Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-09-22

organization whose bone and body is dis. union. Irefer to Mr. Crittenden, and to 2 speech he made at Louisville. I have known him and admired him. He has known me. Toward him have cherished, and expect to cherish, relations of resp e. ful and cordial esteem. These are reasons which, even If had ground for it, would prevent any but perfect courtesy in reply After speaking of MT. Lincoln in terms as T1f9RmsplImentary i'm as his principles merit, and gv 6ssator from Illinois in terms of eulo. thank my '5s ye,o of his fellow-citizens. I friend for the hope 1hls hss and distinguished am not disunionist Laandissrtalns Landissr that l humane lawyer he gives me fhe Like of doubt, and for this I thank him. ffet Na newed cheers. As to my connection with the principles of party which tends that way, may speak oft that presently. My ob- ject now is to relieve myself from the impu- tation of being a disunionist, and in this would prefer to receive direct blow to have 1t sound like the reluctant confession of of sorrowful friend. Applause and laughter. Mr. B., in passing, paid an eloquent tribute to Gen. Lane, and continu- ed to speak of himself.
 Born within sight of this spot, and known to you for near forty years, you representa- tive in the legislature, in Congress, and situations of trust, I invite any one to point to anything in my character or anteeedents which would sanction such charge or such an imputation. Cheers. l will not degrade the dignity of my declaration by eplthets, but l proudly challenge my bit terest enemy to point to an act, to disclose an utterance or reveal thought of mine hostile to the constitution or the union of these States. Loud cheers.
 A voice-He couldn't do it.
 Mir. B.-The man does not live who has the power to couple my name successfully with the slightest taint of disloyalty to the constitution and the Union. Loud ap- plause. But if there be nothing in my character to justify this accusation, what is there in the platform and principles upon which l stand? If in these there is any thing to justify the accusation, it must be Tn the resolutions as to property in the ter ritories. 1 will read them, and you can judge whether they accord with the position of the supreme court and the government, as l have shown it to-day. (After read ing the-resolutions he continued. l That is the platform and these the principles avow- ed. If they are constitutional they are not sectional, for. the constitution Is broad enough to cover the whole Union Cheers. l He who stands upon the constitution can neither be sectional nor disunonist- These principles are taken almost verbatim from the supreme court of the United States. They are supported by the prece- dents and practice of the government- They are principles upon which we may well live, and by which we may we'll all be willing to die. Loud cheers. They are vital, important, and they concern the rights ot person and property. They cannot be abstract, minute and unimportaut, for they concern the honor and equality of the States> What has been the position of Kep.~'cky upon that platform? The candaates for Governor of this State last yrar both held that territorial legislaturps have no power to exclude our propert,, and each contend ed that every depabment of the govern ment must pre46ct it when it became ne- cessarv. Nh. Joshua Bell, believe, went a step ferther, by thinking the time had now arrived when the government should i.terpose. Your conventions indorsed these principles, and the Senate and common wealth of Kentucky, by the unanimous vote of both parties, indorsed them as being con stitutional and true by the following reso- lution, which must read, as it is so apt, so pertinent, and so conclusive. The reso- lutions of the last Legislature of Kentucky were here read. That is word for word the opinion of the supreme court, and the resolution of the national dem ocratic con- vention on which I stand to-day. Both parties in Kentucky at the polls and by unanimous votes in the legislature have de- clared that these principles are those of the constitution. l might pause here, but in support of these principles want the au thority of Mir. Crttenden himself Ap- plause Whatever doubt he may have as to my fidelity to the constitution and Un ion, 1 do not hesitate to say that that emi- nent gentleman is devoted to the Union. I do not yet believe that he would advocate principles which he believed were unconsti- tutional or calculated to destroy the union of this country, and if can have his sane tion and indorsement for the principles I advocate, it will go great way.in proving that they are constitutional and not dis union,
 Mr. B. read the third, fourth and fifth of Mir. Davis's resolutions, and referred to Mr.. Crittenden's vote for them and said: Then 1 have the vote of my distinguished friend, declaring that these questions are not mi mute nor unimportant; that the union of the States rests upon an equality of rights among them; that neither Congress nor the territorial legislature has the right to in fringe the right of any citizen, and that if any right be assailed by the territorial legis- lature it becomes necessary for Congress to interfere to protect that right--precisely the principles upon which we stand to-day. Cheers. My distinguished friend follow ed these resolutions with speech which l find in the Daily Globe. It is true he ex- pressed hope that the time might never come when 1t would be necessary for Con- gress to interfere to protect those rights. l trust that the time will never come when any ueflllOflai dutHOflty VIII De SD IeCkieSs of it's constitutional obligations as to make it necessary for Congress to declare it's acts void. Cheers.l But in his speech he sus- tans the position in which we stand in Ian guage which compares well with the deci- sion of. the supreme court He says. The extract read from C.'s speech declares that territorial government is creature oi Congress, endowed only with the powers conferred upon it by its creator, and with no particle of sovereignty. Further on in the same speech MT. c. uses the follow ing language. MT. c. goes on to say that, as the new territorial government has no so- vereign or independent right to act on this subject--the supreme court of the United States having determined that every citizen of the United States may go into that ter ritory, carrying his slaves with him and holding them there, my opinion is that the constitution is to protect the property whicf
 it has authorized to go there; therefore wher 1 the proper or extreme case occurs-wher property going there under the supreme court of the United States shall require such interposition, that it is the duty O GoDcrooO fo co md .rro ,f ,sro4oot, v,