Gwin, Hammond, Houston, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson (Ark) retaining as a part of the new State the western In the House, on the final vote, among those who had voted against the original Lecompton Bill and who now supported the English scheme, were Gilmer, Am., of N. C., and the following Democrats, viz.: English and Foley, of Ind; Cockerill, Cox, Groesbeck, Hall, Lawrence and Pendleton, of Ohio; and Owen Jones, of Pa. Gen. Quitman, of Mississippi, and Mr. Bonham, of S. C., fire eaters, voted No, and the following members "paired off," viz.: Washburn (Wis.) with Arnold; Matteson with Reuben Davis; Purviance with Dimmick; Morrill with Faulkner; Horton with Hill; J. C. Kunkel with Miles Taylor; Montgomery with Warren; Thompson with Stewart (Md.); and Wood with George Taylor. In accordance with this act of Congress, the people of Kansas went into an election on the 3d of August, 1858. Notwithstanding the liberal offers in regard to donations to Kansas of public lands, in this bill, and the threat that if the people did not accept a State Government with the Lecompton Constitution, they should not be permitted to come in as a State with any Constitution, till they should have a full population of 93,340, still, the Lecompton Constitution was again rejected by more than ten thousand majority. This may be regarded as the final disposition of this famous Constitution. From first to last, it had been the cause or the subject of more speeches in Congress than any measure ever brought before that body. THE WYANDOT CONSTITUTION. By the Constitution, as adopted, the bounda ries of the new State were declared to be the State of Missouri on the east, the 37th parallel of north latitude on the south, the 41st parallel of north latitude on the north, and the 23d meridian of longitude west from Washington on the west. The western boundary cuts off the Pike's Peak region and the desert which bounds it on the east, and limits the new State to the habitable eastern portion of the Territory, embracing an area of some sixty thousand square miles. The Executive is to consist of a Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Attorney-General, and Superintendent of Public Schools, to be chosen by the people, and to serve for two years. The House of Representatives is to consist of seventy-five members, to serve one year, and the Senate of twenty-five Senators, to serve two years, the numbers to be regulated by law, but never to exceed one hundred Representatives, and thirty-three Senators. The pay is to be three dollars a day and fifteen cents per mile travel. All bills must originate with the House, and no act can include more than one subject. The Supreme Court is to consist of three Judges, to be There chosen by the people, to hold office for six years, one to go out every two years. are to be five District Judges, to be chosen by The Territorial Legislature passed an act the people of their respective districts, and to (Feb. 11, 1859) to refer the question to the serve for four years. Each county is to choose people of a new Constitutional Convention, the a Judge of Probate, to serve for two years, election to be held on the first Tuesday in and each township is to choose Justices of the March, 1859. The election was held, and Peace, to serve also for two years. Elections resulted in a majority of 3,881 in favor of a are to be by ballot. Every white male adult Convention. This result being ascertained, the who is a citizen of the United States, or who has Governor issued his proclamation for an elec-declared his intention to become one, having tion of delegates. The old party organizations been a resident in the State for six months, and were now abandoned, and those of Republicans in the precinct for thirty days, is entitled to vote. and Democrats substituted, and it was on this The State is prohibited from becoming a basis that the canvass for the election of dele-party in carrying on any work of internal imgates proceeded. The Convention was to provement, nor can any debt, to exceed a milconsist of fifty-two delegates. The Democrats proclaimed themselves disciples of Mr. Douglas and his Territorial Sovereignty doctrine, and decidedly opposed to making Kansas a Slave State. The Leavenworth district, where, through its contractors for army supplies, the Government exercised a great influence, and which from its population was entitled to ten delegates, elected the Democratic ticket, not, however, without the aid of fraudulent votes. But the Republicans, by their predominance in other parts of the Territory, succeeded in securing a majority in the Convention of thirty-of five to seventeen. lion of dollars, be contracted, unless the question be previously submitted to, and the debt authorized by, a popular vote; and in all cases a special tax must be levied sufficient to pay the interest and provide a sinking fund adequate to meet the principal when it becomes due. All corporations, banks included, must be established under general laws only, and the corpo rators made liable to twice the amount of their stock. The sale of lottery tickets is prohibited. The schedule annexed to the Constitution claimed of Congress $500,000, or in lieu there 500,000 acres of land, to meet the claims audited to nearly that amount for losses in. The Convention met at Wyandot on the 5th curred by citizens of Kansas during the late of July, and adjourned on the 27th of the same troubles. The Commissioners had declined to month, after adopting a Constitution by a vote entertain the claim of the New-England Emiof thirty-four to thirteen, all the Democrats grant Aid Society, to the amount of $25,000, present voting against it and refusing to sign for the destruction of their hotel at Lawrence, it. They had strenuously contended, in the on the ground that they had no authority to Convention, for the annexation to Kansas of act on any claims except those presented by that part of Nebraska south of the Platte; for citizens of Kansas, and the Convention de. clined to go beyond the report of the Commissioners. A grant is asked from Congress of 4,550,000 acres of land for internal improvements, also the swamp lands of the State to be appropriated | Miles, Millson, LABAN T. MOORE, Sydenham Moore, NEL as a school fund. Prefixed to the Constitution is a Bill of Rights, which includes a prohibition of Slavery. This Bill of Rights also provides that no person shall be incompetent to testify on account of his religious belief. DAVIS, Edmundson, English (Indiana), Garnett, Gar 55 Democrats, in Italics, (8 from Free States), Total, PAIRED-D a vis (Indiana), with Phelps. Somes with McClay (N.Y.) 78 By a provision of the schedule, this Constitution was submitted to a popular vote on the first Tuesday in October, which resulted in its ratification by the people by a majority of some four thousand. The Territorial election in November attracted but little interest from the general expectation of the admission of the State under the new Constitution. The Republicans, however, succeeded in electing their delegate to Congress and a majority of the Wyandotte Constitution. Legislature. ABSENT UNPAIRED-Davis (Mis.), Landrum, Martin, (Va.), Kunkel. Senate, Feb. 21st.-Mr. Seward introduced a bill for the admission of Kansas under the On the 5th June, this bill being under con Mr. Wigfall, of Tex., explained his views. He decalled State, under any circumstances. He objected to clared he would not vote for the admission of this sotheir moral character, and was not willing Texas should associate with such a State. The first State Election under this Constitu-sideration, tion was held December 6, 1859, and resulted in the election of Charles Robinson (Rep.) as Governor by 2513 majority. Martin F. Conway (Rep.) for Congress by 2107 majority, and the entire Republican ticket for State officers by majorities ranging from 2000 to 2,500, also a Legislature which was Republican in both branches by very decided majorities. Feb. 15-Mr. Grow introduced in the House, a bill to admit Kansas under the Wyandot Constitution. Referred to Committee on Territories, which (March 29th) reported (majority) through Mr. Grow in favor of admission. April 11.-Mr. Grow demanded the Previous Question on the passage of the Bill, which was seconded, and the main question ordered. Mr. Barksdale, demanded the Yeas and Nays -ordered. The question was then taken, and decided in the affirmative: Yeas, 134; Nays, 73, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Chas. F. Adams, A drain, Aldrich, Allen, Alley, Ashley, Babbitt, Barr, Barrett, Beale, Bingham, Blair (Pa.), Blake, Brayton, BRIGGS, Buffinton, Burch, Burlingame, Burnham, Butterfield, Campbell, Carey, Carter, Case, Horace F. Clark, Clark B. Cochrane, John Cochrane, Colfax, Conkling, Cooper, Corwin, Covode, Cox, Curtis, Dawes, Delano, Duell, Dunn, Edgerton, Edwards, Elliot, Ely, ETHERIDGE, Farnsworth, Fenton, Ferry, Florence, Foster, Fouke, Frank, French, Gooch, Grow, Gurley, Hale, Hall, Haskin, Helmick, Hickman, Hoard, Holman, Howard (Ohio), Humphry, Hutchins, Irvine, Junkin, Francis W. Kellogg, William Kellogg, Kenyon, Kilgore, Killinger, Larrabee, De Witt C. Leach, Lee, Logan, Longnecker, Loomis, Lovejoy, Marston, Chas. D. Martin, McClernand, McKean, McKnight, McPherson, Wm. Montgomery, Moorehead, Morrill, Edward Joy Morris, Isaac N. Morris, Morse, Niblack, Nixon, Olin, Palmer, Pendleton, Perry, Pettit, Porter, Potter, Pottle, Rice, Riggs, Christopher Robinson, James C. Robinson, Royce, Schwartz, Scranton, Sedgwick, Spaulding, Spinner, Stanton, Stevens, Wm. Stewart, Stout, Stratton, Tappan, Thayer, Theaker, Tompkins, Train, Trimble, Vallandigham, Vandever, Verree, Waldron, Walton, C. C. Washburn, E. B. Washburne, Israel Washburn, WEBSTER, Wells, Wilson, Windom, Wood, Woodruff. Republicans, in Roman, Democrats (from Free States.), in Italice, Total, 103 22 6 8 184 (taking in Pike's Peak), was discussed by Mr. Wade, Mr. Greene's amendment, to change the boundary who said the effect of the amendment would be to defeat the bill. Mr. Hunter moved to postpone the subject, and take up the Army bill. Mr. Trumbull opposed the motion. He should keep the Kansas bill before the Senate till it was finally disposed of. It was more important than the appropriation bills, which appeared to be kept back in order to interrupt other important business. Mr. Seward hoped the friends of Kansas would let a vote be taken, so that the responsibility might lie where it belonged. The vote was taken by yeas and nays, and resulted, bill prevailed. Mr. Trumbull called attention to the fact that the Tire Senator from Pennsylvania (Bigler) desired to postpone He said the effect of the vote just taken was equivalent to the defeat of the Kansas bill, and the Senator from Pennsylvania must have known the effect of his vote. the House had once defeated the Army bill, because it Mr. Wigfall desired to call attention to the fact that did not want the army used against the Black Republican thieves and murderers in Kansas. June 7.-Mr. Wade, of Ohio, moved to take up the Kansas bill, which was lost-as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Bigler, Bingham, Cameron, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, King, Pugh, Seward, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck. Trum bull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson, Republicans, 25; DemoCrats, (Bigler and Pugh) 2—27. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Benjamin, Bragg, Bright, Brown, Chesnut, Clingman, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Greene, Gwin, Hammond, Hemphill, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, (Tenn.) Lane, Latham, Mallory, Mason, Nichol son, Pearce, Polk, Powell, Rice, Sebastian, Slidell, Thomson, Toombs, Wigfall, Yulee.-32. [All Democrats.] Mr. Douglas was paired with Mr. Clay; Crittenden (Am.), with Johnson, of Ark., KenC. ANDERSON. Ashmore, Avery, Barksdale, Bocock, Bonnedy and Saulsbury absent. NAYS-Messrs. GREEN ADAMS, Thoe. L. Ander son, W. ham, BOTELER, Boyce, BRABSON Branch, BRISTOW, Bur nett, John B. Clark, Clopton, Cobb, James Craig So both Houses adjourned and left Kansas Burton Craige, Crawford, Curry, Davidson, HENRY W still in the condition of a Territory. THE NEBRASKA DOCTRINE AND THE DRED SCOTT DECISION REVIEWED. SPEECH OF THE HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, At Springfield, Ill., June 17, 1858. [The following speech was delivered at Springfield, Ill., at | the close of the Republican State Convention held at that time and place, and by which Convention Mr. Lincoln had been named as their candidate for U. S. Senator.] MR. PRESIDENT, AND GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION: If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated wis the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to Slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved-I do not expect the house to fall-but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new-North as well as South. Have we no tendency to the latter condition? Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination-piece of machinery, so to speak-compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott Decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidence of design, and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning. The new year of 1854 found Slavery excluded from more than half the States by State Constitutions, and from most of the national territory by Congressional prohibition. Four days later, commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that Congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to Slavery, and was the first point gained. But, so far, Congress only had acted: and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and give chance for more. This necessity had not been overlooked; but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty,' otherwise called "sacred right of self-government," which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows: "It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "Squatter Sovereignty," and "sacred right of self-government." "But," said opposition members, "let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the Territory may exclude Slavery." "Not we," said the friends of the measure, and down they voted the amendment. While the Nebraska bill was passing through Congress, a law case involving the question of a negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a Free State and then into a Territory covered by the Congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the United States Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and law suit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The negro's name was "Dred Scott," which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. Before the then next Presidential Election, the law case came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a Territory can constitutionally exclude Slavery from their limits; and the latter answers: "That is a question for the Supreme Court." The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured That was the second point gained. The indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible, echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement. The Supreme Court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argument. The Presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming President in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then in a few days, came the decision. The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make as peech at this capital, indorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained! At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton Constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether Slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether Slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind-the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision". squatter sovereignty " squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding-like the mold at the foundry served through one blast and fell back into loose sand-helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans, against the Lecompton Con 127 stitution, involves nothing of the original Nebraska doc- this merely Territorial law? Why are the people of a trine. That struggle was made on a point-the right of Territory and the people of a State therein lumped toa people to make their own constitution-upon which he gether, and their relation to the Constitution therein und the Republicans have never differed. treated as being precisely the same? While the opinion The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in con- of the court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott nection with Senator Douglas's "care not" policy, consti- | case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring tute the piece of machinery, in its present state of advance- Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the ment. This was the third point gained. The working United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial points of that machinery are: Legislature to exclude Slavery from any United States TerFirst, That no negro slave, imported as such from Af-ritory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same rica, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citi- Constitution permits a State, or the people of a State, to zen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the exclude it. Possibly, this is a mere omission; but who Constitution of the United States. This point is made in can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution, people of a State to exclude Slavery from their limits, just which declares that "The citizens of each State shall be as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration, in beentitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the half of the people of a territory, into the Nebraska bill-I several States." ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other? The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over Slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language, too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion, his exact language is, "except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of Slavery within its jurisdiction." In what cases the power of the States is so restrained by the United States Constitution, is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the Territories, was left open in the Nebraska act. Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude Slavery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of care not whether Slavery be voted down or voted up," shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give pro mise that such a decision can be maintained when made. Secondly, That "subject to the Constitution of the United States," neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude Slavery from any United States Territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the Territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future. Thirdly, That whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a Free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any Slave State the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other Free State. Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mold public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether Slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are; and partially, also, whither we are tending. 66 Such a decision is all that Slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly and run the mind over the string of historical facts already dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mys-making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality terious than they did when they were transpiring. The instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a Slave people were to be left "perfectly free," subject only to the State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, Constitution. What the Constitution had to do with it, is the work now before all those who would prevent that outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was consummation. This is what we have to do. How can an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to after- we best do it? ward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people, voted down? Plainly enough now: the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Senator's individual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential election? Plainly enough now: the speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the indorsment? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the President and others? There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that, object. They wish us to infer all, from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and we have never differed. They remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But "a living dog is better than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion, for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of Slavery? He don't care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas's superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave-trade. Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new Territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of Slavery to one of a mere right of property; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave-trade-how can he refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly free "unless he does it as a protection to the home production? And as the home producers will probably not ask the proSte-tection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition. We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen-Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance-and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few-not omitting even scaffolding-or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in-in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that phen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck. It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska bill, the people of a State as well as a Territory, were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." Why mention à State? They were legislating for Territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; but why is mention of this lugged into Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday-that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. But clearly, he is not now with us-he does not pretend to be-he does not promise ever to be. Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends-those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work-who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common langer, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplied, proud and pampered enemy. Did we brave all them to falter now?-now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail-if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come. SLAVERY DISCUSSED BY LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH. AT the second Joint Debate, between Mr. Douglas and Mr. Lincoln, at Freeport, Illinois, August 27th, 1858, Mr. Lincoln spoke as follows: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: On Saturday last, Judge Douglas and myself first met in public discussion. He spoke one hour, I an hour and a half, and he replied for half and hour. The order is now reversed. I a to speak an hour, he an hour and a half, and then I am to reply for half an hour. I propose to devote myself during the first hour to the scope of what was brought within the range of his half-hour speech at Ottawa. Of course there was brought within the scope in that hal-hour's speech something of his own opening speech, In the course of that opening argument, Judge Douglas proposed to me seven distinct interrogatories. In my speech of an hour and a half, I attended to some other parts of his speech, and incidentally, as I thought, answered one of the interrogatories then. I then distinctly intimated to him that I would answer the rest of his interrogatories on condition only that he should agree to answer as many for me. He made no intimation at the time of the proposition, nor did he in his reply allude at all to that suggestion of mine. I do him no injustice in saying that he occupied at least half of his reply in dealing with me as though I had refused to answer his interrogatories. I now propose that I will answer any of the interrogatories, upon condition that he will answer questions from me not exceeding the same number. I give him an opportunity to respond. The Judge remains silent. I now say that I will answer his interrogatories, whether he answers mine or not; and that after I have done so, I shall propound mine to him. I have supposed myself, since the organization of the Republican party at Bloomington, in May, 1856, bound as party man by the platforms of the party, then and since. If in any interrogatories which I shall answe go beyond the scope of what is within these platforms, it will be perceived that no one is responsible but n.yself. Having said thus much, I will take up the Judge's interrogatories as I find them printed in the Chicago Times, and answer them seriatim. In order that there way be no mistake about it, I have copied the interrogatories in writing, and also my answers to them. The first of these interrogatories is in these words: Question 1. "I desire to know whether Lincoln to day stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law?" Answer. I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. Q. 2. "I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more Elave States into the Union, even if the people want them?" 4. I do not now, or ever did, stand pledged against the admission of any more Slave States into the Union. Q. 3. "I want to know whether he stands pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union with such a Constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make ?" 4. I do not stand pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union, with such a Constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make. Q. 4. "I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia ? 4. I do not stand to-day pledged to the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia. States ?" Q. 5. "I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade between the different A. I do not stand pledged to the prohibition of the slavetrade between the different States. Q. 6. "I desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit Slavery in all the Territories of the United States, North as well as South of the Missouri Compromise line?" 4. I am impliedly, if not expressly, pledged to a belief in the right and duty of Congress to prohibit Slavery in all the United States Territories. Q. 7. "I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any new territory unless Slavery is first pro hibited therein ?" A. I am not generally opposed to honest acquisition of ter ritory; and, in any given case, I would or would not oppose such acquisition, accordingly as I might think such acquisition would or would not aggravate the Slavery question among ourselves. Now, my friends, it will be perceived upon an examination of these questions and answers, that so far I have only answered that I was not pledged to this, that or the other. The Judge has not framed his interrogatories to ask me anything more than this, and I have answered in strict accordance with the interrogatories, and have answered truly that I am not pledged at all upon any of the points to which I have auswered. But I am not disposed to hang upon the exact form of his interrogatory. I am rather disposed to take up at least some of these questions, and state what I really think upon them. As to the first one, in regard to the Fugitive Slave Law, I have never hesit ted to say, and I do not now hesitate to say, that I think, under the Constitution of the United States, the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave Law. Having said that, I have had nothing to sav in regard to the existing Fugitive Slave Law, further than that I think it should have been framed so as to be free from some of the objections that pertain to it, without lessening its efficiency. And inasmuch as we are not now in an agitation in regard to an alteration or modification of that law, I would not be the man to in roduce it as a new subject of agitation upon the general question of Slavery. In regard to the other question, of whether I am pledged to the admission of any more Slave States into the Union, I state to you very frankly that I would be exceedingly sorry ever to be put in a position of having to pass upon that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there would never be another Slave State admitted into the Union; but I must add, that if Slavery shall be kept out of the Territories during the territorial existence of any one given Territory, and then the people shall, having a fair opportunity and a clear field, when they come to adopt the Constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as adopt a slave Constitution. uuinfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, but to admit them into the Union. second, it being, as I conceive, the same as the second. The third interrogatory is answered by the answer to the The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia. In relation to that, I have my mind very distinctly made up. I should be exceed |