Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1858-10-15

sprEcH OF HON. ELI rHAYER.

that the gentleman VINO prcCodcd me ana VINO
yielded the floor for the purpose of enabling
me to occupy it, has declined further to pro-
coed ! know not what to say TO you concern
ing the politics Of Massachusetts,, unless it be
u congratulate you upon the very great una
nimity which now exists here against the
"holy Democracy Applause. If there is
anything whatever TO deprecate, it is the fact
that there is SO much harmony that it may
lead to inaotion.
In relation TO our national platform, which
Is not yet perfected, have only to say, that
there is every prospect of its being made good
anl strong, and large enough fora victorious
party to occupy in 1860. Loud applause. /.
Your resolutions have already proclaimed
Your sentiments upon several topics. You
have expressed your love for the Union. il
Is now a fact, | think undisputcd, that we
are the greatest union party on the continent.
Where are the disunion members of the Re
pubiican party to be found and where south
~ Mason and Dixon's line are not the disu-
in0n members Of the Democratic party to be
ioundf You have already expressed an opn-
ion concerning the tariff, which ! believe is
not extrayagant in any direction. You have
cN pressed an opinion on the acquisition of
territory. We'll, gentlemen. ! have a worry
strong tendency towards land. the acquisition
81 territory by fair means only. am oppns-
ed to circumscubing the mission of this gov
crnment as much as crcumscribing the mis-
sion of any individual in this government
viii not say to any man that he cannot oXcr-
else his powers Of mind and body for the
god Of his fellow men outside Of the town
in which he resides; and | will not say to
THIS country that her sphere shall be confined
wish the limits of the United States. think
her mission is beyond that
Then we arc certainly tending now towards
certain positive principles platform of poe
~iiive principles. without which no party can
have sue cess in this government If party
IS ever to be anything but an opposition
party, it must have some object in view for
which it will contend An opposition party
is simply the historian Of the party in power,
as the Wing party used to be of the Demo-
csauc party. But trust it is the mission Of
tn Republican party not so much to writo
history as to make it. think that hereafter
Vc will have it for others to record, rather
tltn be ourselves simply the recorders of
what others have done. For this purpose it
is necessary that we should have a positive
pc icy. We have spoken upon several issues
10 before the country, but the greatest ma
onal issue is the question concerning The
glvernmcnt of the territories and what shall
bc the position Of the Republican party upon
that question; We already have the posi-
iiDa Of the Democratic party, such as 1t is
They have protested to hold the doctrine Of
opular sovereignty, but where has been the
practice Of it; 1t has been theory only the
practice has been despotism Three times
that party, which protested to be the author
of popular sovereignty, has repudiated that
doctrine. 1t repudiated it by refusing TO vote
for the amendment of Senator Chase in 1854,
by which he proposed to cut off not only the
tho interference by Congress in the terrific
'ils, but by the Chief Executive, and thus
| ave the people of the territory in reality to
N Ike their institutions in their own way.
The Democrats, including Douglas, voted
against the proposition, and thus ropudiatod
popular Sovereignty Again, in voting for
the Toombs' bill, the repudiatod popular SOW
c eighty, for that was intended to force a
constitution upon the people of Kansas with
cat first submitting it for their adoption
And again they repudiated that doctrine, with
cry few exceptions, in refusing to vote for
the Crittonden Montgomery Bill, Then |
lay to you to-day, that the Democratic party
is not the author nor the supporter Of the
doctrine of popular sovereignty But !
congratulate you. members of the Republican
party, on being this day on the record in favor
OF that doctrine. During the last session Of
Congress you know your representatives,,
without an exposition, voted for the same
bill which the Democrats repudiated-the
b" Crittenden-M Montgomery Bill (Which in
volved and included the doctrine Of popular
sovereignty" And what man has apologizcd
to you for his vote What man has inquir-
ed of you even whether you approve OF that
action or not; They know you approve of
that action, and if they had not thus voted,
you would have branded them as traitors to
their party. SO this party has recorded itself
as the supporter of the doctrine of popular
sovereignty" in this coutry.
Is there anything to deprecate in this /
come now to this question, and ] find that
there arc some in this party who are still in
clined to adhere to the old opinion that it is
the right and duty of Congress to legisate
for the Territories So far as the affirmation
of tho right is concerned, agree entirely, but
concerning the duty do not agree for, fell
low citizens, by accident or by providence, we
have found better way, Let us see for a
moment what would be the effect of pressing
this old issue Of excluding slavery from the
Territories by law. And, first, how can you
make that law effective, against the decision
OF the Supreme Court of the United States,
which declares that slavery may go into THESE
Territories in spite of any law whatever, and
that any law intended to prevent this, will be
unconstitutional; But says a friend, we
will reverse this decision of the Judiciary.
But when How long; viii not the party
become extinct before that can be accomplish
ed, and will it not be futile TO attempt it
But, even if it be effected, then Of what
practical effect would be a law excluding
slavery from territory; Understand that il
is admitted on all hands that law excluding
slavery from any territory can be of no bind
ing force except during the time that it is 4
territory for we all agree that the sovereign
ty of the States is one and the same and that
any new State has the same right to establish
slavery within its limits that Massachusetts,
or Ohio has. Then is it policy for us to trust
to this security, which is iallacious and de
ceptiyei For what is the tendency and effec
of a law excluding slavery, and what is its in
Auence upon the people. Suppose we hac
had a law excluding slavery from kansas
that the Missouri Compromise had not beer
repealed--do you believe that there woul,
have been free State party in Kansas
tell you it would have been impossible t
arouse sufficient energy in the free States L