not recognise this government; we assume that we are a majority of the people, and we claim, propria rigore, by virtue of being a majority of the people of the United States in the Ter ritory of Kansas, that we can make our own constitution not only without law, but against law, and demand admission into the Union, even against the existing government of the Territory.’’ That I deny ; that the President denies. There is the issue, and it is a grave issue. It is an issue lying at the very foundation of public liberty— an issue that will survive this question, aud a thousand such. The President says Kansas ought to be admit ted under the Lecompton constitution, because it comes with legality; it comes clothed with the dignity of representing the will of the majority, legally expressed. That is the ground on which be puts it. What, then, are the historical facts ? The Topeka constitution is avowedly in opposition to the existing government. Its supporters made that declaration everywhere, and have boasted of it until this moment. It is a pretended govern ment, organised iu opposition to the territorial government, which, as I before stated, Las been recognised by the President, by his predecessor, by both branches of the last Congress aud of this Congress, by every department of legitimate gov ernment, aud by a republican House of .Represen tatives themselves; for at the last session of Con gress both houses voted for the payment of the ter ritorial legislature. I say the validity of the ter ritorial legislature was recognised by the former Executive, Mr. Pierce, and has been recognised by the present Executive. It has been recognised by; the Senate and House of Representatives. Every department ot this government has recognised it, except Topeka, if that be a department ot the gov ernment. If parties be referred to iu this connex ion, I say that it-has been recognised by the dem ocratic parly, aud also by the republican party. Every department of this government, aud all the party organizations, have recognised the legality of the territorial government; and if tney had not, it could be well and easily maintained upon irre fragable legal principles. No man. 1 suppose, de nies our right to make a territorial government of come sort. No man denies that we have made such a government for Kansas, that we have had governors, judges, marshals, aud constables there that we have had a code of laws and been acting under them, and have upheld them but too vigor ously, according to the account of the senator from Illinois. Such being the fact, the opposing constitution is a rebellious constitution, made by men in hostility to the laws of the laud, as the President lias justly aud truthfully said. The friends of the Topeka constitution stand here to oppose the admission ot Kansas under the Lecompton constitution ; and they tell us, in the first place, that it violates theVundamental prin ciples of toe Kansas-Neb/aska act. I have a few words to say on that act. J know something of its history and its object, but I shall take it only as it is on the statute book. Its em-ruies have turn ed its expounders. It is not to be supposed that they have expounded rightly that which has al ways met their opposition. Four years ago there was a great clamor laised when we attempted lo pass that act, although it was based upon princi ples which have been affirmed by every branch of this government; affirmed by the executive, by the legislative, and by the judicial departments, and sanctioned by the people at the popular elec-* tious. When we passed the Xansas Nebraska act in Ic51 there was a greater clamor raised than, I think, can be gotten up on tills question of the admission of Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton Constitution, even .w ith the opposi tion of the senator from Illinois, .[idr. Douglas.] What was the question on which such violent denunciations were made, on which the people were told that liberty was trampled under foot; on which the North was called to the rescue, aud an appeal was made to the freemen of that section that their liberties were taken away, that the South was making aggressions on them, aud that they were duugh-faoes if they submitted? We came to establish territorial governments for Kansas and N< braska, tun representatives of southern States of this Union, who have the insti tution of slavery in their midst, recoguis 'd by tbeir laws, affirmed that great principle which, after all these struggles and troubles, has been ended by the proudest and the speediest vindica tion that ever a great truth gut from an incited Cud prejudiced community. We simply a**ked you to put no prohibition upon us or our property. We sought no advantage over you; but we said: “this is common territory, and we simply ask that while it is iu a territorial condition we •hall be allowed to go there with our property, And you with your property, aud for s. civil •ociety ; aud we will give you all the great ad vantages which ar j offered by a territorial govern ment, of protection and peace, until you are strong enough to protect yourselves and come in to the Union.” We simply asked that there should be no prohibition on us, or our institutions, or property. That was all our demand; and the South then asked for hut one thing in reference to that bill. In ;S2'J, in thu Sih section of the aet known as an act to admit Missouri into the Union, and for other purposes, there was a clause that slavery, or involuntary servitude, except for Crimes, should never exist in this Territory. We ■aid ‘ Repeal that, because it is unconstitutional.” We came to the legislative foiuru; we went to the legislative forum; we went to the executive forum; we went to the judicial forum; we went to the popular forum; and eveiywaere wo have received the verdict in our favor by the fair judg. meet of honest men North and South. That was *11 we demanded. The clause which si ems to bo eboue of contention, and to have created trouble, *nd to have been bandied about between politi cian*, about popular sovereignty, was no part or jiarcel of the d'-mand of the object of the bill. We were not then to be taugbt popular sovereignty. lion, the democratic parly, with a large body of the wings, said : “We will repeal it, because it is unjust.” It was repealed by gentlemen of the North and the South, constituting a large majority of this house, and a majority of the other, and maintained, as I have said, subsequently, by the judiciary and the people. The effect of that re peal would have been to leave the people, when they might come to make their State constitution, free to make a government to suit themselves; and, in the mean time.it would admit everybody, and protect everybody, while it was, under the government of the United States, common proper ty. We declared that when they came to ask ad mission iuto the Union, and cl. the themselves with the attributes of soverciguty, they should be protected iu making a government to suit them selves and coming into this Union, with or with out slavery, as their constitution might prescribe. This was all we wanted, but it was said by gen tlemen from the northern States that this would be the subject of misrepresentation, that this simple repeal might possibly revive the pro-slavery laws of Louisiana, and whether it did or not, it would be so charged by the adversaries who were raising a clamor throughout the whole North, aud therefore they asked us to let the bill interpret, itself upon this point. That was the sole reason for the intro duction ofthe sentence which seems now tube made in many quarters the chief of the corner. It was a legislative interpretation of the effect of repealing the eighth section of the act of 182(1. We desired nothing more than that repeal, and this legislative interpretation was intended to pre vent misrepresentation in the country. It was said “it will be charged that by repealing the act of 18‘2U we restore the slavery laws,” and many gentlemen supposed that might he the effect. That, however, was not our object. Holding the principle which I did, and the great body of the geutlcmen with whom 1 acted, that Slav ry was lawful wherever it was not prohibited, 1 was con tent to unite with those who held tile contrary doctrine, that it was lawful now here except where it was expressly allowed by statute. Being willing to stand on my own principles, arid legis late on my principles, and take the consequences of standing on them, I said, “all 1 ask of you is a tabula rasa, therefore, if this can be construed as having the effect you fear: if it can be injuriously construed against you in the non-slaveholding St-stes of the Union; if it will tend to raise a prejudice against you on this question, and stand iu the way of your carrying out this great princi ple of constitutional law, put the fair interpreta tion in the hill and let it speak for itself.” Hence, we injected what a distinguished member of the other House, and for a long time a distinguished member of this body, said was a stump speech, into the bowels of the bill It waste prevent misrep resentation of it, as 1 once had occasion to say to the honorable senator from New York, [Mr. Seward.] That was the sole motive: that clause was that it was: “The true intent and meaning of this act is not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof peifectiy free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States.” They were left perfectly free to make their own institutions without interference from Congress, which had assumed iu 1S2U the right to prescribe to them that they should not. In 182:1 Congress said, “no matter if every man in Kansas, if every man in Minnesota, desires to make his institutions to suit himself, on the subject of slavery, he shall not be allowed to do so, but we will do it for them.” Congress assumed, as a matter of conscience, that it was its duty to do this for the people. To that we objected. We denied the power and the policy. Upon the question ol power we have been main taiued by the courts, the expounders of the laws, about whom the senator from Illinois [Mr. TKtMliLXL | seems to think so little. On tiie policy of the measure we have been defended by the highest tribunal known to this country—the people. Who are the people? Those who are entianchised by the thirty-one sovereign States, who have a right to speak iu the government. 1 do not care whether they are white or black; I do not care whether they are rich or poor; I do not care for what reason any class may be excluded— I say it belongs to these thirty-one sovereignties to judge for themselves into whose hands they wiil commit civil power, into whose hands they will jdace the elective franchise We have appealed to them as “the people,” the only people known to the laws, the only people known to the consti tution, ‘‘perfectly free,” tree to execute tliis right according to law and in no other manner. The idea of the Topekaites, that under the Kan- sis-Nebraska act persons were to be allowed to vote at the ballot-box whenever thev thought proper, and that those who did not like the ter ritorial government might make a rebellion against it for themselves, is a “perfect freedom” that was discovered by the enemies of the bill: not by its friends. To this day none of the friends of the measure, none of its legitimate expounders, have ever held any such “perfect freedom” as that. That is a “perfect freedom” claimed by its enemies. They could not get their views endorsed here, nor iu the other house, nor before (tie courts, nor before the people: aud they have attempted to strangle a great measure, to which they are opposed, by interpretation. The question is a plain one. The iaw as written is easily interpreted. Who are “the people?" and how do they speak? We know of no people in this country except those recognised as such by law. Iu the formation of this govern ment. I believe Connect!Nit and Massachusetts were recognised as republican States, hut they put limitations on the right of suffrage; they excluded men from voting if they were not freemen of a town My own State excluded some because of their color and so did many of the non-slnveholding States. Rhode Island and Virginia cxclud“d men because they did not own land. North Carolina exciudeiV them for some purpose because they did not have land, and granted the franchise to the lack-landers for other purposes. She divided it between land holders and lack-landers. Other Stales excluded from the right of suffrage those who would not perform military duty. It was conceded that it was for the governing power to determine those who should share at the ballot-box in its exercise; and when they have spoken this government has nev er inquired iuto its rightfulness or its republican ism. Sir. this g overument never could have been formed on modern wisdom. It was formed on a very simple plan by those who met iu 1787. at Philadelphia. They found these various pro visions as to the qualifications of voters iu the thirteen sovereignties which met there to make a constitution. Massachusetts might have wanted her own rule; Rhode Island hefs; Virginia hers. My own State was more liberal in he.r franchise. ShehaJ hut one distinction. She gave politic 1 power to every man that bore on his face a white skin. We chose to make that a test. I know some gentlemen think it is unjust, hut wedo not. When we came into the Union the same test was made by two thirds of tin.* States, that the voters should be white. Some inserted an additional clause against the universal right of suffrage even by white men. by which thousands and tens of thou sands of men who fought for the liberties of the country, as we say in ordinary parlance, lived and died excluded from the right of ever depositing a single ballot iu the ballot-box. or once casting a vote at the hustings. The framers of the constitu tion said “we will notiix any rule; it is a local question: it is «ue w e cannot coutrol; it is Ltnposi- b'e for us to settle it; we will leave it to the States, and therefore we will g.;y that Whoever is entitled under .State laws to vote for members of the most numerous branch of the legislature in any ore- State, shall be entitled to vote for members of Con gress. That was a simple solution. The conven tion did not say to Virginia, you must include black people; it did not say to Massachusetts, you must exclude blacks; it did not say to Virginia, you must let in the lack-landers; hut it said to each State, determine for yourselves what portion ot your community it is safe to instrast w ith political powerand we will take your rule, and whoever your laws enfranchise for the most numerous branch of your legislature shall stand enfranchised for the officers of tliis government. That was the simple rule. When I speak-of the people of Kansas, I speak of the people whom the law lias declared are entitled to vote; who vote because the law gives the right. As fur inherent sovereignty, I know it not; it is an absurdity; rt is not an idea of govern ment: it is not an idea of liberty. It does not exist in nature. It exists nowhere but in the fancy or brains of some politicians who want to u oik them selves out of a dilemma by manufacturing a term. God gives nobody the right to vole; nature gives nobody the right to vote. 'Pen men necessarily have no natural right, and no Divine .right that J know of, to govern nine. It is a question of con vention. Mr. WADE. The people of Missouri seem to have that “Divineright.” Mr. TOOMBS. If they make any such claim, it is a bad claim. They may, like others, set up a had claim; but I do not think they claim any such thing in this case. I ain patting the question on numbers tluvn any other community I have ever | government from the day we passed the origins known. The Lecompton constitution was based t act uuiit this day, and 1 expect to hear it uutii the gn at fundamental principles that wiil liv, through all time and all ages. Missouri may vio late tie in; Ohio may violate them; but they will live as long as liberty is preserved. Those ndiom the constitution and the laws have enfranchised are the people, aud the only people meant ill legal sense—the only people anybody by any possibilitj- could racial ru this act. I ou did not mean chil dren, you did nofjmeaii idiots. Whom did pou mean? The people under the government you were making. Yon made a government, and de clared in the -act creating it w ho should be enfran chised, and how other people should he afterwards enfranchised. I say now it did not necessarily happen, aud perhaps it was impossible that it could happen in a single one of the thirteen original States of the Union, that its constitution was ever adopted by a majority ofits people, in fact or by ouusent; be cause most of them wore adopted by conventions, aud they were divided into districts for the purpose of electing delegates to the conventions. Popu lation is the usual rule for .such divisions. In our section of the country we usually take the federal population, including whites and blacks, according to the proportions recognised in the federal consti tution. You take numbers, but you do not by any means determine how many of them are vo ters. I thiak probably Kansas comes nearer to nr/mnaimr an nl.of.lnla iint-ul *•'■’* more n •nriy »*u th.it id--athan any which has cui.e under my - ovation. They obliterated county lines took a eeusns.and said we w ill have sixty members in the convention; we will take the whole population and divide it by sixty, aud give the sani“ proportion all over the Territory. I say that is more nearly according to mere numbers than any instance I have known. When we proclaimed that the people should be free to form their institutions, we declared who were the people w ho had the right to make institutions. They are made in our country by representation. We provided a government for this Territory; the people elected a territorial legislature, and they were to govern through that legislature until their admission into tha Union as a State and then tiie people whom the constitution enfranchised were the people intrusted with the power of making, altering, and changing their government. That is a plain proposition w hich nobody can mistake who will look at the iaw. That point was provi ded for in the very bill from which this clause is seized. It said that at the first election every citi zen of the United States over twenty-one years of age should vote and ail who had declared on oath their intention to become eitizens, and then that the first legislature should fix the right of suffrage uncertain limitations;and therefore “the people” meant by this clause of the act was expounded by the act itself. Then as the President properly states in bis message, the territorial government, thus acknowl edged, set out on the principle of the Kansas act that the people, acting according to law—the peo ple, acting through the government established by law—have this right. That government stands there to-day. It submitted to the people the pro priety of calling a constitutional convention. The people decreed that there should be a convention and the legislature called it. The convention met; the fruit of that convention is now before us. At this point objection is made, even by some gentlemen with whom 1 have acted heretofore in regard to this matter. They do not disagree with the President up to this point; but they say the constitution ought to have, been submitted to the people. Why? From whence do you derive the idea that it must be submitted' I do not pretend to say that it may not be so submitted, but I bold that is a point to be determined by the law-making power. I admit that it may be submitted, and it must be submitted, if the law so wills it. If the territorial law calling the convention had decreed that the constitution should be subuiited to a pop ular vote, the work would he incomplete without submission. If the convention itself hail declared that it should be so submitted, it would be incom plete without that sanction because it would have iacked a sanction, required bylaw. This however lacks no sanction of law. The convention determined to put the i/uestio cexita the qestioii of slavery, before the people, and they submitted no other question. They saw that eighteen States had been admitted into the Union with constitutions framed by conventions. They saw from all your enabling acts, beginning with that of Ohio, iu 18d2, up to this day, no such requirement was ever made by this govern ment until it was slipped-somehow or other in to the Minesota bill. They saw that in no ena bling act had such a requirement been demand ed by Congress as essential to the validity of a State constitution. It was not required by the territorial law, nor by the cooventioti. Hence 1 sav there is an absence of all foundation for the idea that there is such a necessity unless you get it somehow else. Where are you to get it fioiu? It is not in the law of Congress; it is not in the ac tion of Congress; it is not iu the territorial law calling the convention; it is not in the constitution itself Where, then, do you get it from? You must go to the “higher law” ofthe honorable gentleman from New York, and there you will not find it.— Go anu look at the revelation of which he speaks, and it is not there. Go to the only utterance of his that I know of, and it is not there. Go, then, to Nature, from the beginning of the world, and she gives no such utterance. Where are you to get it? It is faction: it is demagogism. It is noth ing else; it has no warrant in law; none iu philoso phy. none in nature, and none in the revealed will of God. The Kansas convention thought proper to sub mit a portion of the constitution to the people.— The President says that in his opinion, according to his construction of the act, they were bound to submit the slavery question. In that I think lie is mistaken; because 1 have shown you what we meant by “the people;” and when the people act they act through organization; they act through the legislature; they act through the convention; and tilts action of the convention is the ac ion of the people themselves. It is the imbodimeut of their sovereignty. Millions of people have been born under the constitutions of Georgia and other States, which never had this essential prerequisite of popular sanction as it is now considered. Mr. Doolittle. Wiil the honorable Senator al low me. on tiie point he is discussing, to ask a single question? Mr. Toombs. With great pleasure. Mr. Doolittle. My question is. from what source do you derive tiie legal authority of the convention to forma constitution at all? From the legislature of the Territory? Mr. Toombs. Entirely from the legislature of the Territory. If the authority came from Con gress, we should be bound by any propositions we made If it comes from the territorial legislature, we may accept or reject the propositions. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I will put one further in quiry. If the legal authority of the convention was Derived from the legislature of the Territory, has not the legislature of the Territory, until the State is admitted into the Union, the legal power of legislation still for the (state: and may not the legislature pass a law submitting the constitution to the people of the Territory? May it not he done by any legislature, as well as the original legis lature which authorized the calling of the conven tion? Mr. TOOMBS. I think not, aud for very obvious reasons. The legislature called this con vention together, and it lias performed its duty, and the people voted upon the question submitted to them before the aciion of the legislature, to which the senator from Wisconsin lias referred, took place. Then the previous law was executed, and the constitution wanted nothing but the action of Uongresss to become the fundamental law. It wits then too late for the territorial legislature to interfere. It could not then affect the constitu tion. It might provide for calling another con vention, and bringing another convention lu re, if it chose, but as far as the constitution then formed was concerned, the law providing for it was an executed law and nothing could be done under it except to elect State officers, and its validity did not depend on that. That is my view of it. Mr. DOOLITTLE. As a matter of fact, I un derstand that the election which was to come off under the schedule of the convention liidnottake place until after the legislature had provided by iaw for another election. Mr. TOOMBS, Before the action of that legis lature the election ou the constitution took place on the 21st of December; and the conven ion, having exhausted its powers, passed the matter back to the peop.e. Whether the action of the legislature was belore or after that time, it w as incompetent for the legislature to interfere with tiiat work because it was executed when the convention dis missed it, aud they had nothing more to do except to submit one clause of it, according to its own terms, to the* people, all the rest was perfect. Then, neither the legislature that gave the power could revoke it, nor any subsequent legislature take it away. After this digression, I coinc back to the point I w as arguing, and propose to show that my con struction of the Kausas-Nebraska act was the cotempoianeous construction given by its friends. I hold ill my hand a bill introduced into this body bv myself in l85(i, which, with some amendments, passed this body by a vote of three-fourths; but the other house substituted for it a provision admit ting Kansas with the Topeka constitution. To show that it was not understood to he the true intent and meaning of this act that the constitu tion should receive any popular sanction, I w ill mention that, when the senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas*] and other gentlemen, wiih myself, proposed to end this disturbing difficulty by bring ing Kansas into the Union in 1856, the bill w hich passed tliis body read thus: “That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered ta4.be said convention of the people of Kansas for their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the convention, shall be obligatory on the United State s and upon the said Slate ot Kansas,” We passed an enabling act, and went on to declare that a convention biiould be called to make a constitution; and we proposed to that convention to accept certain terms and conditions. We did not require that they should submit the constitu tion formed by them to the people. This was the true intent and meaning ot the act, as thus inter preted by its friends two years after its passage; as interpreted by tiie Senate by a majority of three to one—an interpretation adopted by every one of its friends in the House of Representatives, and by many gentlemen from other political organizations, who affirmed tliis to be the true hi tent aud meaning of the aet—that submission of tiie constitution was Hot a requirement of the Kansas-Nehraska act. This was an authoritative exposition, made by tiie original friends of that measure, aud by other gentlemen w ho were then members of Congress, and would have been the law of the laud but for tiie republican majority in the other house, who defeated it by substituting for it a proposition to ailmit Kansas with the Topeka constitution. I have not only shown tiiat the interpretation I have put on tiie Kausas-Nebraska aet is the just interpretation, according to the philological con struction of the sentence, according to common sense, according to ail legal rules of interpretation, but 1 have show n a legislative interpretation by ali its friends when they attempted to carry it out. I hope therefore, that there is an end to the ques tion as to the true intent and meaning of the Kan- sas-Nebraska act on this point. It did no: require a popular Sanction for the constitution before admitting the State into the Union. It did not. however, prevent such sanction if required by the convention. I shall only advert to one other point. We are told that the Lecompton constitution is a fraud; that there was cheating at the polls; that there was cheating at some crossing, and cheating at Leaven worth; and that there were bogus votes. I have Kansas shall be admitted into tiie Union. I do notiiiii nd ki deny or affirm the truth of these .il legal ions. 1 think there are very few new com- inimiti s, very few excited communities, where voting is done by ballot, anywhere in the United States, where there is not a large amount of cheat ing. We have heard of such things iu the Stite of California; it has been alleged that in the city of San Francisco corruptions of this kind were car ried on to a great extent. Iu tiie old, virtuous civilized city of New York, the commercial metropolis of the Union, it is alleged every day, aud sometimes proven. Oue branch of Congress is now exercised on a w holesale fraud alleged to have taken place in the city of Baltimore. I do not know how that is; lam passing no judgment on it. I have one answer, which I think is a complete one, to all these allegations. If there be frauds ai elections, in all well constituted government* tribunals are made to try them and correct them; and there let them go. The Baltimore election of members of Congress is tube passed on by the other house. It there be allegations affecting the election of a senator ofthe Untied States, the qn*s tiou is to be settled here. It there has been fraud in the electiuu of members of the senate or house of representatives of the legislature of Kansas the matter can be passed upon by those bodies respectively when tiie .State shall have been admit ted iuio tiie Union. That is the tribunal set up by law for the decision of such questions. There and, there alone, they can be decided. This body, 1 trust, will never undertake whether or not there have been frauds in the elections of Kansas- It the proceeding is legal primafacie, ifprima facie it is fair, our dory ends. When the m- mbor hum the new State, elected liv its people, takes his seat in the ocher house, that body may investigate the circumstances ul his election. When the senators elected by the legislature ofthe new State corns here, this body can determine the legality of their election. Every legislative body is the proper tribunal to decide questions affecting the elections of its mem bers. it is the only tribunal which the experience of tw enty centuries has shown can he safely in trusted with any such power. The ablest of Euglishjurists, the ablest parliamentarians, have always held—and we find it deeply imbedded in the privileges of the British Parliament, in the privileges conferred ou each houses of Congress by our constitution, in tire privileges of every State legislature, anu inherent in every town Public fleeting. Jasper Ga., Feb’y 2d. 1858. A-f online: to previous notice, a meeting of the citizens i f Pickens eoun'y, was held to take im6 consideration the Acts of the last Legislature and the ret • Message of Governor Brown ou the ques tion of legalizing the suspension of specie pay ments by the Bauks. The meeting was organized by calling W. H. Gordon, Esq., to the Chair, and requesting William Tate, Esq , to act as (secretary. Upon motion, W. T. Day, was called upon to explain the object of the meeting, which he did iu a few brief remarks. Upon motion of W. T. Day, Esq., tiie Chairman appointed a Committee of live, consisting ot W. T. pav, Esq., Abraham Crow. Moses Jones, Jas. Bruce, and J. Shelton, to prepare matter for the action of the meeting. The Committee then asked permission to retire to make up their report, which was granted. In a short time the Committee returned antTof fered as tbeir report the following preamble and resolutions. Whereas, the Legislature, at its late session, having passed a bill, legalizing the late Bank suspensions iu this State, or in other words, sus pending tiie p- ual operation of the Act ot 1810, in relation to the forfeiture of the several bank char ters, on account of their refusal to redeem their bills, in gold and silver coin on demand, and Gov ernor Brown, in the discharge of his duty, having thought proper to withhold his signature from the bill, and the Legislature having passed the bill by a constitutional majority through both branches of the General Assembly, and it being the right of the people to declare their approbation or disap probation, of all laws passed by the General As sembly, and to approve or condemn the acts of all public officers iu the discharge of their duty, either in public meetings called for that purpose or oth erwise: Therefore, be it Resulted, That the people of Pickens county, unanimously aud most cordially approve ofthe action of Governor Brown in vetoing the bill le galizing the late bank suspensions iu this State. We expected that much from him; we would have been satisfied with nothing less; that the principles set forth in his veto Message are fully approved of by this meeting, and will live and be cherished b> the people, as long as they know how to appreciate a free and republican form of government, giving equal rights to all—exclusive privileges to none—that Governor Brown is en titled to the generous confidence of the people of Georgia, for his able and impartial vindication of the right against the wrong, bolstered as it was meeting—that a legislative body is to judge for | by |j 1( ? great monied power of the State: that we itself of the election, returns, and qualifications ofj have undershakeu confidence in the honesty, in ks members. Without this principle, represents- tegrily. patriotism, intelligence and statesman- live bodies could not live an hour. If you have a | like abilities of Governor Brown, who will with case of fraud in the election of members ofthe legislature, lake the question there for decision. If a ou have such a case iu regaid to the election of a representa.ive in Congress, take it to the other house. If you have such a case as to the election of a member of this body, bring it here. Ifitlie true that these bodies are so corrupt that they will not decide the questions properly, it proves that we are incapable of self-government; and I. for oue, siiail not admit that for any purpose whatever. They are the judges of such questions—theabso- luie and sole judges. Every member here holds his seat by this principle. If you admit one that such class legislation meets our unqualified wrongfully it cannot be controverted anywhere; | disapproval. but the presumption is, that your decision is right. 3d Resolved, That the bill legalizing the bank Society could not live an instant if unjust judg-1 suspensions in this State, was a palpable and di luents were not executed as w ell as just ones, reel violation of tha Constitution as well as an Does the supreme tribunal of any Stan- or country ! outrage upon an injured people: unconstitutional in the world always decide rightly? Nobody pre- i because-*/ is a law impairing the obligation of con tends that. But there must ho finality; there must | tracts between the banks and the bill holders, he a tribunal to decide, or there is no government j The passage of the bill was an outrage upon the at all; and therefore had judgments must be on-, people, became the principal inducement for the forced as well as good ones as long as they stand, I people, to sacrifice their property, tiour cotton, until alte red according to the forms of law. j binds and negroes, and property of every descrip- M v reply to the allegation of fraud is, that this ! tiou, and take-in exchange therefor “bank bills was constitution comes from a regularly-constituted,, the express condition that they should have legal government. The convention was called j the right to have the hank charters forfeited at for by a vote of tin* people, on the question being ] the expense of the STATE, in the event that the submitted by their legislature. Delegates were ; banks should fail or refuse to redeem their bills elected by the people, and the convention met and j on demand in gold or silver coin, this being the framed a constitution. They submitted that j most available remedy, and the only one of any portion of it which they thought proper to the j practicable advantage. In a financial crisis like people for approval, and it. has received their ap-: the present we think it great injustice at the very proval. It stands on every form of legality. The * time that the people are wronged, tin ir property law, the peace of the country, the right, demand : sacrificed tor hank bills, and the banks refusing that tin-policy of the 1’residdnt shall be sternly j to redeem them AT Tills TIME, for the legislature upheld by the representatives of the States arid ' to interpose, and by thu strong arm of usurpation, of the people. | deprive the people, the bill holder, of his vested . . ’ ~~ > rights, and snatch from him the only available A lanfcrr in a Cotton llill. i remedy he has-against the banks. Such an out- A raw. straw-hatted sandy-whiskered, six-footer —on*- ofthe purely uninitiated, came in yesterday from Green with a load of wood for the Factory Company. Having piled his wood to tire satis- rage is unparalleled in the history of leg.station. 4th. Resulted That we approve of the course faction of the overseer, he bated his team with a bundle of green glass, brought all the way from home for that purpose, and then having invested a portion of his wood proceeds in root-beer and gingerbread at Ham’s In* started to see the “city” —filling his countenance rapidly with bread and chewing it rapidly as he went. lie reviewi d the Iron foundry and machine strop, aud was just opposite the warp mill as the hands were going in from dinner. Th hurrying in, as only factory girls can hurry—and Jonathan, unaccustomed to such an array of plaid shawls and hood bonnets, deposited his goad stick on the stairs, and stalked in to see what the trouble The clattering machinery and the movements of the operatives bew ildered him for the moment; hut being of an inquiring turn of mind, and seeing much that was calculated to perplex one whose ob- serva.iun in mechanics hail been mostly confined to threshing machines and corn sliellers, he began I lllsll gerons inquiries in all direction this way lie made himself acquainted successively with the external aml| internal economy of various machines through which cotton-ivarp progresses in the cour-e of its manufacture—the picker, heat er, lap-winder, doubler, and speeder, and finally reached the breakers, and finishers, just as the card-stripper was going through the operation, technically termed “stripping the flats.” Induing this the large cvlender ol the card is exposed to view and is seen revolving with a very pretty buzz. Not content with contemplating the “poetry of motion,’" at a safe distance, our hero must no* Js. introduce himself between the cards, to get a near er view. This movement brought his nether ha biliments in dangerous proximity to the gearing of the next eard, and, “thereby hangs a tale.” “You—I saj'l She goes pooty—don't she bos.-?” said Jonathan inquiringly “She don’t do anything else,” responded the strippet; “but yon must be very careful how yov move around amongst this hard ware. *Twas only last week, sir, that a promising young man from Minot, a student at the Academy here, was drawn into that very card, sir, and before any assistance could reach him, he was run through, and manufactured into No. '6 “super-extra’ cotton warp yarn.” “I-s-s-sw ow! I believe you are joking?” stuttered Jonathan. “Fact sir,” continued stripper, “ and his discon solate mother came down two days ago aud got five bunches of that same yarn as melancholy lel- ics.,’ -- “I5y the mightyl that can't bo true!" “Fact, sir, fact,, and each of his follow students purchased a skein apiece, to bo set iu lockets, and worn in remembrance of departed worth.” “Is that the treuth mm*? Was he rt.ily keerded. spun, and sot hi lockets?” A sense of personal danger here shot across our hero’s mind, and lie began to retreat precipitately without waiting for an answer.—There was not much room to spate betwixt himself and the gear- ing of the card behind him. Another step back ward completed the ceremony of introduction. His uuwhisperables beiug of large calibre, the process of snarling them up into a hard knot was no ways slow. Jonathan gave tongue i us tauter and by the twentieth gyration of the embodiment the music was melodious. Gen. Scott, himself, could not have protested more forcibly against an “attack upon his rear." “O-h ! M-u-r-d-e-r! Let go—yeou h-u-r-t-! Blast your pictures—let go. Aiut ye ashamed? Git eoiit! Taint pooty, Daruatiou seize ye, let alone on me can’t yew, dew?” The gearing by this time had wound him np so that he was obliged to stand on tip-toe. HU hands were revolving vigorously behind him though he dared not venture them too near the “seat of war.” The card stripper threw off the belt, but the mo mentum cylcnder kept revolving, and the gacen’un supposing it iu full operation, burst out anew: ‘ Oh stop her! Stop lier, w on’t ye? Stop her dew! I aiut well, and 1 orforbe at home. Father wants the s eers, and mother's going to bake. Stop the tarnal nrasheen—can,t ye/ l)e» ? Oh dear. 1 11 be kearded and spun, and sot intew lockets! Je-ru-Sa lem how I wish I was tew hum!” The card was stopped at last, but Jonathan's clothes were so entangled in the gearing, that it was no small task toextricato him. Like Othello, he “was not easily moved,” and it was only' by cutting out the whole of the invested territory, that he was finally released. “What are you about Inert.,” inquired the over seer entering. “Nothing sir, only ‘snipping fiats,” answered the stripjRT. Jonathan, nut caring to resume his pursuit of knowledge under difficulties, a pair *f overalls were charitably loaned him aud ire starred with his steers ou a fast walk towards home, giving a series of short kicks, with either leg ae he went, as if to assure himself that he bad brought .away his full compliment of links from the “cussed sua- sheen.”—Hasten Yankee Made. dn That w< of our Senator, Uol. Tate, and our Representative, Maj. John E. Price ; that for their prompt opposi tion tu the late bank suspension bill, they are ell- tilled to the fullest confidence of tlicir constituents; any other course would have been upon their part, a betrayal ofthe confidence reposed iu them. 5th. Resulted That we are in favor of so alter ing the constitution of the State, as to t ike it out of the power of the legislature to legalize any bank suspension. After reading the report of the Committee, y were I Qol. \V. T. Day, made a very appropriate speech upon the subject ofthe late bank suspensions, Governor Brown’s veto Message, and referred to that beautiful pink of consistency in the city of Augusta, known as the Chronicle ifc Sentinel, some times known as the hired bank organ ofthat city, and also to another of the same stripe in the city of Savannah (the Savannah Republican). I le said it was a little remarkable that there was no intelligence no where but among the bank men. according to tlicir bank logic; that it matter ed not how much of a dunce a man was if he could * n I only get connected some way with the banking system of the Sure, there would be a mighty ray ot light ail at once loom and light up his pathway, lie also alluded to the powerful intiui ni.c that the monied corporation exercised over the legislation of the country ; after which the Resolutions were unanimously adopted. Fpon motion it w as further— 6th. Resolved, That the proceedings of this meeting be published in the Federal Union and Casstille Standard. Upon motion the meeting adjourned. \V. H. GORDON, Churn. William Tate, Sec’y. Anti-Bank Meeting in Campbell. At a larire respectable and enthusiastic meeting of the citizens of Campbell county, assembled in CampbelUou on the first Tuesday in February to take into consideration our uudiuiinished attach ment to our most exemplary Governor (Brown) in the firmness with which he would have strangled another minister, (though not of the Herculean frame of Andrew Jackson) who was unwilling that one should have survived another day or another hour, unless they did stand up square to the rack, and liquidate all their promises to pay. The meeting was organized by calling Wesly Caoip to tiie Chair, and requesting B. W. Yates to act as Secretary. Un motion of Col T. A. Latham, a Committee of five w as appointed to report matter for the ac tion of the meeting as follows: Matthew Reed, Wm. N. Magwirk. Alfred D. Davis, Stephen Bag gett, W. F. Devine. Alter a short intermission the Committee report ed the following- preamble and resolutions. We the Committee beg leave to make the fol low ing rtpoi t to-wit: Whereas at. the late session of the Georgia Leg islature a bill was passed making the late suspen sions of the Biliks in tliis State legal; And whereas Gov Brown, with Jivckson firmness, as the chief iu this Siato, did also add his veto; and whereas tiie General Assembly by a constitutional majority passed the bill over the Governor’s head, and it is now the law ufiliis State, in spite of our ster ling, watchful and cautious Executive, who Jackson-firmness discharge the duty he owes to the people of Georgia, notwithstanding the abuse of the thru air le and Sentinel and other hireling bank organs in the State. 2d. Resolved, That the bill granting relief to tin* suspended banks which protected them, and left the people in the clutches of the law, was un wise, unjust and impolitic and an outrage upon the rights ofthe people : a system of class legisla tion, tor the Uein fit of a few, at the expense ot the many which is in direct conflict with the spirit ’ cuius of our free and liberal institutions, and Ltller «f Baa. Hiram Warner. Greenville, Jan’v 15th, 1853. Dear Sir: In th ■ short interview T h<d the. hon or to ha\i. with you during the session ot the icg islature, in relatiou to Kansas affairs, which was interrupted by your official engagements, I did not have the opportunity to present my views as fully and distinctly as was desirable on my part, so as to enable you to have a clear understanding of them. While I have not the vanity to suppose that my individual opinions upon this, or any oth er question, are entitled lo any great considera tion ; yet it is always desirable to be correctly understood, and therefore avail myself of a leisure moment to express to you the views, which are entertained by me in relation to the Kansas Ne braska Act more fully, and in detail, as well as the reasons which have influenced my judgment in relation to that Act and its legitimate results in favor ofthe slave-holding States, when fairly and faithfully executed. The great fundamental prin ciples embodied in that Act. I fear have nut been duly considered and appreciated by our people. That Act was the obvious and necessary result of the compromise measures of 1850. The South yielded much in that compromise, an d as you are well aware. I was in favor of abiding by it, not because it wase“wis liberal and just” to the South, but because it embraced the great principle of non-intervention by Congress with the question of slavery, aud partially nullified the Missouri restric tion offlth March, 1820. I say partially nullified the Missouri restriction, which declared that slavery should befircrer prohibited north of thirtv-six di- greesYind thirty minutes, because one of the com promise measures, to-wit: the Act organising the Territory of New Mexico which embraced aeon siderable portion of Territory within its limits, covered by the Missouri restriction, declared that said Territory “shall be received into the Union wirh, or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe, at the time of their admission.” 9th U. S. Statutes 417. The Act organising the Territory of New Mexico, you will perceive treat ed the Missouri restriction as a nullity to the ex tent of the Territory covered by that restriction, embraced in that Act. The Kansas Act is only declaratory ofthe great principle of noninterven tion by Congress with the question of slavery, as having been already settled, when it declares that the Missouri restriction, “being inconsistent with the principle of nonintervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories as recognized by the legislature of 1856, commonly called the compromise measures is hereby declared inopera tive utid void, it being the true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery into any terri tory or State, nor to exclnde it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States.” Allow me to call your attention to other provisions of the Kansas act. I hav-* heard it as serted !>y southern gentlemen, both in and out of Congress, that there was no law in Kansas for the protection of slave property, wi'hout provision be ing made, therefor, by the territorial legislature Those who place such a construction upon the Kansas act mistake its provisions. By the J2d section of that act it is declared, “That the con sritution and all laws of the United States not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said territory ut Kansas, as else where within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission ol .Missouri. Ac." Now you will perceive that all laws of the,l "nited States, not locally inapplicable. are expressly declared to he in force, in that terri tory. By the l lth section of the Act of 1789, es tablishing the judicial Courts of the United State.* it is declared that all the before mentioned Courts, including the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, “shall have power to issue writs of scirefacias, habeas corpus, and all other writs not specially provided for by statute, which may he necessary for the exercise of their respective juris dictions, and agreeable to the principles and nsages of law.”—1st vol. statutes at large, 81 2. In Robinson vs. Campbell (3rd Wheatons Rep.. 212) it was held that the remedies in the Courts of the United States at common law, and in equity are to be, not according to the practice of the State Courts, but according to the principles ot common law and equity, as distinguished aud defined in that country from which we derive our knowledge of those principles. The 27th section of the Kansas act declares, that the juris diction ofthe several Courts iu that territory both original and appellate, “shall be as limited by law.” The same 27th section of the act further declares, that “each of tha District Courts in said territory shall have, and exercise the same juris diction in all cases arising uniter the constitution, and law s of the United States, as is vested in the Circuit and . is'rict Courts of the United States.” The legal remedies for the redress of wrongs done to property by the common law, are familiar to you, such as trespass, trover, detinue, Ac . aud the Courts of that territory under the organic act, were clothed with ample power and authority to issue all such writs, and afford such remedies as “may be necessary for the exercise of their respec tive jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law.” If any one should injure nty slave in that territory, the laws of the United States give me a remedy by an action of trespass; if one should convert, harbor, or detain my slave in that territory, the laws of the l.nited States af ford me a remedy, by an action of trover, or de tinue, as the case may be; for ail the laws ofthe United States, not locally inapplicable, are ex pressly legislated into that t> rritory and Courts provided to execute a»d enforce them. Further more. the Kansas act expressly recognizes slaves as property. The '47tii section of that act provid ing for appeals to the Supreme Court ot the L'uitod States, further declares, “that appeals may he taken in cases when* the amount in controversy shall exceed one thousand dollars, except only, that in all eases involving title to slaves, the said writs of error or appeals, shall bo allowed and de cided by said Supreme Court, without regard to the value of the matter, property or title, in con troversy’'—and providing also for an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, from the de cisions of any terriiorial Judge, “upon any writ ot habeas corpus involving the question of person al freedom.’' The Kansas Act. therefore, not only declared the Missouri restriction inopera'ive and void in that territory, as being inconsistent withthe compromise measures of 1850, but expressly recog nized slaves as pr«p>rty, and provided Courts and legal remedies for the protection ofthat property In the enactment of the Kansas Nebraska Act Congress simply performed a duty enjoined by the constitution, as well as by the 3rd article of the treaty of cession of the Louisiana territory, which expressly stipulated that the inhabitants of that territory should enjoy all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and be maintained and protected, in the free enjoy ment, of their liberty, property, and the religion which they professed, until admitted iuto the Union of the United States, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution. If the territorial legislature of Kansas had pass ed a law, excluding slave property front that ter ritory. or depriving the owners of slaves of all legal remedies for the protection of their slave pro. perty, snoh a law would have lieen simply void, as being repugnant, not only to the organic act, organizing that territory, but to the 3d article of the treaty of cession just cited, as well as to the Constitution of the United States Muc|^as been said both in Congress, and out of Congress, about Federal sovereignty in the territories, popular sovererg'Uty^zriid squatter sovereignty. The fun damental error of theadvocatesofthe.se different kinds of sovereignty iu the territories, consists, iu the assumption, that tho people of a territory while remaining in a territorial condition, have, or pos sess, any political sovereignty whatever. Th inhabitants of a territory undoubtedly have the clare war. coin money, Ac. These attributes of sovereignty, are not exercised in the name of th Federal Government, but always exercise,! ■ ,i I'"’ i> 1 ' th.* United States, the principals t‘ u il] compact. 1 iiat the States oefore, and at the tinro of thu adoption of the Federal constitution w- r« sovereign and independent States, will not be ile nied, and as such, they entered into the corau-ret with each other, as shown by that instrument According to the principles asserted by the best political writers upon the subject, soverefomv I, indirisilde, and unalienable. Vattel 27 si-erTi Ib d 31, section 69. Nor do several independ *> * States, by confederating together, by voluntar engagements, part with their sovereignty y. ,T states the proposition so clearly, that I will stat in his own words. “Finally several sovereforf 1 j independent states may unite themselves rogetl ** by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing tc I each individually, a perfect state. They whit gether constitute a federal republic, their i 0II , t '* U * liberaiio swill not impair the severe,guty 0( -' member, though they may, in certain respects *'T.. some restraint on the exorcise of it, in virtue of *i untary engagements. A person does not cease to I tree and independent, when he is obliged to fo]i!? engagements which he has voluntarily" C ontra ■> i • Vattel 3. section 10. C ‘ C(J - By virtue of their voluntary engagements tl several States authorized the Federal Governme t* to exercise certain enumerated acts of sovereii*nt in their joint name, but never intended, and jib not part with one particle of their inherent pol't ical sovereignty. This is most clearly illustraf'.i not only by the contemporaneous history oft) action of the Federal Government, but bv it* every day practice. Treason is an offence j*,,' 1 mitted against the political sovereignty of the gov eminent. Where is allegiance due by the citizen" to the Federal Government,or to the United States? The obvious answer would he, that allegiance^ due wherever the sovereignty resides. The const* tution declares, that treason shall consist, in l evv " ing war against the. United States, or in ’adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort and not in levying war against the Federal (;, IV .’ eminent. The Act of 1796 punishing treason de^ dares, “that if any person owing allegiance to die United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, &c., shall he guilty of trea son against the United Slates." The laws of Oon gross, are all enacted in the name of the Uniti-J States, where the sovereignty resides, and not in the name of the Federal Government. The nro- cess of the Court issues, not in the name of the President of the Federal Government, hut in the name of the President of the United S ates. Who ever heard a mandate, or an order issued by, or to an office of the Army, or Navy, in ihe name of the Federal Government? Such orders always is sue in the name of the United States, and tho Marshal executes both civil, and criminal process, issuing from the Courts, in the name of the Ui has at all times, and under aJI circumstances show- ’ rights of American citizens, possess the elements of ed iiunyeif to be tire friend ofthe people when political sovereignty, which, indue time, may be their rights are threatened; be it therefore isserted, and recognised in accordance withthe 1st. Itc sol red, That Ike people of Campbell principles of the Federal Constitution ; but while county, without distinction of party, do most remaining in a territorial condition they have heartily approve the principles set forth in Gov. 4 none, and are not entitled to exercise political sor- Brown’s veto message upon the bill passed by the ’ treiunty. The inhabitants of a territory are de- liollotrays Ointment aud J’dJs.—Neither caustic nor the knife can ever he required in tin- treatment of wounds, uiceis, tumors, or schirrous swelling, to which Holloway’S Ointment has been rqqjlied) hr time. Tiie effect of the Digestive apparatus is all list miraonkiua. There is an uniailiqg test qy which to know the gen uine, viz., the Water-mark, “Holloway, New York and London,” which appeal*: iu semi-transparent letters in every leaf of the biHik of directions, fculess the same are plainly seen in the paper when held between the eye and the light, the hook and (Jhe medicine it envel opes is counterfeit. -*— ■ ■ ■ There is now on exhibition at the Mer chants’ Exchange in New York, a Bed- Wood Plank, from the Mendocina Saw Mills, California. It measures 12 feet long, 6 feet 6 inches wide, and 2 inches thick.. Always do as the sun does, look at the bright recent session of the Legislature, making the general hank suspension legal. 2d. Resolved, That w« uot only approve the principle set forth in said veto Message, but from our hearts approve with tho same unanimous de- ision the aet-of applying the same remedy to the same hill. 3d. Reset red, That the true Democratic faith of the real Jackson stripe of equal privilege to all, exclusive privilege to none, by placing the monied aristocracy on the same footing with the humblest th btoi in the laud is the real simou pure kind we want. 4lh. Resolved, We recommend the next Legis lature to change the Coil*litution so us to have animal elections as well as annual sessions. On inotiou. the preamble and resolutions were adopted, and the Secretary requested to send one copy to the Federal Union office, and one to the Atlanta Intelligencer and Examiner for publica tion. The meeting then adjourned. WESLY CAMP, Presdt. 15. W. Yates, Sec'y. Appointments by the Presidrat.— lly anil withthe. ndtite aud consent of the Senate.—George Vail, of Now Jersey, consul of th* 1 United States at Glasgow. John S. Daney, of North Carolina, consul of the United .States at Dundee. Alex. Henderson, of 1-founsylvania, consul of the United States at Londonderry. H. Rives Pollard, of tiro Territory of Kansas, consul ofthe United States at Bangkok, iu Siam. Brooke i>. Williams, of the District ol Columbia, consul ol the United States at Revel. Ferdinand L. Sarmif-nto, of Pennsylvania, con sul ofthe United States at Venice. John D. Diematwri, ufGeorgia, consul ofthe Uiiiri d States at Athens. Stokes L. Roberts, of Pennsylvania,consul of the United Statce at Trinidad tie Cuba. John B. Costa, of Texas, consul ofthe United States At Nice. Joseph Walsh,of Louisiana, consul of the United ■States at .Monterey.—JJxishit^toM lituuu. Large Reward fur Seymour.—New York, Feb 10. The Hartford Savings Institution offer* a reward of five thousand dollar* for the apprehension and delivery of Seymour, tiie .defoulring Treasurer of that InAitutiou. American silver is so plentiful in New York hat large quantities -cannot he used, excent ^pendent upon the federal government for their executive and superior judicial officers, when a people clothed with political sovereignty are not, but may appoint their own executive and judicial officers, as provided by their own organic law which is their constitution. The Kansas act dele gated to the inhabitants of that territory, such political sovereignty only as the federal govern ment possessed under the constitution, ami no more, and this necessarily involves the inquiry, what political sovereignty did tho federal govern ment have, and possessjunJcr the constitution at the time ofthe passage of that act? This is the great question which constitutes the foundation, aud basis of ihe discussion, in regard to political sovereignty in tho territories, and must control it. For if it be conceded that the federal government is clothed aud invested with political sovereignty by the constitution, it is extremely difficult to es cape from the conclusion, that tl passed to tin* people or Kansas territory, according to the pro visions of the act organizing it, and the legisla tive assembly of that territory, might hate ex> reis- ed the same authority, and cuutiol, over persons and property, within the limits of tiiat territory, as any sovereign biate may do, tor the people of that teintory are “left perfectly free, to foiui and regu late their domestic iustitutious in the same way, including tl„; question of slavery, subject only to the constitution of the United bintes.” It is some times said that the federal government w hen act ing w it bin the sphere of the powers delegated to it by the constitution issorertigu. This is an as sumption, not authorised by the constitution. The l'eueral government when acting within the sphere of the powers delegated to it by the con stitution is supreme, not sucenign. The constitu tion, and tho taws of tho United States which shall be made iu pursuance thereof, shall be the su preme law of the land, is the language of the com pact. Why is the constitution and tne laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, the su preme law ofthe laud, and why am I hound to obey them as such? Simply because the sover eign States that formed it had. iu their sovereign capacity, ample power and authority, to so de clare; it is by virtue of the compact entered into between the sovereign States, when the constitu tion was made, w hich is the evidence of the com pact between them. The sovereign contracting parties s'ipulated, and contracted, that the Federal Government w hich they created, should exercise certain spec- I ified attributes of sovereignty, in their name, and ted States, where the sovereignty resides. The flag of the Union, the emblem of sovereignty, was designed, uot with one star representing the Fed eral Government, hut with thirteen stars, repre senting the sovereignty of the-thirteen United States—ami wherever that flag floats, on the land, or the sea, it is an emblem of the sovereignty of t'<e United States. When that flag was raised upon the territory of Kansas, by theautbority of the United States, the sovereignty of every State in the Union was re*i- resented there, and if that territory had been in vaded by a hostile foe, with a hostile intent, it would havo been an invasion of the sovereignty of every State in the Union, represented by that flag, of South Carolina, as well as Masschusetts, of Georgia, as well as New York, and all would have been hound, acting through their common agent the Federal Government, to have repelled him. The political sovereignty being in the United States, it was extended over that territory, for the protection of persons and property therein, so long as it remained in a territoral condition. The citizen of Georgia with his property, was as much entitled to protection there, as the citizen of New York, the citize n of South Carolina, as the citizen of Massachusetts, the citizens of all tho States with their property, were all entitled to equal pro tection upon the common territory, under the flag of the Union which, represented the joint sov- eignty of all the States. Now the question may Oe asked, if the political sovereignty over that territory was in the United States, and not in the inhabitants of hat territory, how do tirey acquire political sovereignty, at the precise time they as semble in convention to frame a Stale Constitu tion ? As I have already said when the citizens of the several States go into that territory, they carry with them all tbs rights of American citizens, the dements of political sovereignty. An int.uit child has the elements of a man within him, but he is not a man: yet, in process of time, with pro per training, he will become a man, and when he is of sufficient age, and practical experience, ho may take upon himself the duties, and response bilities of a man. When the territory of Kansas was organised under the guardianship, and protec ting care, of the sovereignty ofthe Uniti d States, it was an infant State, possessing the elements of political mjvereiguty, which, in process of time, under thiTbstering care, and protection of that joint sovereignty, might become an independent State, assume the exercise of political sovereignty, and with the consent of the United Stales, he admit ted into the Union in accordance with tiie princi ples of the Federal constitution. Now iu order to assert their political sovereignty in that territory, it must be done iu a lawful manner, and under the authority of the United States. The inhabitants of Kansas have, it is understood, taken the iniatory steps to provide a government tor themselves, by calling a convention to frame a constitution for their government as an independent State, to as sert their political sovereignty, in subordination to the laws and authority of the United States. This they had the undoubted right to do under the act organizing that terrirory, which declares, that the people thereof shall be “ perfectly free to form, and regulate, their doinestictie iustitutious in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." The question of slavery it is understood is, or was to be submitted to the people, by the conven tion for their ratification or rejection. There was no more necessity, for submitting that question to the people under the organic act, than any other ? uestion, but the convention having submitted it, shall not complain, whatever the result nmy be, so fair play shall be allowed; it has been douc iu their own way, and if they had refused to have sub mitted that question to the people, such refusal, would have been done iu in their own icny idso, and nobody outside of the territory, would hava had any just cause of complaint. Whether tin* constitution which tho people of Kansas shall adopt and send up to Congress, under the author ity of the United .Stafos, shall tolerate or prohibit slavery, is not the question; the question is, whether the expressed will of the people of that territory in convention assembled, under the au thority of the United States, shall be respected, and carried out in good faith according to the truo intent aud meaning of the Kansas act. The slave- holding States in 1850, made concessions, in order to obtain the great principle of non-intervention embraced in tiie Kansas act; they have struggled to maintain, and have recognized, th«ir equal rights, iu the common territory of the Union, and they ought not, and I seriously hope will not per mit themselves to be cheated aud defrauded out of any practical benefits that may result to them, from the legitimate operation of that fundamental principle—that great, and vital principle, as ap plicable to the common territory, must he main tained, mid executed in goo*l faith by those wlmsa duty it is to execute it, and uot evaded by any art^ fill or plausible pretext whatever. The position which our State has taken upon that question, iu a certain contingency, is based upon sound, ami fundamental principles, as I have attempted to demonstrate, and I do -not entertain the Ira't doubt, that in the discharge of jour official duty to the people upon that, as well as all other ques tions involving their interests, as well as tlu-ir hon or, you will he found equal to the occasion, what ever it may be. I beg you to accept the assuraccu of my high regard, and esteem, while I have the honor to bo Very respectfully, your ob't. servant, HIRAM WARNER His Excellency, Joseph E. Brown, Milledgeville- Farmer's Omnibus.—There is five pounds ot pure sulphur in every ono hundred pounds ot wool. Carrots consume 199 pounds of lime to the acre, turnips hut 90 pounds. A cubic foot of common arable land will he'd ” pounds of water. - It takes 5 pounds of corn to form one of be r - Three ami a haif pounds of cooked meat will term oin* of pork. , . To add ono per cent, of lime to a soil t" a i is destitute of it, requires It 1 pounds ot slacken lime, or six of caustic to the acre . Clay will permanently improve any soil that sandy or loachv. Lime and leached ashes will a benefit le»chy laud. . -| N ) A loti of dry forest leaves producesoniv*»_ pounds of mould ; hence 5141 pounds of urou. w ‘‘ produce a ton of plants. _ .... ,i,- n Clay, applied to sandy land, is far ^et e sand to clay land. ICO tons to the acre, wi g' an inch in depth- .. Pure phonphreasit* worth from four to ‘‘' .j, jt sand dollars a tou; and as it comes from the 1 • shows how scarce it is. . wor th A rich mold, formed by rooting clover. ‘ s >er more than the same number of pounds " ' ^ 400 pounds of dry plant will yield lob P ou mold will take up. Swamp muck, or pent when dry, \« without dripping, four times its o"", c , e . water. Hence the necessity uf thorough • - Ti „,i tin* longest, m” peaty soils.radiate heat most rapidly, ly cool soonest, and are first to experience Heavy Defalcation.— HARTFORD, ConD.. H f ^ —John VV. Seymour, Secretary am! 1 y t the Hartford County Savings Associ«.ou, ^ tow n on Saturday last, and since • (i> t |,»t been ascertained that he * a , au * . , Ti>° tioiis* Jar. ocjiuuau , lflP nfthe®^ cautile Bank, and was considered on. upright men in the community, i Vi,'*■ VI nuur, Bank does not lose a dollar bv Mr. ^“ t|lcI * neither, as for as we can learn, does « j—