Presidential Candidates:

"In February, 1856, several colored persons were seized in Hamilton County as fugitive slaves. One of these persons, Margaret Garner, in the frenzy of the moment, impelled, as it seems, by the dread of seeing her children dragged, with herself, back to slavery, attempted to slay them on the spot, and actually succeeded in killing one. For this act, she and her companions were indicted by the grand jury for the crime of murder, and were taken into custody upon a writ regularly issued from the Court of Common Pleas.

"While thus imprisoned under the legal process of a State court, for the highest crime known to our code, a writ of habeas corpus was issued by a judge of the District Court of the United States, requiring their production before him. The writ was obeyed by the sheriff, and, contrary to all expectations, and in disregard, as I must think, of principle and authority, the prisoners were taken from his custody by order of the judge, and, without allowing any opportunity for the interposition of the State authorities, delivered over to the Marshal of the United States, by whom they were immediately transported beyond our limits. The alleged ground for this action and order was that the indicted parties had been seized as fugitive slaves upon a Federal Commissioner's warrant, before the indictment and arrest, and that the right to their custody, thus acquired, was superior to that of the sheriff, under the process of the State. This doctrine must necessarily give practical impunity to murder whenever the murderer may be seized by a federal official as a fugitive from service before arrest for the crime under State authority. Imputing no wrong intention to the judge, I am constrained to add that his proceeding seems to me an abuse, rather than an exercise, of judicial power.

"A similar case occurred more recently in the county of Champaign. Several deputies of the federal marshal having arrested certain citizens of this State for some alleged offence against the Fugitive Slave act, a writ of habeas corpus was issued by the probate judge of that county, requiring the arrested parties to be brought before him for inquiry into the grounds of detention. The sheriff of Clark County, while attempting to execute this writ, was assaulted by these petty officials and seriously injured, while his deputy was fired upon, though happily without effect. A warrant was issued by a justice of the peace for the apprehension of the perpetrators of these offences. This warrant was duly executed and the prisoners committed to jail under the custody of the sheriff of Clark County. A writ of habeas corpus was then issued by the same district judge who had interposed in the case of Margaret Garner, requiring the sheriff of Clark County to produce his prisoners before him at the city of Cincinnati. This writ was also obeyed, and the prisoners were discharged from custody by the order of the judge, on the ground that being federal officers, and charged with the execution of a federal writ, they had a right to overcome, by any necessary violence, all attempts made under the process of a State court, to detain them or their prisoners, even for inquiry into the legality of the custody in which those prisoners were held.

"This principle cannot be sound. It subverts effectually the sovereignty of the State. It asserts the right of any district judge of the United States to arrest the execution of State process, and to nullify the functions of State courts and juries, whenever in his opinion a person charged with crime under State authority has acted in the matter forming the basis of the charge, in pursuance of any federal law or warrant. No act of Congress, in my judgment, sanctions this principle. Such an act, indeed, would be clearly unconstitutional, because in plain violation of the express provision which requires that the trial of all crimes shall be by jury.

"It is deeply to be regretted that collisions of this kind should occur. The authorities of Ohio have never failed in due consideration for the constitutional rights of federal courts, nor will they thus fail. But they cannot admit, without dishonor, that State process is entitled to less respect than federal, nor can they ever concede to federal writs or federal officials a deference which is not conceded to those of the State.

"The true course is one of mutual respect and mutual deference. Whenever, in any inquiry upon habeas corpus, by any court, State or federal, it may be ascertained that the applicant for the writ is detained under valid process in pursuance of a constitutional law, he should be remanded at once to the custody from which he may have been taken for trial in due course. No investigation should take place into the guilt or innocence of the party charged, or, what is substantially the same thing, whether the facts were justified by the authority under which the applicant was acting at the time. Inquiries of this character are for juries upon a regular trial and in open court; not for a judge at chambers. If made upon one side upon habeas corpus, they must also be made upon the other. If federal courts are to protect federal officials from prosecution by State courts for alleged violations of State law, State courts in their turn must protect State officers from prosecution in federal courts, under similar circumstances. Hence, dangerous conflicts must arise, and imminent peril both to liberty and union.

"If such conflicts must come, to the extent of the power vested in me, I shall maintain the honor of the State, and support the authority of her courts."

We have scarcely given the reader a sample of Mr. Chase's style of speech, or opinions on the slavery question, and it is quite possible we have not given the most eloquent extracts which may be found in his public speeches and messages, but we have quoted enough to show every intelligent reader who Mr. Chase is and what his opinions are.

EDWARD BATES

We shall only give an outline sketch of Edward Bates, of Missouri, for though a man whose name is prominently before the public, yet he has seen little of that congressional life which gives a man a political record.

Mr. Bates was born in Goochland County, Virginia, on the 4th of September, 1793, being the seventh son and twelfth child of Thomas F. Bates. His ancestors came from the west of England to the Jamestown settlement as early as 1625, and they were plain people of the middle rank of English life. They were Quakers, and remained so for more than a century – some of the descendants to this day. The ancestors of Mr. Bates, however, forfeited membership in the Society of Friends – or we should say, rather, Mr. Bates' father, Thomas F. Bates, lost his membership with the Society for bearing arms in the war of the Revolution. A noble cause to die for, and certainly to lose ecclesiastical relations for! He was at the siege of York; and his children from that day were no more Quakers.

The scholastic education of Mr. Bates was not perhaps first-class. He entered no college and passed through with no "course," but was, nevertheless, well taught in the elements, at home, by his father and a kinsman, Benj. Bates, of Hanover; at school, for several years, at Charlotte Hall Academy, Maryland; and a most excellent school it was.

The choice of the young man for a profession was the navy, and in the winter of 1811-12, a midshipman's warrant was offered him; but in deference to the wishes of his mother, he declined it and gave up his choice. This fact gives a key to the man's character. He has always been willing to do his duty, however great the personal sacrifice. In 1813, he served as a volunteer at Norfolk, Va., in a militia regiment. In 1814, he emigrated to St. Louis, under the kind care of his elder brother, Frederick Bates, then Secretary of Missouri Territory, and afterward Governor of the State. He entered the law office of Rufus Easton, an eminent lawyer, who was in his time a delegate from the territory in Congress. In 1816, he was duly licensed to practise law, and succeeded so well that in 1819 he was appointed Circuit Attorney. In 1820, he was one of the eight men who represented St. Louis County in the convention which formed the State Constitution for Missouri. Later, he was the Attorney-General of the State; and later yet, was elected for several times to both houses of the Missouri General Assembly. In 1824, President Monroe appointed him U.S. Attorney-General for the Missouri District. In 1826, he was elected to Congress, where he served honorably for two years. In 1828, he ran again, but was beaten by the storm of Jackson politics. This result of the congressional campaign seemed to disgust him with public political life, and he quietly withdrew to private life. He has since steadily practised law to support a large family – with one exception. In 1853, he was elected Judge of the St. Louis Land Court. After performing the duties of the office for about three years, he resigned it and went back to the practice of the law.

In 1847, to go back a little, Mr. Bates presided over the Internal Improvement Convention at Chicago. In 1850, Mr. Fillmore appointed him Secretary of War, but he declined the office. In 1856, he presided at the Whig Convention in Baltimore; in 1858, received from Harvard University the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws. We omitted to mention that, in 1823, Mr. Bates married Julia D. Coulter, a native of South Carolina, by whom he has had seventeen children, eight of whom survive.

Before we give a few of Mr. Bates' political opinions, one fact should be stated. He, a southern man, went to Missouri and became a slaveholder, by inheritance and otherwise; yet, a few years since, set his slaves free, and is understood to be unequivocally in favor of emancipation in the State of Missouri.

Now for Mr. Bates' political opinions – and we shall quote from his late letter. He says, speaking of slavery:

"As to the negro question, I have always thought, and often declared, in speech and in print, that it is a pestilent question, the agitation of which has never done good to any party, section, or class, and never can do good, unless it be accounted good to stir up the angry passions of men, and exasperate the unreasoning jealousies of sections, and by these bad means foist some unfit men into office, and keep some fit men out. It is a sensitive question, into whose dangerous vortex it is quite possible for good men to be drawn unawares. But when I see a man, at the South or the North, of mature age and some experience, persist in urging the question, after the successful experience of the last few years, I can attribute his conduct to no higher motive than personal ambition or sectional prejudice."

This is all Mr. Bates says on the slavery question. He then goes on to speak in favor of internal improvements to advance the interests and protect the rights and industry of the country.

"Protection, if not the sole, is the chief end of government. It is for the governing power to judge, in every instance, what kind and what degree of protection is needful – whether a navy to guard our commerce all around the world, or an army to defend the country against armed invasion from without, or domestic insurrection from within; or a tariff to protect our home industry against the dangerous obtrusion of foreign labor and capital."

As to our foreign policy generally, he says he is willing to leave it where Washington placed it, on the sage maxim, "Peace with all nations; entangling alliances with none." The greedy appetite for foreign acquisition which makes us covet our neighbor's lands, and devise cunning schemes to get them, has little of his sympathy. He argues this point briefly, but forcibly, opposing the acquisition of Cuba, and the other islands and Central American countries which would then be demanded. As to buying them, we had better wait till we cease borrowing money to pay current expenses; and before conquering, pause and estimate the cost of rushing into war with all maritime Europe, and half of America. Cuba has much more to fear from us than we have to fear from Cuba. Mr. Bates continues:

"But suppose we could get, honestly and peaceably, the whole country, continental and insular, from the Rio Grande to the Orinoco, and from Trinidad to Cuba, and thus establish our mare clausum, and shut the gate of the world across the Isthmus, can we govern them wisely and well? For the last few years, in the attempt to govern our home territories of Kansas and Utah, we have not very well maintained the dignity and justice of the nation, nor secured the peace and prosperity of the subject people…

"For my part, I should grieve to have my country become, like Rome, a conquering and dominant nation; for I think there are few or no examples in history, of governments whose chief objects were glory and power, which did ever secure the happiness and prosperity of their own people. Such governments may grow great and famous, and advance a few of their citizens to wealth and nobility, but the price of their grandeur is the personal independence and individual freedom of their people. Still less am I inclined to see absorbed into our system, "on an equal footing with the original States," the various and mixed races (amounting to I know not how many millions) which inhabit the continent and isthmus south of our present border. I am not willing to inoculate our body politic with the virus of their diseases, political and social – diseases which, with them, are chronic and hereditary, and with us could hardly fail to produce corruption in the mind and weakness in the members."

The letter concludes as follows:

"It seems to me that an efficient, home-loving government, moderate and economical in its administration, peaceful in its objects, and just to all nations, need have no fear of invasion at home, or serious aggressions abroad. The nations of Europe have to stand continually in defence of their existence, but the conquest of our country by a foreign power is simply impossible, and no nation is so absurd as to entertain the thought. We may conquer ourselves by local strifes and sectional animosities, and when, by our folly and wickedness, we have accomplished that great calamity, there will be none to pity us for the consequences of so great a crime.

"If our government would devote all its energies to the promotion of peace and friendship with all foreign countries; the advancement of commerce; the increase of agriculture; the growth and stability of manufactures, and the cheapening, quickening, and securing the internal trade and travel of our country; in short, if it would devote itself in earnest to the establishment of a wise and steady policy of internal government, I think we should witness a growth and consolidation of wealth and comfort, and power for good, which cannot be reasonably hoped for from a fluctuating policy, always watching for the turns of good fortune, or from a grasping ambition to seize new territories, which are hard to get and harder to govern.

"The present position of the administration is a sorrowful commentary upon the broad democracy of its professions. In theory, the people have the right and ability to do anything – in practice, we are verging rapidly to the one man power.

"The President, the ostensible head of the national Democrats, is eagerly striving to concentrate power in his own hands, and thus exclude both the people and their representatives from the actual affairs of government. Having emptied the treasury, which he found full, and living precariously upon the borrowed money, he now demands of Congress to intrust to his unchecked discretion the war power, the purse, and the sword.

"First, he asks Congress to authorize him, by statute, to use the army to take military possession of northern Mexico, and hold it under his protectorate, and as a security for debts due to our citizens. Civil possession would not answer, for that exposes him, as in the case of Kansas, to be annoyed by a factious Congress, and a rebellious territorial legislature.

"Second, not content with this, he demands discretionary power to use the army and navy in the South also, in blockading the coast and marching his troops into the interior of Mexico and New Granada, to protect our citizens against all evil doers along the transit route of Tehuantepec and Panama, and he and his supporters claim this enormous power upon the ground that, in this particular at least, he ought to be the equal of the greatest monarch of Europe. They forget that our fathers limited the power of the President by design, and for the reason that they had found out, by sad experience, that the monarchs of Europe were too strong for freedom.

"Third, in strict pursuance of his doctrine, first publicly announced from Ostend, he demands of Congress to hand over to him thirty millions of dollars, to be used at his discretion, to facilitate his acquisition of Cuba. Facilitate – how? Perhaps it would be imprudent to tell.

"Add to all this the fact (as yet unexplained) that one of the largest naval armaments which sailed from our coasts is now operating in South America, ostensibly against a poor little republic far up the Plata River, to settle some little quarrel between the two Presidents. If Congress had been polite enough to grant the President's demand of the sword and the purse against Mexico, Central America and Cuba, this navy, its duty done at the South, might be made, on its way home, to arrive in the Gulf very opportunely, to aid the 'Commander-in-Chief' in the acquisition of some very valuable territory.

"I allude to these facts with no malice against Mr. Buchanan, but as evidences of the dangerous change which is now obviously sought to be made in the practical working of the Government – the concentration of power in the hands of the President – and the dangerous policy, now almost established, of looking abroad for temporary glory and aggrandizement, instead of looking at home for all the purposes of good government – peaceable, moderate, economical – protecting all interests, and by a fixed policy calling into safe exercise all the talents and industry of our people, and thus steadily advancing our country in everything which can make a nation great, happy, and permanent.

"The rapid increase of the public expenditures (and that, too, under the management of statesmen professing to be peculiarly economical) is an alarming sign of corruption and decay.

"The increase bears no fair proportion to the growth and expansion of the country, but looks rather like wanton waste and criminal negligence. The ordinary objects are not materially augmented – the army and navy remained on a low peace establishment – the military defences are little, if at all enlarged – the improvement of harbors, lakes and rivers is abandoned, and the Pacific railway is not only not begun, but its very location is scrambled for by hungry sections, which succeed in nothing but mutual defeat. In short, the money, to an enormous amount (I am told at the rate of from eighty to one hundred millions a year), is gone, and we have little or nothing to show for it.

"In profound peace with foreign nations, and surrounded by the proofs of national growth and individual prosperity, the treasury, by less than two years of mismanagement, is made bankrupt, and the government itself is living from hand to mouth on bills of credit and borrowed money! This humiliating state of things could hardly happen, if the men in power were both honest and wise. The democratic economists in Congress confess that they have recklessly wasted the public revenue; they confess it by refusing to raise the tariff to meet the present exigency, and by insisting that they can replenish the exhausted treasury and support the government, in credit and efficiency, by simply striking off their former extravagances.

"An illustrious predecessor of the President is reported to have declared 'that those who live on borrowed money ought to break.' I do not concur in that harsh saying; yet I am clearly of the opinion that the government, in common prudence (to say nothing of pride and dignity), ought to reserve its credit for great transactions and unforeseen emergencies. In common times of peace, it ought always to have an established revenue, equal, at least, to its current expenses. And that revenue ought to be so levied as to foster and protect the industry of the country, employed in our most necessary and important manufactures."

DANIEL S. DICKINSON

Daniel Stevens Dickinson was born at Goshen, Litchfield County, Conn., Sept. 11, 1800.

His father, Daniel T. Dickinson, was a farmer, an intelligent, upright man, who through life was devoted to his calling as the most honorable and useful, and left an unsullied name.

In 1806, the family removed to what is now Guilford, Chenango County, New York, where Daniel S. Dickinson spent his boyhood, mostly on the farm, in the usual occupations of a farmer's boy.

His education, as far as public advantages were concerned, was limited to the common schools of the country; but with a spirit of self-reliance, untiring industry and an ardent desire for knowledge and advancement, he availed himself of such private facilities as he could command or devise, and persevering in a plan of self-education systematically, with a fine literary taste and extensive reading and study, he early became a thorough English scholar, well versed in the classics and familiar with general literature.

Between 1816 and 1820, he learned, and worked as apprentice and journeyman at, a mechanic's trade. In 1820, he commenced teaching and was successfully engaged in it considerably up to 1825, both in the common and in academical or select schools.

About 1820, he learned, without a teacher, the art of land surveying, in which he became expert, and practised somewhat extensively until 1828. During a portion of the time, while teaching and surveying, he was also engaged in the study of the law. He married, in 1822, Lydia Knapp, daughter of the late Colby Knapp, M.D., an early settler of Guilford, a prominent member of the medical profession, and extensively identified with the early history of the town and county. They have had four children, only two of whom, the youngest – daughters – are living. In 1828, he was admitted to the practice of the law, and opened an office at Guilford, where he remained in practice until 1831.

In December, 1831, he removed to Binghamton, the county seat of Broome County, New York, where he has ever since resided. He immediately entered upon an extensive legal practice, and soon took rank among the ablest lawyers of the State. He was made the first President of Binghamton, on its municipal organization in 1834. Was a member of the Baltimore Convention which nominated Van Buren and Johnson, in 1835. Was elected to the State Senate in the fall of 1836; took his seat 1st January, 1837, and served for four years as a senator and member of the Court for the Correction of Errors, in both of which capacities, as a debater, legislator and jurist, he maintained a prominent rank. His review in the Senate of the message of Governor Seward established him at once as a leader of his party, and is still referred to among politicians as exhibiting both the tact and power which afterward so strongly marked his public career. His opinions delivered in the Court of Errors are models of conciseness and force, and temper in just proportion the technicalities of law with the deductions of sound reason and strong common sense.

His term in the State Senate expired Dec. 31, 1840. At the election in 1840, he was a candidate for the office of Lieut. Governor, at the time Mr. Van Buren ran the second time for President, and was defeated, though he received 5,000 more votes than Mr. Van Buren.

In 1842, finding that his name was being used again in connection with the office of Lieut. Governor, he declined the nomination in advance of the meeting of the convention, but was nevertheless nominated unanimously and by acclamation, and compelled by circumstances to accept, and was elected by 25,000 majority. The office of Lieut. Governor made him President of the Senate, Presiding Judge of the Court for the Correction of Errors, member of the Canal Board, Regent of the University, etc., etc. His term of office expired Dec. 31, 1844, and he declined a reëlection. It was held during a somewhat stormy period in the history of the State, but was so discharged as to add to his reputation with the people and his standing with the Democratic party. As the presiding officer of the Senate, in particular, he showed a decision, firmness and dignity of character which elicited the admiration and approval of opponents as well as friends.

At the election in 1844, he opened the Presidential campaign in New York on the annexation of Texas, which he warmly advocated against the opinion of many leading Democrats. He spent the whole campaign upon the stump; was one of the Democratic State electors, and united in casting the vote of the State for Polk and Dallas. About the 1st of December, 1844, he was appointed by Governor Bouck United State senator in place of N. P. Tallmadge, resigned, and immediately proceeded to Washington and took his seat as such. Governor Tallmadge's term expired on the 4th of March, 1845. On the meeting of the Legislature in January, 1845, he was elected for the unexpired term of Governor Tallmadge, and subsequently for the regular term of six years, from 4th March, 1845; during which term he remained in the Senate, closing his public service 4th March, 1851. For a number of years he was Chairman of the Committee of Finance in the Senate, but declined it, and all committee service, the last short session of the term.

He was a member of the committee to bear the remains of Mr. Calhoun to his native State, and discharged the duty with the almost filial regard he felt for the great man who had been called away from the field of his public labors. This is the only time he ever visited the South; but, though necessarily a hasty trip, he received many tokens of public and private appreciation.

In 1847, he introduced into the Senate, and advocated in an able speech, his celebrated resolution on the acquisition and annexation of territory, and asserting, in opposition to the doctrines of the Wilmot Proviso, the principles of "popular sovereignty," which formed the basis of the adjustment of 1850, and has since been so fully approved by the people.

He opposed the Oregon Treaty, which surrendered several degrees of American territory to Great Britain.