sir, what do we see? An exasperated feeling between the North and the South, on the most exciting of all topics, resulting in bloodshed and organized military array. But this is not all, sir. We see a political party presenting candidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, selected for the first time from the free States alone, with the avowed purpose of electing those candidates by suffrages of one part of the Union only, to rule over the whole United States. Can it be possible that those who are engaged in such a measure can have seriously reflected upon the consequences which must inevitably follow, in case of success? Can they have the madness or the folly to believe that our Southern brethren would submit to be governed by such a chief magistrate? Would he be required to follow the same rule prescribed by those who elected him in making his appointments? If a man living south of Mason and Dixon's line be not worthy to be President or Vice-President, would it be proper to select one from the same quarter, as one of his Cabinetcouncil, or to represent the nation in a foreign country! Or, indeed, to collect the revenue, or administer the laws of the United States? If not, what new rule is the President to adopt in selecting men for office, that the people themselves discard in selecting him?

These are serious, but practical questions, and in order to appreciate them fully, it is only necessary to turn the tables upon ourselves. Suppose that the South, having a majority of the electoral votes, should declare that they would only have slaveholders for President and Vice-President, and should elect such by their exclusive suffrages to rule over us at the North! Do you think we would submit to it? No, not for a moment. And do you believe that your Southern brethren are less sensitive on this subject than you are, or less jealous of their rights? If you do, let me tell you that you are mistaken. And, therefore, you must see that if this sectional party succeeds, it leads inevitably to the destruction of this beautiful fabric reared by our forefathers, cemented by their blood, and bequeathed to us, a priceless inheritance. I tell you, my friends, that I speak

warmly on this subject, as I feel that we are in danger. I am determined to make a clean breast of it. I will wash my hands of the consequences, whatever they may be; and I tell you that we are treading upon the brink of a volcano, that is liable at any moment to burst forth and overwhelm the nation. I might, by soft words, hold out delusive hopes, and thereby win votes. But I can never consent to be one thing to the North and another to the South. I should despise myself if I could be guilty of such evasion. For my conscience would still ask, with the dramatic poet:

Is there not some chosen curse,

Some hidden thunder in the stores of heaven,
Red with uncommon wrath, to blast the man
Who owes his greatness to his country's ruin?"1

In the language of the lamented, immortal Clay, "I would rather be right than be President." It seems to me impossible that those engaged in this, can have contemplated the awful consequences of success. If it breaks asunder the bonds of our Union, and spreads anarchy and civil war through the land, what is it less than moral treason? Law and common sense hold a man responsible for the natural consequences of his acts, and must not those whose acts tend to the destruction of the Government, be equally held responsible? And let me also add, that when this Union is dissolved, it will not be divided into two republics or two monarchies, but broken into fragments, at war with each other.

But, fellow-citizens, I have perhaps said all that was necessary on this subject, and I turn with pleasure to a less important, but more agreeable topic. It has been my fortune during my travels in Europe to witness, once or twice, the reception of royalty, in all the pomp and splendor of military array, where the music was given to order and the cheers at word of command. But, for myself, I prize the honest spontaneous throb of affection with which you have welcomed me back to my native State above all the pageants which royalty can display. Therefore with a heart overflow

I. Addison's "Cato."

ing with grateful emotions, I return you a thousand thanks, and bid you adieu.

REMARKS AT ROCHESTER.

At several towns, as he crossed the State, Mr. Fillmore spoke, for the most part reiterating sentiments already recorded. At Rochester, on the 27th, on the balcony of the Eagle Hotel, replying to an elaborate address by Roswell Hart, Mr. Fillmore spoke at greater length than at any time since leaving Albany.

After returning his thanks for the manner in which he had been received, and for the flattering terms in which the chairman had been pleased to speak of his Administration, Mr. Fillmore said that he had no reason to disguise his sentiments on the subject of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, which seemed to be the chief source of the unfortunate agitation that now disturbed the peace of the country. He said that it would be recollected, that when he came into the Administration, the country was agitated from center to circumference with the exciting subject of slavery. This question was then forced upon the country by the acquisition of new territory; and he feared that the eloquent address of the chairman had given him more credit for the settlement of that question than he was entitled to-not more, however, than he would have deserved, had his power equaled his desires. But the truth was, that many noble patriots, Whigs and Democrats, in both Houses of Congress, rallied around and sustained the Administration in that trying time, and to them was chiefly due the merit of settling that exciting controversy.

Those measures, usually called the Compromise Measures of 1850, were not in all respects what I could have desired, but they were the best that could be obtained, after a protracted discussion, that shook the republic to its very foundation; and I felt bound to give them my official approval. Not only this, but perceiving there was a disposition to

renew the agitation at the next session, I took the responsibility of declaring, in substance, in my annual Message, that I regarded these measures as a "final settlement of this question, and that the laws just passed ought to be maintained until time and experience should demonstrate the necessity of modification or repeal."

I then thought that this exciting subject was at rest, and that there would be no further occasion to introduce it into the legislation of Congress. Territorial governments had been provided for all the territory except that covered by the Missouri Compromise, and I had no suspicion that it was to be disturbed. I have no hesitation in saying, what most of you know already, that I was decidedly opposed to the repeal of that Compromise. Good faith, as well as the peace of the country, seemed to require, that a compromise that had stood for more than thirty years should not be wantonly disturbed. These were my sentiments then, fully and freely expressed, verbally and in writing, to all my friends, North and South, who solicited my opinion.

This repeal seems to have been a Pandora's box, out of which have issued all the political evils that now afflict the country, scarcely leaving a hope behind, and many, I perceive, are ready to impute all the blame to our Southern brethren. But is this just? It must be borne in mind that this measure originated with a Northern Senator,1 and was sustained and sanctioned by a Northern President. I do not recollect that even a single petition from a Southern State solicited this repeal; and it must be remembered that when a Northern Administration, with large numbers of Northern senators and Northern members, offered the Southern States a boon, Southern members of Congress could not, if they would, safely refuse it. To refuse what seemed a boon,

I. It was Augustus Chester Dodge, Senator from lowa, who on December 14, 1853, introduced in the United States Senate "a bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska." Although originally containing no reference to slavery, this bill by amendment became the famous Kansas-Nebraska bill, which President Pierce signed on May 30, 1854. Although known as the Dodge bill, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise which was achieved under this famous measure was due more to Stephen A. Douglas than to Dodge or any other of his coadjutors in that memorable issue.

would have been to sacrifice themselves, and this is certainly expecting too much from political men in times like these. The blame, therefore, it appears to me, with all due deference, is chiefly chargeable to those who originated this measure; and however we may deplore the act, it affords no just ground for controversy with our Southern brethrencertainly none for which they could be deprived of their political rights.

But we now see a party organized in the North, and for the first time selecting its candidates exclusively from the Northern States, with the avowed intention of electing them to govern the South as well as the North. By what rule is a President, thus elected, to select a Cabinet-council, his foreign ministers, judges and administrative officers? Are they also to be selected exclusively from the North? Or may you take a Cabinet officer from the South, though you cannot a President or a Vice-President? These, in practice, as I have said on another occasion, must become embarrassing questions. The North is, beyond all question, the most populous, the most wealthy, and has the most votes, and therefore has the power to inflict this injustice upon the South. We can best judge of its consequences by reversing the case. Suppose that the South was the most populous, the most wealthy, and possessed the greatest number of electoral votes, and that it should declare that, for some fancied or real injustice done at the North, it would elect none but a President and Vice-President of slaveholders from the South to rule over the North. you think, fellow-citizens, you would submit to this injustice? No, truly, you would not; but one universal cry of No would rend the skies! And can you suppose your Southern brethren less sensitive than yourselves, or less jealous of their rights? If you do, let me tell you that you are mistaken-and you must therefore perceive that the success of such a party, with such an object, must be the dissolution of this glorious Union. I am unwilling to believe that those who are engaged in this strife can foresee the consequences of their own acts. Why should not the

Do