DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM, ADOPTED BY THE UNITED STATES SENATE. On the first of March, 1860, Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, submitted to the Senate the following Resolutions: 1. Resolved, that in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the States adopting the same acted severally as free and independent sovereignties, delegating a portion of their powers to be exercised by the Federal Government for the increased security of each against dangers, domestic as well as foreign; and that any intermeddling by any one or more States, or by a combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions of the others, on any pretext whatever, political, moral, or religious, with a view to their disturbance or subversion, is in violation of the Constitution, insulting to the States so interfered with, endangers their domestic peace and tranquillity-objects for which the Constitution was formed--and by necessary consequence, tends to weaken and destroy the Union itself. 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. 8. 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 constitution 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 1798 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 pursuance of it, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect. On the 8th May following, Mr. Clingman, of North Carolina, addressed the Senate at length on these resolutions, maintaining the position that the Constitution does guarantee the right of holding slaves in the Territories of the United States, but that the enforcing of that right, by Congressional action, was inexpedient, and would be of no practical value to the Slave States; also, that the South waived that right in agreeing to the Compromises of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act (repeal of the Missouri Compromise) of 1854. Mr. C. also reviewed the proceedings of the National Convention at Charleston, and concluded as follows: 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 Constitution, 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 resolutions 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. And 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. 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 caucus, under the lead of the honorable Senator from | guide and a pole star by which the Democratic party could 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 Senators 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. 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 ail the supporters of that bill, that the Territories should be organized with a delegation by Congress of all the power of Congress in the Territories, and that the extent of the power of Congress should be determined by the courts. Firm in our belief of our rights, conscious that in the Constitution we had guaranty enough; knowing that it was impossible for a judicial tribunal to make other than one decision, we said that we would stand by that decision when made; and if it should be determined by the Supreme Court of the United States that there was a power in this Government to deprive the people of the South of their fair share of the common Territories of the Union, if that power in this 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, 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 Cincinnati platform, it was made under what circumstances, and 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. Mr. Clingman. -The Senator will allow me to ask him if these two opinions were not upon whether a Territorial Legislature could legislate for or against Slavery? Are those 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. Mr. Pugh. I do not think that was the ground of the difference of opinion at all. I said there never were two interpretations that could be fairly given to it; that the platform purposely, in the language of the Senator from North Carolina, referred that question to judicial tribunals; that the difference of opinion arose upon the judicial question; it did not arise upon the platform; and that consequently it was a false accusation. I say that certainly in no unkind spirit to the Senator; but I say the platform is not susceptible of two interpretations; that it referred a controversy to arbitration. There might be a difference of opinion as to the particular arbitration of it, but there was none as to the terms of submission. 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 powerso 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 and act in concert. A meeting of Democratic Senators Territories can keep slaves out. To be twice deceived me to proceed in my line. That is not at all what I am at. It has no reference at all to my line of argument. I say this: I say that distinctly opposite interpretatations, or distinctly opposite principles, if you choose, in relation to Southern rights under the Constitution, were avowed at Charleston, by men professing all to be Democrats; and that, in my judgment, it is a brand upon the good faith of the Democratic party, it is an imputation upon their honor, it is unworthy of them, and unworthy of us all, that we should go before the people of this country and ask their votes in favor of one party or another, with the avowed purpose of presenting opposite interpretations or opposite sets of principles in the two sections of the Confederacy, as being the principles of a common party, and forming a common party creed. I say that I will never be a party to any such contest as that. If I go into an electoral contest, I want to know the principles of the party with which I act, and I want, before the people of my State, before the people of the country, to declare those principles, to stand by them, to find them written in letters of light, so that no man can dare misconstrue them, and by them to stand, and with them, if need be, fall. 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 them. 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. 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: Mr. Benjamin said, when we met here in December, the public mind was greatly disturbed by the irruption of a band of fanatics into a State of the Union, with the avowed intent to liberate the slaves. A large number of resolutions have been offered, all relating to the relation of the General Government to Slavery in the States and Territories. The large number and variety of these resolutions, required that those who professed to belonging to the same party should meet, in order to harmonize as he said, had erred more through ignorance than design. Mr. Benjamin then defended the Democratic Senators from the charge of having undertaken to dictate to the Charleston Convention what sort of platform it should make. When the Kansas bill was before the Senate, the Senator from Illinois called a caucus of Democratic Senators every morning to decide on their action for the day. The late Senatorial caucus had done no more than that. Yet for this it had been charged with seeking to diminish the Senator's chance for success. Mr. Benjamin next examined Mr. Douglas's charge that seventeen Democratic States had adopted a platform looking to the dissolution of the Union, and had placed themselves under the lead of Mr. Yancey, an avowed disunionist. His State had vcted for that platform, and he should vote for the Senate resolutions, and he denied that the Senator from Illinois had correctly stated the meaning of either. Nobody here wanted to make a slave code, a slang term which Mr. Douglas had picked up from the Republicans, nor to force Slavery on an unwilling people. The attacks upon the Democratic Senators were wanton and unprovoked, and he should repel 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. 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 Territories 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 Territorial 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 the people in the Territories. [Mr. Benjamin then read from the discussions between Messrs. Lincoln and Douglas to show that the former was much more candid in his answers than the latter, and he confessed he was not such an ultra Anti-Slavery man as he supposed.] Mr. Douglas told us here that he would abide the decision of the Court, but at home he turns his back on his promise, repudiates his words, and tells his people that he has so arranged the Kansas bill that in spite of the decision the people of the was therefore held to accomplish this purpose. The Senator from Illinois, in a speech occupying two days, had presented the extraordinary spectacle of advocating his own claims to the Presidency, and denouncing those who had dared to express their views on subjects before the Senate. The Senator from Illinois assumed that he was the embodiment of the Democratic party, and that all who opposed him were rebels. He arraigned other Senators, and charged them and the representatives of seventeen States at Charleston as being on the high road to disunion. After having thus assailed everybody, he announced that he had only spoken in self-defense, and with princely magnanimity agreed to forgive those who, by the same man would be to make them dupes and fools. Even Mr. Lincoln was shocked at his profligacy, and charged him with bad faith. The election came off, and though Mr. Douglas was successful by the arrangement of the Legislative Districts, Mr. Lincoln beat him 4,000 on the popular vote. [Mr. Benjamin next read froin Mr. Douglas's Harper's Magazine article, to show that he had absolutely copied Mr. Lincoln's arguments of 1858, and claimed them as discoveries of his own. Mr. Benjamin warned Mr. Douglas that the tendencies of his doctrines were to drive him back, step by step, to the Black Republican camp.] We already find him using the arguments and quoting the language of the Republicen party. On the 24th May, the vote was taken on the | NAYS.-Messrs. Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, 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, This amendment was rejected, 20 to 36, as fol 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; naysall 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, 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 existing condition of the Territories of the United States does not require the intervention of Congress for the protection of property in slaves. 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, Harlan, Johnson of Tennessee, 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 FROM 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. Inasmuch as the delegation from this State to the Chicago 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 reluctance to appear before the public in the light of a Presidential aspirant, you will not refuse to answer the following interrogatories, which, in our judgment, involve all the issues pending between the two political parties of the country. 1st. Are you opposed to the extension of Slavery? 2d. Does the Constitution of the United States carry Slavery into the Territories, and, as subsidiary to this, what is the legal effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred 3d. Are you in favor of the colonization of the free colored population in Central America? case? 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, under the Constitution adopted at Wyandot? RESPONSE OF JUDGE BATES. ST. LOUIS, March 17, 1860. 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 Missouri 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 Convention, 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 grounds 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 I 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 Republicans 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 ther action. For all this I am deeply grateful, and, as far as concerns me personally, I must declare in simple truth, that if the movement go no further and produce no national results, still I am paid and overpaid for a life of labor, and for whatever of zealous effort and patient watching I have been able to bestow in support of a line of governmental policy which I believe to be for the present and permanent good of the country. And now, gentlemen, I proceed to answer your questions, briefly indeed, but fully, plainly, and with all possible frankness. And I do this the more willingly because I have received from individuals many letters (too many to be separately answered), and have seen in many public journals articles making urgent calls upon me for such a statement of views. 1. Slavery-Its extension in the Territories. On this subject, in the States and in the Territories, I have no new opinions-no opinions formed in relasion to the present array of parties. I am coeval with the Missouri question of 1819-20, having begun my political life in the midst of that struggle. At that time my position required me to seek all the means of knowledge within my reach, and to study the principles involved with all the powers of my mind; and I arrived at conclusions then which no subsequent events have induced me to change. The existence of negro Slavery in our country had its beginning in the early time of the Colonies, and was imposed by the mother country against the will of most of the colonists. At the time of the Revolution, and long after, it was commonly regarded as an evil, temporary in its nature, and likely to disappear in the course of time, yet, while it continued, a misfortune to the country, socially and politically. Thus was I taught, by those who made our Government, and neither the new light of modern civilization, nor the discovery of a new system of constitutional law and social philosophy, has enabled me to detect the error of their teaching. Slavery is "a social relation "-a domestic institution. Within the States, it exists by the local law, and the Federal Government has no control over it there. The Territories, whether acquired by conquest or peaceable purchase, are subject and subordinate; not sovereign like the States. The nation is supreme over them, and the National Government has power to permit or forbid Slavery, within them. Entertaining these views, I am opposed to the extension of Slavery, and in my opinion, the spirit and policy of the Government ought to be against its extension. 2. Does the Constitution carry Slavery into the Territories f I answer no. The Constitution of the United States does not carry Slavery into the Territories. With much more show of reason may it be said that it carries Slavery into all the States. But it does not carry Slavery anywhere. It only acts upon it, where it finds it established by the local law. It is In connection with this point, I am asked to state my views of the Dred Scott case, and what was really determined by the Supreme Court in that case. my opinion, carefully considered, that the Court determined one single point of law only, that is, that Scott, the plaintiff, being a negro of African descent (not necessarily a slave), could not be a citizen of Missouri, and therefore could not sue in the Federal Court; and that for this reason, and this alone, the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the cause, and no power to give judgment between the parties. The only jurisdiction which the Supreme Court had of the cause was for the purpose of correcting the error of the Circuit Court, in assuming the power to decide upon the merits of the This power the Supreme Court did exercise, by setting aside the judgment of the Circuit Court upon the merits, and by dismissing the suit, without any judgment for or against either party. This is all that the Supreme Court did, and all that it had lawful power case. I consider it a great public misfortune that several of the learned judges should have thought that their duty required them to discuss and give opinions upon various questions outside of the case, as the case was actually disposed of by the court.. All such opinions are extra judicial and of no authority. But beside this, it appears to me that several of the questions so discussed by the judges are political questions, and therefore beyond the cognizance of the judiciary, and proper only to be considered and disposed of by the political departments. If I am right in this, and it seems to me plain, the precedent is most unfortunate, because it may lead to a dangerous conflict of authority among the coördinate branches of the Government. 3. As to the colonization of the free blacks. For many years I have been connected with the American Colonization Society, of which the rising young State of Liberia is the first fruit. I consider the object both humane and wise, beneficent alike to the free blacks who emigrate, and to the whites whom they leave behind. But Africa is distant, and presents so many obstacles to rapid settlement, that we cannot indulge the hope of draining off in that direction the growing numbers of our free black population. The tropical regions of America, I think, offer a far better prospect both for us and for them. 4. As to any inequality of rights among American citizens. I recognize no distinctions among American citizens but such as are expressly laid down in the Constitution. Ang I hold that our Government is bound to protect all the citizens in the enjoyment of all their rights, everywhere and against all assailants. And as to all these rights, there is no difference between citizens born and citizens made such by law. 5. Am I in favor of the construction of a railroad from the Valley of the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean, under the aus pices of the General Government? Yes, strongly. I not only believe such a road of vast importance as the means of increasing the population, wealth and power of this great valley, but necessary as the means of national defence, and of preserving the integrity of the Union. 6. Am I in favor of the measure called the Homestead bill? Yes; I am for guarding the public lands, as well as possible, from the danger of becoming the subject of common trade and speculation for keeping them for the actual use of the people-and for granting tracts of suitable size to those who will actually inhabit and improve them. 7. Am I in favor of the immediate admission of Kansas under the Wyandot Constitution? I think that Kansas ought to be admitted without delay, leaving her, like all the other States, the sole judge of her own Constitution. Thus, gentlemen, I believe I have answered all your inquiries in a plain, intelligible manner, and, I hope, to |