Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-06-16
speech of Hon. James Hughes.

fully read and considered:
GENTLEMEN: have come to the capital of our
State, not upon a political mission nor to mngle
in the discussions of public meetings, but upon
professional business, and to renew my acquaint-
ance with two old, familiar friends, called John
Doe and Richard Roe.
trust, however, that may not lice TO see the
time ,ohen shall be Indifferent TO the irelfare of
the Democratic party, or unriiling TO do my hum
bic part TO promote its success-in tchateuer tcdk
Of life Imay be found.
/ shall speak for myself alone, and plainly for
shall speak honestly, but with no desire to wound
the feelings OF any man. ] propose to be very
brief, and shall not attempt to play the orator,
but simply to state my opinions on some points
of importance.
In 1856 we met together in this hall, proclaim
ed our creed and went forth to victory Never
was there a more devoted united and gallant ar
my than that which Ashbel p Willard led in that
memorable contest. Indiana achieved laurels
then, that should live forever green upon her
brows.
had the honor to draft the State platform of
1856. On the slavery question, the leading issue
of the State and national elections at that time, it
was broad and unequivocal. 1t indorsed ''the
Compromise measures of 1850 and their applica-
ton as embodied in the Nebraska bill" Upon
the construction of that famous bill some differ
ence of opinion existed.
Some contended for estate equality"-a con-
structiOn now established by the Dred Scott de-
cision-others for squatter sovereignty. Our
platform left that question to judicial decision, by
which, it is needless to say, the Democratic party
always abides. The preference of our people
doubtless was for squatter sovereignty-we be-
lieved it the more expedent and equitable mode
ofsettling the question of slavery in the Terrific
ries. We would most of US have been gratified
had the Supreme Court of the United States re-
cognized the legality of squatter sovereignty, vet
even here in Indiana there were those who denied
it, and favored State equality. The Dred Scott
decision has settled that question. That decision
has been sanctioned and accepted by the Demo
cratic party everywhere. Ii is not in conflict with
the Cincinnati platform. 1t will doubtless be ap-
proved by the Charleston Convention Let me
remind you of the resolution adopted by our State
Convention of the Sth of January last, resolu-
ton which no one opposed-not even those
shining lights that are now subsiding into Repub-
licanism, "as kindred drops are mingled into
one'-lt is the unanimous voice of the Democra-
cy of Indiana, expressed in plain and vigorous
a nguage:
Z. ResOiUed. That in the late decision of the
lSupreme Court of the United States, known as
the Dred Scott decision, we recognize a legal
exposition of the doctrines of the Constitution OF
the United States and of the State of Indiana
and we hereby denounce and hold up to the uni
versal execration and scorn of all loyal American
citizens the loathsome doctrine of "negro equali-
ty," now sustained and indorsed by the so called
Republican party of Indiana, as a natural and
inevitable consequence of their opposition to the
decision of the Supreme Court above named.
The Dred Scott decision disposes of the ques
ton of slavery in the Territories forever, il faith
fully adhered to, and is national platform found
ed in Justice, upon which the Democratic party
of the whole Union can stand with an unbroken
front.
As to the admission of slave States into the
Union, the Republicans profess now to be divided
among themselves. We are united-we adhere
to our doctrine-that they may come in when, in
the language of the Cincinnati platform, "they
have sufficient population" with or without
slavery, their respective Constitutions may pre-
scribe.
The Kansas question, temporary issue, is
settled by the English bill, in conformity with the
principle as to population, laid down in the Gin
cinnati platform, and, let me add, in the Fillmore
platform too.
1t is well known to you that voted for that
bill. 1t is scarcely necessary to add that ap-
proved it. i defended it, population clause and
all, in my late canvass, and / intend to stand by
it.
have seen it charged in Southern newspapers
a1d in the speeches of some Southern men, who
ought to have known bettet, that the Northern
Democratic Representatives had deserted the
English bill. 1t may be true as to some; it is
not true to all. 1t is VIGOROUSLY untrue as TO
myself. 1t is just as far from being true rs the
letters of certain distinguished Southern Demo-
Gratis upon Illinois politics, recently published,
are far from being either wise or well timed.
am very free to declare my opinion that those
letters were in very bad taste Now what ground
shall we, as a party in Indiana, occupy on the
slavery question in the futuref Shall we 90 for
ward or back? We will soon be called on to un-
furl our flag for the great battle of 1860. 1 say
let us stand by the Dred Scott decision-let us
stand by the English bill.
l have witnessed, with regret, indications of a
purpose to keep enough of the slavery question
open and in doubt to serve as pretext for agita-
ton and make issue for electoneering pur.
poses. The prolific brain of Mr.. Douglas has
brought forth a new species of squatter sover-
eighty, called 'unfriendly legislation" the pur-
port of which is, that although the Constitution
of the United States protects slave property in
the Territories, it needs the aid of Territorial
legislation to give it effect Quite discovery,
truly The combined effect of this patent squat
ter sovereignty and the Dred Scott decision
would lead us back to the very point in this
slavery controversy from which we set out.
The same views have been attributed to Sena-
tor Davis, of Mississippi. | have no doubt he
has been misrepresented. He never uttered any
any such opinions. If any man comes to us
with such doctrine let us call him a Southern
doughface, and tell him to go home.
Away with this continual shuffiing and palter-
ing upon this question of slavery. Let us meet
our responsibilities like men. The Democratic
people of the North misunderstood indeed,
when any such sckly and spurious philanthropy
is imputed to them, to require diluted doses Of
aboIitiOnism to oiUe tone to their stomaehs
say to you here tonight, that if the Consti-
of al,old
a right to his property in the Territories, as be-
lieve it does, that right is perfect under the Con-
stitution, and needs no territorial legislation to
make it so.
believe that utter the sentiments of every
sound Democrat in Indiana when say / am for
the Constitution of my country, in its letter and
spirit, and in all its consequences, immediate and
remote; and If that Constitution imposes manocies
upon euery negro ia the Union, i am for it still,
because it is the Constitution of my country.
And take the decision of the Supreme Court as
a binding exposition of its terms. If the Dred
Scott decision is adhered to, in its plain meaning,
there must be an end of slavery agitation, except
with those who war upon the Government itself;
we will have no more political issues on slavery;
but if it is msinterpreted, evaded or frittered
away, we will again be divided, distracted, and
cursed with slavery agitation.
We have plain path before us-the path of
duty-et US pursue it. Whoever loves the Dem
cratic party, whoever desires the success of its
principles, will come to the support.
But if we are to interpolate our creed, or lower
our flag, to coax back disafected men, AN NOT
FOR IT.. The Democratic party has alicays stood
upon its distinctive organization and principles.
Fusion is process hch is the peculiar property Of
our opponents; they haze heretofore had a monop
oiy of n-iet them keep IT, soouid see the Dem
oeratic party FIRST pure, then peaceabie.