boldly and doubtless thought he had fairly won the game. But he has sold his northern birthright of championship for freedom, for a beggarly mess of pottage,-for a nomination, and, we sincerely trust, for nothing more.

At the same time, the other great party of the country had its selection of a candidate to accomplish. Prior to the meeting of the Philadelphia Convention, it was almost universally supposed that HENRY CLAY would again receive the nomination of the whig party, to which he, more than any other man, had given life and shape. But he was not considered entirely safe for the south. Somewhat had been seen in him of a leaning towards the assertion of universal freedom and human rights. He had not favored the annexation of Texas. Although a slaveholder himself, he was but a Kentucky one, and was believed to hold lightly to the institution. The southern delegates were resolved to have, at all events, an available and reliable southern candidate. At the first ballot, the best index of the feeling with which they came into the convention, Mr. CLAY received barely one-sixth of the southern vote, the rest being cast for General TAYLOR. The southern delegates pursued their settled policy in this case, standing firm and united, yielding nothing and demanding an unconditional submission on the part of the north. It mattered nothing to them that their candidate was not certainly known to be a member of their party, that he had accepted a nomination from the so-called Native-American party, that he was a mere soldier and no statesman, that his opinions on all political subjects were entirely unknown. They would have him and him only. Their reasons for this obstinate adherence are well set forth in the following extract from an address of the New Orleans "Rough and Ready club."

"The election of Gen. Taylor will afford to the south and to the west, the strongest of all guaranties for security, during his administration, on both the great subjects to which we have referred. (The Proviso and internal improvements.) As regards the Wilmot Proviso, we need not remind you that, being himself a slaveholder, a native of Virginia, a citizen of Louisiana, with every feeling and interest identified with us, we have nothing to fear: we recall to you his deep reverence for the constitution, for the principles which guided Washington's administration; and, on this basis, the true safeguard of our rights, we say, confidently, that in him will we ever find the firm defender of those rights.”

In accordance with these views, a resolution embodying the Wilmot Proviso was unceremoniously turned out of doors by the friends of slavery-extension in the Convention.

Their efforts finally proved successful, and ZACHARY TAYLOR was formally proclaimed the nominee of the Whig party, not, however, without a bold and manly protest from some of the Massachusetts, Vermont, and Ohio delegates. Most of them, however, fell quietly into the ranks, with melancholy forebodings,

but with an indefinite hope that, by an appeal to the ignorant enthusiasm of the populace toward a military hero, the stupendous farce of 1840 would be re-enacted, and their party still prove successful. This hope must prove delusive. The country at large is too heartily ashamed of the childish saturnalia of that. time, to consent to a repetition of them. A reading and thinking people will hesitate to trust its civil fortunes and cherished freedom to a mere soldier and a slaveholder, whose advocate-in-chief, Senator CRITTENDEN, can find no better means of recommending him than by informing us that he "eats fat meat on a piece of cold corn-bread, and cuts it with a Barlow knife."

It having thus become evident that both the great parties of the country were, by their nominations, sold to the cause of slavery-propagandism, the friends of freedom could consistently act with neither. Hence came the necessity for a new organization and a new nomination. This was first attempted by that portion of the Democratic party of the state of New York, which had uniformly sustained the Wilmot Proviso and the cause of Free Soil. A convention of delegates from this party met at Utica, and nominated MARTIN VAN BUREN for the presidency. Think what we may of this distinguished man and his past course, there was evidently a propriety and justice in selecting him. He had been a candidate for the nomination of the Na tional Democratic Convention in 1844, and a majority of its members went to Baltimore with instructions to vote for him. No man doubted that he would be nominated on the first ballot. But, prior to the meeting of the convention, he had manfully avowed his opposition to the first great effort, to extend the area of slavery by the annexation of Texas. For that capital sin he was doomed to an ignominious rejection, and a way was devised to obviate and stultify the express instructions of the masses of the party. An unheard-of rule was adopted, requiring a vote of two-thirds to make a choice. Mr. VAN BUREN was accordingly defeated. The delegation complied with the letter of their instructions, and then, declaring it impossible to obtain two-thirds, united in the nomination of JAMES K. POLK, to the utter amazement of all except those in the plot. Mr. VAN BUREN having thus suffered political martyrdom in the cause of Free Soil, there was an evident propriety in his selection by the advocates of that measure. Subsequently, an immense gathering of former Whigs, Democrats and "liberty-party" men was held at Buffalo, in which his nomination was cordially ratified and adopted as that of the new "Free Soil party" of the Union. At this convention, as at Utica, a platform of principles was erected as the expression of the views of the party. It includes the resistance to all extension of slavery over territory now free, which is substantially the Wilmot Proviso, together with the advocacy of the sale of the

public lands, in limited quantities and at minimum prices, to actual settlers and to them only.

From this cursory view of the present state of parties in our country, it will be perceived that the Wilmot Proviso is the only really important question involved in the presidential contest. LEWIS CASS stands as the champion of the old democratic organization, or "Hunker" faction, looking only at the past, and trying to resuscitate long-settled questions, while it is, in addition, pledged to spread slavery wherever the American arms can carry her power, or American gold purchase new soil. MARTIN VAN BUREN stands on the other hand as the representative of the free, progressive democracy, solemnly pledged to prevent the further extension of slavery, by the adoption of the Wilmot Proviso, and to preserve the public domain from the grasp alike of the aristocratic planter and the greedy speculator. ZACHARY TAYLOR remains in a curiously hermaphroditic condition, standing one knows not where nor how. As far as his own declarations are concerned, he is "neither fish, flesh, fowl nor yet good red herring." Meanwhile he is defended at the north as an opponent of slavery-extension, and just as industriously lauded at the south, by an extreme pro-slavery party, as the only fit guardian of southern institutions. The attempts of his friends to define his position, remind us of the discussion in the fable concerning the color of the chameleon. Even with them, however, the great effort is to prove to this section or to that, that he is for, or that he is against the Wilmot Proviso. We are therefore warranted in saying that the only political question of vital interest now before the public, is that which is implied in the proviso.

It then becomes interesting to know what is the state of the public mind in reference to this question. As the result of some observation and inquiry, we may state that the immense majority of the people of the north, together with a highly respectable minority at the south, will freely acquiesce in the correctness of the principles of the proviso, stated in its simplest terms, and not called by that name. There is even a considerable rivalry between the orators of the two old parties, in some northern localities, to prove themselves the especial opponents of slavery-extension. The whigs have the advantage in this contest, from the silence of their candidate. The friends of CASS are, of course, sadly embarrassed by the NICHOLSON letter, but it must be admitted that they soften it down and explain it away with wonderful plausibility and ingenuity. At the recent election in Vermont, it is said that their banners were inscribed with the words, "CASS and Free Soil!" The fact that this attempt is made, proves their consciousness that public opinion at the northis altogether against them. But even while doing this, they denounce in unmeasured terms, the "Barnburners," together

66

with WILMOT and the Proviso. The only weapon to which they can resort is raising the old cry of abolitionism and hostility to the Union. As to the first charge, a single glance at the facts will show its utter fallacy. Think what we will of abolitionism, in the ordinarily received acceptation of the term, it is something very different from the Wilmot Proviso. Abolitionism aims at the emancipation of the blacks now held in bondage in the states. The Proviso does not. Their objects are therefore altogether distinct. The Proviso looks no farther than the preservation of territory now free from future slavery. It does not meddle with the question of slavery in the states. Its author and principal advocates hold to the compromises of the constitution, which prohibit interference with the peculiar policy of the existing states. Mr. WILMOT is as far from being a "technical abolitionist" as he is from being a pro-slavery man. The other cry, of danger to the perpetuity of the Union, is as idle as the first. It is a mere threat, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." It comes now, as it always has come, from the south. It has always, indeed, been an important item of southern political capital, and has frequently been adopted as a last resort, by southern statesmen, when other means of accomplishing their objects have failed. The responsibility of raising the cry of disunion rests not upon northern men, and they would be the worst of cowards, if they allowed the windy menace to frighten them from the path of duty and the advocacy of free principles.

Such is the Wilmot Proviso. No argument need be entered upon, to prove its correctness in a moral point of view. Slavery is undoubtedly an evil and a curse. It lies like a blight upon the physical, social and moral welfare of the region over which it extends. It is a crying sin and shame. It is a foul blot on the otherwise fair fame of our country, making us a by-word and mockery in the mouths of despotic nations, who have gone far in advance of us in the christian work of emancipation. Every christian and philanthropist, every friend of humanity and freedom is solemnly bound, before God and his conscience, to prevent its further spread. But can we do so legally and constitutionally? Are our hands tied up by constitutional compromise in this case, as is in that of slavery in the present states? This is an important question, and one much discussed just now. It is moreover a new question, and therefore presses for decision. The power of the general government to exercise full legislative power over the territories was never before seriously disputed. As was said before, LEWIS CASs is mainly responsible for its origin. If he is elected, and probably if General TAYLOR is elected, it will be enforced upon us as settled law. Let us therefore look at it a moment.

The claim for the power in question is rested by its friends

principally upon Art. IV. §. 3, of the constitution, which provides that Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting, the territory or other property belonging to the United States." It is a miserable quibble to say that the word territory, in this connection, means something different from its general acceptation, that it does not intend what all subsequent legislative action has intended by the same word. The men who penned that noble instrument used language the most plain, explicit and generally intelligible that they could command. In the words of a decision of the Supreme Court, (Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 209, 210.) "The framers of the constitution must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they said, and in construing the extent of the powers which it creates, there is no other rule to construe the language which confers them, in connection with the powers for which they were conferred." If the clause under consideration does not mean the territories, as we generally understand them, the public domain in which no state government has yet been erected, then are they left totally unprovided for. It provides that the same power shall extend over "other property of the United States." What property is here implied? The authority over the District of Columbia and such places as are purchased within the limits of the states for dock-yards, arsenals, &c., is previously provided for, in sect. 8, of Art. I. There is no such "other property" except the public lands, and this consideration fully meets the assertion that those lands are intended by the word territory. If such be the case, the constitution is liable to the charge of tautology and redundance of epithets. It is evident that it means territory when it says. so, and such has been the universal conclusion until recently. If this be admitted, the right to regulate the subject of slavery, among others, follows as a matter of course. Slavery is an abnormal condition, contrary to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the genius of our democratic institutions. It owes its life only to the provisions of municipal law, does not exist until called into being by such legislation. Congress has the right to authorize or to prohibit it in the territories, as a part of the organic law which it gives them on their institution, or by subsequent legislation. Such has been the invariable sentiment of our statesmen, and such the constant policy of our government. It is curious to observe in the face of what a mass of precedents, and uniform declarations of leading public men, the novel theory of the slavery-propagandists is maintained.

Precedents there are in abundance. The ordinance of 1787, for the government of the territory north-west of the Ohio, provides that "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servi