Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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