States into revolution, separating them from the border slave States, he proceeds as follows:Mr. PUGH read the following: "It is equally true that I do not expect Virginia to take any initiative steps towards a dissolution of the Union, when that exigency shall be forced upon the South. Her position as a border State, and a well-considered southern policy, (a policy which has been digested and understood and approved by the ablest inen in Virginia, as you yourself must be aware,) would seem to demand that, when such movement takes place by any considerable number of southern States, Virginia and the other border States should remain in the Union, where, by their po-ition and their counsels, they could prove more effective friends, than by moving out of the Union, and thus giving to the southern confederacy a long abolition hostile border to watch. In the event of the movement being successful, iu time, Virginia, and the other border States that desired it, could join the southern confederacy, and be protected by the power of its arms and its diplomacy. "Your charge that I designed to, and did, impeach the fidelity of Virginia, is untrue, however much of truth there may be in it with reference to those border States that I have named." Mr. DOUGLAS. So it seems that, in 1858, a well-digested plan had been matured and approved by many of the ablest men of the South, and even in Virginia; and that by that plan it was not expected that Virginia, and these other unsound States, were to go out of the Union when the Southi was forced to dissolve using the word "forced." One would suppose that if there was any such injustice to the slaveholding States as to force the South out, in defence of her constitutional rights, Virginia would be expected to be as tenacious of them as any other State; but he did not expect that. Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware were expected, by that plan, to remain in the Union, for the reason that, by so remaining, they could render more service to those who went out than they could if they went out with them. A very enviable position Mr. Yancey puts the Old Dominion in! He wishes to retire from you, and asks you to remain with us, in order that you may annoy and distract and betray us, for the benefit of those that go out; and he holds out the assurance that, in the course of time, perhaps, Virginia and Maryland and Kentucky and Tennessee and Missouri may become sound enough to be admitted into the southern confederacy. He is going to keep you on probation a while, guarding a long abolition frontier, for the benefit of the cottón States; and after a while, perhaps, if you do good service, and so act as to be entitled to his respect and confidence, then he will admit you into this southern confederacy of the cotton States. shows that Mr. Yancey there acted up to his programme announced in his letters to Slaughter and PRYOR. He preserved his relations with his party with a view of exercising influence on public men and measures, over northern as well as southern men, and finally proposed an intervention platform, reversing the creed of the party, and at the proper time" he did precipitate the cotton States into revolution, and led them out of the convention. The programme was carried out to the letter; and he did leave in the convention those unsound. States that he and Kentucky and Missouri and North Carolina could not trust, such as Virginia and Tennessee and Delaware and Maryland. Part of Delaware, I believe, followed him; but they came to the conclusion that Delaware was not big enough to divide. [Laughter.] Her champion returned back into the northern coufederacy. Was it to keep watch, and guard, an abolition frontier for the benefit of the cotton States? Is Delaware to be received into Mr. Yancey's southern confederacy after a while? Will he consent to allow Virginia to come? Will North Carolina be accepted by him? Will Tennessee be permitted to come in, now that she has got rid of her Free-Soil Senator? Will he allow Kentucky to join, when such abolitionists as Clay and CRIT TENDEN have ceased to represent her? I beg the pardon of the Senator from Kentucky for repeating his name in this connection. The gallant Senator from Kentucky an abolitionist! A free-soiler! A man whose fame is as wide as civilization, whose patriotism, whose loyalty to the Constitution, was never questioned by men of any party [Applause in the galleries.] Oh, with what devotion could I thank God if every man in America was just such an, abolitionist aa Henry Clay and J. J. CRITTENDEN! [Renewed applause.] The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Foor.) Or der! The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, is obliged to say that a repetition of the offence from the galleries must be followed by an order for the clearance of the galleries forthwith. The Chair gives this notice to all persons occupying seats in the galleries on the assumed authority and direction of the Senate itself. Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not say that Mr. Yancey Mr. Yancey tells us of the "well-digested and his associates at Charleston mean disunjon. plan." It was not to be executed at once; aud in I have no authority for saying any more than the mean time all the men in the plan must pre- appears in the publication of his matured plan. serve their relations in the Democratic party, so Sir, it was said with truth that the order of as to influence public men and public measures, battle isgned at Cerro Gordo by General Scott and thus be ready to have more influence in pre- a day before the battle, was a complete history cipitating this result on the party and breaking of the triumph after the battle was over, so perit up. Part of the plan was to pretend still to fect were his arrangements, so exact was the be members, keep in the party, go into fellow-compliance with his orders. The programme of ship with us, seem anxious to preserve the organization, and at the proper time plunge the cotton States into revolution. What was the proper time, to which he alluded? Was it at the Charle to convention? Was that to be the auspicious monent? The history of the event Mr. Yancey, published two years ago, is a truthful history of the secession movement at Charleston. I have not the slightest idea that all those who came under his influence in maturing his measures concurred in the ends to which these measures inevitably led; but what were Mr. Yancey's measures? He proposed to insist upon | a platform identical in every feature with the eaucus resolutions which we are now asked to adopt. The Yancey platform at Charleston, known as the majority report from the committee on resolutions, in substance and spirit and legal effect, was the same as the Senate caucus resolutions; the same as the resolutions now under discussion, and upon which the Senate is called upon to vote. trine of the two parties, you will find a southern intervention party for slavery, and a northern intervention party against slavery; and, then will come the "irrepressible conflict" of which we have heard so much. We have had an illustration, of what kind of intervention you will get whenever you recognize the right of Congress to intervene on this subject. The House of Representatives sent us a bill the other day repealing the slave code, which was unanimously adopted by the Legislature of New Mexico, and fastening the Wilmot proviso upon that Territory against the will of that people. That bill is now pending on your table, and awaiting the action of this body, side by side with a resolution of one of the Senators from Mississippi [Mr. BROWN] to repeal the prohibition of slavery in Kansas Territory, with a view to force them to have the institution, whether they want it or not. I tell you that the doctrine of the Democratic party, So I do not suppose that any gentleman advocating this platform in the Senate means, or desires disunion. I acquit each and every man of such a purpose; but I believe, in my conscience, that such a platform of principles, insisted upon, will lead directly and inevitably to a dissolution of the Union. The platform demands congressional intervention for slavery in the Territories in certain events. What are these events? In the event that the people of a Territory do not want slavery, and will not pro-as proclaimed in 1848 and in 1852 at Baltimore, vide by law for its introduction and protection, and that fact shall be ascertained judicially, then Congress is to pledge itself to pass laws to force the Territories to have it. Is this the nonintervention to which the Democratic party pledged itself at Baltimore and Cincinnati? So long as the people of a Territory want slavery, and say so in their legislation, the advocates of the caucus platform are willing to let them have it, and to act upon the principle that Congress shall not interfere. They are for non-interference so long as the people want slavery, so long as they will provide by law for its introduction and protection; but, the moment the people say they do not want it, and will not have it, then Congress must intervene and force the institution on an unwilling people. On the other hand, the Republican party is also for non-braska, so well as the settlers in that Territory intervention in certain contingencies. The Republicans are for non-intervention just so long as the people of the Territories do not want slavery, and say so by their laws. So long as the people of a Territory prohibit slavery, the Abolitionists are for non-intervention, and will not interfere at all; but whenever the people of the Territories say by their legislation that they do want it, and provide by law for its introduction and protection, then the Republicans are for intervening and for depriving them of it, Each of you is for intervention for your own section, and against it when non-intervention operates for your section. There is no difference in principle between intervention North and intervention South. Each asserts the power and duty of the Federal Government to force institutions upon an unwilling people. Each denies the right of self-government to the people of the Territory over their internal and domestic concerns. Each appeals to the passions, prejudices, and ambition of his own section, against the peace and harmony of the whole country. in 1856 at Cincinnati, and in 1860 at Charleston, Sir, let this doctrine of intervention North and intervention South become the rallying-point of two great parties, and you will find that you have two sectional, parties, divided by that line that separates the free from the slaveholding States. Whenever this shall become the doc do. Our doctrine-the doctrine of the Democratic party as proclaimed at Charleston-is non-interference by the Federal Government with the local concerns and domestic affairs of the people, either in the States or in the Territories. But we are told that the necessary result of this doctrine of non-intervention, which gentlemen, by way of throwing ridicule upon, call squatter sovereignty, is to deprive the South of all participation in what they call the common, Territories of the United States. That was the ground on which the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. DAVIS] predicated his opposition to the compromise measures of 1850. He regarded a refusal to repeal the Mexican law as equivalent to the Wilmot proviso; a refusal to recognize by an act of Congress the right to carry a slave there as equivalent to the Wilmot proviso; & refusal to deny to the Territorial Legislature the right to exclude slavery as equivalent to an exclusion. He believed at that time that this doctrine did amount to a denial of southern rights; and he told the people of Mississippi so; but they doubted it. Now, let us see how far his predictions and suppositions have been verified. 1 infer that he told the people of Mississippi so, for as he makes it a charge in his bill of indictment against me, that I am hostile to southern rights, because I gave those votes. Now, what has been the result? My views were incorporated into the compromise measures of 1850, and his were rejected. Has the South been excluded from all the territory acquired from Mexico? What says the bill from the House of Representatives now on your table, repealing the slave code in New Mexico established by the people themselves? It is part of the history of the country that under this dóctrine of non-intervention, this doctrine that you delight to call squatter sovereignty, the people of New Mexico have introduced and protected slavery in the whole of that Territory. Under this doctrine, they have converted a tract of free territory into slave territory, more than five times the size of the State of New York. Under this doctrine, slavery has been extended from the Rio Grande to the Gulf of California, and from the line of the Republic of Mexico, not only up to 36° 30', but up to 380,-giving you a degree and a half more slavery territory than you ever claimed. In 1848 and 1849 and 1850 you only asked to have the line of 36° 30'. The Nashville convention fixed that as its ultimatum. I offered it in the Senate in August, 1848, and it was adopted here but rejected in the House of Representatives. You asked only up to 36° 30', and non-intervention has given you slave territory up to 38°,-a degree and a half more than you asked; and yet you say that this is a sacrifice of southern rights! grizzly bear gives to the infant. Appealing to an anti-slavery Congress to pass laws of protection, with a view of forcing slavery upon an unwilling and hostile people? Sir, of all the mad schemes that ever could be devised by the South, or by the enemies of the South, that which recognizes the right of Congress to touch the institution of slavery either in States or Territories, beyond the single case provided in the Constitution for the rendition of fugitiva slaves, is the most fatal. Mr. President, this morning, before I started for the Senate Chamber, I received a newspaper containing a letter written by one of Georgia's gifted sons upon this question of non-intervention. I allude to one of the brightest intellects that this nation has ever produced; one of the most useful public men; one whose retirement from among us created universal regret throughout the whole country. You will recognize at once that I mean Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia. Since the adjournment of the Charleston convention, Mr. Stephens has responded to a letter from his friends, giving his counsel-the counsel of a patriot-to the party and the country in this emergency. In the letter he reviews the doctrine of non-intervention, and shows that he was originally opposed to it, but submitted to it because the South demanded it: that it had a southern origin; was dictated to the North by the South; and he accepted it because the South required it. He shows that the same doctrine was incorporated into the Kansas-Nebraska bill; that it formed a compact of honor between northern and southern men by which we were all bound to stand. He gives a history of the Kansas-Nebraska bill identical with the one I gave to you yesterday, without knowing that he had written such a letter. Mr. Stephens has a Nebraska bill. No man in the House of Representatives exerted more power and influence in securing its passage than Alexander H. Stephens, I ask that the letter be read, omitting only those passages which give Mr. Stephens's individual opinions on the legal points in dispute, and, not being political issues, were referred to the courts, for it covers the entire ground, and speaks in the voice of patriotism, counselling the only course that can preserve the Democratic party and perpetuate the union of these States. These are the fruits of this principle which the Senator from Mississippi regards as hostile to the rights of the South. Where did you ever get any other fruits that were more palatable to your taste, or more refreshing to your strength? What other inch of free territory has been converted into slave territory on the American continent since the Revolution, except in New Mexico and Arizona, under the principle of non-inter-right to speak as to the meaning of the Kansasvention affirmed at Charleston. If it be true that this principle of non-intervention has conferred upon you all that immense territory; has protected slavery in that comparatively northern and cold region where you did not expect it to go, cannot you trust the same principle further South when you come to acquire additional territory from Mexico? If it be true that this principle of non-intervention has given to slavery all New Mexico, which was surrounded on nearly every side by free territory, will not the same principle protect you in the northern States of Mexico when they are acquired, since they are now surrounded by slave territory; are several hundred miles further South; have many degrees of greater heat; and have a climate and soil adapted to southern products? Are you not satisfied with these practical results? Do you desire to appeal from the people of the Territories to the Congress of the United States to settle this question in the Territories? When you distrust the people and appeal to Congress, with both Houses largely against you on this question, what sort of protection will you get? Whenever you ask a slave code from Congress to protect your institutions in a Territory where the people do not want it, you will get that sort of protection which the wolf gives to the lamb; you will get that sort of friendly hug that the Mr. PUGH read, as follows: CRAWFORDVILLE, GEORGIA, May 9, 1860. GENTLEMEN: Your letter of the 5th instant was received last night, and I promptly respond to your call as clearly and fully as a heavy press of business engagements will permit. I shall endeavor to be no less pointed and explicit than candid. You do not, in my judgment, over-estimate the importance of the questions now pressing upon the pub lio mind, growing out of the disruption of the Charleston convention. While I was not greatly surprised at that result, considering the elements of its composition, and the general distemper of the times-still, I deeply regret it, and, with you, look with intense interest to the consequences. What is done cannot be undone or amended that must remain irrevocable. It would, therefore, be as useless, as ungracious, to indulge in any reflections as to whose fault the rupture was owing to. Perhaps, and most probably, undue excitement and heat of passion, in pursuit of particular ends, connected with the elevation or overthrow of particular by cool judgment, so necessary on such occasions to advance rivals for preferment, more than any strong desire, guided the public good, was the real cause of the rupture. Be that as it may, however, what is now to be done, and what is the proper course to be taken? To my mind the course seems to be clear. A State convention should be called at an early day, and that convention should consider the whole subject calmly and dispassionately, with "the sober second thought," and determine whether to send a representation to Richmond or to Baltimore. The correct determination of this question, as I view it, will depend upon another; and that is, whether the doctrine of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories ought to be adhered to or abandoned by the South. This is a very grave and serious question, and ought not to be decided rashly or intemperately. No such small matters as the promotion of this or that individual, however worthy or unworthy, ought to enter into its consideration. It is a great subject of public policy, affecting the vast interests of the present and the future. It may be unneces sary, and entirely useless, for me to obtrude my views upon this question in advance of the meeting of such convention, upon whom its decision may primarily devolve. I cannot, however, comply with your request without doing so to a limited extent, at least. This I shall do. In the first place, then, I assume, as an unquestioned and unquestionable fact, that non-intervention, as stated, has been for many years received, recognized, and acted upon as the settled doctrine of the South. By non-intervention I mean the principle that Congress shall pass no law upon the subject of slavery in the Territories, either for or against it, in any way-that they shall not interfere or act upon it at all-or, in the xpress words of Mr. Calhoun, the great southern leader, that Congress shall "leave the whole subject where the Constitution and the great principles of self-government place it." This has been eminently a southern doctrine. It was announced by Mr. Calhoun in his speech in the Senate on the 27th of June, 1848; and, after two years of discussion, It was adopted as the basis of the adjustment finally made in 1850. It was the demand of the South, put forth by the South, and, since its establishment, has been again and again affirmed and reaffirmed as the settled policy of the South, by party conventions and State Legislatures, in every form that a people can give authoritative expression to their will and wishes. This cannot now be matter of dispute. It is history, as indelibly fixed upon the record as the fact that the colony of Georgia was settled under the auspices of Oglethorpe, or that the war of the American Revolution was fought in resistance to the unjust claim of power on the part of the British Parliament. I refer to this matter of history connected with the subJect under consideration barely as a starting point, to show how we stand in relation to it. It is not a new question. It has been up before, and whether rightly or wrongly it has been decided, decided and settled just as the South asked that it should be-not, however, without great effort and a prolonged struggle. The question now is: Shall the South abandon her own position in that decision and settlement? This is the question virtually presented by the action of the seceders from the Charleston convention, and the grounds upon which they based their action; or, stated in other words, it amounts to this, whether the southern States, after all that has been said on the subject, should now reverse their previous course, and demand congressional intervention for the protection of slavery in the Territories as a condition of their remaining longer in the Union? For I take it for granted that it would be considered by all as the most mischievous folly to demand, unless we intend to push the issue to its ultimate and legitimate results. Shall the South, then, make this demand of Congress, and when made, in case of failure to obtain it, shall she secede from the Union, as portion of her delegates (some under instructions, and some from their own free will) seceded from the convention on their failure to get it granted there? Thus stands the naked question, as I understand it. preonted by the action of the sereders, in all its dimensionsus length, breadth, and depth-in all its magnitude. It is presented not to the Democratic party alone. It is true a convention of that party may first act on it, but it is presented to the country, to the whole people of the South, of all parties. And men of all parties should duly and timely consider it, for they may all have to take sides on it sooner or later. It rises in importance high above any party organization of the present day, and it may, and ought to, if need be, sweep them all from the board. My judgment is against the demand. If it were a new question, presented in its present light for the first time, my views upon it might be different from what they are. It is known to you and the country that the policy of non-intervention, as established at the instance of the South, was no favorite one of mine. As to my position upon it, and the doctrine now revived, when they were original and open questions, as well as my present views, I will cite you to an extract of a speech made by me in Augusta, in July last, on taking final leave of my con The great question then is, shall we stand by our principles, or shall we, cutting loose from our moorings, where we have been safely anchored so many years, launch out again into unknown seas, upon new and perilous adventures, under the guide and pilotage of those who prove themselves to have no more fixedness of purpose, or stability as to objects or policy, than the shifting winds by which we shall be driven? Let this question be decided by the convention, and decided with that wisdom, coolness, and forecast which become statesmen and patriots. As for myself, I can say, whatever may be the course of future events, my judgment in this crisis is, that we should stand by our principles "through woe" as well as "through weal," and maintain them in good faith, now and always, if need be, until they, we, and the Republic perish together in a common ruin. I see no injury that can possibly arise to us from them-not even if the constitutional impossibility of their containing "squatter sovereignty" did not exist, as has been conclusively demonstrated. For, if it did exist in them, and were all that its most ardent advocates claim for it, no serious practical danger to us could result from it. Even according to their doctrine, we have the unrestricted right of expansion to the extent of population. They hold that slavery can and will go, under its operation, wherever the people want it. Squatters carried it to Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas, with out any law to protect it, and to Texas against a law pro hibiting it, and they will carry it to all countries where climate, soil, production, and population will allow. These are the natural laws that will regulate it under non-intervention, according to their construction; and no act of Congress can carry it into any Territory against these laws, any more than it could make the rivers run to the mountains, instead of the sea. If we have not enough of the right sort of population to compete longer with the North in the colonization of new Territories and States, this leficiency can never be supplied by any such act of Congress as that now asked for. The attempt would be as vain as that of Xerxes to control the waters of the Hellespont by whipping them in his rage. The times, as you intimate, do indeed portend evil. But I have no fears for the institution of slavery, either in the Union or out of it, if our people are but true to themselves; true, stable, and loyal to fixed principles and settled policy;. and if they are not thus true, I have little hope of anything: good, whether the present Union lasts or a new one be formed. There is, in my judgment, nothing to fear from the "irrepressible conflict." of which we hear so much. Slavery rests upon great truths which can never be successfully assailed by reason or argument. It has grown stronger in. the minds of men the more it has been discussed, and it will still grow stronger as the discussion proceeds, and time rolls on. Truth is omnipotent and must prevail. We have only to maintain the truth with firmness, and wield it aright. Our system rests upon an impregnable basis, that can and will defy all assaults from without. My greatest apprehension is from causes within-there lies the greatest danger. We have grown luxuriant in the exuberance of our wellbeing and unparalleled prosperity. There is a tendency everywhere, not only at the North, but at the South, to strife, dissension, disorder, and anarchy. It is against this tendency that the sober-minded and reflecting men everywhere should now be called upon to guard. My opinion, then, is, that delegates ought to be sent to the adjourned convention at Baltimore. The demand made at Charleston by the seceders ought not to be insisted upon. Harmony being restored on this point, a nomination cau doubtless be made of sore man whom the party everywhere can support, with the same zeal and the same ardor with which they entered and waged the contest in 1856, when the same principles were involved. If in this there be a failure, let the responsibility not rest upon us. Let our hands be clear of all blame. Let there be no cause for casting censure at our door. If, in the end. the great national Democratic party-the strong ligament which has so long bound and held the Union together, shaped its policy, and controlled its destinies, and to which we have so often looked with a hope that seldom failed, as the only party North on which to rely in the most trying hours when constitutional rights were in peril-goes down, let it not be said to us, in the midst of the disasters that may ensue, "you did it!" In any and every event, let not the reproach of Punic faith rest upon our name. If everything else has to go down, let our Lutarnished honor, at least, survivo the wreck. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 1 Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. Stephens has given a true, veritable history of the compromise measures of 1850 and of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, as understood by the supporters of the measures when they were passed. He has stated fairly and truly the points of difference between us, which points were to be left to the courts to decide; and he has said, what I think he was bound to say as a patriot and a Democrat, that the Cincinnati platform is all that the South ought to ask or has a right to ask, or that her interests require in this emergency. On that platform the party can remain a unit, and pre-open for the courts under the Cincinnati platsent an invincible and irresistible front to the Republican or Abolition phalanx at the North. So certain as you abandon non-intervention and substitute intervention, just so certain you yield a power into their hands that will sweep the Democratic party from the face of the globe. States can hold it and have it protected, with out deciding what the right is, which still remains for decision. The second proposition is, that a right of person or property secured by the Constitution cannot be taken away either by act of Congress or of the Territorial Legisla-01 ture. Who ever dreamed that either Congress) or a Territorial Legislature, or any other legislative body on earth, could destroy or impair any right guaranteed or secured by the Constitution? No man that I know of. This resolution leaves: the same point open that remains: Sir, I believe that the safety, the peace, the highest interests of this country require the preservation intact of the Democratic party on its old creed and its old platform. Whenever you depart from that platform, which was adopted unanimously, you never will get unanimity in the formation of another. The only objection I have heard urged against that platform is that it is susceptible of two constructions, when,, in point of fact, there are no two constructions-there can be none-on any one of the political issues contained in it. The only difference of opinion arising out of that platform is on the identical question, about which we agreed to differ-which we never did decide; because, under the Constitution, no tribunal on earth but the Supreme Court could decide it. We differ only as to what the decision of the court will be; not as to whether we will obey it when made. How can you determine that question by a platform? It has been suggested that this difficulty was all to be reconciled by the adoption of a resolution which I find in the papers under the title of the nessee platform. Will my friend read it? Mr. PUGH read, as follows: "Resolved, That all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their property in the Territories, and that under the decisions of the Supreme Court, which we re ognize as an exposition of the Constitution, neither their rights of person or property can be destroyed or impaired by congressional or territorial legislation." form, and under the Kansas-Nebraska bill. me. In We are told that the party must be preserved. I agree that the best interests of the country require that it should be preserved in its integrity. How can that be done, except by abiding by its decisions? The party has pronounced its authoritative voice on the very points at issue between you and me. The party rejected your caucus platform by twenty-seven majority on a fair vote. The party affirmed the Cincinnati platform almost unanimously. Hence it becomes the duty of every Democrat, every man who expects to remain & Democrat, to Ten-acquiesce in the decision of the party, and support its nomination when it shall be made no other way can the party be united or preserved. Can you preserve the party by allowing a minority to overrule and dictate to the majority? Is the party to be preserved by: abandoning the fundamental articles of its creed, and adopting intervention in lieu of nonintervention? Shall the majority surrender to Mr. DOUGLAS. We have had predictions the minority? Will that restore harmony? that the party was to be reunited by the adop- Will that produce fraternity? Suppose that tion of that resolution. The only objection the majority should surrender to you, the that I have to it is that it is liable to two con- minority-should justify the seceders and structions, and certainly and inevitably will bolters-will that reunite us? You tell us that receive two, directly the opposite of each other, if we do this, you will grant no quarter on the and each will be maintained with equal perti-point in dispute. The test is to be kept up by nacity. The resolution contains, in my opinion, two truisms, and, fairly considered, no man can question them. They are: first, that every citizen of the United States has an equal right in the Territories; that whatever right the eitizen of one State has, may be enjoyed by the citizens of all the States; that whatever property the citizen of one State may carry there, the citizens of all the States may carry; and on whatever terms the citizens of one State can hold it and have it protected, the citizens of all the minority against the majority; by bolters against the regular organization; by seceders against those whose political fidelity would not permit them to bolt, and the regular organization is required to surrender at discretion to the seceders, with notice served, that no "quarter" is to be granted. That is the conciliation that is tendered! That is the olive-branch that is extended to us! You will permit us to vote for your candidate, if we will only allow a minority to nominate him! You will permit |