was carried, a Committee was appointed by Congress, consisting of Mr. Jefferson, Dr. Franklin, and John Adams to prepare a device for a Seal of the United States. Each member of the Committee prepared a device, and then they combined something of the ideas of each in one they reported. Mr. Jefferson was to combine their ideas. The seal he thus reported had on one side of it the Goddess of Liberty and the Goddess of Justice, supporting a shield with six quarterings, denoting the six countries from which the Colonies had mainly been peopled, to wit: England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, and Holland. The motto on this seal was "Epluribus unum." This seal, as reported, or the device in full as reported, was never adopted. But in it we see the emblems in part, which are still preserved in the flag.

The stripes or lines, which on Mr. Jefferson's original plan were to designate the six quarterings of the shield, as signs of the six countries from which our ancestors came, are now, I believe, considered as representations of the old thirteen States, and with most persons the idea of a shield is lost sight of. You perceive, that by drawing six lines or stripes on a shield figure it will leave seven spaces of the original color, and of course give thirteen apparent stripes; hence the idea of their being all intended to represent the old thirteen States. My opinion is, that this was the origin of the stripes. Mr. Jefferson's quartered shield for a seal device was seized upon as a national emblem that was put upon the flag. We now have the stars as well as the stripes. When each of these were adopted I cannot say ; but the flag, as it now is, was designed by Captain Reid, as I tell you, and adopted by Congress. The first one with his device, which Congress adopted, was put over the Capitol. It was made by the wife and daughters of Captain Reid.

Please remember me to Miss Grattan and to Mrs. Gilmer-to both give my kind regards. And though this letter is written entirely and exclusively for yourself, and not for the public in any sense of the word, yet I have no objection to your reading it to Mrs. Gilmer if you think proper. In it she will but hear repeated several thoughts and opinions she heard from me last fall, on a memorable occasion. It was the last night Mr. Gilmer ever sat up and talked with his friends, a conversation I shall never forget, for the strong faith and confidence he then expressed, in the ultimate virtue and intelligence of the people to arrest the evil tendencies of the times, greatly strengthened my own hopes, weaker then than now. What has occurred since has not disappointed me at all. It has not even surprised me. I was expecting it, and am now expecting a much worse state of things before any wholesome reaction takes place, if it ever does.

I must repeat to you, that what I have said is not for public use in any sense. I do not wish your own action to be governed in the least by that line which I think proper to take myself. Do as you think best. Present my kind regards to Mrs. Landrum and accept for both of you

my best wishes for all the happiness this world can bestow, as well as that in a life to come, which is in reserve for the virtuous and the good. Yours truly,

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

DR. Z. P. LANDRUM, LEXINGTON, GA.

E.

SPEECH OF ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, FAVORING THE ELECTION OF MESSRS. DOUGLAS AND JOHNSON AS PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT, DELIVERED IN THE CITY HALL PARK, AUGUSTA, GA., SEPTEMBER 1, 1860.

FELLOW-CITIZENS :---I appear before you in obedience to a call made on me by those whose call could not be refused. The sacrifice of personal feelings or wishes, on such occasions, is not to be taken into the account. If it were, I assure you I should not be here. I had hoped never again to be drawn into the active struggles, the strifes, and excitements of politics. The address I made on the 2d of July, of last year, near this spot, on taking leave of you, and this District, as Representative in Congress, I intended to be the last speech of the kind I should ever make. I trusted that in no event, or under any circumstances, should I ever be called on again to mingle in public affairs. All the questions with which I had been connected in the public councils having been settled upon terms satisfactory to us-upon terms thought to be just and honorable to all sections of the Union-it was but natural to look upon that settlement as permanent, and to indulge the hope of a happy and prosperous future for the country. But how illusory are all our hopes! How changed the prospect before us now from what it was twelve months ago! Then everything was encouraging to the heart of the patriot-would that I could say the same now. Those agitating questions, then thought to be settled, have been opened up afresh, and all that was done in their settlement is attempted to be undone. You ask me what I think of the present state of the country? I told you, in the speech alluded to, that the peace and safety of the country, in my judgment, depended upon an adherence to the principles of the settlement of those questions then made. I tell you the same now. I tell you candidly and frankly that the signs of the times, as I read them, portend evils of the gravest magnitude. There is an attempt made to depart from the principles of that settlement.

At this time, and for some months past, the tendencies have been decidedly toward National disruption, and general anarchy. This convic tion is beginning to force itself upon the minds of all. Can these ter

dencies be checked? Can the threatened disasters be avoided or prevented? If so, how, and in what way? What course should the patriot, looking only to the public good, public peace, welfare, and safety, take in the complicated contest before us? These are questions which now crowd upon our consideration. On them I propose to address you to-night. They present a wide field for thought and reflection— abounding in subjects of deepest interest and gravest import. I can only touch upon a few of them. My physical strength will not allow me to attempt more, if, indeed, it will sustain me in the limited view I have marked out for myself. I assume, in the outset, that the Government, as it exists, is worth preserving; nay, more, with all its errors and defects, with all its corruptions in administration, and short-comings of its officers, it is the best Government on earth, and ought to be sustained, if it can be, on the principles upon which it was founded.

First, then, as to the duty of Democrats in the approaching Presidential election; for to that Party I specially address myself. The choice of Chief Magistrate is the now pressing and absorbing issue. Greater and more momentous issues may be behind; but I wish not to lift the curtain of the future, it is with the present we now deal. For whom should Democrats vote? There are two tickets in the field claiming to be Democratic; which one is entitled to and should receive the votes of the Democrats? To this I answer, that, in my judgment, the National ticket, bearing the names of Douglas and Johnson, is the one entitled to Democratic support.

The nominees on this ticket are the representatives of the Party, put forth according to the usages of the Party, and are the representatives of the long-established principles of the Party. Nay, more, they are the representatives of the only principles upon which, in my judgmeɩ t, the Union of the States, and the rights of all sections, can be maintained. For this reason I would urge this ticket, not only upon all Democrais, but upon all well-wishers of their country, whether called Democrats, Whigs, or Americans. Allow me briefly to notice some of the prominent objections urged against this ticket by the partisans and friends of the other ticket claiming to be the true Democratic Party.

These relate to the manner of the nomination, the principles of the Platform, and especially to certain opinions of Mr. Douglas, whose name heads the ticket.

First, as to the manner of the nomination. It is said he failed to get two-thirds of the votes in the Convention-that by Democratic usage from 1832 down, no candidate could be nominated without a two-third vote.

I would not notice this point, if so much stress had not been put upon it by those who advocate the other ticket. Not only in the press, but in the speeches of leading men, and in the address to the public, put forth by the Seceders Convention's Executive Committee, this point is

made prominent, and urged as one of the main reasons why Democrats should feel under no Party obligation to support the ticket of the regularly constituted Democratic Convention. In my judgment, Mr. Douglas did receive two-thirds of the votes of the Convention, according to the usages of the Party, and according to the proper construction of what is known as the two-third rule.

It is immaterial to me whether he received the nomination according to the interpretation or construction of that rule at Charleston or not. I mean the construction that the nominees should receive two-thirds of all the Electoral votes. That construction was wrong. It was an interpolation. It was inconsistent with the clear meaning--the letter, as well as the spirit-of the rule. The letter of the rule in most, if not all the Conventions from 1832, running through 1836, 1840, 1844, 1848, 1852, and 1856, was that the nominees should receive two-thirds of all the votes cast or given in the Convention. It is immaterial whether, in point of fact, in all other Conventions, the nominees did actually receive two-thirds of the entire Electoral vote or not-there never was before such a secession as was at Charleston and Baltimore; the question is what is the right construction of the rule requiring two-thirds of the votes of the Convention to make a nomination, and when will its requisition be complied with? This principle of a two-third vote is well understood in the Parliamentary law of the country. It is fixed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the Constitution of our own State, perhaps of most of the States of the Union. It is a principle often carried into practical operation in Congress, and in our State Legislatures. For instance, in the Constitution of the United States, Article First, Section Seven, and clause two, we have this provision:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law."

Now, what has been the universal construction given to the words "two-thirds of that House" in practical legislation? Has it been that it required two-thirds of all the members constituting the House and Senate to pass a bill over the veto of the President? Never! The construction given, from the beginning down to the present time, without an exception, was, and is, that two-thirds of those voting, in each House, may pass a bill over the Executive veto, though there be barely a quorum present and voting. Such has been the uniform con

struction, not of this, but another clause, which authorized the expulsion of a member of either House, by a two-third vote-two-thirds of those voting, if there be a quorum, is all that is necessary for a compllance with that clause of the Constitution. So in our own State Constitution it is provided :

"That the Governor shall have the revision of all bills passed by both Houses, before they become laws, but two-thirds of both Houses may pass a law notwithstanding his dissent."

Under this clause of our State Constitution, the construction has been uniformly given. Two-thirds of those voting in each House, if a quorum be present, is all that is required. Again, in another article of our Constitution, we have a provision for its amendment, in these words:

"No part of this Constitution shall be altered, unless a bill for that purpose, specifying the alteration intended to be made, shall have been read three times in the House of Representatives and three times in the Senate, on three several days in each House, and agreed to by twothirds of each House, respectively; and when any such bill shall be passed, in manner aforesaid, the same shall be published at least six months previous to the next ensuing election for members of the General Assembly, and if such alterations, or any of them so proposed, should be agreed to, in the first session thereafter, by two-thirds of each branch of the General Assembly, after the same shall have been read three times, on three separate days, in each respective House, then, and not otherwise, the same shall become a part of this Constitution."

Under this clause, two-thirds of each branch of the General Assembly has always been held to mean two-thirds of those voting on any pro`osed amendment-provided a quorum were present. Some of the ost important amendments that have been made to the Constitution, since its first adoption, were made by a much smaller number than twothirds of the entire House, in either branch. The one establishing the Supreme Court was made by a vote not much over a majority in each House. If a Constitution can be thus amended-if this construction holds and obtains in all such cases, both Federal and State, why should it not be held in a similar rule, founded on similar principles in a Party Convention, especially as that Convention had adopted the rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, where always a twothird vote is held to be two-thirds of those voting on any question ?

It is immaterial with me, then, whether Mr. Douglas got two hundred and twelve, or one hundred and ninety-six, or one hundred and eighty-one and a half, or one hundred and fifty-four, as has been variously contended; in either case he got two-thirds of those voting in the Convention, as it then stood-as it was then constituted. If there were but one hundred and ninety-six members present when he got one hundred and eighty-one and a half, he got two-thirds of the body, according