The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1860-10-06

unreserve to Mr.. Breckinridse's fortunes, and
published within the sphere Of his private in
SEPARATION. The common voice of the State
, held MIR. Breckenridge responsible for the
! deliberate avcwals Of these organs, touching
the leading issues of the canvass, and not
one of the organs disavowed the relation at
the time. There can be no earthly doubt
that the relation actually existed. Beyond
dispute every one Of them spoke the scnti-
ments then entertained by Mr.. Breck nridge
himself.
Now, what were the sentiments they utter
cd on the question of slavery in the Terrific
RES No strange sentiments to Mr.. Breckin-
ridge reader, as you will perceive. On the
10Th of April, 1859, Mr.. Magoffin met
Joshua f. Bell in debate at Lebanon. Mr..
Bell came out himself on the question of
slavery in the Territories and drew MIR.
Magofiiin out. One of the editors of the
Louisville Courier, who was present, and who
was then, as he is now, strong advocate of
intervention, thus described the passage be-
tween the disputants in letter to the
Courier:
On the question Of protection to slavery in
the Territories, MIR. Bell assumed bold and
decided position. lie was in favor of the
protection of slave property by CongresSion-
al legislation, in the event of the Territorial
Legislature failing to pass protective laws
lie then demanded of Mr.. Magoflin to define
his views on the Same issue and without hes
ltatinS Mr. Nlagoiliin replied that he beloved
that the right to hold slaves in the Territories
was Constitutional right, and that Con-
gress possessed the power to protect it; but
that ne CONSIDERED THE EXERCISE or THE
POWER IMpoIlrIc. HE WAS FOR NON
INTERVENTION.
And we appeal to the public of Kentucky
to bear witness that MIR. MagoiIin steadily
held this position on the stump throughout
the entire canvass. The Democracy, under
the leadership of MIR. Magotiin, John c.
Breckinridgc's lieutenant, r,ade the fight on
this very position.
The Lexington Statesman, Mr. Breckn-
ridges home organ, in its impression of the
18th of April, 1859, denounced the sdoctrnc
of intervention in these extreme and radical
terms:
10 look to Congressional interference is to
subVert political principles which we have
learned to regard as fundamental doctrine
OF The Democratic party, to inauguratc a
domestic policy in direct conflict with that
theory upon which alone there seems to be
hope for the permanent adjustment of our
sectional difficulties, and finally to conccde a
power which if exerted to Its legitimate ex-
tent would place the extension of slavery
within the absolute control Of an Abolition
Congress. CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION IN
PROTECTION or SLAVERY IN TIE TERRITORIES
| lkRESIsTIBIY CARRIES WITH IT THE POWER TO
LEGlsLATE FOR IT'S EXCLUSION. TIE DUTY
OR RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO PROTECT CANNOT
! BE MAINTAINED WITHOUT ADMITTING TIE
POWER TO ABOLISH II CONGRESS- CAN INTER.
FENE FOR ONE PURPOSE, 1T CAN FOR TIE
OTHER. The South cannot assert Il principle
and expect to reap only its advantages.-
We must abide itsf full enforcement.
Not only this, but the very number of the
Statesman from which the extract above is
taken contains qustation from one of Mr..
Brecklnridse's speeches, we believe the quota
ton from his Lexington speech which we
have reproduced in this article, in conf,ma-
hon Of the StatcsmGn's riew! All this, be it
remembered, took place directly under Mr.
Brecknlidge's eye. and was said and done
by warm personal rs well as political
frcnd of his, with whom he was in daily
confidential intercourse.
The Frankfort Woman, Mr.. Brock inridge's
central organ, and conducted, like the States
man, by devotee Of his, held forth on this
point in hand in its edition Of March the 10th,
| 1859, as follows:
a Kentucky Democrat informs us that the
Cynthiana Age, when it asked that Congress
Shall intervene to protect slavery in the Ter
ritorles, docsn represent the sentiments of
the party in the State, At the 9th of January
Convention resolution of that character.
and cmbodylng that sentiment, was Offered,
and was almost unanimously laid on the
table. Our informant says the Dcmocracu of
Aentuahy are opposed IN principle 10 Congress
touching Me slarefy quest'on-hey acdnt no
legislation By that body either for or against ii.
They CONSIDER CONGRESSIONAL PROTECTION
TO SLAVERY AS BEING EQUALLY ERRONEOUS IN
PRINCIPLE AS THE WILMoT PRoylSO TO PRO-
HIBlT IT. Gin. Enquirer.
| WE BELIEVE THE ABOVE STATEMENT OF A
KENTUCKY DEMOCRAT" TO BE THE GENERAL
SENTIMENT OF THE PARTY IN THIS STATE UPON
THE QUESTION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTERFER.
ENCE IN BEHALF OF SLAVERY IN THE TERRIFIC
RIES.
Again, the Yeoman of the 9th of March
said i:
We think it bad policy in the South, the
weaker party in this slavery contest. to ask
Congress 10 interfere III any 1ruy uith the insti-
triton Of slarcry IN the Territories OR TO
ADMIT THAT IT HAS TIE RIGHT TO DO so.
And still again, the Yeoman of the 2Slh of
April declared
In adopting the Cincinnati platform the
Kentucky Democracy PLEDGED THEIR FAITH
TO TIFF PRINCIPLE OF NON. INTERv ENTION BY
CONGRESS UPON THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY IN
STATE OR TERRITORY, and in tabling Rust s
resolution, with pelha ps not more than three
dissenting voices out of the hundreds present,
| THEY GAVE STILL MORE UNMISTAKABLE EvI-
DENCEs OF THEIR HOSTILITY TO THIS lJ@NEw-
FANGLED DoGMA.I OF " INTERv ENTIoN."
| But enough From the evidence relating
to our State canvass in 1859 that we have now
presented, it appears with moral certainty
that John G. Breckenridge at that period
adhered still unchangeably to the doctrine
o." perfect non-intervention." 1t is plain,
FROM the buried retrospect we have given,
and much palmer from the retrospect: that
must rise TO the mind of every Kentuck ian