SPKCIi / SPEKCll HON. L. M. C0\, OF KENTUCKY DKL1TERED IN TllK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 26, 18f.G, In defence of the p9unciples of the American Party, and the approacliiruj P^ndential Election. Mr. Chairman : I did not come to the House to-night to make a speech. Indeed I had no such intention when I entered this Hall. Hut .eome re- marks have fallen from my colleague [Mr. Jewktt] which I think call for a reply, and which 1 may as well answer now as at any other time. Of course I know nothing of what has b:en said by my col- league before I came into the House. But his ob- serratlons which have fallen upen my ear indicate his opinions of the political creed o( the American pai'ty, and his feeling-^ of uncompromising hostility and bitterness towards what he calls an organiza- tion rather than a party. They illustrate, too, the notions of political proscription which my col- league and the party to which he belongs enter- tain, and expose the utter fallacy of the charge of proscription and unconstitutional designs against the American party. My colleague repeats the oft-repeated and oft-refuted charge against the American party that their principles are unconsti- tutional and anti-republican — and the specifications of this charge are that the American party intends to modify the naturalization laws so as to extend the time of probation which the foreign immigrant must undergo before he can be invested with the rights of citizenship, and that the members of that party will not support Roman Catholics in their aspirations for political station. Before I notice the argument to sustain the assertion that the American party is engaged in an effort to deprive a portion of their fellow-citizens of their constitu- tional r'ghts, I will examine some observations of my colleague which require a separate criticism. He says, first, that the idea that the Roman Catho- lica entertain the doctrines imputed to them by the American party is a mistake, growing out of a misunderstanding of their true sentiments. This, air is a fair and legitimate modi- of stating politi- cal differences of opinion. But in tlie progress of my colleague's remarks be grew more heated, and indulged the passionate ascerbity which has char- acterized the opposition of the Democratic party towards the American party from its otganization. Under the influence ot this leelirp, my colleague declares that the doctrine imputed by ihe Ameri- can party to the Roman Catholics is- a gross slan- der, which he hurls back in the tcth of the slan- derers. Now, I ask, in calm and dispas.sionate reason, whether an honest mistak.j in judgn)ent is a slander i' Is that which a party or a number of persons believe to be true as a niatt>.T -of opinion held by another party or body of people a t lander ? And does it comport with that boist.jd Democratic Uberality and toleration thus to chaiacterize, in the halls of legislation, opinions honestly entertained^ even if erroneous, as unmitigated slatidcry Mr. JEWETT. I ask my colleague what he- means by an honest mistake? Mr. COX. I am not at all sut pri-'ed ar mv col- league's zeal in defence of Roman Ciitholics", nor that he should fight his battles over again. He had a hard contest to obtain the sear, he now oc- cupies, lie was sustained by .). lar;;.; body of Catholics, and he feels that gratitude to wards them which men usually manifest towards tbo^'e who vote for and sustain them, and ho declares here that to discharge in part the duty he owes them, was one of the inducements which prompted him to speak this evening. All this is very proper. But in discharging his duty to his friends, he ought to do justice to others, and allow them at least that presumptive honesty and sincerity in their opin- ions which the law imputes to every citizen. When my colleague is free from the party feeling which pioinpts expressions of severe denunciation against political opponents and left to the dictate* of his le,i,'al reason, he is compelled in justice ajid truth to udmit, in substance, that the charge of pioscrip- tiou against the American party is wh')lly unfound- ed, lie says that the American party is uot ob- noxious to the charge of proscription. A::d I now nail that chargi of proscription, so often made by th orators and press of the Democrati: party, with the nitprobation of my oolleacrie, to the ;/>' counter, as an erroneous and unfounded allegacion. There is not, then, any proscription in the creed of the American party. That ia aclinowledged by my colleague. Let it go to the country and to the people, that it has been asserted here to-night, by my coilcague, that the American party in the measures it proposes, is not prescriptive. This adfnission recalls more than half of the thunder which has been hurled against the American party. But my colleague says the members of the Amer- ican {larty are conspirators to do mischief. Mr. JE WETT. I am satisfied that my colleague does not desire to do me any injustice. Mr. COX. Certainly not, Mr. Chairmr/i — and if I have raisunderatood my colleague, I desire him to explain and correct me. Mr. JEWETT. When I spoke of the Catholics, I spoke without any reference to my constituents, and said that the oaths and obligations, taken and subscribed by the Know Nothing party, might not be, in strict speech or in estimation of law, pro- fictiption as against Catholics, but that it was a con- spiracy. I made no concession in legard to their proposed legislation in regard to naturalized citi- zens. Mr. COX. My friend used the term proscrip- tion in a leg.il sense. He is a lawyer, and well veri«d,iiU(l profoundly leau la that abstruse sci- ence, and he knsw when he examined the avosved principles of the American party in the light of that science that the charge of proscription was but the denunciation of party malevolence. Hence he admits that the American party is not proscrip- tive in the technical meaning of that term. Well, sir, that is the only meaning of that term whica has any application to party principles and inten- tions — and therefore the American party has been acquitted of that charge by my colleague. But my colleague says the members of that party are conspira: ».■-'. I do not apply the couplets which I am about to quote to my colleague, but to that speciefl cf argument : '"I hate the man who builds his name On ruins of another's fame — Thus prudes, by characters o'erthrown, Imagine that they raise their own." He says we are conspirators — but the Demo- ©ratic party, to whicli he belongs, is an honest and IMitriotic party. The members of the American party, composed of his fellow-citizens, born on the same soil, many of them living in the same State, enjoying as high reputation for moral integrity and personal virtues, are conspirators in a deep-laid coQspiracy to do mischief. Is that the liberal and tolerant language of a statesman ? Is that the language and the policy which should characterize political opposition of one party against another? — of one citizen against a large portion of his fel- low-citizena ? Is it not, rather, the extravagant and excited denunciation of party bigotry and par- ty tyranny, which requires not only conformity to piatforms, but absolute obedience to all political eommands? I charge no man, in the absence of siay evidence, with an intention to do mischief to liie coimtry. If my fellow-citizen have opinions he has a right to express them. If he believe par- ticular measures would promote the welfare of the coantry, h« baa the right and It ia his duty to use every proper influence to carry such measures in- to practical operation. May my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, rather than denounce a por- tion of my countrymen as conspirators to do mis- chief, simply because of their holding political opinions different from those entertained by the party with which I co-operate. Now, sir, I ask my colleague if he would vote for a Know Nothing, orAmerican? (Heanswersthathowouldnot.) Why not? Because of their opinions. I do not charge him with any illiberality in this, because he has a right to cast his vote for the person whom he thinks best qualified for the proposed office, but because I exercise the same privilege which he claims and which I award to him under the Constitution and the laws, I am charged with proscription by near- ly the whole Democratic party and press, and with conspiracy by piy colleague ! Why, sir, my free- dom from' bigotry and intolerance is as far supe- rior to the narrow pathway marked out by the Democratic party for its votaries as the great high- way of republican truth is to the sinuous meander- ings of party ambition. I am a member of the American party, and ^^et I tell my colleague, that, notwithstanding all the abuse, all the illiberal de- nunciation, all the extravagant and malevolent charges wilh which that party has been assailed, I could, and wouid vote lor a uioinber ol his party, if I thought the true interests of the country re- quired me to do so. I did, sir, in the effort to or- ganize this House, at the commencement of the session, and so did nearly all the members who co- operate with me, vote for several Democratic gen- tlemen for the speakership. My colleague and the members of the Democratic party could never ex- hibit such a sacrifice of personal feeling even to prevent the most disastrous consequences. During the contest (or the speakership, it wiU be remem- bered, that one of the mo^t distinguished leaders of the Democratic party [Mr. Howell Cobb] de- clared on this floor, that he would never cast his vote for a member of the American party. That is Democratic liberality. That is the very essence of party intolerance on the part of that party which denounces the principle of intolerance as anti-re- publican. I do not charge the Democratic party with being proscriptive, however ; but I charge that there are a great many gentlemen of that party who seem to believe that the Constitution and the laws, religious and social, moral and do- mestic virtues, ail concentrate in that party, and whenever a man opposes the objects of the ambi- tion of that party, he arrays himself against every civil, religious, and social right. I come noi, Mr. Chairman, to the arguments of my colleague to sustain his charges against the American party. He stated that he had never been able to obtain from the leaders of that party the exact definition of their principles and inten- tions. That in the discussions he had had with gentlemen on these subjects, they had always de- parted from the true issues and questions involved and gone off upon others not called in question. Mr. JEWETT. My colleague does not exactly understand me. I stated that in discussing these questions previous to the National Convention, it was promulgated that no man, or body of men, had the right to speak for that party. That it spoke for itself and not by any leader. That is it. i Mr. COX. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that my ' colleague, after coming to the conclu.sion that the American party had no rei)ruscntative to k:pi ;ilv for ' it, thought tliat it.-< adverHarii.-rf and op|)aneiits | ought to assume that right, and spcad its >irinci- ' ciples before the people. But my Iriond ^hall find one on thi.^ occasion at least, ready and willing, in an humble' way, to vindicate the pure rep\ibliean principles of that party, and re.-^cuo them Ironi the misrepre.seutatioiifi of party hate. Sir, the Amer- ican party, so far from sin inking from a defence of its true principles and purposes, have met their accuser.? and tiaducers in open, nianly debate, and so far as I have heard, have n ver attemj)ted to evade the exposition of their principles, or at- tempted to combat the aii:;uments of their oppo- nents with vituperation, denunciation and abuse. IIow have they been met? It is acknowledged in all polemics, that tlx* only fair mode of treating an opponent, is to allow him to state for him.self his opinions, principles and intentions. If bis creed, thus stated, is o jectionable, the rights of free dis- cussion allow the opponent to point them out and demonstrate their tendency and elTect. Put, in- . stead of this mode of meeting the American party, the whole Democratic press and the oratois of that party in this llall, and before the people, liave arbitraiily assumed that the American party held certain doctrines, and then proceeded to dem)unce the opinions which they thus imputed to that party, but which tl'at paity repels with abhorrence and disgust. The charges of proscription, of the intention to deprive foreigners of their civil rights — of holding doetrines contr:!ry to the Constitu- ' tion, and of conspiracy to do mischief — all proceed from the same source — the bitter opponents of the American party ; and have nothing to uphold them but bold and arrogant assertion, aid are dispelled by the touch of reason and truth, like morning vapors before the rising sun. I will notice, for a moment, their charges as to foreigners and €atholics. As to foreigners — the American party lielieving that the period required before an alien ghall be naturalized and investt-d with the rights of citizenship ought to be extended — propose to modify th • naturalization laws, and re(iuirc a lou!;er residenc' ; and al.=o, to provide against an evasion of the law, so as to prevent the naturali- zation of persons contrary to the true inter.t and spirit of t!ie laws. My collei^gnc surely does not deny the constitutional power of Congress to mod- ify these laws. He is too good a lawyer to ques- tion this power. It is expressly conferred by the Constitution, in these words — " the Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturali- y^tion ;" and has be-n exercised, from the organi- zation of the Federal Government. Sometimes •one period of time has been provided by Congress before a resident foreigner could bo admitted to the rights of citizenship — and another period has been fixed at other times. Since 18onforai to their own notiojis. No other nation or ]>(opIe have any political rights within their ter- ritorial dominions. It is true thai otiicr nation."! and members of other States, as doscendants from a common pa- rentage, have a right to receive humanity, hospi- tality and kindness fiom all their fcllDw-meii. But these are right.-' of imperfect oi)lig!iliou, and are not of a poliiicrti or legal nature, and caimot be en- forci-d by the la«'s of the country. But wii n you consider constitutional and legal rights — such an those which attach to a man as a citizen — all po- litical writers and all goverimients agree, that no foreigner possesses a claim to any of these rights in any government of the civilized world outside of that to which he; owes allegiance. The government has the perfect right to fix the terms on which foroignerfl shall ho naturalized. If I believe th:it the condition should be ten years' res- idence, and my colleague believes it should be but five, the difference between us is merely as to the time, and not as to the right of the alien, or the power of the government. This difference of opinion as to the expediency of a particular time of proba- tion wh'ch foreigners should undergo before be- coming citizens, is a legitimate subject for discus- sion. But it is a question of expediency alode, and not of power or right; and I ask my colleague and all reasonable men, if there is anything im- proper in my opinions — anything which can ju.5tify the charge of conspiracy — anything calculated to work mischief, or to retard the march of the coun- : try in the way to inconceivable greatness, civiliza- ' tion and true national glory V But it is said that I exclude the alien-born from office, by withholding my suflrage from him. This I have a right to do, j even towar^ls ray native-born fellow-citizen, as m^ j right of suffrage has been reposed in my hands to enable me to preserve my liberties and promote the happiness of my countrymen, and no man can i claim that he is entitled to it as a right If I per- I ceive two great parties in the country so nearly I divided in strength, as to enable the foreign popu- lation to decide the issues of elections, and dictate to the native freemen of the country their gover- i nors and their laws, and should feel it ray duty to ! endeavor to unii,e my countiymen in the purpose ! of lestoring the control of public aflfairs to the na- I tive-born, would not my oVject be approved by every sentiment of patriotism V To accomplish this object it becomes necessary to remove the tempations to barter the rig'ita of freemen for the votes of the fbreign population, and for the time being, to confine my suffrage and political patron- age to my native-f)orn countrymen, until in truth and in fact, as w^ell as in name and appearance, America shall be ruled by Americans. There is no injustice done to the foreign resident citizen by this policy. He is protected in the rights of per- son and property, and hia industry rewarded by competency and the esteem of those who know him — can he, or ought he to ask more ? Ho is not excluded from oflice because of any personal hatred or prejudice ; but because the number of immigrants from the Old World, who are unac- quainted with the nature of our institutions, is 90 great, and the disposition of parties heretofore hag been so prone to obtain their suffrage by means calculated to sap the foundatiq|i of our institutiona ; and instead of public virtue for their support, sub- Stitute the will of a multitude of strangers to our CoDSfitution and laws, that this policy has bi!come absolutely necessary to preserve (he blessings of free government, and transmit them as an inher- itance alike to the native-born children of the for- eigner and the Ameiican citizen — no right which naturalized citizens now enjoy or possess under the Constitution, will be disturbed or impaired by the American party. My colleague says there is no necessity for awakening this home-sentiment of protection to American rights. That the States have the right to establish the quahfications of voters ; and that if the Federal Government should prolong the term of probation for the alien before he can be naturalized, the States might admit him to vote at a shorter period, and thus defeat the whole political policy of the naturalization laws. I do not intend now to enter upon a constitutional argument. But I will say, that, as I understand the Constitu ion, wherever any power is exclusively conferred on Congress, when Congress shall choose to exercise it, that exercise of jurisdiction divests the States from the right to exercise the same power in con- travention of the acts of Congress. The States have all agreed, by the Constitution, that Congress shall have power to pass uniform laws on the subject of naturalization — so that no ahen can become a cit- izen of the United States, except in the mode provided by Congress. The question then arises whether a State can confer political privileges and the right of suffrage upon a forei<;ner, not a citi- zen of the United States, and not qualified for naturalization under the laws of Congress. My opinion is, that a State has no such powers — at least so far as the right to elect officers of the Federal Government is concerned. But, sir, there is no force in this position of my colleague. The General Government is constituted by and operates iipon the same people which constitute the objects of the State governments; and if the principles of the American party are correct and expedient, let them be appHed both by the Federal aud State Governments within their own respective jurisdic- tions. But ray friend says, we do not understand the true intent and meaning of the existing laws of naturalization. He says that after five years' residence we conclude the foreigner is entitled to citizenship. But not so. He has merely the right to be a candidate for citizenship ; and that the court, before whom he appears and demands to be naturalized, must be satisfied that he is well affect- ed towards the institutions of the country ; and this, my colleague says, cannot be the case until lie understands the nature and principles of our Government. There is much force in this posi- tion ; and if such interpretation of the naturaliza- tion laws should be enforced by the tribunals au- thorized to grant letters of naturalization, it would more efi'ectually exclude the foreign population from the ballot-box than any measure proposed by the American party. By this constrHctiou of the laWj the courts would not only have to judge of the evidence as to time of residence, good beha- viour, and submission to the laws ; but each ap- plicant would be subjected to an examination touching his knowledge in t^o science of civil gov- ernment, and especially the Government of the Uaited States — a science which has eluded the in- vestigation of the greatest and most cultivated in- tellects — and a government whose principles are poorly comprehended even by many in high po- h'tical station. If my colleague should press his construction to its full meaning, it would forever exclude nine- tenths of the foreigners, who become residents of the country, from the balloi-box. I prefer a pe- riod of time, injustice both to my countrymen and to the foreigners, after which his submission to the laws, and peaceful residence, shall be taken as sufiicient evidence of his republican principles and qualifications to vote. I prefer it, because of the vagueness and impracticability of the rule laid down by my colleague, and because of the temp- tation to partisan judges to evade its meaning. We know that now, in many places, the only qualification required by the judges, as to being well affected towards the institutions of the coun- try, is, that the applicant will support the party to which the judge belongs. To the remarks of my colleague as to paupers and criminals cast upon our shores from the Old World — I say, we should repel them, with all the power of the State and Federal Governments. We need not stop to de- bate the constitutional power of Congress, until we see whether we agree as to the expediency of preventing such immigration to our shores. I put the question to my colleague, whether he believes in the expediency of exercising the power to repel from our shores paupers and criminals from Eu- rope, and to prohibit their immigration ? Mr. JE WETT. If I had the time, I was pre- pared to show to my colleague and this committee that nearly every State in the Union has stringent and efficient laws upon the subject. Mr. COX. That does not answer my question at all : nor is it important to me whether he an- swers it or not. Whether my colleague agrees with me or not I have not a doubt of the duty of the Federal and State Governments both to use every constitutional power to prevent our shores from being flooded with a population sent from the prisons and lazer houses of Europe — persons who had become nuisances and pests to their native country — refugees from justice — criminals pardon- ed on condition of transportation — such as have, by a combination of European governments to rid themselves of such annoyances, been thrown upon our shores by thousands. I come now, Mr. Chairman, to the objection to the American party, because of its exclusion of Roman Catholics, and will inform my colleague what are the principles of the American party on this subject, as I understand them. The phrase Hainan Catholic the American party understands, designates a person who believes in the doctrine of the Church and acknowledges the supremacy of the Pope of Rome. Mv colleague is sufliciently conversant with the subject to acknowledge that a portion of the members of the Catholic church, even in Europe, deny the supremacy of the Pope, and in that particular protest against his power.-:— The terms Roman Catholic are applied to persons who acknowledge the Pope as Vicegerent of God on earth, who has absolute power over the con- science of every child of the church. That such power is claimed by the Pope and Church of Rome, cannot be denied in the face of the truth. I do uot aisert that the Pope claima civil jurisdiction a9siich outside of the Papal St;ttf3. Civil author- ity or jurisdiction, ax cuch, can only arise from the municipal govornnitnt either through the consiiiu- tio:i or the Ihws ; and a,s tlicri' is no provision of the Constitution or of any law luithorizing such a claim, it would be monstrous us well as foolish to assert the existence of any such power. But the Pope claims that he possesses the light and power to guide the conscience of every member of the church in any and all conflicts with the temporal or civil authorit.es under which he may live, and to dispense with his obligation to obey the laws and civil magistrates of the country whenever he (the Pope) shall determine that obedience to the law and magistrate would be contrary to the in- terests of holy church ; and whenever the Pope shall determine that any law enacted by the legis- lative power of the giiverument is contrary to the interests of the church, he can command his sub- jects to reJuse obedience, iind they must obf\v him, he being supreme director of the conscionces and clothed with a higher authority than the temporal magistrate. Extract i-rom Bull ok Pope Pius IV. " Whereas, therefore, according to the Council of Trent, all wlio may happen henceforward to be placed over cathedral and superior churches, or who may have to take care respecting these digni- ties, canonries, and any other ecclesiasticHl ben-^fi- ces soever, having the care of souls, are bound to make a public profession of the othodox faith, and to promise and swear that they will continue in obedience to the Chuich of Kome: We, willing that the same thing be observed likewise by all persons soever who shall have the charge of mon- asteries, convents, houses, and any other places soever, of all regular orders soever, even of milita- ry ones, under what name or title soever ; and be- sides, to the end that the profession of one and the same faith be uniformly exhibiteJ by all, and that one only, ani a certain form of it, be known unto all, we, willing that a want of our solicitude should by no means be felt by any cne in this particular, by strictly prescribing the tenor of these presents, we, by virtue of our apostolic autliority, command that the form itself be pubHshed, and be received and observed everywhere by those whom it con- I cerns, in consequence of the decrees of the conn- j cil itself, as well as the other parties aforesaid, and j that the aforesaid profession be made solenmly ac- I cording to this, and no other form, under the pen- i alties enacted by the council itself against all con- ! travening, under the following terms : Profex/tion and Oath. " I, N., with steadfast faith, believe and profess all and every particular contained in the symbol of faith which the imly Roman Church use, to wit : I believe in one fxod, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and in- visible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only be- gotten Son of God, and born of the Pather, before all eyes, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the '''ather, by w^om all things were made, who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and waa incarnated by the Holy Ghost from the Virgin Mary, and was made man ; was crucified also for m under PontiuB Pilate, suffered and wag buried, and lo^c again on the third dav according to the Scriptures, and at-ceuded into heaven set- teth at the right hand of the Father, and will again come with glory to judge the living und the dead, of whose kingdom there shall not bo an end ; and in the Holy (Jhost, the Lord and Giver of I,ifr| who procof ds from the Father and the Son, who together with tlie Father and Son is adorsd :i::d glorified, who spoke through the prophetd ; and one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one l)aptism for the remission of sin.^, and await t 'C resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come — Amen. " The apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and the other observances and constitutions of the same church, I most steadfastly admit and embiace. I likewi,>;e admit the Iloly Scripture according to that sense which our Holy Mother Church has held and does hold, who;:> province it ia to judge of the true sense and inter|iretation of the Holy Scriptures. Nor will I ever lUiderstand or interpret it, except ac- cording to the unanimous consent of the holy fa- thers. I abo profess that there ar« truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law" insti- tuted by our Lord Jesus Christ, and necessarv for the salvation of mankind, though not all necessary to each individual, to wit : Baptism, Confirmation, The Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Or- ders, and Matrimony, and that they confer grace ; and that of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Or- ders, cannot be reiterated without sacrilege. I also receive and admit all the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic church in the solemn administration of all the above sacraments. I em- brace and receive all and every thing which in the Holy Synod ol' Trent has been "defined and deliver- ed concerning original sin and justification. I pro- fess, likewise, that in the mass is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead ; and that in "the most holy sacra- ment of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and j that there takes place a conversion of the entire substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire substaiice of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic church calls transubstanti- ation. I also confess that under one kind alone, Christ is taken whole and entire, and a true sacra- ment. I steadfastly hold that there exists a pur- gatory, and that the souls there detained are as- sisted by the suffrages of t*jie faithful. In like manner, also, that the saints reigning along with Christ are to be venerated and invoked, and that they offer up prayers for us, and that their relics are to be venerated. I steadfastly assert that the images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God and, in like manner, of their saints, are to be kept and retained ; and that due honor and veneration is to be awarded to them. I also maintain that the power of indulgences has been left by Christ in his church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to the christian people. I recognise the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church as the mother and mistreis of all churches ; and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontifi; successor to Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ. All other 6 things also delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and excumenical councils, and par- ticularly by the Holy Synod of Trent. I undoubt- edly receive and profess ; and at the same tune all things contrary, and any heresies soever condemn- ed by the church, and rejected and anathematized, I, in like manner, condemn, reject, and anathema- tize. This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved, which, at present, I readily profess and truly hold, I, N., promise, vow, and swear, that I will most steadfastly retain and con- fess the same entire and undefikd to the last breath of life, (with God's help,) and that I will take care, as far as shall be in n-y power, that it be held, taught, and preached by my subjects, or those whose charge shall devolve on me in virtue of my office. So help me God, and^these Holy Gospels of God." I have inserted the entire profession and oath of those exalted to official rule in tlie church, lest it might be said that I had marred the meaning by extracts. As to the orders of bishops and priests in the church who govern the people or lay mem- bers, I refer to a portion of a decree of the Coun- cil of Trent, as follows : " Sacrifice and priesthood are, by the ordinance of G<>'', in such wise enjoined as that both have exi.-t>' ';i pvery law. Whereas, therefore, in the Ne%* ' .■ •tment, the Catholic church has received, from t! e iicstitution of our Lord, the holy visible sacriiico of tbc Eucharist, it must of necessity, and also be confessed that there is, in that (church), a new, visible, and external priesthood, into which the old has been translated; and the Sacred Scrip tures show, and the tradition of the Holy Catholic Church has always taught,, that this was instituted by the same Lord, our Saviour, and that to the apostles, and to their successors in the priesthood, the power was delivered of consecrating, offering, and administering His body and blood, as also of remitting and retaining sins." Chap. '22. — " The Holy Synod being desirous that ecclesiastical discipline may not only be re- stored among the Chiistian people, but that it also may be preserved sound and safe lioiu all manner of hindiauce, besides those things which it has or^ dained respecting ecclesiastical persons, h^s thought fit that secular princes also be admonished of their duty — trusting that they, as Catholics, whom God has willed to be the protectors of holy fiiith and church, will not only grant that to the church her own right be restored, but will also recall all their own subjects to the reverance due towards the clergy, parish priests, and superior orders; nor permit that their officials or inferior magistrates, through any eagerness of covetousness, or any want of consideration, violate that immunity of the church, and of ecclesiastical persons, which, by the ordinance of God, and by the sanctions of the can- ons, has been established, but that they render to- gether with the princes themselves, due obser- vance to the sacred constitutions of sovereign pon- tiffs, and of councils," &c. Lutiier taught the truth of the following among many other propositions which were condemned by the Pope and the church : Proposition 25. — " The Roman Pontiff, suc- cessor of Peter, is not the Vicar of Christ.instituted over all churches of the entire world by Christ himself in Saint Peter." Proposition 2*7. — "It is certain that it is not at all in the power of the chuich or of the Pope to determine articli'S of fait'', nay, neither the laws of morals nor of good woi;.-." The condemnation of t'leso and other pi'oposi- tions by the Pope is a.-, follows : "All and each of the aforesaid articles, or er rors, as being, as is premised, respectively hereti- cal, or scandalous, false or offensive to pious ears, or suited to lead astray simple minds, or contrary to Catholic truth, we condemn, reprobate, and entirely reject," &c. The following Extracts are from Puxckk's History of the Popes. " The Spirit, (says Bellarmine, a Roman Catholic writer,) guides and bridles the flesh not vice versa. Just so the temporal authority must not presume to exalt itself above the spiritual, to guide, com- mand or punish it. This would be rebellion— a heathenish tyranny. The priesthood have their Prince who commands them, not only in spiritual, but in temporal affairs; it is impossible that they should acknowledge a special temporal^ superior ; no man can serve two masters. It is for" the Priest to judre the Emperor— not the Emperor the Priest; it would be absurd were the sheep to think of judging the shepherd. * * * To the clergy of the New Testament belongs exactly the same right that was formerly conceded to the Le- viles under the old dispensation." This was a doctrine which promised that spiritual republic, to which was to accrue so great an influence over the State, a no less complete independence of any reaction on the part of the latter, on which it was sought in Rome to establish, by innumerable proofs from Scripture, from councils,. and rom imperial and papal constitutions, and which Avas considered, on the whole, as irrefutable. I have stated that some European Catholics protested against the power of the Church and Pope of Rome. In confirmation I refer to Rancke's History of the Popes. In the disputes between Louis XIV. of ¥v>ince and the Pope, that wri- ter says : "At any rate, the cic-gy stood by their King against the Pope without scruple ; year after year they put forth more decided declarations in favor- of royal authority. At last ensued the •convoca- tion of 1682. The four articles it drew up, have ever been regarded as the manifesto of Gallicau , liberties. The first th-ee reiterated principles as- sorted before — the independence of the secular power, as regarded the spiritual— the superiority of councils over the Pope— and the inviolability of- the Gallican usages. P-t the fourth is more re- markable, inasmuch as ii -tmits tne spiritual au- thority of the Pope. Even in questions of faith the Pope's decision is not incapable of amendment,, so long as it has not received the assent of the- Church." This opposition led to war. In- the meantime that Pope died, and " Abiander the VIII., (his successor,) proclaimed anew the resolutions of 1682 to be invalid and void— nuli und of no effect, not binding even though backed b / the force of an oath— declaring that day and night he thought on them with a heart full of bitterness, and lifted up his eyes with tears and solis. At last the French clergy submitted to the Pope in these hu- miliating words : 'I'roslratc al the feet of your Holine:JS wo profess our unspenknble sorrow for the same.' " If the Pope eould only hear my two colleagues in tlieir defence of liiui, stripping him of the attributes of Saint Peter, liow bitter would be his sorrow and liow he would weep and sob. Rancke says of the Council of Trent, that it was the most important of modern nges : "The faithful were again subjected to the un- compromising discipline of the Church, and, in urgent cases, to the sword of excommunication. * • * * It was a regulation attended with weighty results that the bisliops found tliemselvc^-, by a special confession of faitii, signed and sworn to by then), to observance of the decrees of tiic Council of Trent and to ; ubmissiveness to the Pope. • * * As the exclusive right of in- terpreting the decrees of the Council of Trent, was reserved to the Pope, it was always in his power to prescribe rules for faitli and conduct." The same author in relating the history of the struggles of the Protestants, and the conferences held in order to elVect a reconciliation with the Church, says, the Pope instructed his legate to the conference — " We must first see whether the Pro- testants accord with us in the main principles; for example, the supremacy of the Holy See, the sa- craments, and some others." It has been asserted by my colleagues that American Catholics Jo not acknowledge the doc- trine of the supremacy of the Pope as I have ex- plained it. I do not pretend to state the individ- ual opinions of members of the Catholic Church. But I will quote an extract from Brownson's Re- view — a good American Catholic authority, and leave the question for the decision of every man for himself. Brownson says, " Kings and tempo- ral lords, as such, are confessedly nuU, and there- fore unknown, in the spiritui 1 order, and are in it only private individuals, undistinguishable as to State or dignity from the meanest of their servants ; with no propriety, then, would our Lord have on his garment and on his thigh, ' King of Kings and Lord of Lords,' i''he had not dominion over them in temporal.-?, in that order in which they are kings and lords. !St. Paul declares that is tlie ' head of all principality and power ;' and we may conclude with absolute certainty that he has, even accord- ing to his human nature, universal dominion ; and that only he, as the apostle, says, who put all un- der him, is subject to him. It f Hows, thcrolore, neces.'arily, if the dominion of oui- Lord in the fle=h, or as the Messiah, is thus universal, that tlie Christian law, the law of Christ, >'xtci.ds not only to spirituals, but al.^o to temporals, and is the supreme law of both orders. Kings and lord.s, magistrates, and rulers, sovereigns and subjects, are under it in all things temporal, and in things spiritual. Whoso denicH this, denies not merely the sounder opinion, but the Christian religion it- self." " This established, we demand to whom, under God, it belongs, to keep, interpret and declare the law of Christ, whom hath our Lord constituted the depository, the guardian and judge of his law? Certainly the Holy Roman Catholic aitd apostolic Church, and the succts*or of Peter as visible heady or supreme chief of that Church^ To show what authority Hrowiison is, I insert hu extract fiom a le'ler addressed to him by Frftiicw Patrick Kcnriek, Catholic Bishop of Pbiludolphtu, under date of May i:ith, 184'J, as follows: " After the dose of our council, I suggested to our venerable metropolitan the propriety of en- couraging you, by our ajiprobation and influence, to contirnie your literary labors in defence ol" thu faith, of which you have proved an able and in- I trepid adyoeate. He received the suggestion most ; readily, and I take the liberty of couunut icaling the fact to you as a mark of my sincere esteem, ami of the deep interest I feel in your excellent Review. I shall beg of him and of other prelates who entertain the same views, to subscribe their names on conhrmulion of my statement." — Quar- terly Jieviev, January, 185;i. I This letter is signed by twenty-five Catholio , Archbishops and Bishops, the chiefs of the Romiui Church in the United Slates, amo..g theiti Arch- bishop Hughes. I Mr. TALHOTT. I wrote down on a piece of paper what I understood my colleague (Mr. Cox,) to say in complaining of my colleague, (Mr, Jkw- , KTT,) on my right — because he had not taken the interpretation given by the American party of their own principles, as the true principles of that party. Ho says that every party nhould be the only true interpreter of its own principles. Now my colleague (.\lr. < 'ox,) says, that the Catholies entertain certain principles and sentiments whicli he has named, ami I tell him if he will apply the same rule to the principles of that, Church, which he has asked to be applied to his party, I will take the responsibility of saying that tlie Catholics of this country do not hold to principles such as he has attributed to them. That they do not re- cognise the right of tho Pope to direct them in civil matters. Mr. COX. I have observed the exact rule to which my colleague refers, and which I am willing shall be applied in all free discussion of political parl>7 principles. I do not pretend to state the individuiil opinions of those who profess the Cath- olic religion. ,My opinions of the doctrines of the Catholic Church are not founded upon transient conversations with members of ihatCiiurch; or I studied and aitfully prepared defences against the ' keen criticisms of Protestant independence. My oainions are deduced from the councils of the Church, and from the exercise of [lower by the Pope, as illustrated in the pages of history. I have already said that the Pope claims no civil or temporal jurisdiction, as such, outside of the pap.il States. But that his power beyond them consisted in his acknowledged supremacy over the right, of private judgment and the consciences of the mem- I bers of his Church, as the vicegerent of God on ' earth. Will my colleague, (Mr. Taluott,) as a I representative, deny that the Pope claims the I power to direct the conscience of every child of ; the church, even to the extent of deciding w helher j he shall obey the mandate of the church or that i of the civil magistrate ? Mr. TALBOTT. I say that the Catholics of this country deny that the Pope has any control over them in temporal matters. That is what I tay. Mr. COX. Some persons who profess the Cath- olic religion do deny the supremacy of the Pope. I have so stated and proved the position of the GalJican Church, and no doubt some CathoHcs in this country a^ree with the Gallican church. Mr. TALBOTT. The Catholics in this country as a body deny the existence of any such power. Mr. COX. I cannot admit the correctness of that assertion. I have stated that the Catholic Church and the Pope of Rome did not claim civil jurisdiction, as such, outside of the Papal States. But when the power is conceded to the Pope to shut the gates of heaven, and no man can open; to open, and no man can shut ; to bind on earth whatsoever he pleases, and the same shall be bound in heaven ; that he has power to fix the destiny of the living eternal soul, which by his ex- communicating power he can cast off from hope and consign to everlasting misery, never to be re- leased; I say, when this doctrine is established, you fasten upon men, and especially upon the ig- norant, an influence that will control them, £;nd re- ceive as implicit an obedience as any human agency can invent or carry into practice. If such is not the effect of human power over poor, frail, and blind human nature, then I confess my whole philosophy on this subject is erroneous. Mr. Chairman, Martin Luther was a Catholic. — He started out with the intention of purifying and reforming the church, and not of overturning it. But on examination he found the disorders too deeply seated to admit of remedy, and he estab- lished a new organization to which he confided the sacerdotal duties of Christianity. His reformation was founded upon a few simple truths. The theo- logical doctrine of justification by faith, and the great political doctrine of the right of private judgment were the corner stones of his mighty achievement. This doctrine was denied by the Church of Rome, ad asserted by Luther, Zuingle, Erasmus, Riuchlin, Melancthon, and other bold spirits of the reformation. These apostl-^s of free thought protested against the tyrannical doctrines of the Roman Church and opened up to Europe an era of light and civilization, of social and moral re- finement unknown to the dark ages of church domination. Their mission was to free the people from the usurpation of the church, not only in le- »veying pecuniary contributions to support a host of indolent, vile, and corrupt priests, but also to redeem them from the usurpations of civil power which had been established over nearly every na- tion and government of Europe — and well did they accomplish their task. Mr. Chairman, this doctrine of the right of pri- vate judgment ia reference to rcHgion embraces the greatest idea which has been promulgated since the days of the Messiah. It struck from the minds of mer- all over th<> world the shackles which had been imposed by a mercenary and corrupt priest- hood. We are indebted to this doctrine for our civilization and splendid greatness as a moral, so- cial, and independent political people ; and we should guard it with unwearied vigilance, as the most precious jewel in the casket of freedom. I have explained the doctrine of the Roman Catho- lic Church on the subject of the power of the Pope as I understand it, and as it has been under- stood by Protestants both in Europe and America for more than two hundred years ; and the Amer- ican party declare they will not support the politi- cal pretensions of men who subscribe to this doc- trine. Those who protest against this doctrine are not embraced in the primuple of exclusion adopted by that party. I will now ask my colleague from the Danville district, [Mr. Talbott,] not wishing to trouble my colleague from the Elizabethtown district [Mr. Jkivett] any further, whether or not he would vote for any man for official station who acknow- ledged the supremacy of the Pope over the con- sciences of men, and who recognised his right to obedience even against the laws and temporal magistratei ? Mr. TALBOTT. I am happy that my colleague has put the question, but I regret exceedingly that I have not the time to answer it in the way I would like. At the first opportunity this old plank of the Know Nothing platform, proscribing men for their religious opinions, would display itself, would that I had time to make the reply I would like to. I tell my colleague, never : that Twill vote for no man of any party or of any church whose political feelings and opitiions I behove to be inimical to the country, but I would rati^cr have my arm torn from my body and my tongue plucked from my mouth than make a distinction against my fellow- ci izen on account of his religion or because he belonged to this, or that, or the other church. Mr. COX. My colleague agrees with me in my position. He says he will not vote for any man whose political opinions and feelings, in his opin- ion, are inimical to the institutions of the country. If I am to receive that as an answer to my ques- tion, my colleague means to say that persons hold- ing the doctrine of the supremacy of the Pope, as described by me, do hold opinions inimical to the institutions of the country, and that he would never vote for such persons. In this he agrees with me ; and the only question to decide is whether the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope avow the doctrine, and whether its members ad- mit and believe it. My colleague from the Danville district [Mr. Talbott] is affected with the same partisan feel- ings which illustrate the whole history of Demo- cratic opposition to the American party, and un- der the influence of such feelings strikes desperate blows at the imaginary doctrines of that party. — He thought that at the first opportunity, this re- ligious plank of the Know Nothing platform, pro- scribing men for their religious opinions, would display itself, and he would rather have his arm torn from his body and his tongue plucked out than make a distinction against any citizen because he belonged to this, that, or the other church. — Now this language conveys the insinuation that some men or party do proscribe men for their re- ligious opinions, and make distinctions because they belong to a particular church. What party is it ? I have nailed the charge of proscription against the American party to the counter as an unfounded allegation, and I challenge any fair- minded man to show, from the declared principles of the American party, by any reasonable construc- tion, that there is any justice in this loose and wholesale denunciation. No, sir, the only difference between my colleague jnd myself is, that I declare in advance, I will not ! cast my vote for any person holding certain opin- ■ ioQ8. My colleague says I am wronfj, because, he says, nobody entertains tht> opinions which I con- demn. Very well, if that hu true, convince ine by reafeon, by an exhibit of llie tiiit-t.-i aiid history of the party supposed to hold tlu'se opinions, thiil I am mistaken, an J I will withdraw my resolution. But suppose I am right — how then? Why my j colleague says he would act exactly as I have de- i clarcd my intention to act. Away then with your | charge of proscription, of depriving mm of con- stitutional rights, of conspiiacy, and all that long list of charges founded alone on the nnpetuo.-!ity of party malevolence, and proclaimed in the unguard- ed and incon.'iiderate moments of passionate de- bate. I love my country, Mr. Chairman, as much as my colleague or any member of his party, and in the hour of trial would be as ready, I do not pretend to say more so, to defend it and all its in- stitutions fiom invasion from without, and dangers within. I would rally, sir, to the standard of my country and stand as (irmly for the constitutional aud legal rights of adopted citizens and resident Roman Catholics as I would for the rights of the native born and the Protestant. I would not de- prive them of any right guaranteed to them by the Constitution and tlie laws, and he who asserts to the contrary misunderstands me, and in his igno- rance of my true opinions aud intentions does me great injustice. Mr. LETCHER. There seems to be more Cath- olics in Kentucky than in any other State. Now I desire to ask my friend from Kentucky [Mr. Cox] whether he ever saw such a Catholic as be de- scribes; and if so, what is his name, and where does he Uve V [Laughter.] Is there such a man? I have heard talk of such, a man, but I have never saw any such. Mr. COX. There are but few Catholics in tLe district which I represent. I am not acquainted with their individual opinions. My opinions, as I have stated before, are not based upon transient conversations with members of tiiat church, nor from any want of personal respect and esteem for many persons of my acquaintance who believe its doctrines, but from the history of the church it- self, the decrees of its councils, and the corrobo- _rating testimony of all Protestant writers for two hundred years. When my friend from Virginia shall have examined this subject fully he will ad- rait that I have correctly stated the doctrine of the Catholic church. Mr. JEWETT. In answer to the question of my colleague whether I would vote for a man for any office who believes in the temporal power of the Pope, I wish to state, tirst, that I know of no such man in my State or district. I will, however, an- swer the question, in the language of another. In the reign of James the First, the twelve judges of England were summoned before the king in coun- cil and inquired of by the king's attorney general touching the jurisdiction of the court. The judges were questioned thus : " In a case where the king believed his preroga- tive or interest concerned, aud required the judges to attend him for their advice, ought they not to atav proceedings till his majesty has consulted JhmV" All the judges except Coke answered, •' Yes yes! yes!" When the ca.to happens, I shall do that which befits for a judge to do. This is ray answer to your q\iestio:i. Mr. COX. I presume my colleague would de- cide as Lord Coke did. I know he is very capable of doing it, and his decision 1 hope would be against the Pope — so, no doubt, my Lord Coke woidd have decided, for he was a most excellent Protestant. Mr. Chairman : I came here to-night to pay my personal respects to my colleague in a very difter- ent way. I intended to give my attention to him, and listen to what I knew would bi; a sensible and respectful speech. I have been led from my pur- pose, and without a note of preparation have re- sponded to the principal allegations aguin-st the party with which I co-operate, and I now leave that subject for the decision of our fellow-citizens. There is one other subject to which my colleague calleil the attention of the Committee upon which I will avail myself of this occasion to make some observations. That is the approaching presiden- tial election. I agree with my colleague in at- taching to the result of this election the most mo- mentous consequences, and feel that it is the duty of every citizen to awaken every sentiment of pa- triotisni in discharging the responsibility of choos- ing men to fill the highest offices under the Con- stitution. The inflamed condition of sectional an- imosity, the universal agitation of exciting politi- cal questions, and the bloody strife in one of the national territories, all conspire to threaten the perpetuity of this glorious union of States, and to extinguish forever the hopes of freedom. My col- league says the great question which presents it- self to the people of the South in this crisis is whether they shall be united or divided in their choice. The union of the South he thinks indis- pensable to the protection and preservation of Southern rights. I would agree with my colleague in the propriety of Southern concert provided we could agree upon the man and the principles upon winch the South should unite. I desire a union upon a man of national, not sectional, views and sentiments ; a man whose nationality is as broad as the national domain, and whose patriotism em- br.ices evcrv cottasre and hamlet, as well as city, in the Republic. Such a man, sir, is Millard Fill- more, whose name and patriotism are known to all the people. My colleague thinks the South should support Mr. Buchanan, the Democratic can- didate ; whilst a powerful party in the Northern States has nominated Col. Fremont, and urge his election because of his agreement with their pecu- liar sectional views. Let us examine for a short time the claims of these respective candidates to the public and national confidence. And first, as to Mr. Buchanan. Southern gentlemen say he is sound on the all-important question of slavery — that he stands upon the Cincinnati platform, and the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. They say that no man or platform is sound on the slavery qticstion that does not deny that Congress pos- sesses the constitutional power to restrict slavery in the Territories. They are not satisfied with a disclaimer of any intention to exercise such power, but require an absolute denial of the existence of such power under the Constitution. This is the 10 constructiou I have heard put upon the Ciucinnatl platform bj' gentlemen upon this floor in speeches which are sent forth to the Southern people as the Democratic creed. If this is the Southern con- struction of the Cincinnati platform let the Xorth know it. Say to the North that you hold no com- munion with any Democrat who believes that Con- gress has power under the Constitution to prohibit slavery in the Territories. I do not believe that Congress possesses this power — but I do not make a man's opinion on this subject the touchstone of political orthodoxy ; and all that I think should be required on a question about which such a differ- ence of opinion has always existed among the brigliiest intellects of the country, is that no con- stitutional power should be exercised to the pre- judice of the rights of the States or of persons in their persons or property ; that whenever the ef- fect of the exertion of constitutional power on a particular subject would be to produce agitation and discontent and no practical good, the power should not be exercised even if expressly granted, but the peace and tranquillity of the country should be preserved. Sir, if you apply the principle laid down by Southern gentlemen on the subject of slavery, you exclude from your co-operation every man who admits the power, however much he may oppose its exercise. It is well known that Mr. Buchanan himself, in the whole course of his long public life, has never asserted that Congress has not power to prohibit slavery in the Territories. On the contrary, he has frequently admitted that power in' Congress. He was in favor of the Mis- souri Compromise of 1820 ; and I have not a doubt was opposed to its repeal. When a member of the Senate, he repeatedly presented petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. On this subject he said on one occasion on pre- senting such a petition, that Congress ought not, in justice to Maryhnd and Virginia, to abolish slavery in this District as long as it existed in those States, but when it ceased to exist in those States Congress should abolish it in this District. He admitted the power, but thought it inexpedient to exercise it then. He said in the debate on the proposition to annex Texas, that he was in favor of the annexation because it would cause the States of Maryland and Kentucky to abolish sla- very. He declared on the subject of slavery gen- erally, that his opinions were the same as those held by the State of Pennsylvania — that he had always been with her on that subject. Now the history of that State pre;)ents an unbroken opposi- tion to this institution for more than fifty years. — But, lest I should mistake his opinions, I here in- sert them as expressed and published by himself aud recorded in the annals of our congressional history : From the Congressional Globe^ vol. 3, page 85. Mr. Buchanan said : " In presenting this memorial, and in exerting himself, so fir as in him lay, to secure for it that respectful reception by the Senate, which it de- served, he .-^hould do his duty to the memorialists ; but he owed a duty to himeelf and to his country, which he would perform. He was clearly of opin- ion, for the reasons he had stated on Thursday last, that Congress ought not, at this time, to abol- ish slavery in the Distiict of Columbia, and that it was our duty promptly to place this exciting ques- tion at rest. He should, therefore, move that the memorial be read, and that the prayer of the me- morialists be rejected." On the Thursday before he said on the subject of slavery : " He thought Congress ought not to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, in justice to Maryland and Virginia. But (said he) when sla- very ceases to exist under the laws of Maryland and Virginia — then, and not till then, ought it to be abolished in the District of Columbia. Notwith- standing these were his opinions, he could not vote for the motion of the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) not to receive this memo- rial." From the Congressional Globe ^ vol. 8, page 158, Feb. 3, 1840. " Mr. Buchanan presented the petition of Jacob M. Ellis, and 21 other citizens of Philadelphia county, praying for an alteration of the Constitu- tion so as to abolish slavery in the United States ; and 4 other petitions for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia." From the Congressional Globe, vol. 3, prti^e 328, April 25, 1836. " Mr. Buchanan said he rose to present the memorial of the yearly meeting of the religious Society of Friends, which had been recently held in the city of Philadelphia, remonstrating against the admission of Arkansas into the Union, whilst a provision remained in her constitutioo which admits of and may perpetuate slavery. * * The language of this memorial was perfectly re- spectful. Indeed, it could not be otherwise, con- sidering the source from which it emanated. It breathes throughout the pure and Christian spirit which had'always animated the Society of Friends; and although he did not concur with tJem in opin- ion, their memorial was entitled to be received with great respect. When the highly respectable committee which had charge of this memorial call- ed upou him this morning, and desired hi-m to present it to the Senate, he had felt it to be his duty to inform them in what relation he stood to the question. He slated to them, that he had been requested by the delegate from Arkansas to take charge of the application of that Territory to be admitted into the Union, and that he had cheer- fully taken upon himself the performance of this duty. He also read to them the 8th section of the act of Congress of 6th March, 1820, containing the famous Missouri Compromise ; and informed them that the whole Territory of Arkansas was south of the parallel of 36 degrees and a half of north latitude ; and that he regarded this com- promise, considering the exciting and alarming circumstances under which it was made, and the dangers to the existence of the Union which it had removed, to be almost as sacred as a constitutional provision. That there might be no mistake on the subject, he had also informed them that in pre- senting their memorial he should feel it to be his duty to state these facts to the Senate. With this course, on his part, they were satisfied, and still continued their request that he might present the memorial. He now did so with great pleasure. He hoped it might be received by the Senate with 11 all the respect it ho liig'ily dcsorvcil. He asked ! that it lui^ht bu read ; and us tho (lucstioii of the admission of Arkansas was no longer before us, he , moved that it might he laid upon the tablv. The ] mi-nioiinl wa>i aoeordinf^ly re:id, and ordered to be • laid upon the table." | From the C'onf/rfssiv7ial C/fobc, vol. ;5, pa(jf 7'.'. \ Spcakuis; of slavery, Mi. Huchaimn said, after stating he would leave slavery where the Constitu- i tion left it, with tho States — " For one, whatever i may be my opinions upon tiie ab.s'racL ((uestion ol slavery, and I am free to confess, '/it'i/fi. VII. — The roeognition of the right of the na- tive born and naturalized citizens of the United States, permanently re- siding in any Territory thereof, to frame their i constitution and laws, and to regulate their ; domestic and social af- I fairs in their own mode, subject only to the pro- [ visions of the Federal Constitution, with the privilege of admission [ into the Union when- ever they have the re- quisite population for one Representative in Congress. Providrdal- wat/n, that none but those who are citizens of ihe United States, under the Constitution and laws thereof, and who have a fixed resi- dence in any such Ter- ritory, ought to partici- pate in the forma'.ion of the constitution, or in the enactment of laws for said Territory or State. any cxpreshion of opin- ion upon the power of ('ongress to establish or prohiliit slavery in any Territory, it is the oense of the Nitional Council that ("ongri'ss ought not to Icgislati! upon the subjot^t of clavery within the Territorii'S of the United States, and tluit any interference by Con- gress H'tli slavery as it exists :.: the District of Colun rt, would be a violati II of the spirit and inti'iition of tin compact liy which the State of Maryland ceded the District to the United States, and a breach of the National faith. It will be seen by examining these two proposi- tions, that, as to the policy of the government on the subject of slavery i!i the Territories, they arc substantially the sanir. That the roident citizens of the Territory sliali l Federal CJovernment, whilst the t'on- stitutioii remains. Reason alone sliould be em- ployed to resist legislative and (larty injustice; but if ihu designs of parties, purely seetioiuil, sliould be carrieil < ut, the ("onstitution trodden vnider foot, and, instead of the aetion of a majority, in ae- eordanee with its grants and limitations, you inau- gurate the unbridled will of a majority — then, sir, the fate of the Heput)lie will be forever sealed, and tiie historic chapter of American iiuiei)end- emce closed in the tragic scenes of civil war. Tlie fnrtain fall.'", and I have no desire to imagine the horrors behind the scenes; and but tew the heart to look upon them, if the opened to their gaze. The fru.^mentury sections of a once bri.- litieal star in the western Ininisphere, mi; for a time their feeble rays over tlie dark j Kastern lyraiiny and, despotism, but their lar and eccentric motions wouhl soon pr(' mighty coufliet, in which their lustre would i ever extinguished. The opulent and fasv'^' ' classes might enjoy seasons of tran<|uillity and\^ riods of apparent prosperity, but tin- liojie of tin- toilini; millions, for themselves and their posterity, would be buried forever beneath tin' nii'i-" of .» once free and glorious Union. ciiirrLAi; The undersigned, members of the Nalional Jixecu five Covimittee of the Aimrkan Farti/, have pleasure in announcing to the people, that satisfactory arrangements (or the future main- tenance of the Amfrican Organ, as an au- thoritative exponent and advocate of ihi' prin- ciples of the Atnericari Party, have l)een completed. Recommencing its labors, under these new auspices, the undersigned cheerfully commend the AMiiRiCAX Okcja.s to the generous con- dence of the American Partii, in every sec- tion of the Confederacy, and they hope its columns may command the widest circula- tion. IlUMrilREV MAHSUAIL, of Ky. SOLOMON G. HAVKN, of N. Y. J. M"lli;iSON llARiil.^, of M .. JAfMl! lUlOOM, Pe.u:. \VA.sni.Nt.i.' . » rrv, \). C, M;iy iatt., \ti)ii. PROSPECTUS OF THE AMERICAN OR(;A^ . The American Organ having been adopted, by the Executive Committee of the Anu.i- nan members of Co7igress, as the central organ of the American part ij, the proprietor, with A view to its general and extensive circulation thioughout the country, h:i.s determined, on consultation with his political friends, to furnish the same to subscribers, whose subscriptions arc remitted after May ls^ and during the months of May, June, and Jidy, ou the following reduced terms, to wit : 2'erms of the Daily American Organ. Daily Organ, for one year - - $3 00 | Daily Organ, for six months - $2 00 ^Tenns of the Weekly American Organ. Weekly Organ, for one year, to single subscribers - - - - $1 50 Weekly Orgtin, for six months, to single subscribers . . - - 00 Wnkly Organ, for one year, to clubs of eight or more subscribers, each $1 25 Weekly Organ, for six months, to clubs of eight or more subscribers, each 75 Weekly Organ, for the campaign^ to wit: from July lit to lo.'A N'ovember, each 50 All subscribers whose subscription? have been remitted during the month of May, have bftea charged only at above rates. ibrra to ' they are ower pht U ittij >g /