Newspaper Page Text
?' v . vuL. 3. ' ?==?=?"?"- TRI-VVEEK I- V. ~~ so. i:? CUT OF WASUINUTOA, THURSDAY MOkN L\(l, AUGUST 7, 1856. Washington ?tvtiisL BEVERLEY TUCKER, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR. MONDAY MORNING. AUGUST 4, IHAtt. THIC liOVMVILLR JUVBNAU?CAST OUT TIIK UKAH. We feel inueh gratified by the flattering com pliment to our "ingenuity," from the Editor of the Louisville Journal, even though his admi ration is somewhat qualified by the declaration that our reasoning is " inexpressibly ridiculous." For one who has shown such power over the ridiculous, as is displayed in the leader of the Journal, of the 18th instant, to pronounce such a judgment is peculiarly trying. But we must even be content to take the compliment of the Journal with such qualifications as it may choose to append, and to leave to a candid public the task of deciding which of us twain exerts the greatest control over the realm of the ridiculous. Such a task we opine will be an easy one. Some weeks ago we published an article on the subject of squatter sovereignty, designed to explain Mr. Buchanan's position on that vital question, and to reconcile the alleged incon sistency existingbetweenhisletter of acceptance and the principles of the Cincinnati platform. Subsequently, witffin a few days past, we con tinued our argument on this subject, and showed conclusively, as w4?beiieve, that, ac cording to every fair rule of construction, Mr. Buchanan's views were such as should com mend him to the support and confidence of every Southern Democrat. To this conclusion the Louisville Journal has thought proper to object, and our argument it has thought proper to ridicule. In order to sustain its position, the Journal has "ingeniously" (we return the compliment) garbled our article, and. made us assert ".that the platform which Mr. Buchanan accepted does not affirm the doctrine of squatter sover eignty, and that, therefore, Mr. Buchanan coujd not possibly have intended to affirm it, aud certainly does not, however explicitly his language may appear to do so." -Such an at tempt, the Journal argues, would be like explaining away the vile heresies of Sumner and Giddings by showing that the Constitu tion, which they have sworn to support, does not sustain them, and so it would. But is it not strange that the ingenuity which suggested this admirable illustration, did not warn the fated Journal from falling into the very pit which its fancy had dug fur us. For what, says that consistent journal? It commences with Mr. Buchanan's letter, argues from its language that he is in favor of squatter sover eignty, and from that premise deduces the conclusion that the platform which Mr. Buch anan endorses, also recognizes that principle. We would not misquote the Journal. Let us hear him speak: "It might be doubted whether squatter so vereignty or State sovereignty was the doctrine affirmed by the terms of the platform, but Mr. Buchanan, in mounting that political scaffold, has taken occasion, by springing this particu lar plank, to render clear what before was doubtful. And he has done it in so unmistak able a manner as to leave no further doubt- be hind. The real character of this plank in the Cincinnati platform is now as palpable and glaring as the sun at noonday. It is squatter sovereignty to the core." Now such is the language of the Journal? and thanking it for the Sumner and Giddings illustrations, we ask, in all candor, whether the inference drawn in the above extract is not about as absurd, nay "ridiculous," as to infer that the Constitution sustains the heresies of abolition, because it is endorsed by men who sustain them ; and that the bible teaches the monstrous precepts of Parker aud Beecher, be cause Parker and Beecher believe in the Bible. So much for the JournaTs mode of argument But we never used the language imputed to as by the Louisville Journal. We contended that the principles of the platlorm on this sub ject was unequivocal, and indisputable. That by its very language, the platform repudiated the doctrine of squatter sovereignty. That Mr. Buchanan fully endorsed that platform? that his own well known views previously ex pressed, sustained this opinion, and his own lan guage elsewhere, threw a flood of light upon the true meaning of his letter, and that we were, therefore, justified in the belief that Mr. Buch anan maintained the southern conservative view of this question. But the Journal affects to deny that the Cin cinnati platform repudiates the doctrine of squatter sovereignty, and asserts in broad round terms that the " platform is intentionally non-committal upon the subject of squatter sovereignty. It neither affirms nor denies. It pretermits. It evades.'' Now really Mr. Journal, this is not even "ingenious "?it is simply and ineffably "ridiculous.'' But we would not deal in such harsh terms without reason, and so we call the attention of the pub lic (not the Journal, it is past all hope) to the resolution of the platform on this subject. u Resolved, That we recognize the right of the people of all the Territories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority of actual residents, and, whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a con stitution, with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of per feet equality with the other States." Can anything be more explicit? Can any thing be less " pretermitting7" Can auything be less "evasive?" This decision must be expressed by a majority of actual residents. Clearly nothing can be more republican. It must only be expressed when the number of inhabitants justifies it. Who shall decide on the requisite number? Surely no power within the territory, else you render the language nug atory, for a number however small may thus consider themselves large enough to meet the requisition, and, if outside the territory, where can the power be lodged but in Congress. It must be legally expressed. And by whom must the law authorizing its expression be adapted ? By Congress, say we; because Con gress having tho sole power lo admit new States, can alone decide when the legal steps have beea taken to authorize their admission. It must be by a constitution, the highest sove reign act of a sovereign people, not by the mere determination of an unorganized and dependent people. And, finally, when all this is accomplished, the territory shall be admitte into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the otlter State*. Now, this last clause of the resolution is pregnant with importance, as showing, that even in us carefully worded a resolution as this the word u territory" is used as expressive of that iuchoate sovereign condi tion, when the unorganized people of the ter ritory throw off their dependence and are for the first time classed as a " State."' It is but fair to presume, and any candid mind will so decide, that in the use of the word " territory" by Mr. Buchanan in his letter of acceptance, he intended to convey the idea of a territory so organized, and legally authorized to take this important step from dependence into sove reignty. So much for the soundness of the platform on squatter sovereignty. Is not the language conclusive and unequivocal? In all candor, we appeal to the editor of the Journal whether the platform does not "deny" the doctrine which he pronounces, and justly pronounces, revolting to the South ? And now we would apply the mode of reasoning of the Journal to itself, and out of its own mouth would we judge it If it be legitimate to infer that be cause Mr. Buchanan is unsound on this sub ject, therefore the Cincinnati platform, which he endorses, is unsound, is it not equally legiti mate to infer that if the Cincinnati platform is sound on this question, Mr. Buchanan, who endorses it, must be equally sound. We ad mit that such reasoning is not to our taste. We admit that it is "ridiculous," but it is the reasoning selected by the Journal, and perhaps not the less adapted to its faculties because it is ridiculous. But fortunately we are not left to inference or conjecture on this vital point. Mr. Buch anan's record on this as on every point con nected with the canvass is without a blemish. He himself has explained his meaning of the phrase " people of a Territory" to be pre cisely that which we have attached to it. " Undoubtedly the people of the Territory assembled iu convention to form a State con stitution, and ask admission into the Union; and not the first adventurers or " first comers," who might happen to arrive in the Territory assembled in public meetiug."?\SandJbrd letter.] In other words: "The people of the Territory, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority of actual resi dents, and whenever the number of their in habitants justifies it." Nor id the Louisville Journal less fortunate in the description of the disease, than in the suggestion of the remedy. We are gravely advised,as Southern men, as Republican Demo crats, as sound statesmen, to fly from the leprous touch of Mr. Buchanan, into the healthful arms of Milliard Fillmore. Old adages are often used to express wholesome truths by extravagant hyperbole. Thus we have heArd of jumping out of the frying pan iulo the fire. Thus have we been taught the folly of swapping the devil for a witch. And thus the divine Shakspeare himself has made his philosophic madman exclaim? Who would on tlii* fair mountain leave to feed, And batten on that moor. But all this extravagance becomes,tame, all this hyperbole becomes ellipsis, compared with the absurdity of leaving Mr. Buchanan, be cause of bis unsoundness on the subject of squatter sovereignly, and flying for comfort and support to the European nominee of the American parly. We had not intended saying a word about this very estimable ex-President. We bad not intended to revert to those palmy days, when beneath a banner representing James K. Polk, mounted by a wooly headed caricature of Texas, he denounced the annexa tion of the lone star under any than an auti slavery constitution. We had not intended to allude to those long records of Congress, wherein the name of Fillmore is enrolled with the names of Qiddings, and Adams, and Slade?we had not intended contrasting the fre? will with which, in 1850, he annulled the Missouri Compromise by his signature to the New Mexico bill, with the indignant vehe mence with which he denounces the repeal of that compromise in the Nebraska-Kansas bill. We do not regard Mr. Fillmore as our chief opponent in this canvass. Bat as his name has been alluded to in connection with this subject, we would simply commend to our Louisville contemporary the entire record of Millard Fillmore in . connection with the slavery question. Let it ponder his record well, and when it has come to a conclusion, let it learn to cast the beam out of its own eye, and then possibly, despite its federal jaundice, it may see clearly to cast the mote out of its brother's eye. THE PRKHK AND THE CANDIDA TBS. In the days of Qen. Jackson, a favorite mode of electioneering by the opponents of the De mocratic party, was the enumeration of news papers favoring respectively the Democratic party and the Opposition. And, truly, had vic tory depended upon the number of papers re spectively supporting the pretensionsof each par 1f, the Opposition would have had good reason to claim a triumph ; but it turned out on every election that although the opposition had three papers to one, they had hardly more than one third of the votes. In a similar manner votes were taken on steamboats, railroads, and watering places, and Gen. Jackson was always beaten at these bas tard testa, beaten everywhere, except at the ballot box, and never beaten there. A moral may be drawn from this lesson. In regard to the press an anomaloos state of things has always existed and now most strik ingly exists. For instance, in the city of New York the Black Republicans, out of somo 60, 000 votes, cast about 6,000. .Yet they are represented by the Daily Times, Evening lUt, New Yoik Herald, Courier and Enquirer, and the Tribune, and some four or five other pa pers, having an aggregate circulation of a million, and receipts of ninny millions of dol lars, drawn mainly from Democratic pockets, while the Nexca and Day Hook, Democratic papers, eke out a starvling life, powerless to do good for want of a circulation. We may extend these remarks to Philade 1 phia and Baltimore, where ximilar spectacles are exhibited. It is a shameful fact that the Democratic party by subscriptions and advertisements, no where give life, vigor and effect to their pa pers. The New York Journal of Commerce is only incidentally political; it, too, gained its posi tion by opposition to the Democratic party, having of late only taken strong national conser vativeground. We rejoice to believe it continues to receive a remunerating support, and has a circulation which can give good effect to its counsels, of late so sound and wholesome. If the Democratic party would come to the support of a good Democratic journal, and give to it as it ought, a subscription of a mil lion of subscribers, and proportionate advertis ing, a paper could spring up overshadowing all others in the world, being issued morning and evening, and each number containing mat ter, in all branches of knowledge, business and politics, and edited in every brnnch of it by men of the first ability. It would soon force an immense circulation in Europe. To the establishment of a Demo cratic paper of this character, there are parties in command of millions who are ready to ein bark, whenever its feasability is determined. Hitherto the strength of the Democratic party has depended, maiuly, upon men's in stincts, but the country has become so widely extended, so many local and side issues dis tract the country, that there should, perhaps, be some common source to which to look for reliable information. We may hnd occasion to pursue these views with further comment, and leave them for the present to a general digestion. A FALLACY. The assertion, that the Cramers of the Con stitution eontemplated slavery only as a tem porary condition, and bo treated it, has been go often made, and is still daily repeated and urged, even by men whose character give them claim to the merit of sincerity, that we propose briefly to notice this singular fallacy. The question which presents itself at the very threshold of this matter, is, how long was that " temporary condition" to last?at what moment to cease ? That its incipiency was not to commence from the formation of the Constitution, and to be shortly consummated, is perfectly clear from that provision in the Constitution.which peremptorily inhibits any attempt ty stop its illimitable increase for twenty years. And as also appears by that other clause, which enjoins on Congress in perpeto to make provision for the restoration of fugitive slaves, j By the phraseology of the Constitution, even after the expiration of twenty years, authority to stop the continued influx of slaves is only permissive; and unless their successors had availed themselves of the jtermission thus given, the influx of slaves would have con tinued to this day. Had the desire to have slavery a temporary institution prevailed in the convention, and it had been the purpose of the convention to render it temporary, the constitutional clause re lating to this subject would have given to Con gress permission to legalize the slave trade for twenty years, and no longer, that st the expi ration of that time it should not be lawful for Congress to legalize the trade, but that hence forth it should be piracy. The very reverse of this is the fact, the Con vention made most stringent provisions for securing the continuance of the slave trade for at least twenty years, and forever after that, unless Congress specially interfered to end it; and nowhere in the Constitution is there any intimation that Congress was expected to do so. Certainly the making provision for the dou bling and quadrupling the number of slaves bears on its face no evidence of a purpose to make slavery a temporary condition; or, if temporary, still the ending of it must have been a long time off, or else the introduction of n million of negroes, would only serve to speckle the country with free negroes, a popu lation not coveted by any. But, above all, do the provisions in the Con stitution, in regard to slavery, wear in any degree the Mpect. of compulsion in bringing about an abolition of slavery in this country. If the Constitution be national, or any clause in it be so, then slavery is national. If the national flag protected it on the high seas, whero we have no exclasive jurisdiction, why will not the same flag protect it in the Terri tories where we have exclusive jurisdiction. Suppose California had at that time been part of our territory, and slaves from Africa had been imported into San FVancisco, and transported east overland, would the protection of the American flag which had covered the property in strange lands, on the common ocean, fail at the very rfioment of reaching American soil; if not, would it endure during the passage (from San Francisco to the States) over the territory? Would confiscation or abolition have followed if the owners chose to remain in California with their slaves? If slavery was not legal in the Territories, the Missouri Compromise would have given permission to slavery south of 36" 30/ instead of prohibiting it north of that; for if illegal, prohibition was unnecessary. All the facta of history conflict with the ide$ that the Constitution or iu frauaers considered .slavery as a temporary condition. They did all in their power to leave it un trammelled, and to be determined by posterity lor itself. A VIEW OF THIS CASH. We have, a short time since, made the state meat in our columns, showing that it could hardly be within the boundH of probability that the Black Republican nomination could receive more than one-third of the votes of the Free States. If, then, to the two-thirds of the votes of the Free States, we add the entire vole of the fifteen Southern States, it will very readily be seen what a small fraction of the American people are disposed to engage in a wicked crusade against the Constitution, the rights and equality of Southern States, aud against the existence of the Union. The terpitude of the principles of this patty iR not the only monstrous feature presented for condemnation, but also the mode or terms on which they expect to attain power. We have reason to suppose that their organi zation has originated, and has been based upon such a calculation as the following. There are, or were already two parties in the field?the Black Republicans could not, and did not expect a single vote from the South?with the entire South against them, and two powerful parties already absorbing two-thirds of the Northern States, the quere was, how could the Black Repub licans expect by possibility to secure an election of their nominee. A plurality in each State of one only vole would transfer to them the entire vote of the State, giving to their one-third the entire influence and advantage of the two-thirds opposed to them. Suppose the entire vote of the Free States to be three millions and sixteen votes. That of these the Democrats should have one million, Fillmore oue million, and Fremont one million and sixteen. To those two millions of Northern votes, add the Southern vote of two million five hundred thousand, aud we will have an aggregate op position to the Black Republican vote of four million five hundred thousand agaiwt their one million and sixteen votes. ' And yet General James Watson Webb says, that if they cannot poll even these few votes necessary to their success, that this pitiful fraction, probably one-half the vote thus al lowed them,they will "with fire and sword drive back the slaveocracy," although his ovn party numbers but a fourth of the voters of the country. Suppose they get this fraction necessary to 'success^ and then what an aspect does the case present? A small fraction of the American people obtain possession of the Government, avowing principles which are considered by the im mense majority alike subversive of the Con stitution, of the rights of many States, and of the peace and welfare of the nation. Under such an aspect, Mr. Fillmore has well asked, u if it can be expected that three fourths of the people of this country will sub mit to the mad and revolutionary government of a profligate and thorougly corrupt minority." The ranks of this party arc indebted for a large portion of its numbers to the leaven of schemes for gigantic systems of plunder alike of the domain as of the Federal Treasury. This pitiful fraction of onr people hold out the assurance of a renewal and continuance of the most bitter and frantic sectional agitation, which must disturb all the relations of the States and inevitably affect the value of prop erty and of labor to the extent of countless million*. The promise of the Black Republicans, in case of success, is that of Lucifer, should his host succeed in storming Heaven?all the fell passions of human nature would be let loose to rage in unappeasiblc discord. How differently does the Democratic nomi nee announce the result of his election. How truly he says, u That the agitation of slavery has been productive of no good to any human being." Should not this suffice to allay it and to stay it forever? He adds, with painful truth : " It has alien ated one portion of tbe Union from another? it has substituted hate and discord for mutual regard and esteem?it has palsied the South in its well-meant and earnest endeavors to bring to the consideration of slavery tbe wis dom and justice of their best men, and to treat the subject as wisdom and justice should dictate." But the furious, nngoverned, and malignant interference of tbe North has been productive of injury alike to the slave, to his master, and to the harmony which made this nation one family. The Black Republican party promise* hellish discord, and nothing else. That is the only fruit of their success to the nation at large. The promises of plunder, which alone gives strength and adhesiveness to the party, is a secret cement applied in darkness and not in tended to be visible to the public eye. With out this Masonic tie, they would be diyuncta membra, incongruous, unofficered, and undis ciplined. No man in his private interests can look hopefully with any reasonable confidence to an administration whose paramount motives of action are discord and plunder. If the Democratic party be successful, every one will know that, slavery in legislation will be ignored, and that, therefore, there will be no fear of M southern aggression." They will be as free from legislation in favor of slavery as if Fremont himself were elected. What more can people ask? If, with this, peace is secured, have we not everything? One of our most fashionable bakers, on being shown a specimen of the Bread Tree, rejected it with scorn, saying contemptuously, "CaH that bread! I'sha! Why there's no alum in it/' LKTTKIl OF IION. THOMAS (1. PRATT, OK MAKYUANW. Behnv will l)e found a truly statesmanlike letter from Senator Pratt to his fellow-Win#* J of Marylaud. It takes irrefragrable positions justifying his and their support at the coming | election of the Democratic nominees* ! It state* briefly that Mr. Fillmore abandoned j his Whig friends and went over to the Ameri ? can party, which denounced the Whig party; ! that Mr. Fillmore accepted the nomination as ! of the American party; that he did not con sult his Whiz friends, nor appeal uor roler to them in his acceptance; that, in lact, he made himself a voluntary separation from them, con sequeutly there can be no claim by him to their support. The letter shows that the Fremont party is organized for the express purpose of attacking the rights and interests of Maryland. That, allowing to Mr. Fillmore every merit claimed for him, it is clear as noonday that he cannot be elected. That it is equally clear, that with the aid of the Whigs the nominees of the Democratic Convention can ceriainly be elected, and that thus the conspirators against the peace, in terest, and honor of the South, will be de feated. That the old issues between the parties are obsolete. That to vote for Mr. Fillmore, in the South, is only a diversion in favor of Fremont. TO THK WI1IGS OF MARYLAND. In response to the communications received from many of my brother Whigs, I deem it nay privilege, in this manner, to counsel with all in relatiou to the corn86 whicli patriotism and duty would seem to indicate as proper in the present political crisis. No lover of his country whose judgment is unbiased by party zeal and uncontrolled by Northern or Southern fanaticism can fail to see and deprecate the pending danger to the Union: The first duty of every man who loves his country and her institutions is to provide for their safety. The life of the nation is iu dan ger. It must be saved ; then, and not till then, will it be permissible to us to discuss our differ ences of opinion upon minor subjects. I say that the life of the Union is in dauger, because, for the first time in our history, a party has been formed composed exclusively of citizens of one section of the country, bound together by the single bond of an alliance for offensive warfare against the other section. That the success of such a party would imperil the Union has been recently demonstrated by an address of Mr. l'illmore, and will, it is sub mitted, be apparent to all who will bestow a moment's consideration upon the existing pos ture of political affairs. The value of the slave property o! lie "South is not less than two thousand millions of dol lars, a sum eqi^to one fourth ol all the other property in thi^tjnited States, as shown by the last census. This property is not only recog nised, but so far guarantied by the Constitution as to impose upon the Federal Government the duty of restoring to his owner the slave who may escape into another State or Territory of the United States. For jears past this con stitutional obligation hail been not only repu diated by some of the non slaveholding State*, but political parties have been organized in all with the avowed object of liberating the slave, and thus not only depriving the South^ of his vast amount of property, but subjecting it to all the horrors which would necessarily result from such a consummation. In addition to all this, whilst the abolitionists on the one hand openly avow their opposition to the Constitu tion ami their desire to destroy a Government which imposes obligations repudiated by them, on the other hand many Southern men, goaded by the incessent attacks of their Northern fel low-citizens upon their feelings, their property, and their constitutional rights, express the be lief that the interests of the South would be more effectually protected by a separation ol the slave from the non slaveholding States, and therefore rather promote than inter pose to prevent a result so calami'ous. \\ e have hitherto disregarded the danger which such a state of feeling and such a course of actiou would indicate as most imminent, because we have assumed that such sentiments and action could only lie attributed to a small minority of our Northern brethren. But now, when this sectional exasperation has been made available for the inauguration of a party calling itself Republican, under whose banner, for the first time in the history of the country, thia sectional opposition to Southern rights and interests have united in nominating, with alleged probabilities of success, a purely sec tional ticket for tho Presidency and Vice Presi denej of the United Slates, we can no longer shut our eyes to the reality of the threatened danger; we cannot but feel that the success of such a party would be the death knell of the Union. The unpatriotic purposes of this sec tional party are but too manifest. Many of its supporters avow their object and purpose to be disunion, and have even gone so far in the madness of their fanaticism as to desecrate the flag of our country by obliterating from its constellation the fifteen stars which represent the slaveholding States, and displaying an their pnrft/ bttnner that flag with but sixteen of its stars remaining, to represent the sixteen non slaveholding Slates. It is manifest that those who disavow the object are not ignorant of the inevitable result. The Whigs of Maryland, whom I have the honor to address, need no proof to convince them that calamitous consequences would flow from the sucoess of this sectional party. 1 hey each and all know that the election of Mr. * re mont, and tho administration of the Govern ment by him upon the principles of hu party, would necessarily occasion a dissolution of the Federal Union* to which they have been taught to look as the source of national strength and of individual prosperity and happiuess. 1 have known only the V\ higs of my Stat* too long, I estimate their patriotism too highly, I have associated with them too intimately, to suppose it necessary for a moment to offer an argument to thr.m in behalf of their country. They appreciate, as fully as I could depict, the horrors of disunion; they -will see the loss ot national strength, the internal dissensions, the fatal check to civilization and freedom, theoon teinpt of the world which would be the conse quences of such a calamity. The Whigs ot Maryland, who have followed the lead of such patriots as Clay and Webster, "will never keep step to any other music than that of the Union." < ; It therefore only remains to inquire what course shall be taken to rebuke sectional fana ticism and preserve our country from the dan gers of its success. You are aware that this Republican pafty. which we ali agree must be put down at all hazards, is opposed by two other party organi j zations: the American, headed by Messrs. Fillmore and Donelsou, and the Democratic, led on by Messrs. Buchanan and Breckinridge. Yon will recollect that Mr. Fillmore, prior to j his recent visit to Europe, abandoned the j Whig party and became a member of the former of these organizations, which boasted that it had risen upon the downfall of the Whig party, and which proclaimed that the corruptions of the Whig and Democratic par lies constituted the necessity of its existence. Yuu know that he and Andrew Jackson Don elson have been nominated by this party (not i by the Whig party) for the Presidency and i Vice Presidency, and you will admit that the | principles of proscription because of religious ; opinions, and other reputed tenets of this new | party, are in direct antagonism with the prin ! ciples of that good old Whig party to which we \ are still attached, and which has been abandon | ed by Mr. Fillmore. It is not my object in re f ferring to these facts to deny to the American ! party, since the secession of its abolition adhe j rents, a fair claim to nationality; nor to deny ! the patriotism and virtue of Mr. Fillmore, nor i bis eminent qualification for the oflice of Chief 1 Magistrate. But 1 do deduce from them thu necessary conclusion that, as Whigs we owe no party allegiance to Messrs. Fillmore and Donel son, members and nominees of the American party. I deduce the conclusion that, as Whigs, we are are not Only at liberty, but that as pa triots we are bound, by every obligation to our i country and posterity, to throw aside, on the j one hand, the feelings of hostility which Mr. j Fillmore's desertiou of our party would be cal | culated to engender, and, on the other hand, to "forget for the time our former battles with | the Democratic party, and to ask ourselves but one question?which of the two national organ izations offers the best guarantee of success in crushing out of existence this new and mon strous sectional party, which threatens the life of your country ? 1 do uo4 propose to examine the relative claims of the two national parties or their nominees to our support. It is not, in my judgment, permissable in the present crisis to iuterpose our individual differences of opin ion upon tninor questions. It is sufficient for us to know that the election of either national nominee would secure the Union ; and the only question permitted by patriotism is, whether our support of the one or the other would more certainly prove successful ? But before I proceed to tbie inquiry, having shown that no political allegiance to Messrs. Fillmore and Donelson will interpose to pre vent the fair exercise of our judgment on that side, I propose briefly to inquire whether there is anytning to prevent our support of the De mocratic nominees, if after investigation we shall believe that our vote in their favor would more certaiuly secure the safety of our country. It cannot have escaped your observation that the political principles upon which the Whig and Democratic parties have battled for thirty years, with varied success, have been for the most part settled by the fiat of the people, and that such as have not been so definitely dis posed of have been either abandoned by the one or adopted by the other of those parties; so that now the representatives of the people in the halls of Slate and Federal legislation are fouad indiscriminately advocating and op posing the same principles and measures. Not only is there no principle of political antago nism which should prevent Whigs and Demo crats acting together for the benefit of their common country, but it is confidently submit ted that npon the ouly vital question, that which now agitates and endangers the country, the two parties fully accord. The Whig and Democratic platforms upon'the slavery ques tion in eighteen hundred and fifty-two were identical; and, there being no Whig nominees i before the people, it might be sugge?ted that | consistency would rather require than oppose the support of the Democratic nominees by Whigs. The controlling inquiry to the patriot now recurs, which of the two national organi zed ion* run by hit rott be made most certainly tnccessfuf* Every Maryland Whig will be bound by every tie of duty to vote as his judgment shall de cide this question. It may not be immaterial to observe that neither of the national nominees will obtain throughout this broad land any votes which will not be cast by national conservative citi zens, and it is to be regretted that in this crisis that vote should be divided between two na tional candidates, whilst the entire anti-na tional vote will be concentrated upon the sec tional nominee. To judge of the relative strength of the two national organizations it is unnecessary to trace minutely the origin of the American party. It is sufficient to bring to your recollection that it was <riginally com posed, North and South, of the dissatisfied members nf the two old parties, and that in the North its original members were chiefly those who opposed the conservative principle upon the slavery question avowed in the platforms of tbe two old parties. It must not escape your recollection that upon the nomination of Messrs. Fillmore and Donelson a large majority of the Northern delegates seceded from the conven tion, declared their intention not to support thoae nominees, and subsequently united in the nomination of Mr. Fremont. This separation of the sectional from the national portion of the American party has occurred in every Northern State in the Confederacy. I deduce from these facts the nationality of the suppor ters of Messrs. Fillmore and Donelson, and I submit the inquiry for the honest decision of those to whom this paper is addressed, what non xbirthoUlinf] State can this national branch of the American party, thus shorn of the larger portion of its original strength, promise its num. met a / Let the Whigs of Maryland pon der upon the view of this subject I have en deavored to present to their consideration, and no on?j of them will say that a single non slaveholding State is certain for Fillmore and Donelson. Time, 1 think, will develop the fact that Messrs. Fillmore and Donelson will be left without an electoral ticket in most of the free States, and it is at any rate the deliberate con viction of my judgment that they will not carry a single non-slaveholding .Statu in the Union. If I am right, or even approximate the truth in the view I have taken, it will necessarily fol low that any conservative vote for the Ameri can nominees North will be equivalent to a vote for Mr. Fremont, as it will be a vote taken from Mr. Buchanan, his only real competitor. It is clear, then, that to the South alone can the friends of Messrs. Fillmore and Donelson look for the probable chance of an electoral vote; and it is to the States of Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri that they profess to look with the greatest hope of success. It it manifest that if this hope were realized, it might indeed prevent the election of Messrs. Buch anan and Breckinridge by the people, but it would only throw the election of President into the present House of Representatives, composed as that House now is. Does not the election of this same House, after a con gest of two months, of a Black Republican Speaker, admonish us of tbe danger of such an experiment? Who cau doubt that our po litical fabric would be shaken to its very foun dations by this election of President being thrown upou the present House of Represen tatives? On the Qlhea hand, is it not certain, beyond the contingency of a doubt, that the the vote of the States indicated for Mr. Buch anan, when Rdded to that of the other South* rn States, would tecurt bis election and the con sequent safety of the Union ? Jt is obvious that in this condition of the lanvu-ss, the only serious contest is that between Fremont and Buchanan; that the only posaibl ? result that the most sanguine of th? frieuds of Fillmore and Donelsun can hopo to attain in to carry the contest into the House of Representatives. Who can conceive anything more fatal to the peace of the country, more insane in political action, than such a course of eondnet leading to such a result? Suppose Mr. Fillmore to reuch the House of Representatives with the votes of four or five Slate;, (his utmost possi ble strength,) no man citn seriously Contend that he would be elated President, and as suredly few will be found bold enough to dis sert that, under such circumstances, lie ought to be. The ouly effect, then, of giving the electoral vote of any portion of the South to Mr. Fillmore would be to transfer the contest between Mr. Buchanan and Fremont from the huntings to the House of Representative.-. ; and the danger to our country, now sufficiently menacing, would, in that event, be appalling indeed. Who can contemplate the occurrence of such a contingency, without feeling that he would be a trator to his country, if he failed to exert every possible effort to avert so awful a calamity? I deem it, then, to be my duty, as well as that of all who believe with me that the election of Fremont would be the death-knell of the Union, to unite in the support of Messrs. Buch anan and Breckinridge; und 1 shall sustain their election to the best of my ability. Whilst I concede that there are certain principles hitherto professed by the paity which uninitiated them that cannot receive our support, vet on the great issues of the constitutional rights of the South the platform on which they stand meets my cordial approval, and is hi accor dance with that of the party which I now address, and to whoso kind favor I owe the honor of holding the seat I now occupy, and which I shall cease to hold after the 1th of March next by the fiat of that party to which Mr. Filliuore has attached himsetf, and which is now domi nant in the Legislature of my native State. Let Maryland Whigs remember that the po litical battle now being fought is one of the deepest interest to them; that the maintenance of the constitutional rights of the South is the issue tendered to the American people by the Democratic party, and (as the Whigs have no candidate) by that parly alone: that upon this issue the Republican party have staked the Union; and in such a battle, upon such an issue, they must be true to those who are doing battle in our behalf. It would be indeed sad if, in such a contest, the conservative strength of the country should not be united; it would be as strange as sad if, in such a contest. Southern men should not be found battling shoulder to shoulder for the maintenance of their own constitutional rights. In thus accomplishing what I believe to be a duty, I shall be inexpressibly gratified if I shall find myself sustained bv the approval of my fellow-Whigs, who have refused to abandon either the party or the principles in support of which we have so long and so '.i hfully united, and which we shall remain it perfect liberty to reorganize as soon ax (mm* common efforts shall have succeeded in averting the perils that now threaten our beloved country. THOMAS G. PRATT. . Puritan Origin of the Fugitive Slave Law. The Boston Courier givea the following bits of history, from which it appears that the practice of restoring fugitives from service had its origin among the old Puritans: It may interest the readers of these papers.'' as a piece of curious antiquarian history, ( know the origin of the practice of restoring fugitives from service. Iu tho articles of con federation between the United Colonies of New England, viz: Massachusetts, New Plymouth, Connecticut, New Haven, Ac., made in 1643, and made, as the preamble declares, by tbo?e who "all come into these parts of America with one and the same end in aim. namely: to advance the kingdom of our Lord Je^us Christ, and to enjoy the liberties of the gospel in purity and peiuV?then* is the following provision: "It is al*o agreed that if uny ser vant runs away from his master into any con federate jurisdiction, in such cane, upon certi ficate from one magistrate in the jurisdiction ont of which the servant fk*d, or upon other due proof, the said servant shall be delivered to his master, or any other that pursues and brings siich certificate or proof.'1 It thus appears, says the Courier, that the rendition of fugitives from services in this country commenced more than two hundred years ago, and, what is remarkable, the mod* of proof required by ths agreement of the Colo nies, is precisely analagous to one of the modes prescribed by the set of 1850; the onlv diffe rence between them being the more elevated character of the tribunal "in the jurisdiction out of which the servant (led," before which the proof is now made, and the greater oh utiori in the proceedings. It is presumed that the subjects of this compact between the Colonies, were rather white servants and apprentices than negro slaves, who, in lt?43, were very few iri number. It was very common in those early times, more than at present, for master me chanics to take indentured apprentices, wlio, if they absconded, were (ami now are) liable to be arrested and returned to their masters, ax pet-sons held to labor or service in the State whence they fled. The same rule prevails now in regard to white fugitives which was adopted by the early Puri tans, and is applied by the fugitive slave law to fugitive slaves. Yet the Abolitionists would see the Union dissolved rather than apply the same rule to runaway blacks to which runaway white men are subjected 1 Michigan. We quote from tho Detroit Free Prts.ij "If bluff and brag and swagger were the chief elements and evidences of popular strength in this contest, we should say that the electoral vote of Michigan (tl in number) would I?e given to Fremont. But, thanks to the frnmers of our system of government, all political rontests must be determined by votes, and not bv bluff and brag and swagger. This being the fact, the electoral vote of Michigan will, if the demo cratic party do its whole duty, be cast for Mr. Bnchannn. "The democracy will do its doty, and the electoral vote of Michigan will he given to Mr. Buchanan. Wayne county can, and she wili (JIVE SEVEN HUNDRED DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY. The city of Detroit can, and it will, give TVBfcVI HI XDRED DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY. We are not over confident, and we do not exapge rate. Never was the democratic party iu this city and county so well united and so strong as it is at this present moment. Never was it so determined to di?|>erse and annihilate the op posing bands. And this union and spirit of determination is not confined to the city of Detroit and coanty of Wayne. It pierailtt widely and ts spreading, and it will not cease to spread until the election day shall have passed. A Marrtino Man.?The Newburvport Her ald relates that a man who has been able to live with a. good decree of quiet in that city while two women claimed him as husband, was taken all aback on Wednesday evening by the appearance of a third lady in the same charac ter, and " muzaled." The last claimant is * from New Orleans, and she says the man ha<? .still another wife in Wales.