The Texas Republican. [volume] (Marshall, Tex.) 1849-1869, 1860-09-22


10 il. ,lAsvry Il saa Nmarssbe cI'on We
have never before listened to such political
speech, anil We very much question whether sn!
occ IL, ever did. unless. pcrchance, there has
been some one who ~ heard Judge ksars
-. 49,, oace during this canvas IL wa
characterized eutird! BY is attack upon go.
Brcckinriiss md Lane l.inocraey, the speaker
never once stating who be iu'ended to support
durnv this canvass. or attempting to defend
either Bsil or Douglas from the charges which
have been brought against them. lie urged
shose present 70 vote f,s Eel or ponglas, 70
def,at Rreekinrilge selecting the one they might
think the most available His points were ieT,
and may be briefly stated.
/. That the Breckenridge and Lane demoera-
cy was southern disunon party organized
months before The meeting Of the Charleston
Convention. BY INSCRIPTIONS southern leaders
who were bent upon plnaging The Southern
States into disuulon and civil var.
! 2. That lhero vas 20 reason for the spit al
/ Gharlcsian. Il was unauthorized, and hciioas
Tha, the democratic party hal endorsed the
doctrine Of sqnatlcr sovereignty in the Kansas
bill aud the Cincinnati platform with the simple
provision. II in accordance with the constitution
| Of The United States The prendcsi rejection
| of his III, was, that he lad Discovered sqnattcr
sovereignty in the X arsas bill, and had dcuoaac-
I etl It a, the time
3 III speaker entered into desuec Of the
eool faith ~ Judge bapslss AZ a de'"'T s"''
! Said that lie democratic lfTdefs, upon The pas
saee Of the Kansas bin. lad atrd into r.
crt agreement to lrayc the question Of slavery
in the Territories to the decision of The SopFemo
1 Court. the knowledge OF which they had dis
/ honestly withheld from the people al The time
pre,epins that hat hill dill noi contain squat
I ten sovereignty nonied That the bred Scott
decision tencl,sl The merits OF the question bat
that lae southern in,eaier. eonlcnding That %
had. awaited themselves Of The pFeleXl It afforded.
10 breuk up the democratic party
4. That thr Breckimidge party tad adopted
a platform which was one Of The eross'as' frauds
ever attempted to be perpciraiol upon The
American people That the party prof ssed 70
be IN hsor Of Congressional protection. eni
when asked how The. wald protect shave prop
er,y IN the Tcrritorits. none Of them eould an
swer. ID hal beard their greatest orators aad
they bad al failed TO answer this question slave
~ could not exist IN icrd,ory without police
regulations giving security to It, sappoie
territory faded to pass thee laws what then r.
Must Congress pas such uws' II 90, what
would that be hut slave code. Yet Mr..
Breckenridge and his llre-cating supporters de
nisd that they were H. favor % such u code.
Hence. their talk about protection was mere
slam. dslasion. and a swiadlo They had
broken mp the Charleston Convention upon an
impractieabie issue, nominated their Candidates
whom they knew could not AMI ought not 10 be
elected, and having thus created the necessity,
and brought 1u the crisis, by the election OF
/ Lincoln. we're fer disolgiag the union. lie read
extract. fom the speeches aud leii3ri Of dozen
leading men who are supporting Brefkipridge.
fhe most II them showing that in ue event o.
IN BLACK Rcpablicaas getting control Of ti'e
I government. or failure 10 secure oar rights in
the union. we mast eventually look 10 protection
ont Of the unions lie condemned tue idca Of re-
sis,ancc to I.iucolas election that It was imi-
torous, and ought to be put down. and closed
with paueeyric on the union
II was announced that Mr. Alexander Pope
would reply TO Judge Evans on the succeeding
evening, TUESDAY which he did, fully and cIlec'
lnaily 1ho Opposition lhemsslsts acknowledge
that Mr.. Pope made one Of the bes, democratic
speeches To which they bad ever listened, and
that so far as the argument WAS concerned that
he 20, the best oft II was indeed a most ey.
cclleu, speech, clear logical, mrcible- and clio
qucut, il eoqueucc IS to be measured 10y that
power of speaker to carry captive his auditors.
Aud yet, 1t Is bg, Iu.t<o say, that the speaker
made no prciensiqus to eloqueuce. lie simply
ondaavorcd 10 give a review Of the history Of
our political afairs but that history was over.
whalming, dissipatiug completely, the sophisnls
and decisions Of Judge Evans.
Nj rope commenced by tracing the tory
Of the slavery question from The adoption OF the
COMPROMISE measures Of 1880 to the passage Of
the Kansas Nebraska Bin IN 1851 That If
the Kansas Nebraska Bin contained the odious
doctrine Of Sqnat,or Sovereignty those bills
were obnoxious to the same ohjertou ~ they
contained . provision identical with the one de-
uouuced by Judge Evans With VIVA, prorri'
ETY. could the Judge find Gul, with that provi-
sion. when il was bis peculiar pride and boast
tina, he had supported the Compromise meets
ures Of 1882 liut they did moi contain that
doctrine. Mr, clay, the Chairman Of the com
mitiec, who reported those bills. and the leading
men who advocated them, never considered they
were giving their adhesion ia any such dogma.
II was intended 10 announce the true doctrine II
nounicrvcation in ether words The denial Of
legislature To ahrdgc the rights Of property IN
a territory; that Congress should neither legis-
late slavery into a territory nor eyclude Il there
from, bat leave tie people thereof free to form
their domestic institutions in their own way
subject only to the Constitution Of the United
States lie then showed Why the words, sub
eet to she Constitution Of the United States
were used in the kansas bill. That il was
owing TO the difference Of opinion entertained
pron tits territorial question by portion Of
the Northern members OF the Democratic party.