tion of the Legislature of the State of Missouri, adopted February 15, 1847, "the peace, permanency and welfare of our National Union depend upon a strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the eighth section of the act of March 6, 1820;" and we say deliberately, on behalf of an immense majority of the people of the State of Ohio, and, as we believe, of the whole North, that they will, under no circumstances whatever, suffer slavery to obtain a foothold in the proposed Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. The heart of this continent is the choicest heritage of the free laborers of the United States. The slaveholders are not equal in number to the voters of the State of Ohio. We say to these misguided men: Be not deceived: you are sowing the wind, and you will reap the whirlwind."

Resolved, That we approve fully the conduct of our Senators in Congress in opposing the passage of the bill referred to through the Senate of the United States, and we expect a unanimous vote against it on the part of our Representatives.

Resolved, That the Government of the United States is a free government, not a slaveholding government; that the Constitution of the United States was framed for the purpose of securing the blessings of liberty, not to extend the curse of slavery; that under it liberty is the rule, slavery the exception; that liberty is National, slavery is sectional; and that we recommend to the people of Ohio, of all parties, to be faithful to the principles of this resolution, at all times, under all circumstances, at all hazards.

Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be sent to the President of the United States, to our Senators and Representatives in Congress, and also to the newspapers of the city of Columbus for publication.

On motion of Richard D. Harrison, of Clarke, the report of the Committee was unanimously adopted, with the most decided demonstrations of enthusiasm.

Jacob Brinkerhoff, of Richland, was called upon to address the Convention. He said:

We are told that we have no right to remonstrate against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. How so? At the time of the passage of the Compromise there was no Freesoil party, as such, but the people of the North were then opposed to slavery; and if that opposition had continued always as fierce and determined as it was then there would have been no

need of a Freesoil party now. The Freesoil party never passed any resolution in opposition to the Missouri Compromise, nor does any Freesoiler desire its

repeal to-day. So much for party. As citizens, independent of party, let us look at the matter. The case is like this: John Doe and Richard Roe buy a piece of land in common. They agree to divide it, and one quit-claims to the other, but the son of one of the parties, being dissatisfied, finds fault with the bargain. So when the young man who is the owner of the north half asks the owner of the south half to make a quit claim for his half, the owner of the south half objects because his son finds fault and complains that his father has been cheated. Much surprised at this, he asks the boy, Did your father not get his half of the land? Yes. Has he not had the benefit of the bargain? Yes. Well, then, why not make the deed? Has this case not an exact parallel in the present political controversy? Why, I defy any man to point out a particle of difference between it and the one now before Congress and the country. The friends of the bill agreed that slavery should not go into the Territories; hence their present contention is absolutely without justice or right to support it. Edward Everett granted this when he declared that slavery would never go there; climatic causes alone would prevent it. He followed the idea of Webster in March, 1850; but it is a great fallacy. The laws of climate exclude slavery from no place whatever. They did not prevent it in New England and New York; and portions of Virginia, Maryland and Missouri are farther north than most of Ohio. Slavery exists in full vitality to the north line of Missouri. True, they do not raise cotton, rice, or cane, but they raise slaves, that are sold to those who do raise cereals. They are slave-breeding States. When the English traveler marvels at our slave institutions in this free Republic, we can no longer throw the responsibility upon the mother country,-especially so if we still permit this curse to extend over our vast new and fertile Territories. How can any honest man look any other man in the face and stand by and permit this to be done?

Salmon P. Chase, the distinguished Senator, was given a very cordial reception. His term had just expired and George E. Pugh, a prominent Democrat of Cincinnati, had been elected as his successor but a few days before, March 3, 1854. Mr. Chase said:

Though dead, I yet hope to speak to you. I desire once more to stand upon free soil and look into the faces of a free people. The Douglas bill, as originally reported, did not allude to the Compromise of 1820; though not so worded, it did, however,

by implication repeal the Compromise. It was found it could not pass the Senate unless amended by making it still "more explicit and certain," and so it was changed to suit the tastes of Southern Senators.

They asserted in the bill that the ComproImise of 1850 was inconsistent with the Missouri Compromise, and so it ought to be repealed. The Southern Senators insisted on the right to take their slaves into the Territories. They deny that Congress has the right to exclude them, and they also still more strongly deny that the people of the Territories have the right to exclude slavery. General Cass claimed this right for the people, but the Southern Senators distinctly denied it. When this amendment to give this right to the people was offered it was voted down. If there were no slavery in the country, if there were no judges to be sent from the slave States, or representatives of the slave interests, I would be willing to leave all this to the legislature, and leave the President to appoint the governor and the judges; but I desired more protection for the people, and so preposed to give the people the right to elect their own officers. How was it received? Why, it was voted down. On what pretext? Because it came from the Senator from Ohio! And this was the sole pretext for voting down these most important principles of popular sovereignty! Every slave holder in the Senate voted to deprive immigrants, who were not already naturalized citizens, of the right to vote. They will not trust the Germans, and one distinguished Democratic Senator declared, in his place in the Senate, that if he had the power he would not permit any foreigner to vote at all in this country. The Germans are blackguarded and abused by the South on all occasions. Why, when I presented the memorial of the Germans of Cleveland at their meeting this winter, they said the whole thing was gotten up by the Abolitionists. You should have seen the excitement in the Senate, too, when three thousand Christian ministers of New England sent in a remonstrance against the Nebraska outrage. We should rejoice that our Christian people are at last waking up to the full importance of this subject. It is time to reflect, and time to act. The people must encourage their representatives, and even when they falter support and push them forward. Be true to them, and they will be more likely to be true to you. Washington is the center of the slave power, and it is often true that men who go there forget not only their principles, but too often, also, forget their God. When Ohio proves true to herself, then she will stand where her power and position entitle her to stand among the States of the Union.

Henry B. Carrington, one of the Secre

taries, read a letter from Charles Reemelin, of Hamilton County, which was most favorably received. It was as follows:

So.

I have delayed replying to your kind invitation to address the Convention to be held on March 22d, in the hope of being able to leave home. The severe illness of my wife, however, precludes any hope of my doing But my heart and head are with you in your efforts for freedom and against slavery. Your Convention is an important movement. If it should place itself right before the people, Ohio is safe; if wrong, Ohio is lost, and with Ohio, the cause itself. The tricksters who, in this State, are Douglas's friends, and also friends of his nefarious Nebraska substitute, are a very lean minority of the people of Ohio. The radical Democracy has had them upon the hip several times, but they have ever been taken generously back into the fold. They rely for success upon their great tact and persevering management; but their great elements of success are the periodical drowsiness of the people and the errors of their enemies. They are the "birds of prey" in Ohio, and they watch with the eyes of vultures every step of those they instinctively know to be their opponents. Your Convention will either seal their doom or give them a long lease of power. Let it be distinctly avowed that in this Fall's contest no one of the advantages gained to the people by the new Constitution of Ohio shall be put at issue, that none of the "obsolete" Whig measures shall be revived, that there is to be no "restoration "-no "receding "-in short, that freedom, democracy, justice, equality, and public faith to all and every part of the United States Constitution are to be the principles, and to them shall be the victory, and not to any former party. May He who "tempers the wind to the shorn lamb," and promises that "the integrity of the righteous shall guide them," give to your deliberations that direction which will give success to the cause of humanity and right.

Benjamin F. Leiter, of Stark, was called to the platform. He spoke with much animation, and was enthusiastically cheered during the whole of his speech. He said:

For twenty years I have been acting with the Democratic party, and I believe I am acting with the masses of it yet in opposing this Douglas bill. I can speak at least for old Molly Stark; she has seven thousand voters and there are not twenty of them who favor that measure. We have submitted to slavery long enough, and must not stand it any longer. The North must unite, and slavery extension will stop, and

stop forever. We must have such an expression of opinion at the North that our representatives in Congress will look to the people for guidance and not to the President or the slaveholders. I am done catching negroes for the South. If slavery is a patriarchal institution, then let the South have it to themselves; we of the North don't want anything to do with it.

William Collins, of Cuyahoga County, formerly a Democratic member of Congress from Lewis County, New York, was called out. He said:

You must excuse me from addressing the Convention. I have been a citizen of Ohio but a short time and feel much diffidence in attempting to shape your policy. As some of you know I was a member of Congress when this slavery discussion was carried on with even more acrimony than now. I saw then how things are managed and how by the division of Northern sentiment the South controlled everything. The Douglas bill is a proposal to erect Nebraska Territory as a slave State. We must not suffer it. We must remind the South that the North has already borne with her to the full extent to which forbearance can go. We must say plainly that we will have no more wars of oppression for the sake of procuring slave territory. We will have no more slave States and no more slavery extension.

The President announced that Rufus P. Spalding, of Cuyahoga County, and others, would speak that evening. This was greeted with cheers, when, upon motion, the Convention adjourned.

The temporary steps leading into the unfinished church in which the convention was held gave way as the crowd were leaving the building. Several persons were precipitated a distance of from twelve to fifteen feet and badly injured. Those most seriously hurt were Judge Ambrose G. Sutton, of Huron County; Senator David Allen, of Belmont, and Dr. Hiram Matthews, of Franklin,--neither of whom, however, died of his injuries. The accident, very naturally, caused the wildest excitement, and reports of it at first were very much exaggerated.

At the evening meeting, Samuel Lahm, of Stark County, spoke at some length. He said:

The Whigs and Freesoilers must not run away with all the glory of defeating the infamous Douglas bill. There are only two persons in Stark County in favor of it; one is a Whig and the other is a Democrat who expects a fat office from the President. As you know, I have been and am a Democrat, but I am opposed to this measure; first, because it is in violation of the well-settled principles of the Democratic party. The Compromise Acts, the Baltimore Platform, and a dozen other authoritative documents, prove this conclusively. It was with great reluctance that the North was brought to acquiesce in the Compromise of 1850; but how would it have been if there had been a clause in one of those bills that declared the result of its passage would be to repeal the Compromise of 1820? How many Northern men would have voted for them with that understanding? Not one. It was for the very purpose of closing the subject, of removing the last pretence for controversy about slavery, as they supposed, that Northern men supported the Compromise of 1850 at all. And now it is proposed to set all this aside! There are plenty of progressive Democrats such as I am. We were in favor of the annexation of Texas, and for the acquisition, indeed, not only of Texas, but of the whole of Mexico; but we want it, as most of it was originally, without slavery. We make it a condition precedent that no territory, or State therein, shall ever be cursed with slavery in which slavery did not exist when we got it from Mexico. This was our rule. This we believed in when Texas was admitted, and to this we will always continue to adhere.

Rufus P. Spalding, of Cuyahoga, Samuel Galloway, of Franklin, and Henry B. Blackwell, of Hamilton, also addressed the meeting, but unfortunately their speeches were not reported. In many respects Judge Spalding was the strongest and most effective anti-slavery orator in Ohio. But, like other reformers, he was considered ultra and extreme in the expression of his opinions. Doubtless it was owing to his well-known views in favor of abolition that his remarks were not published.

John D. Caldwell, of Hamilton, one of