Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

A . a. GAULDING & CO. SERIES, YOL " THURSDAY. SEPTEMBER 29 1859 ter*! ..SOFSUBSCRIPTION Tt^Y’^-p per annum in advance, $6 00 nitlT r ,V, v per “ in advance, 4 00 Jj.ffEO 11 -' ’ *7, “ in advance, 2 00 if na ; d witliin six months, 2 50 if paid within twelve months....... 3 00 Intercepted Correspondence pU I fish to-day, several letters addressed ‘committee of the Opposition party, ap- . - j.-.., .vnmocp nf mnfprrinir wifli fliA 'iiitetl for the purpose of conferring with the 0 f Democracy in various parts of the fL_-sending documents, &c., &c. There ^ e hard licks in these letters, which our ^ en ts will have to get along with as well f . ? ^ e v can- ^en that make hard beds, must * ’ t0 ]j e hard. If our opponents had not from fVinir jnlicited correspondence from their friends, r woU jd never have seen these letters in columns. But as long as they solicit such Mters. if tiie - v ^ ut in tllC wron « box > the >’ ma y apect us to take a<ivantage of them, by giv ^ them publication. __ We mk<- pleasure in laying before our jgrfeft tin' following Card. It comes from a $r5f faithful and long tried Democrat. We . in the field for the campaign, and with the operation of such men as Dr. Phillips, our aose will certainly prevail. ArniTon’s Office, W. A. R. R., | ~ ' '859. j Septemi>er, 21st, 1859 OL. A- A. Gaildi.vg.—Dear Sir: Going „ Ter to Aiken lias, doubtless, improved your 1 and efficiency as a Democratic leader : w( j j thank you for the promptness with which you have got up, iu pamphlet form, the material I sent you ; as I shall now have time t„ olace a copy in the hands of the voters in North-East Georgia, liefove they go to the iH s i vvould he glad if every man in Geor im could read the charges that have been made against Gov. Brown and Dr. Lewis, and tiieir refutation ; and would gladly send a few hundred copies of any paper the Opposition mav publish, embracing those charges, to the N E. Mountain Counties—they would do mure good for the Democratic counties, than Col. Akin’s speeches will do harm. Keep the ty;i up for a few days, and, if others will aid m,.. «c «ill have 5 or 10,000 more copies struck oti. This ha contest notbetween War ren Akin and .los. K. Brown, but a battle be tween Oeinocraey and tomething made up of so many heterogeneous elements, that I am not able to characterize it properly. Yours, &c.. GEO. D. PHILLIPS. Col. Wright at the Atheuieum. We happened, accidentally or otherwise, to le at the Athenamm, on Tuesday evening last. It was the third appearance of Col. W. F. IVright, on the Atlanta boards, this season. The Colonel, we think, is evidently improving. He went into a philosophical, or rather legal, disquisition iipou the three great absolute rights of man in a state of nature— "jersonal liberty, personal security, and (the right of) private property”—the most sacred of which, according to the speaker, was that of "private property.” That may be Mr. Hack stone's notion, but we, of this day and rnifry. rather think that the two former tight:' :'re tar the ‘‘most sacred.” The Colonel labored,to show that the “Cin- dnnatti Platform” violated the rights of “pri vate property”—how, or in what respect, we ould not exac tly understand. It may be our fault, or it may be the speaker’s, but we real- thought the Col. was rather muddy on this point; and we could not but think, that the Col. was “giving wing” to his imagination, when he asserted, more than once, that it was under and by virtue of the operation of the "Cincinnati Platform,” that the South had stall territory—that by it we had even lost California. He certainly forgot that Califor nia was admitted into the Union in the year mr Lord, one thousand eight hundred and tifty—and that the “Cincinnati Platform” was not adopted until the year 1850. We may be mistaken in our chronology, but think we are right. How, then, could the “Cincinnati Platform” have lost California to the South ? The Col. evidently fell into another error, when he asserted that under Gov. Johnson’s wiministratiioi, seven thousand dollars more pet month, u us paid into the Treasury by the ritate Road, than under Gov. Brown’s admin istration. We --appose that, following the lead of Col. Akin and Dr. Miller, what he meant to say was that seven thousand dollars more per month, was made. But then the Col. ought to be more particular, when he <*ae» down to matters of fact. We don’t be- eve that he would wilfully make a mis statement, but, then, a public speaker and a andidate for Congress, going about the coun ty to enlighten the people on*“matters of Mate,” ought to be “well posted,” and stick to the record. We will not follow the Colonel further, in speech of Tuesday night. We don’t think that he done .any great damage, either to tire democratic party in general, or to his oppo nent in particular. If Gartrell don’t beat "right, in Fulton county, three hundred T °tcs. why. then, we have mistaken the “signs 5 the times,” that’s all. Hon. Ii, J. Gartrell. The election for Governor, members of Con fess. n:.d members of the Legislature, is close 11 hand. One more week and the political £laiiiat'.|> <if the present canvass will sheathe their mvi .ids some to be crowned with the “ureb of victory: others to go into retire- *®t. and take position with the vanquished. The Democratic jiarty, of the 4th Congression- 11 district, at tiie owning of the campaign, I’kced their standard in the hands of the gal oot gentleman whose name heads this article, •hid worthily and fearlessly has be borne it. opponent had some reputation as a stump t[eak<-r. By mutual agreement they have canvassed the District. Their appointments *** oow about terminated. They have visited ettty county in the District, and discussed the Political issues upon which the people «f the ■'tote arc divided. Upon every field of con- ®ict. our standard-bearer has home himself *%• No canilid man can say that Col. Gar- ktil has not borne off the palm of victory, in {Ver y lmssage at arms which has taken place jetwe en him and his honorable opponent.— "HI not claim for Col. Gartrell such a vast ^JUnt of superiority, in point of intellect, ’’'or CoL Wright, yet we might safely do so, Jet his advocacy of correct principles, truth justice, gave him such an advantage over Id* adversary, that it cannot, in any wise, be **totishing that victory should always have P*rch»d upon his banner. The die is oast.— result of the coming election is known by •*1 What the Democratic majority will be— Aether 2,000 or 2,500, time alone must de And why should it not be so ? The District is largely Democratic. CoL Gar- “ERROR CEASES TO BE DANGEROUS, WHEN REASON IS LEFT TO COMBAT IT.*—JEFFERSON. PROPRIE1 ATLANTA, GEO., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1859. NO. 49. trell has, for the last two sessions, been our Representative in Congress. Faithfully has he represented his District. His stentorian aoice was heard, and the blows of his stalwart arm were felt, in every conflict, wherein the rights of his native South were involved. He may not have originated any great measure of Governmental policy—few there he that do this—but we say it, "with all the responsibili ty which attaches,that the South had no abler and willing defender of her rights in the last Congress, than Lucius J. Gartrell. Schooled as be has been in the Congress of the United States, he is vastly the superior of his compet itor to promote the interests of his constitu ents. The people of the 4th District appreci ate his worth, and on the 1st Monday in Oc tober next will pronounce in tones of thunder that a well fried public servant shall not go unrewarded for his patriotism and fidelity to their interests. OhoervatiMM an S tutor Diaglu’i Tlewa i Popular Sovereignty, as expressed fat Harper's Magazine. Cor Sept’ber 1859. [communicated.] Messrs. Editors : Permit a correspondent to give a word or two of cheer to the Demo cratic ranks elsewhere. The county of Camp bell, on the first Monday in October next, will vindicate afresh her title to the name “Dem ocratic,” and add another laurel to her politi cal chaplet. Be assured all will be well with Gartrell and Brown, and when the vote shall be counted the majorities will be larger than ever before. The efforts of the Opposition grow weaker and weaker, and their boasts and hopes will grow fainter and fainter till they shall vanish into air. They tell of triumphs and changes—that Democrats everywhere are rallying to Akin ", but, alas ! for the sinking cause ! where you find one poor Democrat, who, either from Bunk affiiliations or peison- al malice, opposes the re-election of Governor Brown, you find a dozen, who, from hot ene mies. have become his warm political friends and advocates. The honest}-, diligence and open frankness of the man, his unflinching ad herence to the rights of the jieople of the whole State, and, above all, his sound and un answerable argument of dollars and cents poured into the Treasury—all appeal directly to the hearts of the people, for his unanimous re-election. And, Democrats of Georgia, shall they appeal in vain ? Gov. Brown has refused to enter tire elect ioneering canvass, because he is employed and paid by the people to guide the helm of State —and to abandon it now, to seek bis own per sonal advancement on the stump, would be a base shuffling around the post of duty. Be sides there is no credit to be gained in a war fare against a man of straw, with breaths of empty air for principle, whose life is a living negation of everything and an approval of nothing—but self. We might tell you of the mighty men the Opposition have sent among us, to scare, alarm and astound. First, Wright of Ncwnan, threw his harmless missile ; then, Big-Gun, of Lagrange, came to the rescue, and finally, Homer Virgil Millon Milter, the wonder ful counsellor, the great Apostle the second, (allowing Ben to be the first) shot his angry darts athwart onr political sky. No doubt he thought he did great execution, and imagined the field before him was strewn with the dead and dying of his unerring shots. But when his artillery was hushed, and the smoke of his vamping had rolled away, he beheld every Democrat still firm in his ranks, with his face to' the foe, ready to do execution that will speak in thunder tones when the day of battle comes. Let Georgians and Democrats every where, rally to the standard of Brown, because it is the standard of principle, of truth and of right. Under his guidance tin* prosperity and glory of the State will be onward and upward, and two more years will place her another niche higher, as the Empire State of the South. CAMPBELL. C.iuwm.T.Tox, Sapt. If*, 1859. IKTERBEFTED CORRESPONDENCE. Atlanty, Sept, 19 1859. Jonathan Snoodles : your kind letur to our komity wus delivurd to the rong purson it got among them dimicrats about the intelin- gencer otis an thei put in the nuse paper an it done us a power uv harm. Our komity is all mity bissy now triin to get mony for the barbraeeu but thei aint got much yet an i am mity frade thei wil make a bad out ov it. Thei debititised me to rite yu. the old speck led lien thei sa-ie to give her sum solts. your mamy we ain seed nothin uv her about Atlan ty. them red Lts skareds our party mity they all thot it wus sum predicament sent on i—fer liein so much about Brown and Dr. Lewis for evry body nows thei ar mity Onest kind o men. an our parti all nows that ary one wild make a betur guvnor than Aken.— but our komity ses we must make out like we all think lie’s a mity smart man-, to try to ceep our parti together, an thei will nom- inat a smartui man next time- botewil me an yu—dont tel Our komity 1 dont like Aken much he is sich a turn koat now yu no Jonathan that iu 1850 that this very same Aken wanted to rase a army to go an whoop South Carlina into abolitionism now yeu see he ses that aint populur an he’s turn to be a grate fire eatur. i’mafrade a grate many uv our parte wont vote for him on that akount. Cosin Jon is ruin for the hous in fulton koun- ty lie is flyin round mity but our komity ses he wont be elected. Couse he wont get anuf vots. i dont think lie will be elected myself for i red iu the proverbs somwliar m websters Spelin Book, that the still sow allurs drunk the slop now the dimikratik Kandidat Mr Tol iver is one iiv em still kind o men an a mity clever feller—an i think he will bete Cosin Jon mity bad But we ar gotn to do our level best i ever remane yurs in Bonds ov n. n. i PETER SPUIGLES. Pan Handle, Neer atlanty. ftlti'N koun- TEE, GA. mr. haygude, simxun, kilhune others commitg. i knoticed in the “notion al amerikyn” yurkeerd solycitin letturs fram yur freens in all poyslmus uv the stait. so i thortei wood rite yu the nuse frum our iieet. the nuse is not very glide in this parte uv the countee. sum uv our jiartee sai as how thay wont voat fur sqire kilhune an “Cozen john” til thay cum out an sai whar thay inten fcu hav the depo uv the Jacsunvil rale rode hilt, it is cyrkulated in this naliurhood that “Coz en john” haz promised tu hav it put neer mr. william Kyles.—if this ar tru thar ar a gude many hear that wont voat fur hym. i think it wood bee a gude idee fur yu tu git up a do- kyment about the matur an sen it out hear.— i wil du mi best in cyrkulatin them amung the I cys ef yu wil sen them tu me. yu no that uncle jim’s groceree is in a mity sintrel pint, tel “Cozen john” i think he orter sen sum uv thim 5 cents testy merits ovur hear what it wus Bade he wus cyrkulatin amung the beknited. i think it wood git the wim en fokeson his syde, an i did here wun oman tel her ole man that he must not voat fur ‘ Cozen john.” thay al no “Cozen john.” he uze to liv rite abuv hear on the staite rale rode. i here our uoys ar proposm tu bet on the elekshnn. ef thay du tel thim not tu bet with thim fellurs what has garnisheeniences sarved aftur thay luse. yu no our boys lost a heep by thim enfurnal do- kymens last eleksun. i thorte it was mity meen, but thenj,it was jest like the demikratr. Kant yu cum out an se us and fech sum funs, we kan uze thim tu du sum gude hear at Un- cel jims Groceree. i wil rite tuyu agin t- fore the elekshun, ef we sliood want eny moar funs or dokyments arter the supli is goan what yu sen meinanser tu this hear epystul. youm til deth, RANbY SNIFFLE. Brown ahead. An intelligent gentleman from Murray Co., informs ms that the counties contiguous to Murray, off the State Road, are for Brown fiist last and all the time. In the counties of Gor don, Pickens, Gilmer, Cherokee, Forsyth, Lumpkin, Union & Murray, the opposition can didates for the Legislature are all Brown men with the exception of one. Thus the ball rolls! Let the opposition pretend that Akin will be elected ! We expect Gov. Brown to T^nirg a large gain in the 2d District oyer his last vote. He will sweep the State.—£ Col. Snn. Every one knows that Mr. Douglas, the Senator from Illinois, has written and printed ail • claim rate essay, comprising thirty-eight columns of “Harper's Magazine, in which he has undertaken to point out the “dividing line between federal and local authority.”— Very many persons have glanced over its par agraphs to catch the leading ideas without the loss of time, and some have probably read it through with care. Those who dissent from the doctrines of this paper owe to its author, if not to its ar guments, a most respectful answer. Mr. Doug las is not the man to be treated with a dis dainful silence. His ability is a fact unques tioned ; his public career, in the face of many disadvantages, has been uncommonly success ful ; and he has been for many years a work ing, struggling candidate for the Presidency. He is, moreover, the Corypheus of his politi cal sect—the founder of a new school—and his disciples naturally believe in the infallible variety of his words as a part of their faith. The style of the article is, in some respects, highly commendable. It is entirelv from the vulger clap-trap of the stump, and has no vain adornment of classical scholarship, But it shows no sign of the eloquent Senator : it is even without the logic of the great debater. Many portions of it are very obscure. It seems to be an unsuccessful effort at legal precision ; like the writing of a judge, who is trying in vain to give good reasous for a wrong decision on a question of law which he has not quite mastered. With the htlp of Messrs. Seward and Lin coln, he has defined accurately enough the platform of the so called Republican party ; and he does not attempt to conceal his con viction that their doctrines are, in the last degree dangerous. They are, most assuredly full of evil and saturated with mischief. The “irrepressible conflict” which they speak of witii so much pleasure between the “oppos ing and enduring forces” of the Northern and Southern States, will be fatal, not merely, to tiie peace of the country, but to the exis- tance of the Government itself. Mr. Douglas knows this, and he knows, also, that the Dem ocratic party is the only power which is, or can be, organized to resist the Republican for ces or opposes their hostile march upon the capital. He who divides and weakens the friends of the country at such a crisis in her fortunes, assums a very grave resjionsibility. Mr. Douglas separates the Democratic par ty into three classes, and describes them as follows: “First. Those who believe that the Consti tution of the United States neither establishes nor prohibits slavery in the States or Territo ries beyond the power of the people legally to control it, but leaves the people thereof per fectly free to form and regulate their domes tic institutions in their own way, subject on ly to the Constitution of the United States. 'Second. Those who believe that the Con stitution establishes slavery in the territories, and withholds from Congress and the territo rial legislature the power to control it, and who insists that, in the event the territorial legislature fails to enact the requisite laws for its protection, it becomes the imperative du ty of Congress to interpose its authority, and furnish such protection. Third. Those who, while professing to be lieve that the Constitution establishes slavery in the territories beyond the (lower of Cou- gess or the territorial legislature to control it, at the same time protest against the duty of Congress to interfere for its protection ; but insist that it is the duty of the judiciary to protect and maintain slavery in the territories without any law upon the subject.” We give Mr. Douglas the benefit of his own statement. This is his mode of expressing those differences, which, he says, disturb the harmony, and threaten the harmony of the American Democracy. These passages should, ciral'.n-u.Lci uukI carefully considered The first class Ls the one to which he him self belongs and to both the others he is e- qually opposed. He has no ri ;ht to come be tween the second and third class. If the dif ference which lie speaks of does exist among his opponents, it is their business, not his, to settle it or fight it out. We shall therefore confine ourselves to the dispute between Mr. Douglas and his followers on the one hand, and the rest of the democratic party on the other, presuming that he will be w illing to observe tbe principle of non-intervention in all matters with which he lias no concern. We will invert the order in which he has discussed the subject, and endeavor to show— 1. That he lias not correctly stated the doctrine held by his opponents ; and, 2. That his own opinion, as given by himself, are altogether unsound. I. He says that a certain portion of the Democratic party believe, or profess to believe, that the constitution establishes slavery in the ter- itories, and insist that it is the duty of the ju diciary to maintain it there without any law on the subject. Wc do net charge him with any intention to be unfair : but we assert, that lie has in fact done wrong to, probably, to nine teen-twentieths of the party, by attempting to put them on grounds which they never chose for themselves. The Constitution certainly does not establish slavery in the territories, nor anywhere else. Nobody in this country ever thought or said so.’ But the Con .titution regards as sacred and iiivoilalile all the rights which a citizen may legally acquire in a State, and goes with it into a territory, he is not for that reason to he striped of it. Our simple and plain propo sition is, that the legal owner of a slave or other chattle may go with it into a Federal territory without forfeiting his title. Who denies the truth of this, and and upon what gorund can it be controverted ? The reasons which support it are very obvious and very conclusive: As a jurist and a statesman. Mr. Douglas ought to be familiar with them, and there wasa time when he was supposed to understand them very well. We will briefly give him a few of them. 1. It is an axiomatic principle ©f public law, that a right of property, a private rela tion, condition or status, lawfully existing in one State or country, is not changed by mere removal of the parties to another country, unless the law of that other country be in di rect conflict with it. For instance : A mar riage legally solemnized in France is binding in America : children bom in germany are le gitimate there : and a mt-rcliant who buys good- in New York according to the laws of that m dc may carry them to Illinois and hold them there under his contract. It is precisely so with the status of a negro carried from otic (nu t of the United States to anoth er : the question of his freedom orservitude depends on the law of the place where he came fium, and depends on that alone, if there be no conflicting law at the place to which he goes or is token. The Federal Con stitution therefore recognizes slavery as a le gal condition wherever the local governments have chosen to let it stand unabolished, and regards it as illegal wherever the laws of Jthe place have forbidsn it. A slave being prop erty in Virginia, remains property ; and his master has all the righto of a Virginia master wherever he may go, so that he go not to any place where the local law comes in conflict with his right. It will not be pretended that the Constitution itself furnishes to the terri tories ft conflicting law. It contains no pro vision that can be tortured into any sem blance of a prohibition. 2. The dispute on the question whether slavery or feedom is local or greneral, is mere war of words. The black race in this coun try is neither bond nor free by virtue of any general law- That portion of it which is free by virtue of some local regulation, and the slave owes service for a similar reason. Tiie Constitution, *pd laws of the United States simplv declare that everything done in the in curises bv tiie State governments is right, and they shall be protected in carrying it out. But free negroes and slaves may both find themselves outside of any State jurisdiction, and in a territory wjiere no regulations has yet been made on the subject. There the constitution is equally impartial. It neither frees the slave nor enslaves the freoman. It requires both to remain in statu mo until the status already impreosed upon them by-the law of their previous domicil snail be changed by some competent local authori ty. What is competent local authority in a Territory will bo elsewnere considered. 3. The Federal Constitution carefully guards tiie righto of private property against the Federal Government itself, by declaring that It shall ndt be taken for public rise with out compensation, nor without due process of law.' Slaves are private property, and every man who has taken nn oatli of fidelity to the Constitution is religiously, morally and polit ically bound to regard them - cs such. Does anybody suppose that a Constiiutiou which acknowledges tiie sac-redness of private prop erty so fully would wantonly destroy that right, not by any words that are found in it, but by mere implication from its general prin ciples ? It might as well be asserted that the general principles of the Constitution gave Lane and Montgomery a license to steal hor ses ip the valley of the Osage. 4. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided the question. After solemn ar gument and careful consideration, that august tribunal has announced its opinion to be that a slaveholder, by going into a Federal Terri tory, does not lose the title he had to his ne gro iu the State from which he came. In for mer times, a question of constitutional law ofice decided by the Supreme Court was re garded as settled by all,, except that little band of ribald infidels, who meet periodically at Boston to Blaspheme the religions and plot rebellion against the laws, of the country.— The leaders of the so-called Republican party have lately been treading close on the heels of their abolition brethren • but it is devoutly to be hoped that Mr. Douglas has no inten tion to follow their example. In case he is elected President, he must see the laws faith fully executed. Does lie think he can keep that oath by fighting the judiciary t 5. The legislative history of the country shows that all the great statesmen of former times entertained the same opinion,-chid Wild it so firmly that they did not even think of any other. It was univei sally taken for gran ted that a slave remained a slave, gud a free man a freeman, In the new Territories, until a change was made in their condition by some enactment. Nobody liclieved that a slave might not have been taken to and kept in the Northwest Territory if the ordinance of 1787 or some other regulation Iiad not been made to prohibit it. The Missouri restriction of 1820 was imposed solely because it was under stood (probaly by every member of that con gress) that, in the absence of a restriction, slave property would be as lawful in the eye of the Constitution above 36dg. 30min. as be low ; and all agreed that the mere absence of a restriction did, in fact, make it lawful be low the compromise line. 6. It is right to learn wisdom from our ene mies- The Republicans do not point to any express provision of the Constitution, nor to any established rule of law, which sustains tiieir views. The ablest men among them are driven by stress of necessity to hunt for argu ments in a code unrevealed, unwritten, and undefined, which they put above the Consti tution or the BiWe, and call it “higher law.” The ultra abolitionists of New England do not deny that the Constitution is rightly in terpreted by the Democrats, as not interfer ing against slavery in the Territories; but they disdain to obey what they pronounce to be “an agreement with death and a covenant with hell.” 7. What did Mr. Douglas mean when lie proposed and voted for the Kansas-Nebraska bil repealing tbe Missori restriction ? Did he intend to tell southern men that notwith standing the repeal of the prohibition, they were excluded from those Territories as much us ever? Or did he not regard tne right of a master to his slave perfectly good whenever he got rid of the prohibition? Did he, or anybody else at that time, dream that it was necessary to make a positive law in favor of the slaveholder before he could go there with safety ? To ask these questions is to ansyrer them ? The Kansas-Nebraska bill was not meant as a delusion or a snare. It was well understood that the "repeal alone of the restrictions against slavery would throw the country open to everything which the Constitution recognized as property. We have thus given wliat we believe to be tKo opinions held by the great body of the Democratic party : namely, that the Federal Constitution does not establish slavery any where in the l'nion : that it permits a black man to be either held in servitvde or made free as the local law shall decide : and that in a Territory where no local law on the subject lias been enacted, it keeps both the slave and the free negro in tiie status already impressed upon them, until it shall be changed by com petent local authority. We have seen that tills is sustained by the reason of the thing, by a great principle of public law, by the words of the Constitutution, by a solemn decision of the Supreme Court, by the whole, course of our legislation, l>y the concession of our polit ical opponents, and, finally, by the most im portant act in the public life of Mr. Douglas himself. Mr. Douglas imputes another absurdity to his opponents when he charges them with in sisting “that it is the duty of the judiciary to protect and maintain slavery in the Territo ries without any law upon the subject. ’ ’ The judge who acts without law acts against law ; and surely no sentiment so atrocious as this was ever entertained by any portion of the Demo cratic party. The right of a master to the ser vices of his slave in a Territoiy is not against law nor without law, but in full accordance with law. If the law be against it we are all against it. Has not the emigrant to Nebras ka a legal right to the ox team, which, lie bought in Ohio, to haul him over the plains? Is not bis title as good to it in the Territory, as it was in the State where In' got it ? And what shonld be said of a judge who tells him that he is not protected, or that he is main tained, injthe possession of his property “with out any law upon the subject?” 11. We had a right to expect from Mr. Douglas at least a clear and intelligible defini tion of his own doctrine. We arc disappoint ed. It is hardly possible to conceive anything more difficult to comprehend. We well tran scribe it again, and do what eau be done to analyze it. “Those who believe that the Constitution of the United States neither establishes nor prohibits slavery in the States or Territories beyond the power of the people legally to con trol it, but ‘leaves the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic insti tutions in thier own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” The Constitution neither establishes nor prohibits slavery in the States or Territories. If it be meant by this that the Constitution does not, proprio vigors, either emancipate any man’s slave, or create tne condition of slavery, and impose ic on free negroes, but leaves the question of every black man’s status, in the Territories as well as in the States, to be determined by the local law, then we admit it, for it is the very same proposition which we have been trying to prove. But if, on the contrary, it is to be understood as an assertion that the Constitu tion does not permit a master tc keep his slave ov a free negro to have his liberty, in all parts of the Union where the local law does not in terfere to prevent it, then the error is not on ly a very grave one, but it is also absurd and self-contradictory. Ih Constitution neither estalbishes nor prohibits kavsrg in the Slates or Territories beyond the power oj Un people legally to control it. This Ls sailing to Point-No-Point again. Of course a subject, which is legally controlled, cannot be beyond the power that controls it. But the question is what constitutes legal control, and when the people of a State or Territory are in a con dition to exercise it. The Constitution of the United States ° ° ° o leaves the people perfectly free, 0 ° ® and subject only to the Constitution of the Uni ted States. This carries us round a full circle, aud drops us precisely at the place of begin ning. That the Constitution leaves every body subject to the Constitution, is most true. We are far from denying it. We never heard it doubted, and expect we never will. But the statement of it .proves nothing, defines nothing, and explains nothing. It merely darkens the subject, as words without mean ing always do. But notwithstanding all this circuity of ex- they may frame preparatory to tiieir admis sion as q State] can regulate Ttnd control tiie condition of the subject black race within tiieir respective jurisdictions, so as to make them bond or free. 1 .’ . Bnt here we come to the^ point at which opinions diverge. Some insist that no citizen can be deprived of his property in slaves, or in anything else, except by the provision of a State constitution or by the act of a State Legislature; while others contend that an unlimited control over private rights may be exercised by a Territorial as soon as the earli est settlements are made. So strong are the sentiments of Mr. Doug las in favor of the latter doctrine, that if it be not established he threatens us with Mr. SewaTd’s “irrepressible conflict,” which shall end only with the universal abolition or the univeisal dominion of slavery. On the other hand, the President, the Judges of the Su preme Court, nearly all the Democratic members of Congress, the whole of the party South, and a very large majority North, are penetrated with a conviction, that no such power is vested in a Territorial Legislature, and that those who desire to confiscaate pri vate property of any kind mu6t wait until they get a constitutional convention or the machinery of a State government into their hands. We venture to give the following reasons for believing that Mr. Douglas is in e^or: "he Supreme Court has decided that a Ter- (ial Legislature has not the power which iJWlaims for it. That alone Ought to be suf ficient. There can be no law, order, or secu rity for any man’s rights, unless the judicial authority <if the country be upheld, Mr. Douglas may do wliat he pleases with politi cal conventions ar.d (mity platforms, hut we trust lie will give -to the Supreme Court at least that decent res(ieet, which none but the most ultra Republicans have yet Withheld. The right ; of property is sacred, and the first object all human government is to make it secure. Life is always unsafe where property is *fot fully protected. This is the experience of every people on earth, ancient and modern. To secure private property was a principal object of Magna Charla. Charles I afterwards attempted to violate it, but the people rose upon him, dragged him to the block, and severed his head from his body.— At a still later period another monarch for a kindred offence was driven out of the coun try, and died a fugitive and an outcast. Our own Revolution was provoked by that slight- invasion upon the right of property which consisted iu trie exaction of a trifling tax.— There is no government in the world, howev er absolute, which would not be disgraced and endangered by wantonly sacrificing private property even tc a small extent. For centu ries past such outrages have ceased to be com mitted in times of peace among civilized n - tions. Slaves are regarded as property in the Sou thern States. The people of that section buy and sell, and carry on all their business, pro vide for their families, ami make their wills and divide their inheritances on that assump tion. It is manifest to all who know them, that no doubts ever cross their minds about the rightfulness of holding such property.— They believe they have a direct warrant for it, not only in the examples of the best men that ever lived, but in the precepts of Divine Revelation itself; and they arc thoroughly satisfied that the relation of master and slave is the only one which can possibly exist there between the white and the black race without ruining both. The people of the North may differ from their fellow -citizens of the South on the whole subject, but knowing, as we all do, that these sentiments are sincerely and honestly entertained, we cannot wonder that they feel the most unspeakable indignation when any attempt is made to interfere with their rights. 'J his sentiment results natural ly and necessarily from their education and habits of thinking. They canaot help it, any more than an honest man in t'.ie Noitli can avoid abhorring a thief or liousebreak- pression and consequent opaqueness of mean ing in the magazine article of Mr. Douglas, The juris^, Isgislators, and people of the Northern States, ha veal ways sacredly respect ed the right of property in slaves held by their own jurisdiction. It is a remarkable fact, very well worth noticing, that no Nor thern state ever passed any law to take a ne gro from his master. All laws for the aboli tion of slavery have operated only on the un born descendants of the negro race, and the vested rights of masters have not been dis turbed in the North more than in the South. In every nation under heaven, civilized, se mi-barbarous, or savage, where slavery has existed in any form at all analogous to ours, the rights of the masters to the control of their slaves as property have been respected ; and on no occasion has any government struck at British Parliament, when it emancipated the West India slaves, though it was legisla ting for a people three thousand miles away, and not represented, never denied either the lbgal or the natural right of tbe slave owner. Slaves were admitted to be property, and tbe Government acknowledged it by (laying their masters one hundred millions of dollars for the privilege of setting them free. Here, then, is a species of property which is of transcendent importance to the material interest of the South—which the people of that region think it right and meritorious in the eyes of God and good men to hold—which is sanctioned by the general sense of all man kind among whom it has existed—which was legal only a short time ago in all the States of the Union, and was then treated as sacred by every one of them—wliica is guaranteed to the owner as much as any other property is guaranteed by the Constitution ; and Mr. | Douglas thinks that a Territorial Legislature i is competent to take it away. We say, No ; the supreme legislative power of a sovereign State alone can deprive a man of his proper ty. This proposition is so plain, so well estab lished, and so universally acknowledged, that any argument in its favor would be a mere waste of words. Mr. Douglas does not deny it, and it did not require the thousandth part of his undeniable. He claims for the Terri torial governments the right of confiscating private property on the ground that those gov ernments are sovereign—have an uncontrollable and independent power over all their internal affairs. That is the point which he thinks is to split the Democracy and impale the nation. But it is so entirely erroneous, that it must vanish into thin air as soon as it comes to be examined. A Territorial government is merely provis ional and temporary. It is created by Con gress for the necessary perservation of order and the purposes of police. The powers con ferred upou it are expressed in the organic act, which is the charter ol its existence, and which may be changed or repealed at the pleasure of Cqpgress. Iu most of those acts the power has been expressly reserved to Congress of revising the Territorial laws, and the power to repeal them exists without sucli reservation. This was asserted in the case of Kansas by the most distinguished Senators in the Congress of 1££6. The President appoints the Governor, judges, and all other ofliceis whose appointment is not otherwise provided for, directly or indirectly, by Congress. Even the expenses of the of the Territorial govern ment are paid out of the Federal Treasury.— The truth is, they have no attribute of sov ereignty about them. The essence of sover eignty consists in having no superior. But a Territorial government has a superior in the United States Governmen, upon whose pleas ure itis dependent for its very existence—in whom it lives, and moves, and has its being —who has made, and can unmake it with a breath. Where does this sdvereign authority to de prive men of their property come from ? This transcendent power, which evt n deposits are cautious about using, and which a constitu tional monarch never exercises—how does it get into a Territorial Legislature ? Surely it does not drop from the clouds ; it will not be contended, that it aclompanies the settlers, or exists in the Territory before its organization. we think we can guess what his opinions are or will be when he comes to reconsider the subject. He will admit (at least he will not undertake to deny) that the status of a negro,- whether of servitude or freedom, accompan ies him wherever he goes, and adheres to him in every part of the Union until he meets some local law which changes it. It will also be agreed that the people of a State, through their Legislature, and the peo- the territories. That such power does not ex ist in the Federal Government, needs no proof : Mr. Douglas admits it fully and free ly. It is, besides, established bysolemn de cision of Congress, by tbe assent oi the Execu tive, and by the direct ratification of the -peo ple acting in their primary capacity- at tho polls. In addition to all this, the Supreme Court have deliberately adjudged it to be an uualterable and undeniable rule of constitu tional law. This acknowledgment that Congress has no power, authority, or jurisdiction over the sub ject, literally obliges -Mr. -Doiiglas to give up his doctrine, or else to main tain it by assert ing that a power wliich the federal govern ment does not possess may lie given by Con gress to the territorial government. The right to abolish african slavery iira territory is not granted by the Constitution to Con gress ; it is withheld, and therefore the same as if expressly prohibited. Yet Mr. Douglas declares that Congress may give it to Territo ries. Nay he goos further, and says that the want of the power in Congress is the very reason why it can deUgate it—the general rule, in his opsnion, being that Congress can not delegate the powers it possesses, but may delegate such, and only such, as Con gress cannot exercise finder the Constitution!” By turning to pages 250 and 521, the reader will see that this astounding piopositioli is actually made, not in jest or irony, but sol emnly, seriously and no doubt, in perfect good faith. On this principle, ns Congress cannot exer cise the power to make an ‘ex post facto’ law or a law impairing the obligation of con tracts, therefore it m vy authorize such laws to be made by the town councils of Washing ton city, or the levy eonrt of the District.— If Congress passes an act to hang a man without trial, it is void, and the judges will not allow it to be executed : but the power to do this prohibited thing can be constitution ally given by Congress to a Territorial Legis lature*. We admit that tlu re are certain powers be stowed upon the General Government which are in their nature judicial or executive.—' With them Congress can do nothing, except to see that they are executed by the proper kind of officers. It is also true that Congress has certain legislative powers which cannot he delegated. But Mr. Douglas should have known that he was not talking about powers Which belonged to either of these classes, but ibout a legislative jurisdiction totally forbid den to the Federal Government, and incapab'e of being delegated, for the simple reason that it does not constitutionally exist. Will anybody s iy that such a power ought, as a matter of policy, or for reasons of public safety, to be held by the provisional govern ments of tiie .Territorits? Undoubtedly no true patriot, nor no friend of juctiee and or der, can deliberately relloct on the probable consequences without depreciating them. This (lower over property is the one which in all governments has beeu most carefully guarded, because the temptation toabuse it is always greater than any other. It is there that the subjects of a limited monarchy watch their king with the greatest jealoussy. No republic has ever failed to impose strict limi tations upon it. All free people know, that if they would remain free, they must compel the government to keep its hands off their pri vate property; and.this film be done only by tying them up with c ireful restrictions. Ac cordingly our Federal Constitution declare that “no person shall be deprived ofhisprop- erty except by due process of law,” and that “private property shall not be taken for pub lic use without just coupensation.” It is uni versally agreed that this applies only to the exercise of the power by the government of the United State. We are also protected against the State governments by a similar provision in,the State constitutions. Legis lative robbery is therefore a crime which can not be committed either by Congress or by any State Legislature, unless it be done in flat rebellion to the fundamental law of the laud. But if the Territorial governments have tin's power, then they have it without any limita tion whatsoever, and iu all the fulness of ?bso-. lute despotism. They are omnipotent in re gard to all their internal affairs, for they are sovereigns, without u constitution to hold ehem in check. And this omuijio-ent sovereignty is to be wielded by a few men suddenly drawn to- ge-her from all parts of America and Europe, unacquainted with one onother, and ignorant of their relative rights. But if Mr. Douglas is right, those governments have all the abso lute power of the Russian Autocrat. They may take every kind of property in mere ca price, or for auy purpose of lucre or malice, without process of law, aiid without provi ding for compensation. The Legislature of Kansas, sitting at Lecompton or Lawrence, may ordei the miners to give up. every ounce of gold that has been dug at Pike's Peak. If the authorities of Utah should license a band of m iuraudere to despoil the emigrants crossi i :' the Territory, their sovereign right to do so (• nnot be questioned. A new Territory may Le organized, which Southern men think should be devote I to the culture of cotton, while the people of the North are equally cer tain that grazing alone is the proper business ta be carried on thero. If one party, by acci dent, by force, or by fraud, has a majority in the Legislature, tde negroes are taken from tbe planters; and if the other .set gaius a po litical victory, it is followed hy a statute to plunder the graziers of their cattle. Such things cannot be done by the Federal Govern ment, nor by the govenmeats of the States; but, if Mr. Eouglas is not mistaken, they can be done by the Territorial governments. Is it not evory way better to wait until the new inhabitants know themselves and one anoth er ; vntil the policy of the Territory is settled by some experience ; and, above all, until tiie great powers of a sovereign State are regular ly conferred u|H>n them and properly limited, so as to prevent the gross abuses which al ways accompany unrestricted power in humau hands ? There is another consideration, which Mr. Douglas should have been the last: man to overlook. The present Administration of the Federal Government, and the whole Demo cratic party throughout the country, includ ing Mr. Douglas, thought that, in the case of Kansas, the question of retaining or abolish ing slavery shuld not be determined by any representative body without giving to the whole mass of the people an opportunity of voting on it. Mr Douglas carried it further, aud wa.mly opposed the constitution^ deny ing even its vali iity, because other and undis puted parts of it had not also been submitted to a popular vote. New he is willing that the whole slavery dispute in any Territory, and all questions that can arise concerning the rights ot the .people to that or other property, shall be decided at once by a Territorial Leg islature, without imj' submission at all. Pop ular sovereignty in ’the last Congress meant the freedom of the pi ople from all the re straints of law and order : now it means a gov- ■emment which shall rule them with a rod of iron. It swings like a pendulum from one side clear ovejfeto the other. Mr. Douglas’s opinions on this subject of sovereign Territorial governments are very singular ; hut the reasous he lias produced to support them are infinitely more curious still* For instance, he shows that Jefferson once in troduced into the old <Congress of the Confed eration a plan for the government of the Ter ritories, calling them by the name of “New States,” but not making them anything like sovereign or independent States; and though this was a mere experimental project, which was rejected by Congress, and never afterwads referred to hy Jefferson himself, yet Mr. Doug* las ergues upon it as if it had somehow be come a part of our fundaimental law. Again : He says that the States gave to the Federal Govern ii ent the same powers which as colonies they had been willing to concede to the British Government, and kept those which as colonies they l>ad claimed for them selves - If he will read a common-school his tory of the Revolution, and then look at Art- 1, sec. 8, of the Constitution, he will find the professes to give the'very words, and maker, terfere withthe rights of pronertvdn Mr. Buchanan say * ••’Ihot aiaira>« a-vtafa -m Ww—a aS - r — * .. «* , r —-- 1 —~~J. ."“That slavery exists in Kansas by virtue or the'Constitution of the United States.” What Mr: Buchanan did say was a very different thin?- It was this: “It has been solemnly adjudged hy tbe highest j udieial tribu nal known-, to oar laws, that sla- veiy exists in Kansas by virtue of the Consti tution of the United States.” Everybody knows that by treating the Bible in that way, you can prove the non-existence of God. The argumentum ad hominem is not fair, and we do not mean to use it. Mr. Douglas has a right to change his opinions whenever he plea ses. But we quote him as we would any oth er authority equally high in favor of truth.— We can prove bv himself that every proposi tion he lays downi. in Harpers’ Magazine-is founded in error. Never before has any pub lic man in America so completely revolution ized his political opinions in the course of eighteen months.* We do not deny that the change is heartfelt and conscientious. We only insist that he formerly stated his propo sitions much more clearly, and shstained them with far greater ability and better reasons, than lie does now. When he took a tour to the South, at the lieginning of last winter, he made a speech at New Orleans, in which he announced to the people there that he and his friends in Illinois accepted the Deed Scott decision, regardedfx&rees as property, and fully admitted the . right of a Southern man to go into any Federal territory with his slave, and to hold him there as other property is held. n 1849 he voted in the Senate for what w’as called Walker’s amendment, by which it was proposed to put all the internal affairs of Calafornia and New Mexico under the domin ation of the President, giving him almost un limited power, legislative, judicial, and execu tive,over the internal affairs of those-Territo- ries. (See 20tli Cong., p, .) Undoubted ly this was a strange way of treating sover eignties. If Mr. Douglas is right now, he was guilty then of most atrocious usurpation. Utah is as much a sovereign State as any other Territory, and as perfectly entitled to enjoy the right of self-government. On the 12th of June, 1857, Mr. Douglas made a speech about Utah at Springfield, Illinois, in which he expressed his opinion strongly in fa vor of the absolute and unconditional repeal of the organic act. blotting the Territorial government out of existence, and putting the people under the sole and exclusive jurisdic tion of the United States, like a fort, arsenal, dock-yard, or magazine. He does not seem to have had the least idea then that he was pro posing to extinguishing a sovereignty, or to trample upon the sacred rights of an indepen dent people. The report which he made to the Senate, in 185(1, on the Topeka constitution, enunciates a very different doctrine from that ot the magazine article. It is true that the language is a little cloudy, but no one can understand the following sentences to signify that the Territorial governments have sovereign (low er to take away the property of the inhabi tants : “The sovereignty of a Territory remains in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people until they shall be admit ted into the Union as a State. In the mean time they are admitted to enjoy and exercise all the rights and privileges of self-govern ment, in subordination to the Constitution of the United States, and in obedience to the or- a Terri-:: t-k. tory that the settlers of a Territory are bound ? to wait until the sovereign power is wpon them, with proper limitatij to exercise .the most of all its functions. Mr. Douglas denies and there is the new issue. a raeh an issue he made at such me Wliat is there now to excuse any tnend of peace for attempting to stir op the »t«rs of strife? There is no actual difficulty about this subject in any Territoiy. rvInoT 1S no < U* e8t j on u P°n it pending before* Congress or the the country. We are called amM,* 0 a 1 contest, at once nnneooeasary and hopeless, with'the judicial authority of the nation. We objert^to^it* 1 We h *ai\ot obey Mr. Douglas when he commands to as- ault the Supreme Court of the United States, we believe the court to be right, and Mf. GougJas wrong. ganic law passed by Congress in pursuance oi ivireg Indeed, it is not to the people, but to thegov- j two following facts fully established : 1. That eminent of a Territory, that Mr. Douglas j the Federal Government has “powev to lay says it belongs. Then Congress must give the 1 and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and exci- power at the same time that it gives the Ter- s.-sand, 2. That the colonies, before the ritorial government., But not a word of the j Revolution, utterly refused to be taxed by kind is to be fouud in any organtic act that Great Britain; and so far from conceding the ever was framed. It is thus that Mr. "Doug- power, fought against it for seven long Years, las’s article runs itself out into nothing. j There is another thing in the article whiciiN But if Congress would pass a statute express- if it had not come from a distinguished Sena- ly to give this sort of power to the territorial tor, and a very upright gentlemau, wonld governments, they still would not have it; j.have been open to some imputation of unfair- for the Federal Government itself does not 1 ness. He quotes the President’s message that instrument, 't hese lights and privileges are all derived from the Constitution, through the act of Congress, and must be exercised and enjoyed in subjection to all the limita tions and restrictions which that Constitution imposes.” The letter he addressed to a Philadelphia meeting, in February, 18-..8, is more explicit, and, barring some anomalous idea concerning the abeyance of the power aud the suspension of it in trust, it is clear enough: “Under our Territorial system, it requires sovereign power to ordain and establish con- «titutions and governments. While a Terri tory may add should enjoy all the rights of self government, in obedience to its organic law, it is not a sovereign power. The sover eignty of a Territory remains in abeyance, sus pended in tiie United States, in trust for the people when they become a State, and cannot be withdrawn from the hands of the trustee and vested in the people of a Territory with out the consent of Congress.” The report which he made in the same month, from the Senate Committee on Terri tories, is equally distinct, and rather more emphatic against his new doctrine : “This committee in their reports have al ways held that a Territory is not a sovereign power ; that tiie sovereignty of a Territory is in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in tiust for the people when they become a State ; that the United States, as trustees, can not be divested of the sovereignty, nor the ter ritory be invested with the right to assume and exercise rt, without the consent of Con gress. If the proposition he true that sover eign (lower alone can institute governments, and that the sovereignty of a Territory is ip abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people when they become a State and that the sovereignty cannot he divested from the hands of the trustee without the as sent of Congress, it follows, as an inevitable consequence, that the Kansas Legislature did not and could not confer upon tiie Lecompton convention the sovereign power of ordaining a coDstitntion-for the people 6. Kansas, in place of the organic act passed by Congress.” ' The days are past and gone when Mr. Dou glas led the ii-'ry assaults of the opposition in the Lecompton controversey. Then it w s his object to prove that a Territorial Legislature, so tar from being omnipotent, was powerless even to'authorize an election of delegate to consider about their own affairs. It was asserted that a convention chosen under a Territorial law could make and ordain no con stitution which would be legally binding. - Then a Territorial government was to be despised and spit upon, even when it invited the people to come forward and vote on a question of the most vital importance to then- own interests. But now all things have be • come new. The Lecompton dispute has ‘gone glimmering down the dream oi tilings that were,’ and Mr. Douglas produces another L- sue, brand new from the mint. The old opin ions are not worth a rush to liis present posi tion: it must be sustained by opposite princi ples and reasoning totally different. The Leg islature of Kansas was hot sovereign when it authorized a convention of the people to as semble aud to decide what sort of a constitu tion they would have, but when it strikes at their rights of property, it becomes not only a sovereign, but a sovereign without limitation of power. We have no idea that Mr. Douglas is hot perfectly sincere, as he was also when he took the other side. Tire impulses engen dered by the heat of controversy have driven him at different times iu opposite directions. We.iio not charge it against him as a crime, hut it is true.that tnese views ot liis, inconsis tent as they are with one another, alwuys hap- pen to accord with the interest of the opposi tion, always give to the enemies of the Con stitution a certain amount of ‘aid and comfort’ and always add a little to the rancorous and malignant hatred with which the Abolitionists regard the Government of their own country. Yes ; the Lecompton issue winch Mr. Dou glas made u(ioii the Administration two years ago is done, and the principles on which we were then opposed are abandoned. We are no longer required to fight lor the lawfillness of a Territorial election held under Territorial authority. But another issue is thrust upon us, to “disturb the harmony and threaten tbe integrity” of the party. A few words more, (perhaps of tedious repetition,) bv wav of showing what new issue is, or probable."will be, aud we are done. .We insist that ail emigrant going into a Federal Territory, retains his title to the pro perty which lie took with him, until there is some prohibition enacted by lawful authority. Mr. Douglas cannot deny this in the face of his New Orleans speech, and the overwhelm ing reasons which support it. It is an agreed point among all Democrats that Congress cannot interfere with the rights of property in the Territories. It is also acknowledged that the people of a new State, either in tiieir constitution or in an act of their Legislature, may iWV \ the ne groes within it free, or hold thernTr sscrvitv.de. We' Keep It before the People, That Col. Akin said) in 1850 or ’51, that if South Carolina should secede from the Union, he would join the Federal troops to whip her hack. Let CoL Akin dare deny this, charge, and we will prove it on him by the best sort of testimony. A nice man is Col. Akin to he talking about Gov. Brown’s recreancy, to Southern Rights. Gov. Brown has always been a Southern Rightsfrnan of the right sort. Col. Akin, never. We are sorry for the Dem ocrat who has so far lost sight of his country’s welf.irft and his party, as to he willing, under present circumstances, to vote for Akin. Let every Democrat do his duty, in Georgia, aud Gov. Brown will reach that 30,000, and we will carry every Congressman in the State. M ould not that be glory enough for one day ? It is possible. Let it be done. V. Mr. Hull’s Letter. We publish in another place, a letter from Win. Hope Hull, Esq., of Athens, Ga., deny ing the charge that he had deserted Governor Biown and “gone over to Akin.” The Oppo sition have, for some weeks past, been inff a course of reckless mg a course of reckless misrepresentation, which does them little credit. Wm. H. jfnij, is a true and reliable Democrat. His high position as a man, a lawyer and politician, was seized upon by our enemies to disaflect other members of the party towards Governor Brown. In this they have signally failed, and the public may judge, by tiieir misrepresented tion in this case, of how much reliance may he placed in their statements, as regards oth er Democrats, who they say are going to vote for Col. Akin. Our own opinion is. that tiie Democratic votes which C ol. Akin will re ceive, will be like angels’ visits, “few and far between.” Where he will get one Democrat ic vote, we doubt not, Gov. Brown will receive ten ot the American party. The lion st yeo manry of the country are capable of apprecia ting the fidelity and integrity of Gov. Brown, and will not he led away by such clap-trap ar guments as the Opposition are using against him. hurtful J “Th c Tongue of a Viper Is lr« than that of a Slanderer, Now that the Gubernatorial campaign is soon to close, it is amusing to observe the contemptible subterfuges to which certain of our press resort to furtherthe interests of their party and candidates. Utterly ignoring all manner of courtesy and gentility, respecting neither sacred aud private rights nor public virtues, they seem bent on waging a relentless war, wielding with the arm of a Sampson, that Archimedean lever of the Opposition press, low-flung billingsgate. We had hoped to see this canvass characterized by a spirit of liberality and generous rivalry. Losing sight of all the nobler impulses which should gov ern man in the tree discussion of men and measures jiertaining to the public weal, sow- of flic Opposition press, urged on by the in toxication of party zeal, have arrived at that desperate stage wliich the debauchee some times reaches, of perpetrating deeds “dark as the confines of perdition. ’ ’ This we regard as truly a lamentable state of affairs, when our public prints can find no nobler occupation than traduciug the private actions and cal u- mniating the public character of good and true men. We are willing to accord to polit ical writers the right to argue the fitness of a candidate for the position to which he aspires, but beyond this, he’siiould be sacred from their vulture talons. We want no better evidence of an “exhausted argument ” than to hear its advocates- resort "to personalities, virtually shifting the issue. To be a candidate in this enlightened (?) ago, requires more nerve than tiie generality of meu possess ; for no man, however spotless his character, is will ing to be placed as a targ t for tiie above named class of editorial Lilliputians to tire at; to be villilied, simply because lie fails to meet the political approval of a hungry set of scheming Jackalls. 'These reflections have been suggested by the frequent manner in which certain of tiie ■‘Opposition” have paraded before the public, with liyena-like pertinacity, the private ac tions of honorable men in tiie Democratic ranks. To tolerate this, wc repeat, the aspi rant lor office must l>e a man of nerve and patience. It has been our earnest wish and desire to conduct the present canvass in a pa cific and courteous maner ; that we have fail ed in this to some extent, is no fault of ours. To deal with a party that opposes absolutely everything, and couples that opposition with bitter tirades of uncalled-for abuse, require q as much patience as Job himself is supposeu to have possessed, lime and again, we have endeavored, in a becoming manner, to meet and disprove the many wdful and knowing slanders which have been'he;qled both upou ourselves and those good and true men whose claims wc have advocated, and whose charac ters will soon be vindicated at thc ballot-box, where their vile traducers will rec ive that rebuke wliich the just indignation of an out raged people cannnt and will not fail to give them. The democratic candidate for Governor, has been before tiie country ill an official capaoity for two years* during this time he has been industriously engaged in developing the re sources of cur State, in forwarding the inte rests of her people, aud in keeping a watchful eye over her finances. Wheth r or not he has succeeded in this laudable undertaking, we are willing to ieave to the decision of all rea sonable and right-fliinkiug men ; we give it as nur opinion that he has succeeded. His offi cial acts arc open for inspection, and liis im aginary sins of “omission and commission” have been herraldcd throughout the land.— Look at them ! view them in tiieir worst light, and still we are willing that he should be “weighed,” and if “found wanting,” will submit to tbe decree as.righteous, without _a murmur. But Gov. Brown will not be ‘ found want ing.” He has made an excellent Governor. The people know it, and so do many that are ' • J ' ’er^psvilLJ^- H now slander 1 avail J pie of a Territory, in the constitution which possess any control over men’s property in and begins in the middle of a sentence. H-