Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-08-25
DiSinterested Witness.


 We have long admired the fairness and the style of the National htelligencer.- With the exception of one or two harm less crotchets-such as its affection for the "dead mans ticket' of Bell and Everett, tederaI umionisma as opposed to state-rghts unaonasna-we can safely commend it to the M'nhers of the country It thus re- plies to the false charges preferred against Breckinridge by many of its Douglas Bell cotemporaries:
 MIR. BRECKINRIDGE's ''TIPPECANoE SPEECH" Several of our subscribers and correspondents in the southern States have requested us to furnish the authentic report of a speech delivered by Mir. l BreckinrdSe during the Presidential campaign of l lS5b, at Iippecanoe, in the State of Indiana In | this speech MT. Brecknridge was charged at the time (and the charge has naturally been revived at the present day) with the uttcrance of opinions symbolizng closely with those of the northern de- mocracy in theirdevoton to ''pOpular sovereignty" as expedient for the settlement of the slavery question in the territories. Rebutting also the ale Satlon that the democratic party sectional and southern in its leanings, Mr. Brecknridge was represented to have said at the time that Che belonged to no party which favored the extension | of slavery"
 | It is known to our readers that we have little taste for that species of political debate which is often prosecuted by resort to the argumentum nd | hOminem in its most disingenuous form. Fragnen tary citatOns and garbied erracts torn from their | natural and logical connexion, may be made to answer the ends of unscrupui0us party aoartare, but rarely serve the cause of truth and fairdeal- | ing.
 We have not hpeD ah1a to Drocura authentic l report of the speech delivered by Mr. Breckinridge | at Tippecanoe in 1856, and we have reason to te-
 eve that no such report was ever furnished to the press. It is within our power, however, to place before our readers the substance of his remarks made on that occasion, as acknowledged by Mr. Breckinridge after their utterance; for, ques tion having been early raised with regard to the accuracy of the reported speech, prominent dem ocrat of Louisiana, Mir. R. w. Miles, who was pre- sent at it's delivery, took occasion, the 7th of October, 1856, without attempting to give ''the exact words used by MT. Breckinridge," to state their purport in the following terms:
 | " Mr. Breckinridge insisted that no party whose patriotism was bounded by geographical lines, or that fixed its attention excl, vely on sectional l interest," could honestly administer the government. | This MT. Fremont's party proposed to do. It pro posed to array the people of Slreen States against those of fifteen States, not man against man, but as communities against communities; the one side led on by illogical preudces and unreasonable fan atcism, the other standing firm in defence of pro- perty, life and liberty. It against such parties that the Father of his country had raised his warn ing voice ill his Farewell Address. In such con test no man could doubt the result, and for such a contest no true patriot had any heart. But (con- tinued Mir. Breckinridge) it said that the dem Ocratlc party was also sectional party; that 1t wishes to make the strong arm of the federal gov | ernment extend slavery That was not true The dnmOprati itS elaine to tioua1 port upon national principles; it stands upon the princple of the Kansas Nebraska bill and the | Cincinnati platform. It asserts that the federal | government has no power to establish or abolish slavery. It asserts the principle of non nterven- ton as the only true principle, leaving to the peo- pie of the States and Territories, under the forms of the constitution, the right to regulate the | subject at their discretion. The democratic party could, therefore, no more make use of the strong arm of the federal government to extend slavery than 1t can propose to make use of 1t to prohibit savery.'
 Immediately after the publication of the above extract, Mr. Brecknridge, having been interrogat- ed by Mir. Miles, in regard to it's accuracy, wrote as follows in reply, under date of OctOber2l, le5b
 You have reported me correctly; and thank you for it. As you know, my remarks re ported in q mcagrc and imperfect manner; still, even as reported, there Is nothing to warrant the attack. Hands off the whole subject by the fed eral government, (except for one or two profecfict purposes mentioned i'll the consttution,) the equal rights of all sections in the territory, and | the absolute powerof each new State to settle the question in it's constitution: these are my doctrines and those of our platform, and, what is more, of the constitution. To claim that the democratic party, in its federal relations is an organization to extend slavery, is to advance a doctrine that is constltutionaly untrue, and in its logical conse- | quenccs, ruinOus to the South"
 | Thus it will be seen that Mir. Breckinrdge, in his Iippecanoe speech, not cdlled specifically tO trea on that form Of the 'terrdoriqi question: rhich reates 10 the proect0n' ot stauery distinguished from is establishment or prohibition. Denying the power of the general government either to estab-
 fish or abolish slavery in the territories, he doubt | less left in abeyance any expression of opinion with regard to the manner in which the inhabitants of territory, during their territorial condition, could regulate this subject in their own way, ''un- der the forms of the consttution;" though it can not be doubted that his private opinion Was coinci- | dent with that avowed by Mr. Buchanan, when al- | luding to differences that early obtained this subject among the adherents of popular sovereign ty he stated in his inaugural address that Che had | ever been of the opinion' that the people could defnitively decide the question of slavery only pr0ceeding 10 form c State Consultation.