DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM,

ADOPTED BY THE UNITED STATES SENATE.

ON the first of March, 1860, Mr. Davis, of pursuance of it, are hostile in character, subversive of Mississippi, submitted to the Senate the follow-the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect. ing Resolutions:

On the 8th May following, Mr. Clingman, of North Carolina, addressed the Senate at length 1. Resolved, that in the adoption of the Federal Con- on these resolutions, maintaining the position stitution, the States adopting the same acted severally that the Constitution does guarantee the right as free and independent sovereignties, delegating a portion of their powers to be exercised by the Federal Gov- of holding slaves in the Territories of the Uniernment for the increased security of each against ted States, but that the enforcing of that right, dangers, domestic as well as foreign; and that any in- by Congressional action, was inexpedient, and termeddling by any one or more States, or by a combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions of would be of no practical value to the Slave the others, on any pretext whatever, political, moral, States; also, that the South waived that right or religious, with a view to their disturbance or subver-in agreeing to the Compromises of 1850 and the sion, is in violation of the Constitution, insulting to the Kansas-Nebraska Act (repeal of the Missouri States so interfered with, endangers their domestic peace and tranquillity-objects for which the Constitution was Compromise) of 1854. Mr. C. also reviewed formed--and by necessary consequence, tends to weaken the proceedings of the National Convention at and destroy the Union itself. Charleston, and concluded as follows:

2. Resolved, That negro Slavery, as it exists in fifteen States of this Union, composes an important portion of their domestic institutions, inherited from their ancestors, and existing at the adoption of the Constitution, by which it is recognized as constituting an important element in the apportionment of powers among the States; and that no change of opinion or feeling on the part of the non-slaveholding States of the Union, in relation to this institution, can justify them, or their citizens, in open or covert attacks thereon, with a view to its overthrow; and that all such attacks are in manifest violation of the mutual and solemn pledge to protect and defend each other, given by the States respectively on entering into the constitutional compact which formed the Union, and are a manifest breach of faith, and a violation of the most solemn obligations.

3. Resolved, That the Union of these States rests on the equality of rights and privileges among its members; and that it is especially the duty of the Senate, which represents the States in their sovereign capacity, to resist all attempts to discriminate either in relation to persons or property in the Territories, which are the common possessions of the United States, so as to give advantages to the citizens of one State which are not equally assured to those of every other State.

4. Resolved, That neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature, whether by direct legislation or legislation of an indirect and unfriendly character, possess power to annul or impair the constitutional right of any citizen of the United States to take his slave property into the common Territories, and there hold and enjoy the same while the Territorial condition remains.

5. Resolved, That if experience should at any time prove that the judicial and executive authority do not possess means to insure adequate protection to constitutional rights in a Territory, and if the Territorial Government should fail or refuse to provide the necessary remedies for that purpose, it will be the duty of Congress to supply such deficiency.

6. Resolved, That the inhabitants of a Territory of the United States, when they rightfully form a con stitution to be admitted as a State into the Union, may then, for the first time, like the people of a State when forming a new Constitution, decide for themselves whether Slavery, as a domestic institution, shall be maintained or prohibited within their jurisdiction; and "they shall be received into the Union with or without Slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission."

7. Resolved, That the provision of the Constitution for the rendition of fugitives from service or labor, without the adoption of which the Union could not have been formed, and that the laws of 1793 and 1850, which were enacted to secure its execution, and the main features of which, being similar, bear the impress of nearly seventy years of sanction by the highest judicial authority, should be honestly and faithfully observed and maintained by all who enjoy the benefits of our compact of Union; and that all acts of individuals or of State Legislatures to defeat the purpose or nullify the requirements of that provision, and the laws made in

Entertaining these views, I have been disposed to abstain as much as possible from the discussion of these questions, and I really hope that we shall not press them. I think no advantage can grow out of it. I greatly fear that I have occupied more of the valuable time of the Senate than I intended. I felt, however, that from me, in my position, some explanation was necessary. I think that the gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber have given us a platform already. We shall have to fight them; we had better make up our minds to go into the contest, and meet them on the great issue they tender us. In ten days, we shall probably have their declaration of war from Chicago, and the clash of arms will commence very soon. It is time for us to close our ranks. I am ready to fight under any flag and any standard-bearer that may be given us. I can adopt any of those platforms that were presented at Charleston. I leave all that to our political friends assembled in convention. I know that they will present a platform, and present a man less objectionable to me than the candidate on the other side. I regard them as the deadly political enemies of my section; as the enemies of the Constitution of the United States. I want to embark in the contest and fight them with closed and serried ranks on our side. I have spoken only in behalf of the Democratic party, of the Constitu tion, and the country.

MR. BENJAMIN ON POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY.

Senator Benjamin, of Louisiana, followed: Mr. Benjamin.-Mr. President, I had no intention of joining in this debate, or of uttering one word on the re solutions now before the Senate; but, sir, I have listened with intense surprise to what has fallen from the Senator from North Carolina this morning, and I cannot remain quiescent and by silence appear to give consent to what he has said in relation to the action of certain Southern delegates in the recent Convention at Charleston,

The Senator from North Carolina thinks that political races can best be run without the load of principles. The Senator from North Carolina thinks that the best way to get success in a political contest is not to bother yourself with the baggage of principle, but let your candidate run with nothing on his back, and probably in that way he may run the faster and reach the goal the sooner. again, the honorable Senator thinks that, because the Cincinnati platform was acceptable to the whole Democracy in 1856, there is and can be no reason why Democrats who stood on that platform at that time should be dissatisfied with it now.

And

Mr. President, let us look a little back, behind 1856, in relation to that platform, and to the living issue on which we are separated as regards that platform. We all remember, sir-no man can forget-that, in the exciting contest which took place on the Kansas-Nebraska bill, those who were the firmest supporters of the bill differed in principle on that one point which now threatens to divide the Democratic party. They differed openly; they avowed their differences; they provided for the final settlement of those differences. Sir, when we met in

guide and a pole star by which the Democratic party could guide the ship of State, a sudden and alarming heresy sprung up in the North, and something was said about the right of the Legislature of the Territories not to destroy Slavery; not to abolish it; not to confiscate by direct legislation the rights of the citizens of the South who might find themselves in the Territories with their property, but, by a side blow, by indirection, and by failure to perform duty, by "unfriendly legislation," to do that which constitutionally they had no power to do by any direct effort of legislative will. Now, sir, the Cincinnati platform, with which the gentleman from North Carolina seems to be so much in love, and which he thinks is sufficient for the constitutional rights of the South, would be sufficient for that purpose, is sufficient for that purpose properly construed but when the delegates of a great party, assembled together from all portions of the Confederacy, recently met, and the proposition was made to them to adopt the Cinand with what view? It was made with a knowledge of every man in that Convention that two distinctly opposite interpretations were put upon that platform one at the South, and the other at the North.

car sus, under the lead of the honorable Senator from Illinois, who introduced the Kansas-Nebraska bill, it was found that the Democrats from the North and the Democrats from the South could not agree in principle.. The Democrats from the South then took the position that the Constitution of the United States was plain and clear. The rights of the people of the South were placed upon that instrument. I agree with the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis) that we have nothing to do in this controversy with natural rights or natural principles. Those rights and those principles, which lie at the foundation of social organization and civil government, were proper subjects of examination and consideration with the fathers. They did take them into consideration. They decided them. They have given us a chart by which now we are bound all to direct our course; and that chart is the Constitution of our country Resting the rights of the South upon that Constitution, when the discussions arose upon the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the Sena-cinnati platform, it was made under what circumstances, tors from the South who met in caucus, or in convention, or in primary meeting, if you choose so to say, all agreed, without a dissenting voice, that, by the true construction of the Constitution of the United States, the Territories belonging to the United States were the common property of all; that each State had equal rights in those Territories; that amongst those rights was the right of the citizens of the different States to emigrate to those Territiories with their property of every nature and kind; and, when there, we contended that there was no power under heaven that could drive us out of those Territories, or deprive us therein of the protection of the Constitution and the laws, until the people of the Territory should make a constitution and form a State.

Mr. Clingman.-The Senator will allow me to ask him if these two opinions were not upon whether a Territorial Le gislature could legislate for or against Slavery? Are thost the opinions to which he refers?

Mr. Benjamin.-The opposite constructions are put in several points. One point is, whether the Territorial Legislature has a right to abolish Slavery in the Territories or not, before forming a State Constitution; and another is, whether or not it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect the rights of the people of the South in the Territories. Upon those two points opposite interpretations and opposite principles exist, and were developed in the Charleston Convention.

Mr. Clingman.-I will answer the gentleman when he is through.

Mr. Pugh.-Do I understand the gentleman to say that every member of the Convention agreed that the platform had received two interpretations, or that it was susceptible of it?

Mr. Benjamin.-I understand that opposite interpretations were plainly and openly given to that platform in Convention, by men whose good faith no man has ever yet disputed to my knowledge.

The Senator from Illinois did not agree with us in that. He has been consistent. The Senator from Illinois held that there was a power in the people of a Territory; he believed in Popular Sovereignty; he believed in some inherent right in the people when assembled, even in the original inchoate shape in which they come as emigrants to the Territories, to pass laws to govern themselves; to mold their own Institutions, as he phrased it, and included in that power the right to act against Slavery. We could not agree. Morning after morning we met for the purpose of coming to some understanding upon that very point; and it was finally understood by all, agreed to by all, made the basis of a compromise by all the supporters of that bill, that the Mr. Pugh. I do not think that was the ground of the Territories should be organized with a delegation by Con- difference of opinion at all. I said there never were two gress of all the power of Congress in the Territories, and interpretations that could be fairly given to it; that the that the extent of the power of Congress should be deter- platform purposely, in the language of the Senator from mined by the courts. Firm in our belief of our rights, North Carolina, referred that question to judicial tribuconscious that in the Constitution we had guaranty nals; that the difference of opinion arose upon the judicial enough; knowing that it was impossible for a judicial tri-question; it did not arise upon the platform; and that bunal to make other than one decision, we said that we consequently it was a false accusation. I say that cerwould stand by that decision when made; and if it tainly in no unkind spirit to the Senator; but I say the should be determined by the Supreme Court of the platform is not susceptible of two interpretations; that it United States that there was a power in this Government referred a controversy to arbitration. There might be a to deprive the people of the South of their fair share of difference of opinion as to the particular arbitration of it, the common Territories of the Union, if that power in this but there was none as to the terms of submission. Government existed in Congress, and if Congress delegated all its power to the Territories, we would stand by the decision and agree that we asserted a right that found no warrant in the Constitution; and, on the other hand, our brother Democrats of the North, and the Senator from Illinois at their head, agreed that if the Supreme Court of the United States should determine that the Congress of the United States had no power to interfere with Southern rights in the Territories, if, consequently, we had had not the power that we could delegate at all, then the Democrats of the North would join us in showing respect and obedience to that decision, and stand with us on the principle that we advocated as the true one. None of us supposed at the time that the decision would come so quick. None of us knew of the existence of a controversy then pending in the federal courts that would lead almost immediately to the decision of that question. We provided in the Kansas act itself; we introduced an express clause having for its avowed object to bring that question before the courts for decision,

Mr. Benjamin.-I read, Mr. President, with as much attention as I was capable of, everything that occurred in that convention, and I saw the statement over and over again made in the convention, and not controverted, that different opinions were put upon that platform in different parts of the country.

Mr. Pugh.-I certainly controverted it for one. I do not recollect who else may have stated it. It may have been repeated a great many times; but I did controvert it.

Mr. Benjamin.-Now, sir, I say, in relation to that Cincinnati platform, which the Senator from North Carolina seems to think ought to have amply sufficed the South, and to have sufficed the Democratic party, these two opposite interpretations were known to be, intended to be given to it. Further, I say this: I say it was avowed at Charleston, over and over again, that if a construction was given to that platform by which it should be clearly stated that the people of the South were entitled to have their slaves protected in the Territories against any direct interference, either by Congressional or Territorial legislation; if that was avowed; if the doctrine of the party was asserted to be that the Legislature of the Territory, whilst a Territory existed in its inchoate organization, had no right to interfere with Slavery, then it was said, again and again, that no northern State could be carried upon that ground.

Well, sir, the question did come before the courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States, in the decision in the Dred Scott case, has determined-gentlemen say it is no decision-as doctrine, or as opinion, or in some way has declared that the Congress of the United States has no power so to legislate as to destroy the rights of the people of Mr. Clingman.-On the question as to whether a Territhe South in their slave property in the Territories, and the torial Legislature could legislate against Slavery or for it, judges have said as a proposition, so clear that it required I ask the Senator whether that would not necessarily no argument, that the Congress possessing no such power, be a question which a court must determine; that if the it was plain that it could give none to the Territorial Legisla-Legislature legislated or acted in any way, could we, by ture. I do not understand that the gentlemen from the North, the members of the Democratic party, controvert that. But at a time when we supposed that we all at length stood upon one common platform; that we had at last a

our opinions, settle it; or is it not, from necessity, a judicial question?

Mr. Benjamin.-The Senator is directing me entirely out of the line of my argument. I must beg him to allow

me to proceed in my line. That is not at all what I am as he said, had erred more through ignorance than de at. It has no reference at all to my line of argument. sign. Mr. Benjamin then defended the Democratic Senasay this: I say that distinctly opposite interpreta- tors from the charge of having undertaken to dictate to tations, or distinctly opposite principles, if you choose, in the Charleston Convention what sort of platform it relation to Southern rights under the Constitution, were should make. When the Kansas bill was before the avowed at Charleston, by men professing all to be Demo- Senate, the Senator from Illinois called a caucus of crats; and that, in my judgment, it is a brand upon the Democratic Senators every morning to decide on their good faith of the Democratic party, it is an imputation action for the day. The late Senatorial caucus had doue upon their honor, it is unworthy of them, and unworthy no more than that. Yet for this it had been charged of us all, that we should go before the people of this with seeking to diminish the Senator's chance for success. country and ask their votes in favor of one party or an- Mr. Benjamin next examined Mr. Douglas's cha ge that other, with the avowed purpose of presenting opposite seventeen Democratic States had adopted a platfo in interpretations or opposite sets of principles in the two looking to the dissolution of the Union, and had placed sections of the Confederacy, as being the principles of a themselves under the lead of Mr. Yancey, an avowed common party, and forming a common party creed. I disunionist. His State had vcted for that platform, and say that I will never be a party to any such contest as he should vote for the Senate resolutions, and he denied that. If I go into an electoral contest, I want to know that the Senator from Illinois had correctly stated the the principles of the party with which I act, and I want, meaning of either. Nobody here wanted to make a slave before the people of my State, before the people of the code, a slang term which Mr. Douglas had picked up country, to declare those principles, to stand by them, to from the Republicans, nor to force Slavery on an unfind them written in letters of light, so that no man can willing people. The attacks upon the Democratic Senadare misconstrue them, and by them to stand, and with tors were wanton and unprovoked, and he should repel them, if need be, fall. them. The Senator had defended his consistency at great length, which was not the issue between them. The issue was that the Senator from Illinois had made a bargain and had violated it. To prove this he should not go further back than 1857, up to which time the Senator from Illinois was looked upon by the Democratic party with pride and favor. Why was it that a Senator who had thus been treated with favor should now be separated from his former associates? That he had passed over in his speech, and he (Benjamin) would supply the deficiency.

That I understand to have been the position of the delegation of Louisiana at Charleston. Taking that position, determined that they would not palter to public prejudices by using words in any double sense; that all they did and all they said must go forth to the country incapable of misconstruction; when they found it impossible to have the principles upon which alone they could go into the Presidential contest, stated thus clearly and thus plainly, they withdrew, rightly withdrew, honorably withdrew. I applaud them; I approve them; I stand by then. I think they did as became high-minded and honorable citizens. I think the State will show itself grateful to them for their act.

Now, the honorable Senator says he is willing to go with Democrats upon almost any platform; that almost any one that we can elect would be preferable to the adversaries against whom we are to be opposed.

Mr. Clingman.-I said any of those proposed. I alluded to those proposed in the Convention.

Mr. Benjamin.-I suppose so. Now, Mr. President, I am not willing to go for any man, I do not care whether his name has been proposed or not, who is not willing to stand upon a platform of principle, of constitutional principle. I am willing to go for any man, whether named or not, who will pledge his honor to stand faithfully and squarely upon a platform of sound principles; and when a platform of sound constitutional principles shall be adopted by a Democratic Convention, satisfactory to me, with my views of constitutional right, and satisfactory to my people-principles satisfactory to my people, I say; I care not for men-then you may put upon that platform any man who can stand upon it honorably, and I will vote for him; I will maintain him; I will canvass my State in his behalf; I will spend all my time and all my breath in his cause, wherever, whenever, and however, I may be asked by his friends. That far, sir, I am willing to go; but I have no stomach for a fight in which I am to have my choice between a man who denies me all my rights openly and fairly and a man who admits my rights but intends to filch them. I have no choice there.

Mr. Benjamin then went into a history of the Kansas act, pointing out the differences between Democrats and Republicans and Douglas Democrats. At that time the Democrats being unable to agree as to the power of the people of the Territories, it was agreed to refer the subject to the Courts and to abide by the decision. He never had attacked the Senator's consistency. It was his consistency that constituted his great crime-adhering still to views which he had agreed to abandon when the Court decided the question, and which the Court had decided against him. This he charged was bad faith. The Senator no longer worshipped at the Democratic shrine. but had wandered forth after strange gods. The Senator from Illinois had admitted that he made this bargain, and yet he had been engaged since 1857 in trying to explain away, in conjunction with the Republicans, the decision of the Court, and to render it useless in case it should be affirmed. He quoted from the Dred Scott decision to show that the principle of right to slave property in the 1erritories was decided by it. On this point he argued at great length to show that Congress had full power over the Territories within the limits of its constitutional power; that the Constitution forbid the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories by Congress; and as the Territo rial Government derived all its powers from Congress, the Territorial Legislature could not do more than Congress could. No sooner was this decision made than it was attacked by the Republicans, and the Chief-Justice assailed as having colluded with the President of the United States. The Senator from Illinois got over his bargain by saying that he did not agree to abide by the decision in the Dred Scott case; but when the case was carried up from the Territorial Courts to the Supreme Court, he would obey that. This was an afterthought, first announced in the canvass of 1858, when pressed by Mr. Lincoln for a seat in the Senate. To save himself from defeat, he introduced his theory as to the power of Mr. Benjamin said, when we met here in December, the people in the Territories. [Mr. Benjamin then read the public mind was greatly disturbed by the irruption of from the discussions between Messrs. Lincoln and Douglas a band of fanatics into a State of the Union, with the to show that the former was much more candid in his ans avowed intent to liberate the slaves. A large number of wers than the latter, and he confessed he was not such an resolutions have been offered, all relating to the relation ultra Anti-Slavery man as he supposed.] Mr. Douglas of the General Government to Slavery in the States and told us here that he would abide the decision of the Court, Territories. The large number and variety of these re- but at home he turns his back on his promise, repudiates solutions, required that those who professed to belonging his words, and tells his people that he has so arranged the to the same party should meet, in order to harmonize Kansas bill that in spite of the decision the people of the and act in concert. A meeting of Democratic Senators Territories can keep slaves out. To be twice deceived was therefore held to accomplish this purpose. The by the same man would be to make them dupes and fools. Senator from Illinois, in a speech occupying two days, Even Mr. Lincoln was shocked at his profligacy, and had presented the extraordinary spectacle of advocating charged him with bad faith. The election came off, and his own claims to the Presidency, and denouncing those though Mr. Douglas was successful by the arrangement who had dared to express their views on subjects before of the Legislative Districts, Mr. Lincoln beat him 4,000 on the Senate. The Senator from Illinois assumed that he the popular vote. [Mr. Benjamin next read from Mr. was the embodiment of the Democratic party, and that Douglas's Harper's Magazine article, to show that he had all who opposed him were rebels. He arraigned other absolutely copied Mr. Lincoln's arguments of 1858, and Senators, and charged them and the representatives of claimed them as discoveries of his own. Mr. Benja seventeen States at Charleston as being on the high road min warned Mr. Douglas that the tendencies of his docte disunion. After having thus assailed everybody, he trines were to drive him back, step by step, to the Black announced that he had only spoken in self-defense, and Republican camp.] We already find him using the argu with princely magnanimity agreed to forgive those who,ments and quoting the language of the Republicen party

BENJAMIN ON DOUGLAS.

After Mr. Douglas's famous speech of May 15th and 16th, on these resolutions, Mr. Benjamin addressed the Senate again, speaking of Mr. Douglas as follows:

EDWARD BATES TO THE REPUBLICANS OF MISSOURI.

On the 24th May, the vote was taken on the first of Mr. Davis's series of resolutions, which was adopted, 36 to 19, the yeas being all Democrats, except Messrs. Crittenden, of Ky., and Kennedy, of Md., Americans. The nays were all Republicans. The second resolution was then read, when Mr. Harlan (Rep., of Iowa) offered to add the following as an amendment: But the free discussion of the morality and expediency

of slavery should never be interfered with by the laws of any State, or of the United States; and the freedom of speech and of the press, on this and every other subject of domestic and national policy, should be maintained inviolate to all the States,

197

NAYS. Messrs. Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-18.

Yeas all Democrats, except Crittenden and Kennedy; nays all Republicans.

The fourth resolution was adopted, 35 to 21, the negatives being all Republicans, except Mr. Pugh, Dem., of Ohio.

Mr. Clingman offered an amendment, in the form of the following resolution, to follow the 4th of Mr. Davis's series:

Resolved, That the exi-ting condition of the Territories of the United States does not require the intervention of

This amendment was rejected, 20 to 36, as fol- Congress for the protection of property in slaves.

lows:

YEAS. Messrs. Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, King, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-20.

NAYS. Messrs. Benjamin, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Brown, Chesnut, Clay, Clingman, Crittenden, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Green, Gwin, Hammond, Hemphill, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham, Mallory, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk, Powell, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Slidell, Thomson, Toombs, Wigfall, and Yulee-36.

Yeas all Republicans; nays all Democrats, except Crittenden and Kennedy, Americans.

The second resolution was then adopted, 36 to 20, the vote being exactly the reverse of that on Mr. Harlan's amendment.

The third resolution of the series was adopted, 36 to 18, as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Benjamin, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Brown, Chesnut, Clay, Clingman, Crittenden, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Green, Gwin, l'ammond, Hemphill, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Jolinson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham, Mallory, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk, Powell, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Slidell, Thomson, Toombs, Wigfall, and Yulee 36.

The amendment was debated at considerable length; but, without taking the question, the Senate adjourned.

On the following day, the amendment was adopted, 26 to 23, as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Bigler, Bingham, Bragg, Chandler, Clark, Clingman, Collamer, Crittenden, Dixon, Doolittle, Foot, Grimes, Hale, Hamlin, Harlon, Johnson of Tenuessee, Kennedy, Latham, Polk, Pugh, Simmons, Ten Eyck, Toombs, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-26.

NAYS-Messrs. Benjamin, Bright, Brown, Chesnut, Clay, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Green, Hammond, Hunter, Iverson, Lane, Mallory, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Powell, Rice, Saulsbury, Sebastian, Slidell, Wigfall, and Yulee

23.

Yeas all Republicans, except Messrs. Bigler, Bragg, Clingman, Crittenden, Johnson (Tenn.), Kennedy, Latham, Polk, Pugh, and Toombs; Nays all Democrats.

The fifth resolution of the series was then adopted, 35 to 2, Hamlin and Trumbull, the Yeas being all Democrats, except Crittenden and Kennedy. The seventh and last of the series was then adopted, 36 to 6, Mr. Ten Eyck, Rep., of New Jersey, voting Yea

JUDGE BATES'S PLATFORM.

IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE.

LETTER PROM JUDGE BATES ON THE POLITICAL QUESTIONS OF THE DAY.

ST. LOUIS, March, 1860.

The HON. EDWARD BATES-Sir: As you may have learned from the public prints, the Republicans of Missouri met in Convention, in this city, on Saturday, the 10th instant, to make a declaration of their principles, elect delegates to the National Republican Convention, and complete a State organization. All of this the Convention executed, in a manner wholly satisfactory to its members. It also commended you, by resolution, to the National Republican party, as one well worthy to be the standardbearer of that party in the coming Presidential election. This fact the undersigned have pride and pleasure in communicating to you, knowing that throughout your life you have carried out, as far as a private citizen might, the sentiments contained in the resolutions adopted on Saturday, and a copy of which we inclose. But as you have voluntarily remained in private life for many years, your political opinions are consequently not so well understood by the Republican party at large as by the Republicans of Missouri.

3d. Are you in favor of the colonization of the free colored population in Central America?

4th. Do you recognize any inequality of rights among citizens of the United States, and do you hold that it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect American citizens at home and abroad in the enjoyment of all their constitutional and legal rights, privileges, and immunities?

5th. Are you in favor of the construction of a railroad from the Valley of the Mississippi.to the Pacific Ocean, under the auspices of the General Government?

6th. Are you in favor of the measure known as the Homestead bill? 7th. Are you in favor of the immediate admission of Kansas,

Yours, respectfully, etc.,

Inasmuch as the delegation from this State to the Chi- under the Constitution adopted at Wyandot? cago Convention intend to present your name to that body as a candidate for the Presidency, we, in common with many other Republicans of Missouri, desire to procure from you an exposition of your views on the engrossing political questions of the time. We hope that notwithstanding your well-known relucta ice to appear before the public in the light of a Presidential aspirant, you will not

PETER L. FOY,
HENRY T. BLOW,
F. A. DICK,
STEPHEN HOYT,
G. W. FISHBACK,

CHAS L. BERNAYS,
JNO. M. RICHARDSON,
O. D. FILLEY,
WM. MCKEE,
BARTON ABLE

J. B. SITTON.

To Messrs. P. L. For, Editor of The Missouri Democrat; Dr.
BERNAYS, Editor of the Anzeiger; and other gentlemen:

SIRS B. Gratz Brown, Esq., as President of the Mis-
souri State Convention, which sat in St. Louis on the
tenth of this month, has officially made known to me the
proceedings of that body, and by them I am enabled to
know some of you as Delegates to the Chicago Conven-
tion, representing the Republican party of Missouri.
I have received your letter propounding to me certain
questions (seven in number) which you suppose will
cover most, if not all, the gounds of controversy, in the
approaching Presidential election

With pleasure I will answer your questions. But before doing so, allow me to glance at the peculiar circumstances in which I am placed, and the strangeness of the fact that I, a mere private man, am called upon to make avowals and explanations, with any view to take me from the shades of private life and place me at the head of the nation. I came to this frontier in my youth, and settled in St. Louis when it was a village. All my manhood has been spent in Missouri, and during all that time I have followed a profession which left my character and conduct open to the observation of society. And while it has been my constant habit freely to express my opinion of public measures and public men, the people of Missouri, of all parties, will bear me witness that have never obtrusively thrust myself forward in pursuit of official honors. I have held no political office, and sought none, for more than twenty-five years.

Under these circumstances, I confess the gratification which I feel in receiving the recent manifestations of the respect and confidence of my fellow-citizens. First, the Opposition members of the Missouri Legislature declared their preference for me as a candidate; then followed my nomination by a Convention composed of all the elements of the Opposition in this State; and, now, the Re-required them to discuss and give opinions upon various publicans of Missouri, in their separate Convention, just held in St. Louis, have reaffirmed the nomination, and proposed, by their delegates, to present me to the National Convention, soon to be held at Chicago, as a candidate for the first office in the nation. These various demonstrations in my own State are doubly gratifying to me, because they afford the strongest proof that my name has been put forward only in a spirit of harmony and peace, and with the hope of preventing all division and controversy among those who, for their own safety and the public good, ought to be united in the r action.