Newspaper Page Text
THE (#.\STITITIOMIAST.
PUBLISHED BY'
JAMES <3- AR.PN ER.
JAMES T. NlSßET—Editor.
office os Mclntosh strekt.
vnIEI) uoui. n» THE SD.TI.WCT mmKO' B»°EP ITB«T.
TERMS.
n«ll>- in *2 ™
If not in advance ! £
Trt-Weekiy in advanoe *JK |
If n.d in ad value | oo
If not Jo advance, but within the > tar * fid
be enured upin nnr' bonki' unl'e* the money
the order.
Ny discount made for Clube.
To Auenta and CurreapondenOi. .
It will !vyve us :» icreat deal of unneeclaary trouble If our
irilln* to us. will bear in uilnd the following rule. :
<:"» ihe dale. |».,l «I.«, county and State. In the
. It- . inf* i.f tin: countv ftfid DOBt offlC© Iti full.
**,? vou w.hu> ou husliiMS and on iitht r matters, writ* on sepa
r«ti» ah«lu-if iKiiK-r. or different leaves of one sheet.
Attention t<» Un*ae matters will greatly oblige us.
AUGUSTA, QA.
WK11.% ESDAYf AUGUST 19, 1857.
AUGUSTA, GA.
WEDNESDAY MORNING, AUGUST 19,1857.
For Governor,
HON. JOSEPH E. BROWN,
OF OIIEKOKKE COUNTY.
For tuugrew*
ShcoiU District- MARTIN J. CRAWFORD.
yard District. —D. J. DAILEY.
tfturlh District.— L. J. G ART KELL.
fifth District* —A. R. WRIGHT.
tfwfA District.— JAMES .JACKSON.
SecuUt District. —LINTON STEPHENS.
Mjkth District. —A. 1L STEPHENS.
Campaign CoustiuiUoimlist.
The ConstUfitionalut, for the campaign, will be
•furnished, from the Bth of July to the 21st of Oc
tober, at the following rates :
Daily $1 50
Tri-Weekly 1 00
Weekly 50
Twenty-five copies of the weekly.. 10 00
No paper sent to any person without payment in
rtdvauce. _
Notice.
As letters are frequently addressed to the former
editor of this paper, under the impression that he
utill occupies that position, to avoid misapprehen
sion in future, we insert a permanent caption in
which the name of the present editor and that of
the proprietor are separately given. The change
Os editorship took place on the 3rd of February
fast, as was then announced. Since that time the
paper has been conducted solely by its present
editor.
The commercial and news departments of the
saper, are, as they have been since October, 1855,
Under the charge of Mr. W. H. Pritchard.
Letters upon business connected with the office,
should be addressed to the proprietor—those upon
matters connected with the editorial department
of the paper, to the editor.
Stale of the Weather.
Monday, August 17—7 A. M.
\t Savannah, very warm and clear.
“ Macon, clear and hot.
Columbus, clear and liot.
“ Montgomery, clear ami warm.
Lower Reach Tree, clear and warm.
" Mobile, clear and warm.
“ Gaineiville, clear and warm.
‘ New Orleans, clear and pleasant.
“ Augusta, clear and hot.
At ten o’clock last night u refreshing shower
fell.
Tuksdat, Aug. 18—7 A. M.
At Macon, clear and warm.
“ Columbus, cleur and hot.
Montgomery, clear and hot.
** l*owur IVauVi Troe, clear hud hot.
“ Mobile, dew and hot.
“ Gainesville, clear and pleasant.
** New Orleans, clear and pleusunt.
“ Savannah, clear and hot.
“ Augusta, clear and hot.
Mr. Stepheus’ Address.
We submit this loug expected document to bur
readers without comment, simply expressing our
•ordial approval of it, and our udmiration of the
boldness and candor with which Mr. Stkcurks has
presented his views upon the prominent questions
of the canvass. As there will be a general demand
for it throughout the district and State, we propose
to keep it iu type for a few days, and fill orders for
it at the following rates: one hundred copies for
ouo dollar; three hundred copies for two dollars ;
five hundred copies for three dollars, or oue thou
sand copies for five dollars.
Judge Thomas’ Letter.
This letter, published in another column, it will
’be observed, is addressed to one of the editors of
the Southern Banner , iu which the author design
ed it should tirst appear. It was, however, re
ceived too late for insertion in the last issue of
that paper, and has been sent to us for pubtica
cation. It will appear in the next issue of the
Dan no/'. We commend it to the attention of our
American readers. From it they will discover
that all their efforts to detach Judge Thomas from
the Democratic party of this State are fruitless.
Emanuel i ounty.
We have been furnished by the Receiver of Tax
Returns of Emanuel county with the following ex
tract from the Tax Digest of that county for the
year 1557:
Number of polls 849
“ of default polls 90
Professions 4
Number of acres of land 620,834
Number of slaves 1,292
Value of land $660,576 50
Value of town property 5.146 00
Value ofjslaves 685,066 00
Money and solvent debts 205,080 61
Merchandise 4.261 15
Other prop’tv not before enumer’d. 279,890 74
Ag’gatc value of whole prop’ty..sl,B7o,Bll 00
Gain since last year 74,667 00
Green B. Spence.
R. T, R. E. C.
Mobile (Ala*'! Mercury.
We have received the tirst number of a very
•handsomely printed and ably edited daily paper,
called the “ Mobile Mercury” It is published and
edited by W. W. McGuire, J. B. Gindrat, A. G.
Horn and A. G. McGuire, at eight dollars per
innum. _
Mrs. Cunningham, otherwise Bi'ROELL.has
been removed from her residence in Bond street,
N. V., to a room formerly occupied by her in the
Tombs.
A fire broke out ou the 18th lust, in New
Orleans, and burnt the Magazine street Omnibus
Stables. Seventy mules, one horse and fourteen
omnibuses were burned. Loss $30,000 —insurance
$6,000. Another lire occurred at the same time,
on White street. Loss SB,OOO.
New Cotton—The first Bale or As Season.—
The Galveston OicUlan, of the Bth inst., says:
** We learn from Mr. Jas. Hooper, purser of the
steamer Eclipse, that the first new bale of cotton
of the season arrired in Richmond yesterday, the
7th inst., a few minutes too late for the cars, or it
Mjfr.rould have been in market this morning.
Telegraph News Reports.
i We notice in several papers, in the country, tele
= graph dispatches, dated at u Augusta, August 14,”
in which the heat is represented at one hundred
and six degrees. We can assure our readers that
no such reports were ever sent from Augusta, by
any person connected with the Associated press,
and we do not believe that such reports were sent
by telegraph Irom Augusta by any person.
Accurate thermometers in this city, on Friday,
August 14, showed 90*; on Saturday 95°; Sunday
94*; Monday 94°; and on Tuesday 25°, at two
(o’clock on each day.
This may be a trivil matter to notice, but the
public are either imposed upon, or less confidence
in the correctness of telegraph reports, when even
trifling errors are permitted to go uncorrected.
A. B. Longstreet.
This distinguished gentleman, author, ex-Presi
dent of two Colleges, ex-Judge of the Superior
Court, and minister of the Methodist Episcopal
ChurchJ who has so many titles, that we can not
give him any, has been in'this city and its vicini
ty for a few days, upon a short visit to his relatives
and friends. He is in excellent health, and as
youthful in feeling, if not in appearance, as he w as
forty years ago.
Nashville Daily New*.
We have received the first number of this new
paper. We are in doubt which to admire most,
ihe talent and taste displayed in its editorials and
selections, or the professional ability exhibited in
the publication of the paper. We take pleasure in
placing the New on our exchange list, and wish
the proprietors much success in their undertak
ing.
The News is published at Nashville, Tenn., by a
Printing and Publishing Company—Allen A.
Hall, editor, and A. A. Stitt, superintendent.
Terms for Daily, $6 per annum, and Weekly $2,
in advance.
£-3*r"Since the occurrence of a case or two of
yellow fever at St. Mary’s, southern steamers have
ceased their communication with that port. So
says I)r. F. U. Dkmenb, the health officer at Sa
vannah.
LifTuoMAs Maloney was severely beaten with
sticks, in Savannah, on Saturday night last, by
some parties unknown.
Mr. Ci.kvkland, charged witli having
robbed the mail, after a preliminary examination
iu Mobile, Ala., on the 13th inst., was discharged.
Lewis Williams, a cab driver in Mobile
was brutally murdered on the night of the 12tli
inst. A man by the name of John Pi do eon has
been arrested, charged with being implicated in
the murder.
I-ST" A great race is announced, in Porter’s Spir
it of the 'J'imes, to come off on the 29th September,
over the Fashion course, between Charleston and
Nicholas /. The North and the South will then
have another contest on the turf.
As frequent reference is made to the decis
ion of the Supremo Court of the United States, in
connection with the squatter sovereignty construc
tion of the Kansas act, bv the American and Dem
ocratic press, we publish in another column, that
portion of the decisiou relating to this subject.
We shall have occasion to quote it frequently, dur -
ing the present cauvass, and desire that our read
ers should be familiar with it.
Stoppage or Cotton Mills.—The New York
Journal of Commence has been furnished by a re
spectable Boston house with a list of looms, lately
runuing ou heavy cotton goods, which have been
stopped, or are soon to be stopped, on account of
the high price of the raw material, and the impos
sibility of realizing cost at present rates:
Name of Mill. No. of looms Description of goods,
stopped.
■
Boott Company ISO “drills and fine goods.
8»linon Fulls Company... .‘too “drills.
Massachusetts Mills .'<oo “ drills.
Laconia Company WO “ drills and flue g<s)ds.
Portsmouth Company.... 300 “sheetings.
New Market 500 “ (ears and flue goods.
Great Falls Couqouy 480 •* line goods.
(Suffolk. Company H7£» drills.
¥R •• ttSMSi
Popper*! Mini NO ‘ drills, jeans, flue goods.
Total looms 4.5*60
In uddition to this, about eight hundred looms
on extra wide goods have been stopped, and we
learn of further stoppage in Rhode Island.
From the Chronicle it Sentinel , Aug. 18.
Mr. Editor: I have just read for the first time,
in your paper of the sth inst., two articles, one
signed “Rusticus,” and the other, “Woodstock,”
which give rise to impressions in my mind to
which I am unwilling to refuse expression.
I do not know who the authors of these commu
nications are. I do not wish to know them. I
have no uttack to make on them, except so far as a
vindication of what I esteem truth and justice may
assail them. Ido not pause to enquire whether
such a misconception of the fucts was the result of
a want of intelligence, or whether it was the off
spring of personal malevolence, or, of what is
scarcely less reprehensible, mere partisan preju
dice. I repeat, that I do not ask or care from
whom, or for what motives, I simply mean to as
sert that the tirst of these communications is full
of gross errors as to facts, and of unjust, ungener
ous and disgusting insinuations against the mo
tives of a good man; and that the last of these
communications, in either of these respects, is no
better, but, if anything, worse than the first. And
now, Mr. Editor, I will undertake to make good
my assertions.
This “ Rusticus” asserts that Mr. Stephens, in his
Pen lie Id speech, had no subject. This is not true.
Ilia subject was clearly stated, and, as 1 conceive,
very ably discussed. Ido not know when a speech
in all its connection, from beginning to end, made
a clearer or more lasting impression upon my mind.
So clear does the impression still remain with me,
that, if it were not outside the object ot this com
munication, 1 could make now a very good report
of it, and if I thought that some of * the precepts
. aud principles laid down in it would not be wasted
upon “ Rusticus” and “ Woodstock,” 1 would
write it out for their improvement. But, to return ;
it is not true that Mr. Stephens had no subject,
lbs subject was 5, I do not pretend to use his own
words,) an “enquiry into the origin or true basis
of the principles of good government,” and fol
lowed by reflections upon the evil consequences
which grow out of a misapprehension of these
principles. I could now easily follow his course of
remark upon the errors of the times, lie showed
clearly that the fanaticisms of the North, and espe
cially abolitionism, resulted from an ignorance of
the true theory of government—from the foolish
belie! that they of the North were responsible to
the world for the existence of slavery at the South,
because they at the North were the majority iu the
l nion—that ours was not a government of majori
ties—that the majorities of countries, nor of Stutes,
nor majorities of United States, had any right to
deprive the individual of his rights. I* remember
his emphatic and eloquent question: Whence
i you derive this right to govern the individual,
aud tor that purpose to deprive him of any right
whatever? lie showed that it could not* be de
r rived from nature—not from the customs of the
patriarchs— not from the Bible, even; but from
the consent of each individual, voluntary express
s ©I in the written Constitutions of the country.
l* ut » Mr. Editor, I will not take up vour time and
e space. I could nob if I were to attempt it, do full
justice to the speech. I only thus far designed to
show that h * had a subject—and I could show, if
it was questioned, that the subject was ablv dis
cussed.
s This “Rusticus” asserts that Mr. Stephens piteh
i ed in wildly, desecrating the spot by a political
e harangue. This is not true. The speech of Mr.
Stephens was a calm, able, close argument upon
’ government, and had no allusion, not the slightest,
to the politics ot the day, as “Rusticus” would
have your readers believe. The speaker, under
" perhaps the impression that there would be some
: such cabbage-head as “Rusticus,” to misunder
-5 staud and pervert his meaning, stated broadly
“ and roundly, that he had no allusion to the parties
1 or politics of the day—that his remarks were as
' applicable to the one party as the other, and that
1 he had as full confidence m the patriotism and in
tegrity of the men and leaders of the American
party aa in bis own part/. And just here let me
say, that one of the most effective and powerful
passages in his speech was the indiscriminate and
severe condemnation of the men ot all parties w o
would wilfully and knowingly lie , and pervert and
evade facts and issues for party purposes—men,
who, honest in other things, in their dealings with
their fellow men, consider it no harm to connive
at falsehood which would benefit their party, and
who would even applaud and defend acts and
tricks in a party and in a fellow partizan, which
in an individual would be considered even bv
themselves, dishonest and mean. Surely, “ Rug.
ticus” and “Woodstock” did not hear this portion
of the speech, or they would not so soon hare
violated its teachings. Or, if they heard it, thev
considered it as personal to themselves, and are
answering and resenting it in the communications
to which I am replying.
Every step I take, fir. Editor, in this communi
cation, which I desire shall be as short as possible,
makes me regret that I have not space and time to
notice more fully some of the important positions
in this speech. But one more point will f slightly
allude to, for I believe I never saw a deeper sensa
tion produced on an audience, especially the por
tion of it composed of the fathers and mothers of
the church, when he spoke of what he conceived,
and I think justly, to be a vindication of the piety
and influence of the church and its individual
members against sinners instead of sin, criminals
instead of crimes. Why, Le asked, does everv
lawyer, whether Christian or not, feel bound in the
trial of a criminal, whom he is defending, to strike
every church member from the pannel of jurymen?
The answer he gave ought to be remembered. It
was because the piety and zeal of tne church and
its influential members are directed against the
sinner, and not his sin, because there is too
much of the spirit of persecution— too little ot
forgiveness and charity—too little of the spirit of
our master, who, instead of rebukes and reproaches
to the vile wretch he had healed, said “go and sin
uo more.” This was,a point, the justice and severity
of which made many wince and flinch. I own up,
for one, and confess that I felt humiliated, and 1
trust, benefittod by the timely reproof. But I leave
the speech. I could not if it were now proper, do
it justice.
One of these correspondents says that the speech
met a universal sentence of condemnation. This
is uot the truth. I confess that I saw a few “Rus
ticusses” and “Woodstocks,” who were mouthing
out such grumbles as these gentlemen utter ; but,
I am pleased to know, that there were many who
duly appreciated the effort.
But, Mr. Editor, I have not yet touched themoftt
offensive and detestable features in these two com
munications : before I do so, L may say one w'ord
or two in relation to myself. I am not the ac
knowledged apologist and defender of Mr. Ste
phens. lie is nothing to ine, except in the inter
est w hich every gentleman has, in not standing by
silently and seeing the feelings of another gentle
man wantonly violated—his motives misconstrued
—his acts viflified. lam not in his immediate so
cial circle—: not his oft companion—l am not his
fellow partizan—and, yet, I claim *o know him. 1
have met him in political debate—seen him often
in hard contests at the bar—and just at this mo
ment, my mind recurs to a consultation in which 1
met him, with our client, for the purpose of mak
ing out an auswer to a bill m equity, in which
there were some very severe charges ugaiust our
client, the defendant. As we were progressing
with our investigation, and iu making out our in
vestigation, we came to one of these hurd places
for our client; Mr. Stephens nut the question di
rectly to him, and asked if tne allegations were
true, and when the client seemed to hesitate about
a reply, Stephens promptly said, “let us have no
evasion—let us have the whole truth—keen noth
ing back ; in the first place, it is right to tell it all;
in the second place, I cannot do your case justice,
unless I know, before I go into the court-house,
all—the worst as well as the best.”
I repeat, Mr. Editor, I think Ikuow him. I have
seen him, in the positions 1 have referred to, tried.
And I can say, conscientiously, that 1 know no
man who has less of guile, trick, evasion, or indis
cretion. It is not his habit to meet issues or men
in such dress. He meets issues and those who
make them, fairly and squarely. With such an es
timate of his character, how can I measure the
contempt and disgust with which I look upon the
secret insinuations of your correspondents, that
this speech was made for political effect, and that
his subscription to Mercer University was made to
buv Baptist votes in the seventh district.
It is not uiy design, Mr. Editor, to involve you
hi the odium which 1 would attach to these cor res
pondents. I know that editors, to gratify cones
pnudeuts and subscribers, admit into their columns
what they do not individually approve. And you
will, therefore, allow* me to speak in plain language
of the character of the acts done by these corres
pondents. They nor any other man have the right
to set down a motive to the act of another, when a
different motive is manifest and professed bv the
author of the act itself. Stephens is u maiyrf'large
fortune—a man of admitted talents —tjuAl let
ters, or, a.s “Rusty” would
and Uot, least, he 4. *
u. .. • N ,V*. %
rise in tie neftd and heart than
flnat he sSoulJd aid so worthy at^naf umif® a* Mer
cer University, when directly and jwaonetly ap
pealed to on the subject? I say nay; and I say
more—that no just and fair man would huve look
ed farther or grabbled lower, to have found any
other motive.
But the injury does not stop here. These men,
your correspondents, have, under an assumed
name, and therefore secretly as perpetrators of the
act, emblazoned to the world through the press,
insinuations which they would not have the face
to utter openly to him or his friends. I make no
threats; but think you that either of these gentle
men would face Mr. Stephens and say to him, you,
sir, openly violated all rule? of propriety, and
made use iff u postiion in whiclijrou wete flattering
ly placed by a liferarv society to advance your per
sonal and political purposes! Would either of
your correspondents stand before this injured man
aud say, “Sir you made that subscription to Mer
cer University, not to aid education, not to build
up and raise higher an already useful institution,
but you did it for the ignoble purpose of buying
American Baptist votes? ” No. Rust?/ and Wood//
you would not di.re to do it, and vet these are vir
tually charges you make, and make covertly.
It is difficult to restrain harsh expressions of in
dignation iu looking at this state of things, iu
which we find the men and parties of the country.
Can party leaders aud party followers never be
raised above the business of abusing opponents?
Is the rude treatment extended to this noble act of
liberality of Mr. Stephens the encouragement the
wise ana good iyen of this day shall receive for
aiding the endowment of institutions of learning?
Ves, Mr. Editor, it is difficult to suppress the
thoughts, the regrets, which fill the mind at \low
ing this act which I condemn, and at viewing, too,
tne unholy pleasure it lias given those who .sympa
thize with the perpetrators. But I desist. I do
not suppose that the perusal of this hasty commu
nication will elicit much enquiry as to its author
ship ; but have no objection to your quietly giving
my name to any oue whose curiosity may induce
them to ask for it.
I am devotedly attached to the policy and prin
ciples, as 1 understand them, of the American par
ty, and am also the friend of the endowment by
private subscriptions of the literarr institutions of
the State. * Defoe.
Fire. —A fire broke out about half-past 1 o'clock
this morning, in a new* two story woodeu building,
situate ou the North side of Calhoun, between
Meeting and Anson streets, owned by Mr. C. W.
Seigmous. The flames spread with great rapidity,
taking in its range an ad joining building, also the
property of this gentleman, and three others to
the East and VV est, in their immediate proximity,
owned severally by Dr. Gibbes, Mrs. Finley and
Mr. Blake, which, at the time we write (liuif-past
two o’clock) are enveloped in flames, and will all
probably be destroyed. Mr. Seigmous, we learn,
is iusured in the Augusta Insurance and Banking
Company for $2,500. The house where the fire
is said to have originated was unoccupied, and is
evidently the act of an incendiarv.
We write at the moment going to press,
(4 o’clock) to add that the lire was confined to tht
property enumerated above, fronting « n Calhoun
street, but has extended to the rear, uestroving the
out buildings of several houses fronting on Henriet
ta street, tne property of a colored man named
Jjshuu Jones.
\ Some of the buildings destroyed occupied the
dentical spot where the Gre occurred ou the morn
ing of the 21st of July last.
Charleston Courier , Aug. IS.
Another Affair of Honor.— We learned, on
Saturday last, that Mr. McDuffie, acting as the
friend of Mr. Wight man, editor ot the Fayetteville
Carolinian, passed up in the direction of Ashville,
N. C., beariug a challenge to Mr. Henry E. Colton,
editor of the Ashville Spectator.
Salisbury JValchmon,
We learn that Messrs. Wightman and McDuffie
were in this city during the present week, and that
they left on Wednesday evening In the direction
of kouth Carolina. Tile impression is, that they
will be met by Mr. Colton and hissecond, and that
a duel may be the result.
Raleigh Standard, Avg. 15.
[ COMMUNICATED, j
To the Voters of the Eighth Congres
sional District*
It may be unnecessary, perhaps, for me to say
much byway of apology or explanation of my
reasons for addressing you at this time and in this
way. The numerous calls that have been made up
on me by personal and political friends, in primary
meetings of the people aud otherwise, mallow my
name to go before the District again for re-election
to Congress without the formality of a regular
nomination, require a response. This should have
been made earlier, aud would have been, but for
matters of a personal nature that prevented, and
which in no w ay concern the public.
To reply, however, to each separately, would
take considerable time, and devolve upon me a
great deal of useless labor; while, to select one in
preference to others, might be deemed invidious.
I, therefore, take this method of answering all to
gether, and at the same time sayiDg briefly, not
only to those who have thus manifested their wish
es in this particular, but to the other voters of the
District generally, that if it is the will and pleasure
of the people that 1 shall serve them again in the
national councils, I have no sufficient reason con.
sistent with my sense of duty to the country and
my obligations to them, to justify me in refusing—
particularly at this juncture. 1 feel profoundly
sensible of the signal marks of coutidence repeat
edly shown towards me by the people of this Dis
trict. The present may not be an improper occa
sion to make some allusion to them and the past
relations between us of Representative and consti
tuents.
During the whole time I have represented the
district, the honor has been conferred without any
party nomination—this is unusal in our day—and
the honor, on that account, has been the more
highly appreciated by me. It has caused me, if
possible, to feel more sensibly the weight of the
responsibility resting upon me, to watch over, look
after, guard and protect equally, the rights and
interests of all. How* far 1 succeeded in meeting
their expectations in the discharge of the great
trusts thus confidingly placed in my hands, they
must judge for themselves. But it is quite a grati
fication to tne to know that since I have been so
chosen, not a single vote or act of mine, as their
representative, was ever subject of complaint at
the time, as far as I am aware of, by a single man
of any party in the district. All approved, at the
time it was done, of every thing I did as their rep
resentative. At least nothing was heard to the con
trary—no censure was made, no disapprobation
ever was expressed. Party aud national questions
of the greatest magnitude and most exciting char
acter were acted on during the time. At the first
session of that term of service, the Kansas bill,
which is still the topic of so much discussion,
was brought forward. I gave it, as you all know,
my warm and zealous support. Its success was
hailed, not only in this district, but bv all parties
throughout Georgs* as a great triumph—a triumph
not ofone section of the country over another—nut
of the South over the North farther than her resto
ration to equality was concerned—bntof the fnends
of the Constitution every where over those who
for thirty years had been endeavoring wrest that
instrument from its true spirit, to accomplish sel
fish and sectional purposes against southern insti
tutions. And though 1 have seen up to this day #
no direct attack upon me individually, for my
position in connection with that measure,
yet l regret to say, it is but too apparent,
and has been for some time past, that a party
m Georgia, and particularly in the Mb Dis
trict, is rising up, w hose object is, if not openly,
covertly at least, to get a popular condemnation
of it. They now* clearly insinuate that it was the
work of tricksters and demagogues, for the purpose
of agitation aud excitement. To this it might be
a sufficient reply to say, that those who bring this
charge are estopped from making any such accu
sation, for they gave it professedly as hearty an ap
proval at the time it passed as anybody else. If
tricksters were the authors of it, they were the
tricksters’ (tuckers.
Tne pretext now that they then gave their appro
val with a reservation or exception as to the “alien
suffrage” and “squatter sovereignty” features as
they are called, w ill not do. This is but an after
thought, and wholly tint nable at that. All the
“alieu suffrage” the bill ever had in it was in it
when it met the approval of the Georgia Legisla
ture in February, 1854, aud when they declared
that hostility to’the principles of the bill should
be regarded as hostility to the South. And as for
the “squatter sovereignty” feature, that was no
»t a taucy of the brain from the beginning
w«u» <Km)ur<Hl «p ilmo afterwards
e tune it was discovered that the only de
fenders of the bill at the North, with fewr excep
tions, were Democrats. No such principle, how
ever, ever was iu the bill. This was conclusively
shown during the canvass lust year, and is now
f generally admitted. In fact, the main argument
ast year was not so much to show that any such
principle was really in the bill, as to prove that
such was the northern construction of it. It was
strenuously contended that Mr. Buchanan had put
that construction upon it in his letter of accep
tance. But by his inaugural even that ground of
complaint (altogether imaginary and unsubstan
tial as it was), was removed. This is now* also
openly acknowledged—and a very important ac
knowledgment it is—for with it the last vestige of
that pretext for opposition or objection vanishes.
It is a matter to be noted and remembered that
the Warrenton Convention, of the flth iust., that
nominated my honorable competitor, expressly
state and proclaim :
“We confess, then, our surprise, when his (Mr.
Buehanau’sHuaugural address renounced squatter
sovbkkionty— and the edge of our opposition to
his administration was blunted by the apparent
boldness und honesty of his sentiments.”
This is an honest and timely confession. It is a 1
complete answer to most of tiie arguments of their '
orators and newspapers last year. Buchanan’s !
“squatter sovereignty” principles was then the :
staple of their speeches and editorials—it was the 1
burthen of their song, “the Illiad of their woes.”
It was this phantom that caused some in their 1
maddened rage to say that the bill, with this con- 1
struction was worse for the South than the Wilmot i
Proviso itself. Most blinding, indeed, must have
been that rage which could have caused anybody to 1
see t hat anythi i, g cou Idha ve been worse for the Sou t h 1
than that t>csitice, absolute, and perpetual prokUn - 1
tion against slavery in the Territory, put on in '
1820, and which the Kansas bill removed!
But such things we have witnessed and perhaps 1
stranger ones are in store for us yet. It is not so !
much, however, with the past as with the present, 1
and the future we have to deal. The past it is true
frequently throws light upon the future, und for '
this reason, it is not to be neglected or forgotten.
1 need not assure you that 1 was for the bill in the
beginning and am for it yet, and shall stand by it
to the last, notwithstanding the new “fire in the
rear,” as well as the old one “in the front.”
From late indications the next Congress will 1
have before it deeply interesting, if not unusually
exciting questions—not less so than those before
the last. In the elections for the last Congress the
repeal of the Kansas bill was a prominent issue at
the North. Upon the assembling of that body a
large majority of the House were claimed to be in
favor of its repeal. But they did not succeed in
their object. If, however, it was an unwise mea
sure, got up by agitators aud tricksters to serve
selfish and party cuds, ought it not to have been
repealed? On this poiut the Warrenton Conven
tion, if such be the drift aud tendency of their
policy, are again estopped—at least their partv
is—for as late as the 28tli of January, of last year,
the following resolution was offered in the House
of Representatives by Mr. Meachani of Vermont:
“dissolved, That in the opinion of this House the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, pro
hibiting slavery north of latitude 36' 30’, was an
example ot useless and factious agitation of the
slavery question, both in aud out of Congress,
which was unwise and unjust to a portion of the
American people.”
This resolution ip hot a short statement of the
substance of the commentary of the Warrenton
Convention, and if they are right their representa
tive ought to have voted for it. But he did not,
uor did a single member of the American party,
or any party from the South, vote for it except Mr.
Etheridge from Teunessee. Messrs. Foster and :
Trippe from this State, voted against it, so did the 1
two Marshalls from Kentucky, Mr. Zollicoffer from '
Tennessee—all the leaders of the party, and every
member of it from the South, with tne exception j
stated. Were these all tricksters , agitators and
demagogues , or the backers of such paltry charac- ‘
ters? This resolution passed the House, but the <
majority did not succeed in their attempts to carrv (
a repeal of the measure by law. Their whole efforts i
then were directed to another election. In this *
they were signally defeated again, as well in their I
attempts to get control of the Executive as of the
next House. Thus opened and thus ended the last • 1
Congress so far as the Kansas bill was
It passed the ordeal of three stormy session? ln "
tact and untonebed, and came out of the
tial contest sustained and endorsed by the peopJ®
of the United States, and by every Southern State
•are one.
it was after this memorable popular verdict, in
its favor last fall— after its principles seemed to
be settled so far as the action of Congress was con
cerned—after everything pertaining even to a
doubtful construction was pot to rest by the inan- i
gural of Mr. Buchanan, and after the main princi
ples of the bill were fully affirmed by the Supreme
Court of the United States, in the Dred Scott case,
that I did indulge a strong desire and wish to re
tire. It was with this measure above all others, I
had become identified in my public career. With '
the prospect of its being firmly established in eve- |
ry department of government, the time seemed
suitable as well as propitious, for me to take that
course, which was so agreeable to my feelings.
Bnt, since the indications to which I have allu
ded, have furnished grounds to apprehend that
these and kindred questions will come up before
the next Congress, I deem it due to you to say that
[ feel no disposition to shrink from the responsi
bility of meeting them. Whatever may have been
my wishes for repose, however congenial to my
feelings and health, quiet and rest might be, I have
no inclination, voluntarily to quit the field of ac
tion, so long as the fight lasts on this measure. I
shall, if the people so will it, stand by it to the
end, let that be what it may. As to my course, if
elected, I have no new pledge or promise to make.
The form in which this question will present itself
most probably in the next Congress, will not be on
a repeal of the measure ; that idea is abandoned.
It will be upon the point, whether its principles
shall be truly and faithfully carried into effect. It i
will be my object to the utmost extent of my pow- |
er, to see to it that this is done ; not only Kan- j
sas, but in every other Territory of the United
States. These principles were set forth m the |
Cincinnati Platform of last year, in the following
vvor ds:
“Resolved, That we recognize the right of the
people of all the Territories, including Kunsus and
Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly
expressed will of a majority of acmal residents,
aud whenever ihe number of their inhabitants
justifies it, to form a Constitution with or without
domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union
upon terms of perfect equality with other Slates.”
This resolution not only embodied the princi
ples upon which ihe Kansas bill was founded,
(thereby fullv endorsing them) but it proclaims
them uk the permanent and settled future poliev of
the general gover anent towards ull the Territo
ries so far as the action of that parly uttering
them, can make it. It rests upou the basis of re
moving the question of slavery in the Territories
from the control of the General Government and
leaving i» to be settled in the proper way aud at
the propel time, by the people most deeply inter
ested iu it. It secures the right of perfect equali
ty between the citizens of all the States in the
Union in the enjoyment of the public domain as
long as the Territorial status continues. Since
1820, an effort has beeu made by the anti-slavery
men at the North to use the powers of tlve General
Government against southern institutions. The
first point ot attack was the Territories. Their
policy was to hedge in, hem up, bind round, and
by restrictions to prevent ‘he South from any fur
ther growth and expansion. That this might ulti
mately weaken, cripple, and perhaps destroy the
institution in the Slates was the main object.
On the part of the South, it was justly insisted
that her right of expansion was equal to that of
the North. This righ *, alter a struggle for years,
was first secured in 1850, after the defeat of the
Wilmot Proviso, or the Congressional restrictive
policy. The Kansas bill did but follow up, and cur
ry out the policy of 1850—while the resolution
just quoted adopts and looks to the establishment
of this as the future policy of the Government.
Iu my judgment, the principles upou which this
policy rests, are worth the Union itself. Its ob
jects were and are not to make Kansas, or any oth
er Territory either a slave or a free State by
the action of Federal authority, but to let the peo
ple in each, when they come to form their State
Constitution, make it for themselves “in their own
way,” subject to no limitation or restriction, except
the Constitution of the United States. It was to
prevent the General Government from having any
thing to do with or exercising any influence over
the formation of the Constitution of the new States,
either lor or against slavery. If carried out iu
good faith, it secures to the South unlimited right
of expansion to the utmost extent of her capaci
ty. More than this, she has no reason to ask.
And with this, she has nothing to fear now
or hereafter, either from “British philanthro
pists” or “ American abolitionists,” or the “ moral
Hiutiment of Christendom.” Secure in her own
State institutions, without the power of molesta
tion on tlTe part of the Federal authorities ; with
the full enjoyment of the right to grow as the
country grows, to enlarge as that enlarges, aud lo
carry her slave population wherever climate, soil,
und productions iuvite them in our immeuw i»»»blw.
iitminin, Mie tin* nothing to fear from any quarter.
I am not one of those who indulg* in forebodings
of evils to the South in any contingency, either in
the Union or out of it. She holds m her hands,
uot only her destiny and the destiny of the Union,
but the destiny ot much.greater interests than all
these combined. One of her great staples alone
now forms the basis of the commerce, enterprise,
aud wealtii of the world. Not only the northern
States, but most of the nations of Europe are fast
becoming dependent upou her. The idea that the
question of African slavery is one of vital interest
only to those who own the slaves, and to the ex
tent of the money invested in them, is one of those
chimeras which might be expected to .emanate
from the brains of those who think it a divine mis
sion to war against divine decrees.
The amount of capital invested in slaves is but
a drop in the bucket compared with the much
vaster amount put in motion and sustained bv the
products of their labor. There is not a flourishing
village or hainlet at the North—to say nothing of
their towns and cities —that does not owe its pros
perity to Southern cotton. England, with her mil
lions of people and billions upou billions of pounds
sterling, could not survive six months without it.
This they begin to feel and lament. We emphati
cally hold the lever that wields the destiny of mod
ern civilisation in its widest scope and comprehen
sion ; and all we have to do is to realize the con
sciousness of our power, and be resolved to main
tain it.
In this connection, it may not be amiss or out of
place, to notice an article in one of our own jour
nals of a recent date. The Columbus R/ujuiri r , in
its issue of the 12th May last, says :
“ From the commencement of the government :
until the present period, the South comparatively,
has been growing ‘small by degrees and beaufi- -
fully loss’ in wealth, population, in literature, aud :
in all the elenieuts which add power and greatness I
to a State. If any one should be incredulous of <
the fact, let him examine the different census re- :
ports which have been made, and the truth will i
reveal itself in all its fearful proportions.”
This ought to be a most mortifying reflection to >
every southern man, if upon reference to the au
thorities cited, the facts were found to sustain the i
statement. But the censuses furnish no material ,
for such a depreciation of our section. It is true i
the North has a larger population than the South, i
and this she had at the beginning. At the first i
census, iu 1790, the population of the present non- ,
slave holding States was 0,900,976) nearly two
millions, while the white population of the South i
was ouly 1,271,488, not much over one. It is
also true, when we look not only to this great ;
disproportion between the numbers of the white
population of the North and.the South, but also t
to the still more comparatively small number of
slaves at the South, the prospect for future settle
ment of new States to be admitted into the Union
out of the public territory, would seem to be great
ly iu favor of the North. These very census re
ports, however, render this prospect much less
discouraging to us, for with a white population of
only a little over twelve hundred thousand in the
South, against a like population of near two mil
lions in the North, ana with a slave population of :
only about eight hundred thousand when the gov
ernment was formed, the South has certainly lost
nothing iu comparison with the North, in her
spirit, energy and enterprise, in rolling the tide of i
civilization onwards, by the settlement and colo- ;
nization of new States. Since then, under her
auspices, and under her institutions, there have :
been settled, colonized and admitted into the Union I
the following States: Kentucky, Tennessee, Alaba- .
ma, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Missis
sippi and Texas—nine in all—and all slave States, i
while the free States which have been admit- i
ted and which properly speaking, have been ;
settled and colonized in the same time are only i
seven in number. They are Ohio, Michigan, Wis- 1
cousin, Indiana, Illinois, lowa and California, j
Vermont and Maine can hardly properly be taken i
into this account, for the former was part of the s
New Hampshire plantations, and was settled as i
early as that State, indeed—at the revolution, she j
claimed a separate existence—while Maine was cut (
off from Massachusetts. Bnt if these two also be i
put in the count, it will make but nine—the same j
number of free States admitted as of slave States \
•in:e the government was formed. i
In point of wealth, the South has nothing to fear '
by a comparison with the North. Upon all fair I
principles of estimation and comparison, the
■ vantages are on her side. And as far as our own
■ State is concerned the census shows that no por
: hon of the United States excells her in all the
elements of power, greatness, and progress.
# lf then, with such great disproportion in popu
lation against them in the beginning, and with
such a small number of blacks, the South has
held her own so well and lost nothing even nnder
a partial restriction against her from 1820 to 1854,
what need she to fear now with the unlimited
right of expansion and diffusion, according to her
means, inclination, and character of her popula
tion ? The maintenance of this principle is of vast
and vital importance to her. And the great object
with her men and statesmen should be, to see that
it is faithfully carried out in Kansas, let the result
under its operation be what it may.
I have said that this will be an’important ques
tion probably before the next Congress. This
arises from the doctrines and position of Governor
Walker in his inaugural and late speeches in that
Territory. There can be no question, it seems to
me, that he has violated the plain letter and mean
ing of the Kansas bill, as well as the resolution
quoted from the Cincinnati Platform, upon which
the present Administration was elevated to power.
The one declarta it to be the true meaning and
intent of the act, to leave it to the people to settle
their own institutions in their own way for them
selves. His argument against the possibility
of slavery ever going there, was intended to influ
ence the public mind against its introduction. He
threw all the weight ot his high official position
against it. If what he says be true, it was no less
unjust than unnecessary to say it. But a grosser
violation of principle he committed in urging that
the Constitution ot the new State should be made
in a particular way to suit him, and in declaring
that if it wa» not, she would not and ought not to
be admitted into the Uuion. Under the Kansas
bill the people there have the right to make their
Constitution “in their own way, “ acting” (in the
language of the resolution before quoted), “ through
the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority
of the actual residents” m
Now, the Convention which has elected to
form a Constitution there, has been chosen under
“the legally ani fairly expressed will of a majori
ty of the actual residents” as far as it could be as
certained by law. This no one can gainsay. If
any refused to vote it was their own choice not to
do it.
The convention thus elected, have plenary pow
ers in conformity to law, to form a Constitution.
It is their right to submit it for ratification or not,
as they mav choose. The question of the propriety
of submitting it or not is one for themselves to
determine. This, it is their peculiar province to
decide. If Gov. Walker hud barely suggested,
recommended or advised its submission, I should
not complain of that part of bis address. But he
goes ou to say that ts they do not do it the new
Mate will not be, and ought not to be admitted.
This is virtually saying that the people “acting
under the legally and fairly expressed will of the
majority,” shall not form their Constitution in
“their owu way” but in his way, or that which
Congress shall see fit to dictate. This is opening
up the whole question in a new shape. It goes
further. It brings up the old Missouri question
—that is the right or power of Congress to im
pose conditions and restrictions upon the new
States in the formation of their Constitutions —
wbeu by the plain letter of the Constitution of the
United States, Congress can only look into the
Constitution of the new State applying and see
that it is Republican inform. If it come from
the legally constituted authorities, Congress has
no right or power to inquire into or take ju
risdiction over the question as to bow it was
made—do more in the case of Kansas than in
the case of Georgia or Rhode Island. And if
Kansas should be rejected on that ground, then
an enquiry might be instituted as to how all the
other State Constitutions have been made. The
question is one that involves our whole Federative
system. The main point, it seems to me, is al
ways overlooked by those who see no error i(»
Gov. Walker’s address. Their minds are directed
simply to the propriety of submitting the Consti
tution for ratification. On that point I have no
thing to say, because it properly and directly con
cerns Qobody but the people of Kansas. It is the
right of the Convention, their chosen organ, to do
it or not to do it, as they please. But suppose
they chose not to do it? who clothed Gov. Walk
er or anybody else with authority to say, either
that she’would not or ought not to be admitted
into the Union ? Certainly, his written in
structions which we have seen, warrants him
iu holding no such language. This may or
may not become an important question in the
next Congress, according as the Convention
then may or may not determine to conform to Gov.
Walker’s views. If they do thus conform, the
question w ill most probably be ended. But ; if
they do not—if they adopt a pro-slavery Constitu
tion without submitting it, and present themselves
for admission under it just as several other States
have done, then the question will come up with *ll
iu umrm* nut» magnitude, it wilt De one of much
wider, broader and deeper range, than anv ono
heretofore connected with Kansas matters. It
strikes at the foundation of our Government. It
involves everything recognized as State Rights
and State Sovereignty. It is of higher im
port than anything connected with the posi
tion of any * man, party, or Administration.
If the present Administration takes sides with
Governor Walker on it, he and they will share the
same fate. I cannot, however, permit myself to
believe for u moment that they will, in that con
tingency, take such grounds. The doctrine is too
outrageous and monstrous to allow any such infer
ence. So far as Mr. Buchanan is concerned—to
say nothing of the individual members of his
cabinet—there is nothing in his past history to
warrant any such conclusion ; nothing in his ad
ministration thus far affords any grounds even to
suspect it , except the fact that he has not removed
hiui. Apart from this Walker business, no admin
istration has ever, in tuy day, so fully met my cor
dial approval. But in mv judgment Walker ought
to have been removed. lam not, however, in the
habit of condemning without a hearing. Mr.
Buchanan may have reasons for his course we
know nothing of. In the meantime he must and
will be held responsible for the consequences at
tending his retention, whatever they may be.
These he cannot escape from.
But as matters now stand, what ought to be
done? I mean what ought to be done bv those
who really and in good faith, intend to stand by
the principles that br night the present Adminis
tration into power? The clamor by our opponents
is loud for t te rebuke and condemnation of tbe
President, on account <*f the Walker policy in Kan
sas. And who are those whose indignation at
these outrages upon southern rights has been so
suddenly awakened? Men who consider the pas
sage of the bill that secured these rights, which
have thus been outraged, as nothing but the work
of tricksters, gut up for excitement and agitation—
men who twelve months ago could see nothing in
it but “squatter sovereignty,” more odious and
hurtful to the South than the Wilmot Proviso it
self, but who now say, that but for Walker, Kansas
would certainly have come in as a slave State—
men who now find it convenient to express much
feigned wrath at the wrongs that have been done
us; who could not suppress their delight when
they first heard of these wrongs! One of the lead
ing orgaus of this party in Georgia, the Macon
Journal db Messenger, headed an article announc
ing Gov. Walker’s address, with “ Something to
rejoice at.” Verily out of the abundance of the
heart the mouth sometimes speaket'n. Sumner or
Seward could not have been more exultant when
that address first met their eyes. But to you, vo
mers of the Sth district, I put the question, are
these the men you should join to place their nomi
nees in power for the purpose of rebuking the Ad
ministration, or even Walker? Sui>eJv this would
be a rebuking him with a vengeance?’
It may be true, as stated, that but for his course
in Kansas she would certainly have come into the
Uuion as a slave State. But* to whom are we in
debted for that policy which was leading so cer
tainly to that result ?’ Not to those who are now
so indignant, though lately so full of “something
to rejoice at,” but to those true and gallant consti
tution abiding men at the north whom it was the
pleasure, not twelve months ago, of these latter
day “indignationists” to assail aud denounce with*
a rancour not surpassed by anything uttered bv
Hale or Giddmgs. This is’no time to follow anv
such leaders. If Walker, or others we trusted,
have or shall prove untrue to us upon this great
question, we should at least be true to ourselves.
If a rebuke is to be given, it ought to be given by
those who feel the wrongs committed, and who
have the fit and proper spirit to give it. This
above all other times, is the one when every
dictate of patriotism requires all the real and true
friends of the Kansas bill, North and South, to
stand together and see that it is faithfully execu
ted—and deal with all who oppose it as they de
serve to be dealt by. The whole South in the’next
Congress will approach nearer to unanimity, in its
party character, than ever before—she will’presenl
almost a united front—so nearly so, as to warrant
the division of the House for alf practical purposes
into but two parties, the Democratic and the Black
Republican. The American party Nonh isfutterly
detunct—they have not a member elected to the
next Congress that *1 am aware of. At the SoutK
thus far, they have elected but five, l believe; tiro