to show that a jury would never find a man guilty of a crime where no motive for its commission could be found. Among many others, he cited one to this effect:

A man near Danville, in Kentucky, while riding along the road, called at a neighbor's house and asked for a coal of fire to light his pipe, and, when it was furnished him, and the pipe was lighted, he drew a pistol and shot the man dead. “And, gentlemen of the jury," said the counsel, "that man was neither hanged nor put in the penitentiary."

Mr. Douglas was irritated by this course of argument. He thought the counsel was presuming upon his youth and inexperience; and he felt disposed to convince him that, in relying upon such considerations to aid him in the defense, he was in

error.

He therefore commenced his reply by repeating, verbatim, the allusion to Henry Clay and John Rowan-men whose name and renown were great in the land—and made appropri ate comments upon the modesty which could draw such comparisons. He reviewed, and answered seriously, all the cases which had been cited from the books, and deduced from them what he conceived to be the principles which they settled.

When he came to the other authorities, which he characterized as having been drawn from comic almanacs and from old women in the chimney corner, he dealt with them in a different manner. He said he happened to know something of the case near Danville, Kentucky, and he presumed that was a fair specimen of the rest.

It so happened that one of the officers of the court in Illinois, then in attendance, was present at the trial in Kentucky, and was well acquainted with all the facts of the case.

me," said Mr. Douglas, "that the crime was committed in the manner stated, and that the accused party was neither hanged nor sent to the penitentiary,' because, after he had been tried and convicted, he broke jail and ran away!"

Mr. Douglas then argued the case upon its merits. His argument seems to have been of this nature:

He admitted that a man might be insane on one subject, and perfectly sane and rational on all others, and that, while in that condition, he might be able to attend to all his usual business without any symptoms of insanity being manifested, until

some allusion or reference should be made to the particular topic or subject which had produced the mental disease. But he contended that in all such cases of partial insanity a connection might be traced between the cause and the effect. For example insanity produced by love would show itself when that subject was mentioned, and in a manner which would indicate that that passion was the cause; and, in like manner, insanity produced by religious excitement would have shown itself, not in cruelties and acts of imposture, such as torturing a man, and using ardent spirits as evidences of the flames of the infernal regions, but by excesses, all of which would be under the influence of religious principles and feelings.

The jury found the prisoners guilty, and sentenced them to confinement in the penitentiary. The court set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence. The presiding judge expressed the opinion that it was a case of insanity, for which the accused were not responsible, and that the verdict must have been influenced more by the controversy between the counsel than by the evidence. Mr. Douglas resigned the office of state's attorney before the second trial took place, and was succeeded by a gentleman who was unacquainted with the facts of the case. The accused parties were acquitted, on the plea of insanity produced by undue religious excitement.

As a

Mr. Douglas may be placed at the head of those members who, at the commencement of the twenty-ninth Congress, were known by the familiar title of the "fifty-four forties." member of the preceding Congress, he had taken the ultimate ground in respect to the disputed territory, and had declared that "he never would, now or hereafter, yield up one inch of Oregon, either to Great Britain or any other government." He had advocated the policy of giving notice to terminate the joint occupation; of immediately extending our settlements up to the Rocky Mountains; of establishing a territorial government of Oregon, protected by a sufficient military force; and of putting the country in a condition to repel any aggression on the part of Great Britain, and to resent any invasion of our rights. He had dwelt on those public considerations which meet with so passionate and instantaneous a response in the American heart, in regard to the "grasping tendencies" of British power.

He spoke of the alleged intrigues of that government.touching California, and Cuba, and Texas; as to the latter of which, the fog has been so wonderfully cleared away by General Houston's letter of July 18, 1847, and which claims a place in another chapter. He had pointed the attention of the American people to the "net-work of possessions and fortifications" which British power had run around the United States; to Canada, to Nova Scotia, to New Brunswick, and to those possessions "which studded the Atlantic round Cape Horn to the Oregon." He had declared that the cherished object of British policy was to check the growth of republican institutions on this continent, and the rapidity with which we were advancing not only in political power, but in trade, and commerce, and national glory. This growth, he thought, had shaken the thrones of Europe to their foundations, and had rendered it necessary to the self-preservation of their designing incumbents that our onward march should be arrested.

"It therefore," he said, "becomes us to put this nation in a state of defense; and when we are told that this will lead to war, all I have to say is this: violate no treaty stipulations, nor any principle of the law of nations; preserve the honor and integrity of this country; but, at the same time, assert our right to the last inch, and then, if war comes, let it come. We may regret the necessity which produced it; but when it does come, I would administer to our citizens Hannibal's oath of eternal enmity, and not terminate it until the question was all settled forever. I would blot out the lines on the map which now mark our national boundaries on this continent, and make the area of liberty as broad as the continent itself. I would not suffer rival petty republics to grow up here, engendering jealousy of each other, and interfering with each other's domestic affairs, and continually endangering their peace. I do not wish to go beyond the great ocean-beyond those boundaries which the God of Nature has marked out; and I would limit myself to that natural boundary which is so clearly defined."

In another speech he says.

"Our federal system is admirably adapted to the whole continent; and while I would not violate the laws of nations, nor treaty stipulations, nor in any manner tarnish the national VOL. I.-F

honor, I would exert all legal and honorable means to drive Great Britain and the last vestiges of royal authority from the continent of North America, and extend the limits of the republic from ocean to ocean. I would make this an ocean-bound republic, and have no more disputes about boundaries or red lines upon the maps."

How absorbing an idea in some portions of the country this "ocean-bound republic" afterward became, the reader need scarcely be reminded.

In illustration of the views of Mr. Douglas on this point, we have heard him say that if he were to consult the interests and honor of the republic alone, he would rather see three new monarchies established on the American continent than one republic. His reason is this: that so long as we had a monarchy for a neighbor, the very odium which is attached to that form of government would unite our own people in any controversy we might have with it; but that, if there should be a new republic on the continent, like that of Texas, for instance, it would necessarily be a feeble one when compared with ours; and our superiority would excite its envy, and therefore its hostility. The consequence would be, he says, that a feeble republic would always be used as an instrument in the hands of powerful European monarchies, through which to assail us with impunity; for, if we should attempt to resent the aggression, the very fact that we proposed to make war on a weak republic would divide our own people.

The Baltimore Democratic Convention, whose troubled elements had given birth to the nomination of Mr. Pólk for the office of President of the United States, laid down certain cardinal articles of the Democratic faith, among which was the "reoccupation of Oregon" and the "reannexation of Texas." With the latter of these we have at present no concern.

It is matter of record that controversies have arisen in quarters of undoubted respectability as to the extent to which the action of the Convention had committed the Democratic party in relation to the Oregon Question. Mr. Bayly, of Virginia, alluding to this point in a speech delivered on the 27th of January, 1846, says:

"I utterly deny that this question of giving notice was made at the Baltimore Convention, or any where else, until it has been

attempted this winter, a measure of the Democratic party. It was raised at the last session by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams), when we had just come out of our glorious party struggle, and when we were all fresh with its issues; ay, and at the time when we had just carried through the Texas resolutions. And, at that time, what course did the party take? Why, sir, the gentleman who led us then on that question, the present Governor of Tennessee (A. V. Brown), absolutely denied the power of Congress to give the notice; and a proposition moved by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams), providing for giving it, was voted down by the Republican party. It is true, a similar one was afterward adopted, but against the vote of the great mass of the party; the Western men, particularly, voting almost in a solid column against it. It was adopted against eighty-two votes in the negative, of whom only three were Whigs. Sir, it was not regarded then as a part of the Democratic creed, and I do not understand how it has become so since. Notwithstanding all this, such of us as advocated the immediate admission of Texas, and now oppose giving this notice, are accused of inconsistency and bad faith."

Mr. Woodward, of South Carolina, speaking on the same point, said, "that the Baltimore resolution upon the 'reoccu pation' of Oregon was the opinion of the members of the Convention, and not attempted to be incorporated into the Democratic creed; that the measure was recommended to the Democratic party as a great American question above party; that, with all due deference and respect, he had considered the advice of that Convention, and he utterly repudiated the idea that they possessed any power to impose any obligation upon him. He denied that they designed to do it; and he would sustain the President if he should settle this question upon the line of forty-nine degrees."

Whatever interpretation the framers of the following resolution, or those who voted for it, designed it should bear, or under whatsoever circumstances it may have been adopted, we find, on reference to the records, that it was duly promulgated to the Democratic party as part and parcel of the authorized proceedings of the Convention:

"Resolved, That our title to the whole of the territory of