New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1857-09-29


come the Freeso party Of the country by reason off,
and through the superior strength Of numbers in the
free States This would seem to b indicated by the
course which the administration has taken We can
but surmise the hidden MOTIVE because theyei which
covers the FUTURE like that of ISIS may not be raised
by human hands.
What, then, is demanded Of the South in this ex-
igency? Let her maintain her deuotion to the Uion
but to be secure in her constitutional rights she
mpst herself be vigilant. She must arouse from her
lethargy, and realizing the dangers which environ
her, she must throw aside her misplaced confidence
and seek the preservation Of her strength elsewhere
than in Delilah's lap.
To the principles which govern the American party
alone we should look for the maintenance of measures
best calculated to preserve the union and to guard
nviolably the institutions Of country. Opposed
the American party is to intervention on the part
of the Government with the right of citizens Of the
United States to decide for themselves questions Of
domestic policy in the Territories and regarding the
will of the people as the will of Cod hold there is
no safety for the South but in the principle which re-
cognizes those rights contradistingushed from the
exercise Of the privilege by aliens, which the Demo-
cratic doctrine of squatter sovereignty unwisely
established in the Territories. Its ndiscrminate ex.
ercise in Kansas, given by Congress to men of all
nations irrespective of the duration of their residence
either in the United States in the Territory is de-
tnounced by the American party, not only as subyer.
sve Of equal rights at the but as the chief
cause of the rapid enlargement of Freesolism in the
country! To the leaders of the Democratic party,
then, is justly to be charged the shame of having
cultivated that poisonous plant, the fruit Of which
being political death unto the Union.
Y Mr.. Burke now proceeded to pay his respects to
Mr.. Taylor, his opponent who was present upon the
stand, and after courteous disclaimer of any inten-
ton to use remarks which might legtmately be con.
strued as personalities he took up the course of Mr.
n in the last Congress; particularly his votes and
speeches on the question Of reducing or aboIishing
the duty on sugar. As one of the honorable gentle.
mans constituents, he had the undoubted right to
criticse his public acts and he felt condentof show
ing that the gentleman had while in Congress com
mitted two great Mistakes He (AIr. b. was not like
Talleyrand who considered blunder worse than
crime, and he would not attempt to draw nice dis.
tnctions but he thought be could show that perhaps
there were times when political influences had more
sway in the gentlemans mind than the interests of
his constituents. Mr.. Burke read from some of Mr.
Taylor's speeches on the sugar duty question, and
contrasted the sentiments expressed with the votes
given showing inconsistency on which he (BIr.
Burke) would not attempt then to pass Judgment
but would leave to be explained away by the gentle
man, il so he could do. Mr. Burke read from one of
Mr.. Taylor's speeches on sugar duties in which,
he without any qualification said to the assembled
Representatives of the nation that Louisiana did not
ask any protection.
He (the speaker) could not agree with the gentle.
man in his assertion on the floor Of Congress- The
sugar planters Of Louisiana did want protection All
parties in Congress Continued Mr.. By were unani.
NOUS in their views Of the garing fact that the re-
venue OF the country was becoming too enormous,
and there was little no opposition to very con.
siderable reduction. It was proposed, among other
things by the bill Of Mr. Colfax, of Indiana to abo.
lsh the duty on sugar. but the House of Representa-
tves was so decidedly opposed to touching the SUBJ
fleet that the bill Of Mr. Colax was voted down by
most decided majority, How much of thrilling in.
terest should every Louisiana sugar planter feel upon
the subject of taking away the little barrier of thirty
per cent, which stands between him and foreign COM
petition. Mr.. Campbell, of the Committee on Ways
and Means, introduced bill which, in its multar
GUS provisions, reduced the duty sugar to ten per
cent. This, also, was killed, and the House of Repre-
sentatves was persistent in expressing the opinion
that the sugar duty should not be nterfered with.
He (Mr. Burke) could show by the record, thai
every American in Congress stood faithfully by thu
interests of his constituents and the American mem
Der from Louisiana, was particularly noted for hi:
efforts in behalf Of the sugar planter. Mr. Campbell in
troduced another bill after the defeat Of his first
which removed the duty from large number o.
foreign manufactured articles, but did not touch
sugar Mr.. Taylor voted against this bill, and con
sequenty against the interests Of the large portion
his constituents who are engaged in the culture o.
sugar. Mr. Burke continued as far as the time tc
which he was limited, would permit to review Mr.
Tayors congressional record and fully convicted him
Of having in bis course the one important question
Of sugar duties, made the wants Of his constituency
subseryient to party purposes. 5
! Mr.. Taylor then took the stand and commenced
upon the hours reply allowed him. He devoted most
of the time to lame and unsatisfactory explanation
Of his speeches and votes that had been alluded to b,
Mr.. Burke. After indalging in nearly all Of his cu
and dried flights of fancy, Mr.. I. trotted out lear
animal which he called general principles and pro
4 ceeded to saddle him with mass of votes ant
speeches. entirely relieving himself Of the great bur
then, and driving the animal of with the congre
| gated lot upon his back. Mr. Taylor trayersed tn
Union from Maine to Texas and from Massachusett
to Missouri, to find men who voted precisely as b