'LUmI'^. $pes/o^.,. rAarc/^\^, K(oO. 
 
f^^ ^^ 
 
 Glass Zjjih^ 
 Book^K^S- 
 
I 
 
 THE INCIDENTS OF THE LECOMPTON STRUGGLE IN CONGRESS 
 AND THE CAMPAIGN OF 1868 IN ILLINOIS. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 ,rr 
 
 OP 
 
 HON. WILLIAM KELLOGG, OF ILLINOIS. 
 
 Delivered in the House of Representatives, March 13, 1S60. 
 
 The House being in the Committee of the 
 Whole on the state of the Union — 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois, said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman : At an early day in this ses- 
 sion of Congress, I felt it my duty to reply to 
 what I deemed a violent and gross attack upon 
 me by the editor of the New York Tribune. 
 During my remarks, I mentioned, in connec- 
 tion with Mr. Greeley, the editor of that paper, 
 the name of Judge Douglas, placing them, as 
 it was claimed, by inference, in political con- 
 nection. My object then was only to rebuke 
 Mr. Greeley for his assault upon me, and to 
 place him in what I esteemed his true position 
 before the country, in relation to, and connec- 
 tion with, the political campaign in Illinois in 
 1858. 
 
 [Mr. CovoDE being about to leave the Hall, 
 Mr. Kellogu said : I hope my friend from 
 Pennsylvania will not leave the Hall, as I shall 
 refer to him during my remarks, and direct his 
 attention to some points that I shall suggest, 
 and ask of him a statement in relation thereto.] 
 
 This object alone induced the charge I made 
 in my former remarks. In those remarks I 
 made this statement : 
 
 "That Mr. Greeley was, again and again, 
 ■ * with others, in consultation in the parlor of 
 
 * Judge Douglas, planning and scheming the 
 
 * election of Judge Douglas to the Senate of 
 ' the United States from the State of Illinois." 
 
 That is the language of my proposition, after 
 I had been requested to restate it in definite 
 language. This langriage is plain, and lieyond 
 controversy as to its construction. I have 
 sought the floor on this occasion for the pur- 
 pose of making good that statement ; I have 
 sought it for the purpose of presenting such 
 proofs and arguments as I may, to sustain the 
 
 promise that I made on the second day after 
 that, that I would present my proofs in due and 
 proper time after the House should be organized. 
 Mr. Chairman, I am anxious to deal fairly 
 in this matter, and to give this assertion of 
 mine its full, proper, and just scope and con- 
 struction. I wish to take nothing by narrow- 
 ing down this issue. I wish to state it clearly, 
 to meet it fairly ; and I propose to do it now. 
 The proposition I made was, substantially, that 
 there was a disposition upon the part of Greeley 
 and other Republicans to secure the election of 
 Judge Douglas to the Senate of the United 
 States ; and my colleagues on the other side of 
 this House, I understand, hold that, by implica- 
 tion and fair construction. Judge Douglas was 
 charged as assenting thereto, by reason of the 
 allegation that the conferences were held in his 
 house. Now, that is as full and fair a state- 
 ment of the case as my colleagues or any other 
 gentleman can ask me to make. In other 
 words, I assumed that there was an attempted 
 coalition between Greeley, other Republicans, 
 and Judge Douglas, to secure his [Douglas's] 
 re-election to the Senate. I was surprised, i 
 confess, that the friends of Judge Douglas 
 should have taken the alarm ; and that they 
 should have thought it necessary to take upon 
 themselves the defence of Mr. Greeley ; and I 
 was astonished when .ludge Douglas sent his 
 letter here, denying the statement that I had 
 made, unless they considered that any connec- 
 tion with Mr. Greeley was so infamous as to 
 require of him at once to repel an imputation 
 so foul, and therefore deny the intimation that 
 Greeley could have been working to secure his 
 [Douglas's] re-election. But now, sir, to the 
 proofs. 
 
 With a view to a full and proper understand- 
 
ing of this matter, and in order that we may 
 not be deceived in relation to our deductions 
 and conclusions, it is important that we should 
 appreciate the exact position of Judge Douglas 
 at that time, as well as the position of" those 
 whom I charge were confederating with him. 
 I assume, then, sir, that Judge Douglas, during 
 that winter, was a candidate for United States 
 Senator from the State of Illinois. I propose to 
 show that he was known to be a candidate for 
 the Senate of the United States during the ses- 
 sion of Congress in which the Lecompton Con- 
 stitution was discussed. The proof I shall pre- 
 sent of that fact will be drawn from the records 
 of this House, as they are found compiled in 
 the Congressional Globe. And I desire to say 
 that, in reading extracts from the speeches of 
 the honorable member from Virginia, [Mr. 
 Smith,] and the honorable member from Ken- 
 tucky, [Mr. BuRXETT,] I have only in view the 
 establishing of the fact that Judge Douglas 
 was known to be a candidate for the Senate of 
 the United States. His term in that body was 
 then about expiring ; and, further, when these 
 conferences and political meetings were held, it 
 was known on the part of Republicans that he 
 was a candidate, and that he was doubly anxious 
 for a re-election, because of the peculiar relation 
 he then held to the Democratic party. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I re.ad from the Congressional 
 Globe of March, 1858. Mr. Smith, of Virginia, 
 
 
 " I stated on that occasion, and my purpose 
 ' is to repeat with, if possible,' more distinctness 
 
 * than then, that after this Congress had com 
 ' menced its session — I do not recollect the 
 ' exact time — in a free conversation on public 
 ' questions with the honorable gentleman from 
 ' Illinois, be stated to me distinctly, explicitly, 
 ' and precisely, according to my present recol- 
 
 * lection and my past recollection, that the Illi- 
 
 * nois delegation held a conference as to the 
 ' policy that a distinguished Senator — Judge 
 ' Douglas — should pursue on this Lecompton 
 
 * question, with a view to securing his re-elec- 
 
 * tion to the Senate of the United States, and 
 
 * that the one he has pursued is the only course 
 ' by which he could hope to effect it. I have 
 
 * said this ia private conversation on various 
 ' occasions. It was the result of a very distinct 
 
 * recollection. I stated this yesterday ; and 1 
 
 * repeat it to day as my recollection — a recol- 
 ' lection clear, distinct, and emphatic." 
 
 The gentleman referred to was Mr. Morris, 
 of Illinois, as reported in the Globe. Again, 
 sir, I read from the remarks made on the same 
 day by Mr. Bur.vett, of Kentucky. He said: 
 
 "He commenced by speaking of the position 
 ' which had been taken by the distinguished 
 ' Senator from Illinois, and by his colleagues 
 
 * in this House, upon the Kansas question. I 
 
 * understood him distinctly to say that, upon a 
 
 * conference of the friends of Judge Douglas, 
 
 * (the friends from Illinois,) it had been agreed 
 
 * that he should take the course he has pursued 
 
 * in reference to the Kansas question, as the 
 ' only means by which he could sustain himself 
 ' at home. That unless ho did take that course, 
 ' he would not only inevitably suffer defeat at 
 
 * home himself, but his friends would fall with 
 ' him." 
 
 Mr. LOGAN. Will the gentleman allow 
 me? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I will yield for 
 a question. 
 
 Mr. LOGAN. Do you not know that that 
 statement was denied upon this floor by Mr. 
 Morris, of Illinois, and by Judge Marshall, 
 who represented the district I now represent ? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. When inter- 
 rupted, I was just about making that statement. 
 
 Mr. LOGAN. I want to say, further, that. I 
 do not care who. made the statement that there 
 was ever a conference of the Illinois delegation 
 in reference to the course of action by Judge 
 Douglas on the Lecompton question, at any 
 time — I, of course, know nothing of the matter 
 myself, not being here — it was denied here 
 upon this floor; and I am satisfied that it was 
 utterly untrue and false. I will state that I 
 knew the course Judge Douglas would take, 
 long previous to his coming to the Senate. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. The gentleman 
 must excuse me, but I cannot yield any more of 
 my time. That is not the point I am making. 
 
 Mr. LOGAN. I only want to get in here 
 that, so far as any understanding of that kind 
 is concerned, it is wholly untrue ; I do not care 
 who made the statement. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. When my col- 
 league interrupted me, I was about to make a 
 statement as to the matter to which he has re- 
 ferred. I have no disposition to enter into any 
 difficulty which has arisen, or may arise, be- 
 tween the gentleman from Kentucky, the gen- 
 tleman from Virginia, and my colleagues. I 
 was in the House at the time, and heard all 
 that transpired. I know that Mr. Morris, of 
 Illinois, and his Democratic colleagues, did 
 deny that there had been any conference ; 
 whereupon the statement I have read was 
 made. Mr. Morris, of Illinois, denied it in 
 emphatic terms. Mr. Smith, of Virginia, made 
 his statement; and Mr. Burnett, of Kentucky, 
 made his, in corroboration of it. 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, it is immaterial to my 
 purpose, I make no issue on that point. I 
 have read these extracts for the sole object of 
 showing that Judge Douglas was a candidate, 
 and known to be a candidate, for the Senate of 
 the United States. That proposition I have 
 never heard denied. It was not denied then, 
 and I presume that it will not be denied now. 
 I wish to make these propositions fairly, and 
 there is no desire on my part to bring up mat- 
 ters outside of this case. 1 only feel called upon 
 to vindicate my own position. 
 
 Now, sir, having thus shown that Judge 
 Douglas was a candidate for the Senate, I pro- 
 pose to shuw that there were conferences at his 
 
 fixer P'^?® 
 
 West. Ees.Hto». SOP: 
 
house. I do not, however, esteem it important 
 to the discussion of this question, whether they 
 were at his house or not ; for, sir, I think this 
 will make no difference as to the fact, whether, 
 if any coalition took place, it v/as made at a 
 hotel, in his own house, in his library, or upon 
 the street corners. The point here is: Did Re- 
 publicans seek to make a coalition with Judge 
 Douglas? That is the point I am after. T 
 will now attempt to prove it, aud to show that 
 Judge Douglas was a party to that attempted 
 coalition. 
 
 The first evidence I bring in proof that there 
 were political conferences at the house of Judge 
 Douglas is the letter that my colleague [Mr. 
 Morris] procured to be read at the Clerk's 
 desk, and which is now a part of the record of 
 the country. It is the letter Mr. Greeley ad- 
 dressed to me. It seems that I had brought 
 down upon me the anathema of Horace Greeley, 
 of the New York Tribune, for an act of mine 
 during this Congress, and one which I believed 
 I had the right, aud it was my duty, to per- 
 form. 
 
 Mr. CLARK, of Missouri. Will the gentle- 
 men permit me to interrupt him ? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I would rather 
 not. I have hardly time enough to say all that 
 I desire to. 
 
 Mr. CLARK, of Missouri. I wish only to 
 suggest, that if the gentleman will consent, I 
 will move that the Committee rise, in order 
 that he may go on with his remarks to-morrow. 
 [Cries of" No!" ''No! "J 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I will go on 
 with my remarks as far as I can this evening. 
 I am much obliged to the gentleman from 
 Missouri for his kindness. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, before I refer to this letter, 
 however, I wish to say, that in that long letter, 
 addressed to me, there was much which I 
 esteem scurrilous, unbecoming the pen or 
 tongue of a gentleman of his position. I pass 
 over that, because it refers solely to myself and 
 to my constituents, and that matter I will not 
 bring before this House. I will settle that 
 with my conotituftuts ; they will scrutinize my 
 conduct. And let me here say, that if I have 
 not a securer lodgment in the hearts of my 
 constituents than has Mr. Horace Greeley, 1 
 will not ask to come back to Congress again. 
 I read from his letter : 
 
 " Senator Douglas and I have been ac- 
 quaintances for ten years or more, during 
 which time each has given^ind taken hard 
 blows, but I trust no foul ones. I am willing 
 to call the account balanced, if he is. Once 
 only in our lives did we agree on a political 
 question— that of resisting the attempt to force 
 an abhorred Constitution on the people of 
 Kansas. During the struggle on that point, 
 I was called to Washington, and went to his 
 house, where we had two conversations on 
 pending political topics. There was at least 
 one witness in each instance, and that witness 
 
 ' is now a Republican member of the House. 
 
 * Never before nor since have Mr. Douglas 
 ' and I conversed on politics, save as opponents ; 
 ' and on that occasion I am glad to have a 
 ' witness to confirm my own clear recollection 
 ' that Mr. Douglas's re-election to the Senate, 
 ' or his future election to any post whatever, 
 ' was not even mentioned. And never did any 
 ' letter, message, or word, pass between us, 
 
 * implying a desire on his part that I should, 
 ' or a promise on mine that I would, support 
 ' him, at any time, for any office whatever. 
 ' And whoever has at any time reported to you 
 ' aught inconsistent with this, must have drawn 
 ' on his imagination for his facts, or be labor- 
 
 * ing under the grossest misapprehension. 
 
 "Mr. Kellogg, there is just one remaining 
 ' tie of sympathy between Senator Douglas 
 ' aud myself, now that the old relations of po- 
 ' litical antagonism between us are completely 
 ' re established. I detest his doctrines, but I 
 ' like his pluck. Had he signed, ever so heed- 
 ' lessly, a circular recommending Tom Paine's 
 ' Age of Reason, you would never have found 
 ' him prevaricating, nor apologizing, nor dep- 
 'recating; he would have simply and coolly 
 ' told his adversaries to make the most of it. 
 ' Oh that some Republicans could be not mere- 
 ' ly almost, but altogether, such as he is in this 
 ' respect, however unlike in every other ! 
 
 "Horace Greeley." 
 
 Mr. Chairman, this declaration of Horace 
 Greeley has additional force, from the fact that 
 my colleague [Mr. Morris] has placed it upon 
 the records as evidence against me, and there- 
 fore he is estopped from denying all it proves. 
 What does it prove ? It establishes the fact, 
 by irresistible inference, that Judge Douglas, 
 known to be a candidate for the United States 
 Senate, and known to be at that time in oppo- 
 sition to a large portion of the Democratic 
 party, induced Mr. Greeley to come to Wash- 
 ington for the purpose of political consultation ; 
 aud that he went to the house of the Senator, 
 upon two several occasions, upon such missions. 
 I ask you if there was no meeting at his house 
 for the purpose of political consultation? If 
 there was not, then this letter does not speak 
 the truth. And now, sir, let auy honest man 
 answer to himself, who called Greeley to Wash- 
 ington ; and why, immediately after his arrival, 
 he went to the house of Judge Douglas, and 
 did not find his ultimate destination upou that 
 mission of coalition until he reached the Sen- 
 ator's parlor ? and he will answer to his own 
 heart that it was as I have indicated. Twice 
 was he there in political consultation with Mr. 
 Dougla.s. 
 
 Mr. LARRABEE. I would ask the gentle- 
 man if he thinks Brigham Young sent for 
 Horace Greeley to come to his home when he 
 went there ? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. The gentleman 
 seems troubled. I tell him this is but a drop 
 in the bucket. 
 
Mr. LARRABEE. Let us have the balance. 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. This is but one 
 link in the chain ot'evidence which I have to of- 
 fer. It is said in this letter that there were more 
 in that confereuce— at least one Republican 
 member of Congress, and by fair intendment 
 more ; it was more than a meeting of Douglas 
 and Greeley upon each of those occasions. 
 Who were they ? Let him who knows best an- 
 swer. Let Judge Douglas tell you how many 
 Republicans were there. I have shown, by 
 their own evidence, that there were two more,' 
 and, by fair inference, more ; but who they were 
 does not appear. It is true that Greeley says 
 that he never promised to support Douglas. I 
 never said he did. But I do say they were pre- 
 paring for that result, and paving the way that 
 led to his willing and hearty support. What 
 was the object and motive of this meeting, if 
 not for the purpose I have stated? No other 
 rational solution of the matter can be given. 
 It was a conference upon political subjects, and 
 Lad no other significance. I do not propose to 
 say that I can prove that there was a direct 
 pledge ; they know each other too well, perhaps, 
 for that. Perhaps Greeley never said to Doug- 
 las, " I will support you." Perhaps Douglas 
 never said to Greeley, " you must aid me in 
 my election." But tljey were in political con- 
 ference, Judge Douglas being a candidate for 
 re-election. And now, having proved that there 
 was a meeting there upon that subject, I shall 
 prove, by the fruits of that meeting, its real 
 motives— it always being a safe rule to judge 
 a tree by its fruits— and that the immediate ob- 
 ject was to find out the exact status cf Mr._ 
 Douglas on the exciting political questions of 
 the day, which he was willing to disclose,^ as 
 ■will hereafter appear, that their future action 
 might be with reference to it. 
 
 Mr, COLFAX. The gentleman from Illinois 
 [Mr. Kellogg] asks who were the Republicans 
 present. Does he want an answer to that ques- 
 tion? ^, , 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. If the gentle- 
 man desires to tell, and will tell all, I will give 
 
 ■way. 
 
 Several Members. Let him tell. 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. This is getting 
 a little interesting now, and I want it set right. 
 If the gentleman will state, as I will ask him 
 to state, all that transpired between him- 
 self and Judge Doucilas, in relation to the 
 coalition with the Republicans in the State of 
 Illinois and in the State of Missouri, I will 
 yield to him. 
 
 Mr. COLFAX. The gentleman from Illinois 
 was speaking in relation to one point. He 
 wished to know what Republican members were 
 present. He says he desires me to state, if I 
 will state everything that transpired between 
 Judge Douglas and myself. I must be per- 
 mitted to be the judge of what I shall state, 
 and what I shall not state. If the gentleman 
 desires to know anything in reference to this 
 
 interview, I feel myself at liberty to allude to 
 the matter, as both the gentlemen concerned 
 in the interview have referred to me as wit- 
 ness ; but my own self respect must be the 
 judge as to what I shall say in regard to other 
 parties and other matters. If the gentleman 
 desires to hear me, I will state what I have to 
 say very frankly ; if not, I will refrain. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. Mr. Chair- 
 man 
 
 Mr. McCLERNAND. The gentleman from 
 Indiana has been challenged to make a state- 
 ment, and I hope he will be permitted to pro- 
 ceed. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. Who challenged 
 him? 
 
 Mr. McCLERNAND. Do not shrink. 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I do not shrink. 
 I have not called upon the witness; but now I 
 insist that he shall answer. And I insist that 
 he shall answer, not only in reference to that 
 part of the subject to which I have alluded, but 
 in reference also to a conference between him- 
 self and Judge Douglas, in reference to Mr. 
 Blair being returned to the Senate from the 
 State of Missouri as a Republican. Let the 
 gentleman make a clean breast of it. 
 
 Mr. COLFAX. I will state that there were 
 two members of Congress present at that inter- 
 view between Judge Douglas and Mr. Greeley. 
 Those two gentlemen were Mr. Clark B. Coch- 
 rane, of New York, and myself. Mr. Greeley 
 was in this city on business. What called him 
 here I do not now remember. Mr. Cochrane, 
 I think, suggested that Mr. Greeley should call 
 upon Judge Douglas. The interviews were not 
 very long, and they were not private — that is to 
 say, nothing was said which could not have 
 been said publicly upon the streets. I have 
 taxed my memory to recall all that was said, 
 and think I can state it fully. 
 
 Both of those gentlemen — Judge Douglas 
 and Mr. Greeley — have referred to me as proof 
 of what transpired, or I should not here, or any- 
 where else, on the demand of any person, have 
 spoken in regard to them. 
 
 There was nothing said about the Senatorial 
 election in Illinois, to the best of my knowledge, 
 recollection, or belief. I am positive that the 
 Senatorial election was not referred to. The 
 only subject of a political character referred to 
 was the Lecompton Constitution, which was 
 then pending before Congress ; the necessity of 
 its rejection, and the means by which its suc-^ 
 cess could be averted. They were talked of 
 frankly and freely. Nothing was then said by 
 Judge Dou(a,AS which he had not before said 
 pubficly. He is politically hostile to me, and I 
 desire to see him, if a nominee for the Presi- 
 dency, defeated. But I bear this testimony be- 
 cause it is due to him. 
 
 There was one other subject discussed. 
 That was, the rise of property in Chicago, 
 which, I suppose, has nothing to do with this 
 matter. 
 
Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I wish to ask 
 the gentleman from Indiana if, in that confer- 
 ence, the position of Judge Douglas upon the 
 slavery question was not discussed ? 
 
 Mr. COLFAX. It was not ; except that he 
 said he intended to resist the Lecompton Con- 
 stitution to the bitter end, regardless of the re- 
 sults to himself. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I ask if his 
 position upon the slavery question was not dis- 
 cussed ? 
 
 Mr. COLFAX. It was not, to my recollec- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. Now, I want to 
 know if Judge Douglas and yourself did not 
 have a conference, or if you were not the bearer 
 of dispatches to Mr. Blair, in reference to his 
 election fi-om the State of Missouri to the United 
 fc'tates Senate. 
 
 Mr. COLFAX. After the canvass which re- 
 sulted in my election to this Congress, in Octo- 
 ber, 1838, had closed, I went over into Illinois 
 to make ten or a dozen speeches against Judge 
 Douglas's election to the United States Sen- 
 ate. In going to the different places appointed 
 for me to speak by the Republican State Cen- 
 tral Committee, the Buchanan men, at nearly 
 every one of those places, sent to me written 
 questions, asking me if I had not been the 
 bearer of a letter from Judge Douglas to Mr. 
 Blair, ia relation to the Senatorial election in 
 Missouri ; and asking me to answer them while 
 on the stand. To those questions, I responded 
 publicly at two or three places — at Decatur, 
 Jacksonville, &c. — what I respond here : that 
 whatever conversations were had between Judge 
 Douglas and myself, during the exciting Le- 
 compton controversy, were had in his own pri- 
 vate house, under his own roof; and my own 
 self-respect forbids my alluding to them, or 
 giving any evidence in regard to them, except 
 at his demand. 
 
 I state, further, that if there was any confer- 
 ence between Mr. Blair, of Missouri, and Judge 
 Douglas, Mr. Blair is in this city. He was a 
 member of the last Congress, and occupied a 
 seat here the whole of last winter, after this 
 alleged interview had transpired ; and it would 
 have been better to call upon him, as a mem- 
 ber and as a principal in this matter, to give 
 his evidence, than to call on me. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I wonder, now, 
 if that is satisfactory to my friends on the other 
 side ? 
 
 Mr. CLARK, of Missouri. I would like to 
 ask the gentleman from Indiana a question. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. If it does not 
 come out of my time, I have no objection. 
 
 Mr. CLARK, of Missouri. I desire to ask 
 the gentleman from Indiana if there was a con- 
 ference between Judge Douglas and himself 
 in relation to the Senatorial election in Missou- 
 ri ? I do not ask him what it was, but simply 
 if there was such a conference ? 
 
 Mr. COLFAX. We never had any confer- 
 
 ence in reference to the Senatorial election In 
 Missouri. I answer the gentleman's question 
 exactly as he stated it. If there was any con- 
 ference between Judge Douglas and Mr. Blair, 
 in reference to that matter, they are of age, and 
 let them speak for themselves. 
 
 Mr. CLARK, of Missouri. Did Judge Doug- 
 las and Mr. Blair ever have a conference in 
 your presence upon that subject ? 
 
 Mr. COLFAX. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I will ask the 
 gentleman if he carried a message from Judge 
 Douglas to Mr. Blair, asking for a conference 
 upon that subject? 
 
 Mr. COLFAX. I state to the gentleman, if 
 my self-respect in Illinois, and my opinion as to 
 the rule which should govern the intercourse 
 between gentlemen, made me refuse to answer 
 questions upon that subject, when I earnestly 
 desired to defeat Judge Douglas's election, 
 then pending, I certainly should not now, two 
 years after that, have a different standard of 
 action. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of ininois. It is due to 
 myself to say that I did not provoke these ques- 
 tions and answers. The gentleman [Mr. Col- 
 fax] has seen fit voluntarily to come forward 
 and to take up the cause of Judge Douglas in 
 relation to this charge (Tf a concerted political 
 conference between Douglas and Greeley. 
 This he has seen fit to do with regard to the 
 conference, but he has, at the same time, re- 
 fused to give us an account of the other con- 
 versation between Judge Douglas and him- 
 self. I appeal to him in the hope of developing 
 the truth. I appeal to him to add strength to 
 the proofs I subm.it to the country, so as to let 
 the people know the political position occupied 
 by the prominent men of the country ; and, 
 strange as it may appear, he allows his self- 
 respect to overshadow him like a cloud, and 
 there he sits mum before me. [Loud laugh- j 
 ter.J I am unable to appreciate the gentle- 
 man's great delicacy in this case, unless the 
 disclosures might compromise his confidential 
 adviser. Judge Douglas. 
 
 Mr. COLFAX. I did so in this case only be- 
 cause I had been appealed to by both parties 
 as a witness. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I leave that, 
 sir. I have demonstrated this fact : that Judge 
 Douglas and Greeley, by some strange fatal- 
 ity, came together, and my friend from Indiana 
 with them. Greeley came from New York on 
 a call, and he landed at the house of Judge 
 Douglas, taking his friends with him, one on 
 each side. Gentlemen who play euchre, per- 
 haps, would call them the '' right and left bow- 
 ers." [Laughter.] I do not know that that is 
 exactly the term. 
 
 A Mkmher. No — a "bully and bragger." 
 [Renewed laughter.] 
 
 • Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I never saw 
 such ignorance of terms before as there is all 
 
6 
 
 around me here. They are as ignorant as I 
 am myself on such subjects. [Laughter.] 
 
 I have established the fact that there were 
 political conferences and political advising. 
 But it is suggested that it was in relation to 
 the Lecompton measure only. Now, I ask you, 
 sir, and every honest man, what did Judge 
 Douglas expect to get from fhe Republicans 
 in that struggle by those consultations ? Every 
 man of the Republican party was pledged 
 against that measure from the moment we sot 
 our feet in the city of Washington ; and never, 
 until the struggle was over, was there falter- 
 ing, or the intimation that one Republican 
 would falter. I ask, then, for what purpose 
 Greeley was brought to the aid of Judge Doug- 
 las ? I hope some one will answer, who can 
 tell how we were to strengthen Judge Doug- 
 las's hands. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, what could Greeley do to aid 
 in getting Democratic votes ? What agencies 
 had he, that would bring strength from the De- 
 mocracy to Judge Douglas in his position ? 
 In the House they had taken their position ; 
 and you and I, sir, know it, [addressing the 
 gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Davis.] I ask, 
 could Greeley influence you and your friends 
 to go more strongly with Judge Douglas on 
 that question than before ? No ; you answer 
 no. Then it was not to strengtheji your back 
 or stiffen up your purpose. For whom, then, 
 was it? In the Senate, the noble and gallant 
 Broderick on the one hand, and the Senator 
 from the State of Michigan [Mr. Stuart] upon 
 the other, had also, before that, taken their po- 
 sition. What could Greeley do in that confer- 
 ence or consultation to aid in the defeat of that 
 measure ? Ah I sir, nothing — absolutely noth- 
 ing. Now, there was a reason why they were 
 there ; and, in my judgment, it was this : there 
 was a defection in the Democratic camp, and 
 Judge Douglas had broken away from the 
 regular army, and was engaged in a guerilla 
 warfare on the Administration. What did 
 Greeley and the Republicans most want ? To 
 defeat the Democrats ; to defeat the Adminis- 
 tration. What, in God's name, did Douglas 
 want? Most unquestionably, he wanted to de- 
 feat the Administration, and to thereby sustain 
 himself. He was just slipping out of power; 
 he was just dying out from the Senate; and, 
 unless he could secure a re-election, he was 
 overwhelmed, and would sink out of sight. 
 Hence a Senatorial position was to be regained 
 at any sacrifice and on any terms. The Re- 
 publicans wanted to beat the Democracy ; and 
 many of them were reckless of the means of its 
 accomplishment. Douglas wanted to beat the 
 Administration, and would make any coalition 
 to accomplish it. The status and condition of 
 Judge Douglas was to be considered and un- 
 derstood before it was safe for the Republicans 
 to sustain him. I said a little while ago that I 
 do not suppose ih^y promised. Old politicians 
 make but few positive promises j but when 
 
 Greeley saw the condition of Judge Douglas, 
 and Judge Douglas found the disposition of 
 Greeley, it was a basis on which they could 
 strike out in their future action. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, there is strong evidence of 
 one other meeting ; and now, in order to show 
 that there was a very strange gathering at the 
 Senator's, I will read a quotation from the New 
 York Tribune. That quotation is a dispatch 
 from this city to the New York Tribune, which 
 will be found in a letter to the Washington 
 Union, under date of August 22, 1858. It is 
 as follows: 
 
 " The Republican Senators held a consulfa- 
 ' Hon last night with Senator Douglas, at his 
 ' house, tvhich was satisfactory to both parties." 
 
 Mr. McCLERNAND. Who is the author of 
 that ? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. It is from a 
 letter in the Washington Union, of the date I 
 have indicated, signed " Northwest." I cite it 
 because it is quoted here as a dispatch that ap- 
 peared in the New York Tribune. 
 
 Mr. LOGAN, Will my colleague allow me 
 to ask him who "Northwest " is? Is he any 
 relation to the great Northwest that we hear 
 of — Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio — or what is he? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. That must be 
 about the last interruption I shall get from that 
 quarter, I judge. [Laughter.] I cite this to 
 show that there was a dispatch sent from Wash- 
 ington indicating that there was a consultation 
 of Republican Senators with Judge Douglas, 
 at his own house ; and while it may be news to 
 my Democratic colleagues who are present, 
 there are those who hear me who know that it 
 is a part of the history of those times. Here 
 was a definite charge m'ade in the Washington 
 Union, the authoritative organ of the Demo- 
 cratic party, that there had been a consultation 
 of Republican Senators at the house of Judge 
 Douglas, and that both parties were satisfied 
 therewith. 
 
 Mr. FOUKE. Will my colleague permit me 
 to ask him a question? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. FOUKE. At what date did that consult- 
 ation take place between Judge Douglas and 
 Republican Senators? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. This letter was 
 written, as I have before stated, in August, 
 1858, and it refers to a dispatch, which, it states, 
 had been before that sent to the Tribune. 
 
 Mr. FOUKE. My colleague knows who were 
 the Republican Senators at that day ? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I suppose I do. 
 
 Mr. FOUKE. They are now in the city, 
 most of them, are they not? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I presume so. 
 
 Mr. FOUKE. I would ask my colleague if 
 he has ever tried to get this information from 
 the Republican Senators now in this city. I 
 believe, according to the law, it is always bet- 
 ter to produce the most direct proof of which 
 the case is susceptible, than to go round and 
 
I 
 
 get the declaration of some '' Northwest '' upon 
 the subject. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I am obliged 
 to my other colleague for his most luminous 
 exposition of the law, [Laughter.] Mr. Chair- 
 man, it is true, and many of those who hear 
 me know that it is a part of the history of those 
 times, that these consultations were spoken of 
 publicly in the streets ; that Senators did hold 
 these consultations. I do not know, I have 
 not stopped to inquire, who they were. If gen- 
 tlemen want to find out who these Republican 
 Senators were, let them inquire, and they will 
 find that there was more complicity in this 
 coalition than they now dream of. 
 
 I now propose to read a letter from a gentle- 
 man in Illinois, in relation to these meetings 
 at the Senator's house, and I think it will be 
 admitted as pretty good evidence : 
 
 "Peoria, III., Jan. 6, 1860. 
 " Sir : Your favor of January 2d is received, 
 ' and contents noted. In reply, I would say, 
 
 * that while in Washington last week, I was in- 
 ' formed, by a prominent and responsible Pem- 
 
 * ocrat, who had the means of knowing, that 
 
 * Senator Wilson, and other prominent Repub- 
 ' licans in and out of Congress, during and after 
 
 * the discussion of the Lecompton Constitution 
 
 * in Congress, were frequently in private politi- 
 ' cal consultation at the house of Judge Dodg- 
 ' LAS ; and I do know, that afterwards the New 
 
 * York Tribune did favor the election of Judge 
 
 * Douglas to the United States t^enate ; and 
 ' that extracts from that journal, so favoring 
 ' him, were copied in several of the Democratic 
 ' papers in the State of Illinois during the cam- 
 
 * paign of 1858. 
 
 " I am prepared to give the name of the gen- 
 ' tleman from whom I received the information, 
 ' when it can have any practical good effect. 
 
 " Respectfully, yours, G. W. Raney. 
 
 " To Hon. William Kellogg, 
 
 " Washington, D. C." 
 
 Mr. LOGAN. Will the gentleman inform 
 me who this Mr. Raney is ? 
 
 Mr, KELLOGG, of Illinois. He is the post- 
 master appointed by the President of the Uni- 
 ted States for the city of Peoria. 
 
 Mr. LOGAN. Is he not an enemy of Judge 
 Douglas ? 
 
 Mr. McCLERNAND. I believe in this let- 
 ter the statement is, that he was .so informed. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. Yes, sir; and 
 will give his authorit)-, if necessary. 
 
 Mr. LOGAN. Very good, I have no doubt. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. There is an- 
 other weak fire from a small battery. I hope 
 it will soon be silenced, and then they will all 
 be silenced. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. LOGAN. Go ahead. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. Now, sir, I 
 come to another proposition, which is, the mo- 
 tive of these consultations. Why did Senators 
 
 meet at that house in consultation, and how 
 were both parties satisfied ? 
 
 Mr. LOGAN. Will my colleague allow me 
 to ask him a question? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I cannot yield 
 again. You see my time is passing away, and 
 I shall not be able to get through before my 
 hour will have expired. 
 
 Mr. LOGAN. I simply want to ask my col- 
 league, and I hope it will not be taken out of 
 his time, whether this Mr. Raney, whose letter 
 he has just read, is not a known enemy of 
 Judge Douglas ? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I will state that 
 Mr. Raney is a violent party man. 
 
 Mr. LOGAN. That does not answer the 
 question. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. And I will 
 state that he is a Democrat, and at the head of 
 the Democratic party, as I believe, in the county 
 and city of Peoria. He belongs to that wing of 
 the Democratic party known as the Administra- 
 tion or Buchanan Democracy. He has been 
 a v/arm iriend of Judge Douglas. He is now, 
 I believe, politically opposed to him. 
 
 Mr. LOGAN. An enemy to him, in short. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. You must 
 settle these matters among yourselves. He is 
 opposed, as I understand, to the nomination of 
 Judge Douglas at Charleston. 
 
 Mr. LOGAN. And, I take it, gives you this 
 statement in order to injure Judge Douglas. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. When he was 
 in this city, I saw him and conversed with him 
 upon the subject of the statements I had made. 
 He intimated that he had some knowledge 
 upon that subject. After his return I wrote 
 hira, and in reply received the letter I have 
 read. 
 
 Now, sir, I have shown that these confer- 
 ences were held ; and, now, will any gentleman 
 tell me that all these meetings were held night 
 after night and day after day, without arranging 
 and concocting some political scheme ? Will 
 any gentleman tell me that, in these repeated 
 conferences of Senators and others, they had 
 one sole motive, one single political measure in 
 view, and that the Lecompton question, which 
 could in no way be affected by them? No, sir. 
 Having shown that they were in conference by 
 night and by day, in private and in public, I 
 propose now to show what were the fruits of 
 that coalition or attempted coalition. 
 
 I stated that Greeley was conniving and 
 scheming to accomplish the election of Judge 
 Douglas. At the time I made the statement, 
 my colleague denied that Greeley had favored 
 the re-election of Judge Douglas in the State 
 of Illinois. Well, sir, I propose to judge of this 
 tree by its fruits. I now propose to show that, 
 growing out of these secret meetings, from this 
 time and place of conspiracy, the first fn^its 
 were borne and seen in this very House. Meet- 
 ings at midnight had taken place ; meetings 
 under the shadow of the wall had been held, 
 
8 
 
 and it was time now to feel the political public 
 pulse ; it was time to inquire how the people 
 would stand this matter of confederacy between 
 sworn enemies. Well, sir, the experiment was 
 tried. Here, standing not five feet from where 
 now I stand, a Republican Representative from 
 the State of Massachusetts came out and pro- 
 claimed for Douglas. I will read it from the 
 Globe : 
 
 " I think it the first duty of Republicans to 
 
 * extinguish the doughfaces, but I hold it also 
 
 * their duty to bear testimony as to the manner 
 ' in which the Douglas men — and they will 
 
 * pardon me for giving them the name of their 
 ' gallant and gifted leader — to bear testimony 
 ' to the manner in which they have borne them- 
 
 * selves. They have kept the faith. * * * 
 
 " I say it is due to them that we should say 
 
 * that they have borne the brunt of the battle, 
 
 * and that they, whether from New York, Penn- 
 ' sylvania, or Illinois, have kept the whiteness 
 
 * of their souls, and have made a record which 
 
 * has lain in light ; and if my voice can have 
 
 * any weight with the young men of the coun- 
 
 * try where those men dwell, I should say to 
 ' them, ' Stand by these men with all your 
 ' young enthusiasm. Stand by them without 
 
 * distinction of party.' " 
 
 Mr. McCLERNAND. Who was that ? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. Mr. Burlin- 
 GAME, of Massachusetts. [Laughter.] That 
 is a name I know Democrats love to honor. 
 Here was a pointing to .the future. They had 
 ascertained the position of the Douglas men, 
 for they had been in consultation with them. 
 After they had consulted with Greeley, and 
 after Senators and after men outside of Con- 
 gress had consulted, it was left to my distin- 
 guished friend from Massachusetts [Mr. Bur- 
 lingajie] to make the first public demonstra- 
 tion in this House in favor of the Douglas 
 element. He said here that "they had kept 
 the whiteness of their souls,"' and that theii' 
 "record was lain in light;" and he called upon 
 the young men, with all their young enthusiasm, 
 to go for the Douglas men. Just in advance 
 was the great struggle in Illinois. Douglas 
 was a candidate for the Senator from that State. 
 The day before the speech of Mr. Burlingame, 
 the speeches were made from which I have 
 read. Knowing that Judge Douglas was a 
 candidate, knowing that the great struggle for 
 the Senate was to come oS in Illinois, he boldly 
 and publicly proclaimed himself in favor of the 
 Douglas men in the State of Illinois. He 
 knew, sir, that the political element which sus- 
 tained the Douglas Democratic members of 
 Congress in that election, would also sustain 
 the election of members of the Legislature who 
 were in favor of the defeat of the patriot Lin- 
 coln and the election of Douglas to the United 
 States Senate ; and that anything that secured 
 the election of a majority of the members of the 
 Legislature of the Douglas school of politics, 
 carried Douglas into the Senate of the United 
 
 States. That is the first fruit, the outcrop of 
 this conspiracy, which I believe was schemed, 
 concocted, and counselled, in the very confer- 
 ence of which I have spoken. 
 
 [Here the hammer fell.] 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's hour 
 has now expired. 
 
 Mr. CURRY obtained the floor. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I ask the gen- 
 tleman to yield to me, to conclude my remarks. 
 
 Mr. CURRY. I have no desire to partici- 
 pate in this Illinois controversy ; and if it does 
 not come out of my time, I am willing to yield, 
 that it may go on this evening. I will yield to 
 the gentleman and his colleagues who may de- 
 sire to reply, if it is the understanding that I 
 shall be entitled to the floor in the morning. I 
 do not want to go on with my remarks this 
 evening, in any event. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state the 
 proposition to the House. The gentleman from 
 Alabama is entitled to the floor, and he is will- 
 ing to yield it, provided he shall have the floor 
 to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. CURRY. Then, with the understand- 
 ing that I shall have the floor to-morrow, I 
 yield to the gentleman from Illinois. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair hears no ob- 
 jection. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, 
 I am grateful to the Committee for this mark 
 of its courtesy. I propose to show one other 
 fruit of what I esteem a part of this coalition. 
 Immediately after this demonstration in the 
 House, Horace Greeley, whom I have already 
 mentioned, himself endeavored to secure the 
 election of Judge Douglas. I read from a 
 letter addressed to me by Mr. Bailhache, of the 
 Illinois State Journal, in relation to his con- 
 versation with Mr. Greeley, in which he says : 
 " Office Daily Illinois State Journal, 
 
 " Sjiringfield, December 13, 1859. 
 
 "Dear Sir: * * * I myself had a con- 
 ' versation with Greeley, in his own oflice, in 
 ' August, 1858, in which he said, substantially, 
 ' that we (Illinois Republicans) had made a 
 ' great mistake in not taking up Douglas as 
 ' our candidate for the Senate ; and, further, that 
 ' we would one day acknowledge the fact. I was 
 * indignant, and told him we did not desire sue- 
 ' cess upon such terms; thai it ivould demoral- 
 ' ize our imrty in Illinois, &c. ; whereupon he 
 ' said some other party would arise in its place, 
 ' and more of the same sort. His influence (in 
 ' Illinois at least) ought to be broken, and I 
 ' hope it will be. * * * 
 
 " Yours, Bailhache & Baker, 
 
 " Hon. Wm. Kellojg. Per Bailhache:'' 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. In the letter I 
 have read here, there is a clear indication of 
 the feeling and disposition of Mr. Greeley. 
 
 Mr. LOGAN. Will my colleague state who 
 Mr. Bailhache is, what "his politics are, and 
 what paper he is editor of? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I have already 
 
said that Mr. Bailhache Is the editor of the I 
 Illinois State Jourrial, published at Sprincrfield, I 
 Illinois ; and he is a true and pure Republican. ! 
 Here is his staiement of his conference with 
 Mr. Greeley, in relation to the great contest 
 then going on in the State of Illinois ; and 
 there Greeley distinctly avows his preference 
 for Mr. Douglas — and mark, that was after 
 the conference at Washington ; after the con- 
 test had commenced — with a view to induce 
 him to desist from his opposition to Mr. L'p- j 
 coin, and his adherence to Judge Douglas, in 
 that election. He replied to an Illinois Repub- 
 lican that we had made a mistake. Now, how 
 did he know that there had been a mistake i 
 made ? If he knew at all, he must have de- 
 rived his information from the consultations h-e 
 had had with Judge Douglas himself, or he 
 could not have spoken as confidently as he did. 
 But, irrespective of that, it fixes beyond all 
 controversy the truth of my position, that he 
 was scheming and endeavoring to elect Judge 
 Douglas to the Senate of the United States. 
 But what strikes me with more astonishment, 
 with more absolute surprise, is the fact that, 
 when he was told that the course he was pur- ' 
 suing would demoralize and desti-oy the Repub- 1 
 licau party in Illinois, he coolly declared that, 
 if it did, a new party would arise in its place. 
 Now, let me say to Illinois Republicans, and 
 to Republicans everywhere, that, in this mat- 
 ter, he was willing to hazard the defeat of the 
 Republican party, and its utter demoralization 
 and destruction, rather than the defeat of 
 Judge Douglas. This was the pertinacity with 
 which he adhered to the political fortunes of 
 Judge Douglas. 
 
 I now propose to read another letter in rela- 
 tion to the position occupied by Mr. Greeley in 
 that great contest. It is a letter addressed to 
 myself, dated Springfield, Illinois, December 
 2(j, 1859, written by Mr. Powell, who was the 
 former superintendent of public schools in our 
 State. 
 
 Mr. McCLERNAND. He is a Republican, 
 is he not ? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. He is a good 
 and true Republican. His letter reads as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 " Springfield, Illinois, 
 " December 26, 1859. 
 
 "Dear Sir: During the pendency of the 
 
 * struggle upon the Lecompton bill in the 
 ' House of Representatives, in the spring of 
 ' 1858, I saw several letters from Mr. Greeley 
 ' to Republicans in this State, commending the 
 
 * course of Mr. Douglas in his opposition to 
 
 * the nefarious and wicked scheme of forcing 
 ' a pro-slavery Constitution down the throats 
 ' of an outraged people. 
 
 " In one of those letters, directed to Mr. 
 
 ' John 0. Johnson, then writing in my office, 
 (that of Superintendent of Public Instruc- 
 tion,) Mr. Greeley expressed it as his decided 
 
 ' opinion that, both from motives of policy and 
 
 ' as a matter of strict justice to Mr. Douglas 
 ' himself, the Republicans of Illinois ought to 
 ' unite with the friends of Mr. Douglas in re- 
 ' turning him to the Senate. 
 
 " Mr. Greeley's letter was regarded at the 
 
 * time by the whole Republican State Admin- 
 ' istration here as a most remarkable political 
 ' document, both on account of the recom- 
 ' mendation it contained, and the source from 
 ' which it came. 
 
 " After a full and free consultation with the 
 ' Republican State officers, Mr. Johnson re- 
 ' plied at length to Mr. Greeley's letter, stating 
 ' the objections entertained, so far as he knew, 
 ' by the Republicans of Illinois, to Mr. Greeley's 
 ' recommendations ; and closed the letter by 
 ' saying that he was authorized to state that the 
 ' whole Republican State Administration were 
 ' unanimousJii and unalterably opposed to any 
 ' coalition unth Mr. Douglas looking to his re- 
 ' turn to the Senate, as they had no confidence 
 ' whatever in either the man or his profession 
 ' of principles — a prognostication which I think 
 ' has been sufficiently verified by Mr. Doug- 
 ' LAs's recent course to satisfy even Mr. Gree- 
 
 * ley himself. 
 
 " A number of letters are in the hands of 
 ' leading Republicans in this State, in which 
 ' Mr. Greeley expressed views similar to those 
 ' communicated to Mr. Johnson. 
 
 " Mr. Greeley, as he says in his article in the 
 ' Tribune, may not have entered into any spe- 
 ' cific bargain with Mr. Douglas, agreeing to 
 ' help return Mr., Douglas to the Senate, in 
 
 * case he continued his opposition to the Le- 
 
 * compton measure ; but that he did endeavor 
 ' to bring about such a result, there is an abund- 
 ' ance of evidence in the hands of the Repnbli- 
 
 * ca7is of this Slate to satisfy any candid and 
 ' honest man. 
 
 " My sense of justice impels me to place this 
 ' statement of facts at your disposal, hoping it 
 ' may aid you in vindicating yourself against 
 ' the outrageous and unwarranted assaults 
 ' made upon you through the columns of the 
 ' Tribune. 
 
 " I have the honor to be, very respectfully, 
 < &e., W. H. Powell. 
 
 " Hon. William Kellogg, 
 
 " Washington, D. C." 
 
 Mr. Powell was Superintendent of Public 
 Instruction, and Mr. Johnson, to whom the let- 
 ter referred to was addressed, was Secretary of 
 the Republican State Central Committee. 
 Hence it was a letter addressed politically and 
 ofiicially in that capacity to the Republicans of 
 Illinois, and is the naost direct and unequivocal 
 interference on the part of Mr. Greeley to carry 
 the State of Illinois for Judge Douglas. It 
 may be said that Judge Dou(;las never knew 
 this. Then let tlie gentleman wait^ until I 
 shall have introduced another part of the evi- 
 dence to sustain my proposition as against 
 him. 
 
 I now propose, Mr. Chairman, to read an ex- 
 
10 
 
 tract from a Douglas paper. It is taken from 
 the Cincinnati Enquirer, which I understand — 
 though I may be mistaken — is the Douglas 
 organ in the State of Ohio. It gives the state- 
 ment of Mr. Lincoln in reference to the fact 
 whether Mr. Greeley was for Judge Douglas 
 or not. It is the statement of a man who, best 
 of all men, could and would be likely to know 
 who were his friends, and who his enemies, 
 in that great conflict in Illinois, in 1858. He 
 gives the evidence in favor of the proposi- 
 tion I made, that Mr. Greeley was for Judge 
 Douglas in that campaign. It has additional 
 force from the fact, that being the opinion of 
 Mr. Lincoln, it is quoted and published in the 
 Douglas papers to show the power that Doug- 
 las has in managing both friends and foes. 
 Here is the article : 
 
 "Linx'oln's Opinion of Douglas's Chances 
 
 * AT Charleston. — William H. Gill, the editor 
 
 * of the Leavenworth (Kansas) Herald, lately 
 
 * travelled in Illinois with Abraham Lincoln, 
 
 * Douglas's competitor for the Senate. Mr. 
 ' Gill says : 
 
 " 'We inquired, of him what he thought of 
 
 * Douglas's chances at Charleston. " Well," 
 ' he replied, " were it not for certain matters 
 
 * that I know transpired, which I regarded at 
 
 * one time among the impossibilities, 1 would say 
 
 * he stood no possible chance. I refer," said 
 
 * he, " to the fact that, in the Illinois contest 
 
 * with myself, he had the sympathy and sup- 
 
 * port of Greeley, of Burlixgame and Wilson 
 ' of Mas-achusetts, and other leading Republi- 
 
 * cans ; that, at the same tin^e, he received the 
 
 * support of Wise and Breckinridge, and other 
 
 * Southern men ; that he took direct issue with 
 
 * the Administration, and secured, against all 
 ' its power, one hundred and twenty-five thou- 
 ' sand out of the one hundred and thirty thou- 
 
 * sand Democratic votes cast in the State. A 
 
 * man," he continued, "that can bring such 
 
 * influences to bear with his own exertions, may 
 ' play the d— 1 at Charleston." ' " 
 
 That, sir, was published to show the strength 
 of Judge DoufiLAS, and it is proved by the 
 declaration of Mr. Lincoln. 
 
 I have also a letter addressed to me by Mr. 
 Pangborn, of the State of Massachusetts, con- 
 firming the proposition that Senator Wilson 
 and other Republicans of the East were in 
 favor of the election of Judge Douglas, and 
 that they aided him, as I believe, materially, 
 in securing the result of that election. I will 
 send it to the Clerk's desk to be read. 
 
 The Clerk read the letter, as follows : 
 
 " Washington, 3farch 3, 1860. 
 
 "Dear Sir: Inquiries having been made in 
 
 * regard to the impression that prevailed in 
 ' Massachusetts among the Republicans, in re- 
 
 * lation to the pos tion of Senator Douglas, 
 ' during and subsequent to the so-called Le- 
 
 * compton contest in the Thirty-fifth Congress, 
 
 * and in relation to the attitude of the two 
 ' great parties in relation to the Senatorial 
 
 ' canvass in Illinois, I am able, in reply, to 
 ' state: 
 
 " That, at that time, many Republicans in 
 ' New England were induced to believe that 
 ' Mr. Douglas had resolved to abandon the 
 ' Democratic and join the Republican party; 
 ' and, entertaining that belief, they condemned 
 ' the Illinois Republicans for having nominated 
 ' Mr. Lincoln in opposition to Mr. Douglas. 
 
 " I remember that Senator Wilson, of Maa- 
 ' sachusetts, was especially earnest in the ex- 
 ' pression of his opinion to this effect. He 
 ' frequently remarked, and in the hearing of 
 ' many persons, that ' he knew that Mr. Doug- 
 ' las was all right ; ' that ' he intended to act 
 ' with the Republicans ; ' that ' the Republicans 
 ' of Illinois had committed a fatal mistake in 
 ' running Mr. Lincoln, and in opposing Mr. 
 ' Douglas's reelection ; and that, but for his 
 ' course of action, Douglas would certainly be 
 ' with the Republican party in I860.' He 
 ' often stated that this was understood at Wash- 
 ' ington ; and he freely and emphatically criti- 
 ' cised the action of Mr. Lincoln's friends, and 
 ' declared his own confidence in the purpose 
 ' of Mr. Douglas to leave the Democratic 
 ' party and unite with us. 
 
 " Some other gentlemen, who had been at 
 ' Washington during the Lecompton contest, 
 ' concurred with Senator Wilson in his opin- 
 ' ion ; but I think the great majority of the 
 ' Republicans of Massachusetts distrusted the 
 ' correctness of Mr. Wilson's judgment in this 
 ' case, although they understood that Senator 
 ' Wilson based his expressed opinion of Mr. 
 ' Douglas's position upon his own personal 
 ' knowledge of that gentleman's intentions. 
 
 " Such was my own understanding, derived 
 ' from frequent conversations with Senator 
 ' Wilson and others ; and of the main facts 
 ' herein stated there can be no question, and 
 ' my recollection of these circumstances can 
 ' be corroborated by very many of the active 
 ' and prominent Republicans of Massachusetts. 
 
 " You are at liberty to make such use of 
 ' this letter as you may deem proper. 
 
 " I remain, very respectfully, your obedient 
 ' servant, Z. K. Pangborn. 
 
 " Hon. William KelloggJ^ 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, 
 there is great significance in that letter. It 
 requires more than ordinary attention. I have 
 proved that Mr. Wilson was in conference and 
 consultation at Judge Douglas's own house. 
 I have proved that, after these conferences, a 
 member from Massachusetts upon this floor es- 
 poused the cause of Judge Douglas. I now 
 prove, by this letter, that Senator Wilson, 
 after going to his Eastern home, looking down 
 upon the fight that was being had upon the 
 prairies of Illinois, charged that we were wrong, 
 in strong and severe language ; that Douglas 
 ought to have been elected, and that he knew 
 reasons why Douglas should have been our 
 choice. He is proved to have been in a con- 
 
11 
 
 dition to know Douglas's position ; and know- 
 ing that, I never doubted Senator Wilson's 
 integrity of motive in the advice he gave, though 
 it was damaging to us in its effects, but did 
 doubt his estimate of thje man. Having proved 
 this condition of things, now I prove that he 
 proclaimed in Massachusetts that he knew that 
 Douglas would be with us, and that we had 
 made a great mistake in that matter. How did 
 the Senator speak? As a mere matter of opin- 
 ion? Certainly not. He spoke as a matter of 
 knowledge. He declared that he knew it, and 
 censured the Republicans, who were making 
 that gallant light, for not taking up their adver- 
 sary, and leaving the honored, the patriotic, and 
 glorious Liacolu to his fate and defeat. 
 
 Now, sir, there is another thing in that letter 
 to which I wish to call the attention of the 
 Committee. Many other Republicans in the 
 State of Massachusetts, basing their opinions 
 upon what they learned in Washington, were 
 clearly in favor of our taking Judge Douglas 
 and making him our Senator. That was the 
 aid and sympathy that we got from Eastern 
 politicians; and when I dared to indicate it to 
 this House, I brought down the anathemas of 
 the Tribune and of the Douglas men upon me 
 for making the charge that we were unfairly 
 dealt by in that great struggle by Republican 
 politicians outside of our State ? Have I proved 
 it ? Do you believe, from this proof, that Wil- 
 son was in consultation with Douglas? Do 
 yoii believe that Wilsox knew whereof he 
 spake ? Why, sir, he had the means of know- 
 ing, and said he knew! That is the support 
 that Western Republicans get, when thej make 
 their utmost efforts to wheel their State into line 
 as a Republican State. 
 
 I close this class of evidence against Mr. 
 Greeley. I have proved my charge upon him 
 and upon other Republicans. 1 leave that 
 branch of the subject. I would like, however, 
 to reply, for a moment, to what I esteem the 
 immoral and dishonest proposition of Mr. Gree- 
 ley in relation to the admiration that he now 
 has for Mr. Douglas.' He states that there is 
 one tie left between him and Judge Douglas, 
 and that is his admiration of the pluck of the 
 little giant. He says that if Douglas had rec- 
 ommended Tom Paine's Age of Reason, how- 
 ever inadvertently, he would never have re- 
 tracted it. I had learned, fiir, all my life, that 
 the most honorable act a man could perform 
 was, when he had done a wrong, to make re 
 traction and redress ; but when a man has com- 
 mitted a violation of morals, when he has rec- 
 ommended heresy against the statutes of the 
 living God, we are told by Greeley that he is 
 an honorable man if he will only stand to it, 
 and defy his adversaries. Sir, a man who 
 would send heresy broadcast through the land, 
 poisoning the minds ot our youths, and de- 
 bauching those of men of riper years, and then 
 refuse to retract, such a man would stab virtue 
 to the heart ; would blot out the moral lights 
 
 around him, and, in the darkness of that moral 
 night, would congratulate himself upon the ruin 
 he had wrought. Such a man should be, and 
 in my judgment is, the good man's hate and 
 the just man's scorn. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I now turn to the other 
 branch of this case, and shall discuss for a little 
 time that which I think convicts Judge Doug- 
 las himself. But before I do that, I desire to 
 remark, that under all these seductious, under 
 all these efforts on the part of Republicans out- 
 side of Illinois, there is one thing upon which I 
 congratulate myself. I congratulate you, sir; 
 I congratulate my Senator, [Mr. Trumbull,] 
 that when these propositions were made, not 
 one Republican of Illinois was found who would 
 entertain them for a moment. They had to go 
 outside the State to make coalitions. I remem- 
 ber having frequent consultations with Senator 
 Trumbull, with you, sir, my colleague, Wash- 
 BURNE, and with Lovejoy, and with Farns- 
 WORTH, and that we, upon every occasion, de- 
 nounced the proposition and repudiated it; and 
 but for that, and the manly support we received 
 from our friends at home, we should have beei 
 broken, ruined, and demoralized as a party in 
 Illinois. The people appreciated our course ; 
 and when we went to our constituents, and met 
 the warm grasp of the hand of the honest labor- 
 ing men, they did congratulate you, sir, and 
 me, and our colleagues, that we had not been 
 seduced; and, Greeley to the contrary notwith- 
 standing, the Republicans of Illinois will sus- 
 tain men, and will only sustain them, when they 
 fight for principle on an issue fairly and honor- 
 ably made. 
 
 I wish now to recur to the letter of Judge 
 Douglas. My colleague [Mr. McClernand] 
 found it necessary, in the discharge of his duty, 
 to have placed upon the records of this House 
 the following letter of Judge Douglas: 
 
 " December 7, 1859. 
 
 " My Dear Sir : Your note is just received, 
 ' informing me that Mr. Kellogg, of Illinois, 
 ' in the course of a discussion in the House of 
 ' Representatives, to day, made the following 
 ' charge against me. 
 
 " ' Mr. Kellogg, of Illinois. I charge that 
 ' Mr. Greeley was again and again, with others, 
 ' in consultation in the parlor of Judge Doug- 
 ' LAS, planning and scheming the election of 
 'Judge Douglas to the Senate of the United 
 ' States from the State of Illinois.' 
 
 " Now, while it is true that men of all shades 
 * of political opinion have been in the habit of 
 ' visiting at my house for the ten years I have 
 ' kept house in Washington, and while it may 
 ' be true that Mr. Greeley, among others, may 
 ' have visited at my house within that time, it 
 ' is wholly untrue that I ever planned or 
 ' schemed, or had any arrangement whatever, 
 ' with Mr. Greeley, at my house or elsewhere, 
 ' for the purpose of securing my re-election to 
 ' the Senate of the United States. On the con- 
 
12 
 
 * trary, the charge, in all its parts and import, 
 ' is utterly false. 
 
 " Very truly, your friend, S. A. Douglas. 
 "Hon. J. A. McClernand, 
 
 " House of Ihpreseniaiives.'''' 
 
 The courtly language of the Senator may be 
 appropriate in the other end of the Capitol. 
 He says that the statement in its import is 
 false. Now, sir, let me for one moment put 
 side by side the letter of Judge Dovglas and 
 that of Horace Greeley. Judge Douglas says 
 that Greeley might have visited his house ; that 
 gentlemen of all shades of political opinion 
 T\fere in the habit of visiting his house ; and 
 there leaves the matter of Greeley's visit to 
 him. Now, sir, the clear import of that is, the 
 fair construction of that language is, a denial 
 that Greeley was ever with him, consulting in 
 relation to political matters ; otherwise he could 
 not by his denial have proved that what I said 
 was false, v?heu I said he was there consulting 
 in relation to political matters. 
 
 Mr. McCLERNAND. I did not understand 
 you to say, upon your responsibility, that the 
 charge was true. You stated it from hearsay. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. Yes, sir ; but I 
 was arguing upon the subject of these letters, 
 and I will not be drawn off from them.. I was 
 stating that the legitimate inference of the let- 
 ter of Judge Douglas was a denial that Gree- 
 ley was ever in his house upon political sub- 
 jects. Yet Greeley says he was there twice, 
 consulting with Judge Douglas himself. Now, 
 then, if Judge Dou(iLAs's letter was to any ex- 
 tent a refutation of my charge, is not Greeley's 
 letter an absolute refutation of the only reason- 
 able construction to be placed upon the letter 
 of Judge Douglas? Place these letters side 
 by side, and the import of one is directly op- 
 posed to the import of the other. One or the 
 other either sought to deceive a casual reader, 
 or else they come in conflict with each other in 
 point of fact. 
 
 Now, sir. Judge Douglas says my statement 
 is false in its itnport — that it is false in every 
 point of view. I ask, is it false that Greeley 
 was there? I ask, is it false that Wilsox was 
 there ? I ask, is it false that the gentleman 
 from Indiana [Mr. Colfax] was there ? I ask, 
 is it false that they were meeting there with 
 Senators, in consultation and in caucus ? Let 
 honest men judge. If Judge Douglas is not 
 mistaken in the import or character of his let- 
 ter, then I am mistaken vastly in my judgment 
 of what language means. But I leave that 
 matter. 
 
 I now propose to show what was the position 
 of Judge Douglas, as explained by himself 
 and known to Republicans, upon this great 
 issue of fclavery. 1 propose to show what he 
 induced Republicans to believe, to show what 
 he declared and stated to them was his position, 
 and then I shall have nearly done with these 
 matters. If my friend Covode has not left the 
 Hall, I will prove by him what was his posi- 
 
 tion ; and if he has, I will state what he will 
 prove when he comes in. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I send to the Clerk's desk an 
 extract from a communication that appeared 
 not long since in the Chicago Journal, a lead- 
 ing and reliable Republican paper in the State 
 of Illinois, signed, I believe, " H." I wish to 
 say, also, that I have ascertained who the author 
 of that article is. He is a gentleman well 
 known in the city of Washington — a respecta- 
 ble, responsible, and reliable man — and if 
 Judge Douglas desires his name, I am author- 
 ized to give it. I ask the Clerk to read the 
 article. 
 
 The Clerk read, as follows : 
 
 " This train of thought carries me back to 
 ' the beginning of the Thirty-fifth Congress, 
 '■ when Mr. Douglas broke from the line of 
 ' policy marked out by Mr. Buchanan for the 
 ' Democracy, and opposed the Lecompton 
 
 * Constitution. He was under the ban, socially 
 ' and politicallj', with the Democrats. The 
 ' remarkable expressions he used to make 
 ' about his record — what he had done in the 
 ' party to stop the progress of slavery and to 
 ' advance freedom, and what he purposed 
 ' doing in the future to destroy the intentions 
 ' of the slave power — will never be erased from 
 ' my memory, as they never can be from the 
 ' minds of hundreds of others who heard the 
 ' same things.- 
 
 " He said that, when he started out in his 
 ' opposition to Lecompton, he was merely ma- 
 ' king fight on a single measure, and not against 
 ' the party ; but a blow at Lecompton was a blow 
 ' at slavery, and he soon found the whole slave 
 ' power arrayed against him, like a pack of 
 ' wolves. In making the fight against this 
 ' power, he remarked that he was enabled to 
 ' stand off and view the men with whom he had 
 
 * been acting ; that he was ashamed he had 
 ' ever been caught in such company ; that they 
 ' were a set of unprincipled demagogues, bent 
 ' upon perpetuating slavery, and, by the exer- 
 ' cise of that unequal and unfair power, to con- 
 ' trol the Government, or break up the Union; 
 ' and that he intended to prevent their doing 
 ' either. His denunciations of the lire-eaters 
 ' were at times very severe, and couched in 
 ' language fit neither for the parlor nor the 
 ' newspaper. 
 
 '* He insisted that he would never be driven 
 ' from the party, but would remain in it until 
 ' he exposed the Administration and the dis- 
 ' unionists ; and when he went out, he would 
 
 * go of his own accord. He was in the habit of 
 ' remarking that it was policy for him to remain 
 ' in the party, in order to hold certain of the 
 ' rank and file, so that if he went over from 
 ' the Democracy to any other party, he would 
 ' be able to take the crowd along with him ; 
 ' and when he got them all over, he would cut 
 ' down the bridges, and sink the boats. 
 
 " On one occasion, I waited upon him to as- 
 ' certain if the report v/as true that he and 
 
w 
 
 Buchanan had had an interview for the pur- 
 pose of settling their dispute. I said to him 
 that, as the correspondent of a leading Repub- 
 lican organ, I had represented him fairly, and 
 the report, if true, tended to compromise my 
 position, and I thought, therefore, that I was 
 entitled to a fair answer to a fair question. 
 *' I asked him to say to me frankly if there 
 was any truth in the report. Putting a hand 
 on each shoulder, and looking me square 
 in the face, he said : ' I authorize you to say 
 that there is not a word of truth in the report.' 
 Adding, that there never would be any union 
 between him and Buchanan, unless the latter 
 saw fit to come to him and stand by his side 
 on the platform of popular sovereignty. 
 " In the interview he repeated many things 
 that he had said before, to convince me and 
 others that he was earnestly and honestly on 
 the side of the North, against the slave power, 
 and shou'd be found fighting in the ranks of 
 the great Northern party in 18(50. In_ this 
 interview he also used an expression which a 
 distinguished Republican member of the 
 Thirty-fitth Congress infornied me he used to 
 him in a conversation he held with him at the 
 commencement of the Lecompton struggle, 
 to ascertain his views concerning his (Doug- 
 las's) future intentions. After talking awhile 
 with Douglas, I inquired of him if he knew 
 where his present course (meaning his oppo- 
 sition to Lecompton) would lead him. Doug- 
 las replied, with emphasis, ' I do : and I have 
 checked all my baggage,, and taken a through 
 ticket.' 
 " In using this expression to me, as he did 
 several times, he conveyed to my miad, as I 
 think he intended to do, that he was going 
 from the Democratic party, over, bag and 
 baggage, to the Republicaiis — ^a great North- 
 ern party, as he used to call it. All who con- 
 versed with him at that time, and duriug the 
 Lecompton struggle, who related their inter- 
 views with him to me, received the same im- 
 pressions from his conversations that I did ; 
 and the number was not only large, growing 
 out of my position here, but they embraced 
 some of the leading Senators and Represent- 
 atives in Congress, representatives of leading 
 Republican journals of the country, as well 
 as many of tfie most distinguished citizi^^ns of 
 the different States. So thoroughly impressed 
 were some of the leading and most sagacious 
 members of Congress that Mr. Douglas was 
 ' all right,' that they not only deemed it wise 
 policy for the Republicans of the State of Illi- 
 nois to take ' hands oli',' and allow Mr. Doug- 
 las to be retiirned to the Senate, but they 
 urged such action as a matter of justice, and 
 even went so far as to censure the Republi- 
 cans of Illinois for not following such advice, 
 and, in many instances, charged them with 
 being false to their principles and sentiments, 
 and sometimes, in the heat of discussion, 
 made use of opprobrious epithets. As an 
 
 ' evidence that I do not mean to charge others 
 
 * v/ith doing wrong, I am free to say that, so 
 ' thoroughly was I convinced that the gentlemen 
 ' who gave this advice were right, and the Re- 
 
 * publicans of Illinois wrong, that I urged the 
 
 * same thing. I am now, however, satisfied 
 ' that they were right. 
 
 " Mr. Douglas's plan for destroying the Mis- 
 ' souri line, and thereby opening the way for the 
 ' march of freedom l^eyond the limits forever 
 ' prohibited by the existence of that line, and the 
 ' opening up of free States in territory which it 
 ' was conceded belonged to the slave States, and 
 ' its march westward, embracing the whole line 
 ' of the Pacific, from the British possessions to 
 ' Mexico, struck me as the most magnificent 
 ' scheme ever conceived by the human mind. 
 ' This character of conversation, so frequently 
 ' employed by Mr. Douglas with those with 
 ' whom he talked, made the deepest impression 
 
 * upon their minds, enlisted them in his behalf, 
 ' and changed, in almost every instance, their 
 ' opinion of the man. While it is not surprising 
 ' that the men who were in the daily habit of 
 ' hearing Mr. Douoi/AS give expression to his 
 ' sentiments, should have given the advice they 
 
 * did to the Illinois Republicans, it is surprising 
 ' that they should now deny it. More remark- 
 ' able is the fact that none of the interviews I 
 ' ever had with Judge Douglas, on the subject 
 ' of his political position, were confidential. On 
 ' the contrary, I always talked with him as a 
 ' member of the press, he being fully aware of 
 ' my position. 
 
 "' But I am making this letter longer than I 
 ' intended, and may have occasion to revert to 
 ' the subject ayain soon. H." 
 
 Mr. M(;CLERNAND. Will my colleague 
 give the author and the date of that letter? 
 ■ Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. The date is 
 Washington, February 23, I860. 
 
 Mr. McCLERNAND. That is .since your 
 speech. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois, Yes, sir; since. 
 
 Mr. McCLERNAND. What is the name of 
 the author ? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. It is signed 11. 
 I have already stated that I M-as authorized to 
 give the name of the writer, if Judge Douglas 
 desires it. 
 
 Mr. McCLERNAND. I ask for the name 
 now. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. Does Judge 
 Dou(;las authorize you to askfor it? 
 
 Mr. McCLERNAND. 1 will take the re- 
 sponsibility. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. If you ask it 
 with his authority, you shall have it. 
 
 Mr. McCLERNAND. I take that responsi- 
 bility as his friend, and I denounce it as a man- 
 ufactured statement, and the evidence of a 
 straw man. 
 
 Mr. LOGAN. Give us the name. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I will give the 
 name of a gentleman who gave a not more 
 
14 
 
 flattering account of the political position of 
 Senator Douglas, in a speech delivered at 
 Alton, Illlnoifi, in 1855, if ray colleague [Mr. 
 McCLERXAxnJ/iesires it. 
 
 Mr. LOGAN. Give us the name of the 
 author of the letter wliich was just read. 
 
 Mr. KPjLL()G(t, of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, 
 this article in relation to the principles of Judge 
 Douglas discloses the fact that the Republicans 
 did know, and had the means of knowing, the 
 position of Judge Douglas upon the question 
 of slavery a.s stated by himself. It further dis- 
 closes that he v/as in communication with the 
 Republicans, and, whether designedly or not, 
 he did lay such a basis for his political ulatus 
 as would induce the Republicans to urge his 
 re-election, and such as did not induce many 
 Republicans to censure the R^-publicans of 
 Illinois for not taking him up, because, as they 
 said, they knew he was " all riglit." Here, sir, 
 is the reason for the opinion of Senator Wil- 
 son, and there is the basis ibr the opinion which 
 was prevalent in Massachusetts. That is doubt- 
 less what induced Greeley to take his position, 
 and to denounce the Republicans of Illinois be- 
 cause they did not adopt Mr. Doucjlas as their 
 candidate. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I ask, how could any man 
 doubt, from the position he took, that he had 
 left the Democratic party, that he had broken 
 away from it, but that he would not go out of 
 it altogether until he could gather round him 
 the rank and file to carry them across the 
 water ? Sir, it was upon that state of things, 
 which Douglas himself disclosed to this cor- 
 respondent, that BuRLiXGAME made the declara- 
 tion, that they had kept the " whiteness of their 
 souls," and that their '• record was laid in light." 
 He induced them to believe that he was going 
 with u*!, and that, in the language of Senator 
 Wilson, he was " all right," and would be with 
 ns. Look, sir, for one moment, at the graphic 
 picture which he drew of his own condition. 
 He said that he had checked his baggage 
 through. What baggage? It was his political 
 jewels, his political capital, his political hopes. 
 He had sent that baggage before him, out of 
 the reach of the storm that was coming; and as 
 his baggage had gone ahead of him, he looked 
 back to see, in his own language, the Demo- 
 cratic party, like a pack ot wolves, upon his 
 track. He declared, with his baggage safe, 
 that he would stand upon the border of Democ- 
 racy until he could gather around him his few 
 followers, when he would leave the Democratic 
 shore, crofs the river, cut down bridges, and 
 sink the boats. [Laughter.] That is the figure 
 of the Illinois Senator in reference to the De- 
 mocracy he was about to leave. He always 
 uses expressive language. He always indulges 
 in strong fiojures. Clapping a hand upon each 
 shoulder of this correspondent, he used this 
 language. Who could doubt, save those who 
 knew him best, that he was our ally, and pre- 
 pared to fight our battles ? I have just proved 
 
 that the Republicans and Douglas conferred, 
 and thai they understood each other's posi- 
 tion. 
 
 I now come to another branch of this case. 
 I ask the Clerk to read the letter of Mr. Blair, 
 which has been published in the papers, with 
 his name appended to it. 
 
 The Clerk read, as follows : 
 
 " St. Louis, October 25, 1858. 
 
 " Dear Sir : I have received your note, put- 
 
 * ting certain interrogatories to me iu reference 
 j * to the conversation held by Judge Douglas 
 i ' and myself at his home, last winter. It has 
 I ' always been a principle with me to hold sa- 
 j ' cred every private conversation between any 
 
 j ' gentlemian and myself, and this will forbid 
 
 * ray saying anything in answer to the ques- 
 I ' tions vou have asked. Although Mr. Douglas, 
 j ' by his conduct to me, and by th& unscrupu- 
 I ' lous attacks of his partisans, has forfeited all 
 I ' claims on my forbearance, yet I do not con- 
 I ' sider that, because others have failed to con- 
 
 j ' form to the proprieties of life, it furnishes an 
 I ' excuse for me to follow their example. 
 ! "After what has been said, however, it is 
 I 'just and proper to myself to sav, that the 
 I ' Idter loliirh was lo-iften hi/ me to Mr. B. Qratz 
 I ' Brotni, of the Missouri Democrat, and which 
 
 * has bef-n the basis of the assaults made on 
 ' me by Mr. Douglas's partisans for violating 
 ' an alleged confidence, was written in strict 
 ' accordance with the wishes q/" Judge Douglas 
 
 * hims"?/. In fact, I deemed it to be the single 
 ' object of the interview to which I was invited, 
 ' to mitif/ate, through me, the hostility of the 
 ' radical Democratic press of St. Louis to- 
 ' wards him. I wrote for this purpose, believing 
 
 * it to be his desire, and I had no agency what- 
 ' ever in giving currency to the rumors about 
 ' the contents of letters which have found their 
 ' way into the newspapers. The blackguard- 
 ' ism of the nevv'spapers in the interest of Mr. 
 ' Douglas, on this account, compels me to 
 
 * make this explanation, and is the only occa- 
 ' sion for my writing a word on the subject. 
 
 " / have said I was invited to this interview 
 ' bg Judge Douglas. / sag so, to repel the 
 ' idea (hat I sought an interview with him upon 
 ' political subjects. The invitation and mes- 
 ' sage came through Hon. Schuyler Colfax, 
 ' of Indiana, and has never, to mg knowledge, 
 '■ been treated (W a private matter. I take the 
 ' occasion to say, that neither the message sent 
 ' me, nor anything that ever occurred between 
 ' Judge Douglas and myself, prepared me for 
 
 * hearing of his calling for three cheers over 
 ' the defeat of the Emancipationists of Missouri, 
 ' and my own defeat, by the pro-slavery Le- 
 ' compton-Buchanan Democracy of Missouri. 
 
 " Yours, &c., Frank P. Blah;, Jun. 
 
 " Isaac H. Sturgeon, Esq." 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I have had 
 that letter read for the purpose of showing that 
 Judge Douglas himself sought political inter- 
 views with Mr. Blair, and to contradict the in- 
 
15 
 
 ference which ^rentlemen may attempt to draw, 
 that all this was carried on behind the back of 
 Judge Douglas for his political benefit, and 
 that he knew nothing about it. It appears by 
 this letter, that Judge Douglas desired inter- 
 views with Mr. Blair, and sought, through him, 
 to turn away the attacks of the Democracy 
 upon him. And while he was doing this, and 
 while he sought the aid of the Republicaus to 
 ward off the attacks made upon him, there is 
 disclosed the further fact that there was a pri- 
 vate interview, of which he will not speak, and 
 to which I do not refer ; for I have not, nor 
 will I, ask any man to make any explanation 
 of a private matter, unless he voluntarily com- 
 mences and details a portion of it. It is shown 
 that Judge Doiglas sought the aid of Re- 
 publicans to turn away the assaults of the De- 
 mocracy upon him, and sought an interview 
 with Mr. Blair, in rel^ition to political matters. 
 Judge Douglas knows the character of those 
 interviews ; and when he desires that an ex- 
 planation shall be made, I have no doubt that 
 Mr. Blair and my friend [Mr. Colfax] will 
 make a clean breast of it, and will tell what 
 did occur and transpire between them. Until 
 that is done, I will make no inference or sug- 
 gestion as to what the subject of that private 
 interview was. 
 
 Now, having done this much, I will call upon 
 the gentleman from Pennsylvania— [Mr. Co- 
 vode] — he was here a short time ago, and I 
 requested him to remain when I commenced 
 my remarks. As he is not here now, 1 will say 
 what he will state when he comes in. Mr. 
 CovoDE was here during the winter when this 
 Lecomptou question was under consideration — 
 one of the National Republican Committee. I 
 assert that Mr. Covooe said to me, and said he 
 would state it here — and that was the reason I 
 asked him to remain— what transpired between 
 him and Judge Douglas in relation to this 
 matter. I asked him if it was confidential, and 
 he said it was not; and he will state when he 
 comes in, I venture to say, that Judije Douglas 
 himself came into this Hall, and asked him to 
 go to Judge TivUMBULL, our Senator, and in- 
 duce hint to persuade or advise the Republicans 
 of Illinois to consent to his return to the Senate • 
 that he might remain here to fight the Admin- 
 istration ; that he was a young man, and could 
 wait for his chance ; and that he might be ex- 
 pected to be fighting our battles iu IbiJO. Mr. 
 CovouE told me that that was substantiallv what 
 was said, and he would sUite it upon tins' (loor. 
 _ I would like to have said a few words more, 
 in relation to some other matters, but the rap 
 of the Chairman's hammer admonishes me that 
 I have again exhausted much more than the 
 time allowed by the rules of the House. I re- 
 turn my thanks to gentlemen who have kindly 
 given me their attention to that which concerns 
 the Republicans of Illinois and the Democracy 
 of that region more directly, perhaps, than gen 
 tlemea from other parts of the country. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 The following are the extracts from a speech 
 delivered by the Hon. John A. McClernand, 
 at the city of Alton, in 1854, which Mr. Kel- 
 logg proposed to read in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, on the conclusion of Mr. McCler- 
 nand's remarks in reply to him, but was pre- 
 vented, objections having been made. 
 Mr. McClernand said : 
 "And why should fealty to the repeal of the 
 Missouri compromise be made a Democratic 
 test now, any more than formerly? That com- 
 promise stood upon the statute book for more 
 than thirty years, without an attempt by any 
 party or by any man, as far as I know, to re- 
 peal it. It is too late now, to make its repeal 
 a test of political orthodoxy. The attempt to 
 do so is simply an act of senseless and im- 
 pudent proscription, which will not be tol- 
 erated. * * * 
 
 " By whose authority, then, is such a test to 
 be instituted ? By the authority of Judge 
 Douglas, and for his benefit. For the pur- 
 pose of coercing a universal conformity to the 
 standard of his orthodoxy — for the purpose of 
 glorifying a paroxysm of his vaulting ambition 
 as a supernatural evidence of his immacula- 
 cy — for the purpose of driving every Demo- 
 crat, /io^c/i^' colens, into his support as a Presi- 
 dential aspirant. For no other purpose that 
 I can see. * * * 
 
 "Such is the record, the authentic public 
 record, of the Senator upon the question of 
 the Missouri line — a record covering an an- 
 gry and eventful period often years of slavery 
 agitation. Is it not pregnant with signifi- 
 cance? Does it not speak for itself? Does 
 it not prove the Senator to be more thoroughly 
 identified with the principles and policy of the 
 Missouri restriction, than any other man in 
 the world? And in proving this, according to 
 the new test, does it not prove him to be one 
 of the worst abolitionists and most arrant 
 trauors to the Democratic party in the broad 
 Union? How ungrateful, that the Senator, 
 after riding down his old and fiivorite slatkins 
 horse, should now indignantly dismount from 
 him, and, stripping him of his gav trappings, 
 denounce him as a ringboned, spavined, 
 swaiiied, sore-back, hybrid beast, fit only for 
 an incendiary abolitionist to ride, or to draw 
 the car of some underground railroad ? But, 
 alas for poor frail human nature ! The Sen- 
 ator says he has changed, that he has turned 
 from the error of his ways, and is now for 
 non-intervention and self-government in the 
 Territories. I am glad to hoar it. Better 
 late than never. I welcome him to the true 
 faith, but would exhort him to :^;rcater hu- 
 mility. As a new convert, it is !;ot decent or 
 proper for him to aspire so soon to become a 
 class leader. He should be content, accoid- 
 ing to the rules of the Democratic church, to 
 occupy the anxious seat, at least until we caa 
 
-16 
 
 ' see whether his conversion is real or iinaj;^in- 
 
 < ary — whether a returning paroxysm of arabi- 
 ' tion may not relapse him into the wickedness 
 ' of his former ways. * * "" 
 
 "April lyth, the committee of thirteen was 
 ' chosen by ballot; Clay chaiiman, and Cass, 
 
 * Dickinson, Webster, and others, members of 
 
 * the committee ; and thus terminated the most 
 
 < memorable struggle recorded in our legisla- 
 'dve annals — an intense aud anxious struggle 
 
 ' of more than two months duration, in which 
 
 * our Senators co-operated with Chase, Corwin, 
 
 * Hale, and Seward, abolition leaders, against 
 
 < Cass and Clay, and against the compromise 
 ' move of 1850, and not' for it, as many honest 
 
 * people have been induced to believe ; and 
 ' after the Senate had thus affirmed the unity 
 ' and dependence, one upon another,' of the 
 ' several elements of the slavery question, and 
 
 * after the compromise move had eventuated in 
 ' a combined series of measures, framed in a 
 
 * spirit of mutual concession, and designed to 
 
 < give repose to the country, our Senators, 
 ' strangely enough, notoriously hesitated and 
 ' equiv'ocated in their support of the series — 
 ' sometimes adhering to Benton, sometimes to 
 ' Cass, but finally voting for the broken wrecks 
 ' of the series, except the fugitive slave law, 
 ' which thev both dodged ; acting, no doubt, 
 ' upon the Hudibrastic philosophy, that 
 
 ' He who lights and runs away 
 
 May live to lisht another day ; 
 
 But he who lights and is iu battle slain 
 
 Ne-er will live to fight again.' 
 "In these remarks, gentlemen, I have not 
 ' indulged in any stricture upon the action of 
 ' our Senators, from any feeling of personal 
 ' hostility. On the contrary, 1 have endeav- 
 ' ored to be just rather than censorious. I ac- 
 
 < cord to botii of those gentlemen many merits. 
 ' One of them has proved himself to be a gal- 
 
 < lant soldier, and I honor him as a hero. The 
 
 other is able, active, and aspiring, aud I ad- 
 mire him for his talents. It is not that I love 
 Cajsar less, but I love Rome more, that I 
 have censured in justice, and not in malice, 
 some of their actions. But I am not unaware 
 that my motives will not afford me a protec- 
 tion against the shafts of malice and detrac- 
 tion. Already I have been denounced as a 
 disorgauizer and an abolitionist, conspiring 
 with others against the unity and integrity of 
 the Democratic party. And, forsooth, for 
 what? Not because I am not for adhering to 
 the Kansas Nebraska act, but because I will 
 not bend the knee to Baal — because I will 
 not unman myself, and, prostrated upon the 
 earth, worship not a God, nor a Demigod, but 
 a * Little Giant.' Never I I am the peer 
 of the Senator. As one of the sovereign 
 people, I am the peer of kings and of lords, 
 and never will I consent to such debasement. 
 Me an abolitionist? The statement is simply 
 untrue, and nobody believes it — not even the 
 slanderer himself. I never boasted, in Spring- 
 field or elsewhere, that I had voted sponta- 
 neously, of my own choice, for the Wilmot 
 proviso ; I never was either the accoucheur or 
 the nurse of the Missouri restriction ; 1 never 
 sought to gag either branch of Congress with 
 that restriction, by conspiracy and the previous 
 question or otherwise ; I never proclaimed 
 that it had become canonized in the hearts of 
 the American people, as a sacred thing which 
 no ruthless hand would be reckless enough to 
 disturb. No, I never did or said any of these 
 things ; on the contrary, I have opposed, froui 
 first"to last, the principles and' policy of the 
 Missouri line; and at one time stood alone 
 from the North, or nearly so, in the popular 
 branch of Congress, in opposition to the 
 Wilmot xjroviso. Can the Senator say as 
 much?" * * * 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 
 
 1860. 
 
w 
 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 898 345 2