“The contradictions, duplicity, and absurdity of the law are obvious at once.  The first sentence announces a change in the settled principles and policy of the Government; else why declare that the Constitution ‘shall’ extend to Nebraska, if it already extended there?  Then comes the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.  The reason given for this is, that it is inconsistent with the non-intervention by Congress with slavery, recognized in the Compromise of 1850.  But that law declares positively that Congress does not intervene, because it is ’inexpedient’ to do so; and gives the reason why it is inexpedient.  The power of Congress was asserted by Mr. Clay, who made the law, and the terms of it were chosen for the very purpose of preventing any inference being drawn from it against that power.

“It is remarkable, too, that the Bill, whilst declaring the perfect freedom of the Territories, should still have left them subject to the power of the President, who, as before, is permitted to appoint their Governor, Judges, and Marshals, officers who are his agents, and without whose sanction the acts of the Territorial Legislature can neither become laws, nor be construed and applied, nor executed.  So that the will of the people may be defeated, should it happen to be opposed to the will of the President:  as was seen in the case of Kansas.

“Why,” Mr. Fisher asks, “is the anomalous monster of Popular Sovereignty to be introduced with reference to slavery?  Is it because slaves are ‘mere property’?  Why, then, not subject all property, land included, to popular control?  Is it because the subject of slavery is an exciting topic, a theme for dangerous agitation, to be checked only by placing the subject beyond the power of Congress?  The answer is, that Congress cannot abdicate its power on the ground of expediency.  If it may give up one power, it may give up all.  Nor can Congress delegate its power for the same reason.  Trust power, from its very nature, cannot be delegated.  To break down great principles, to set aside ancient usage, to abandon legal authority, in order to appease the contests of parties, is too great a sacrifice.  No true peace can come of it; only suppressed and adjourned war.”

The natural inference from the extracts we have given would be that Mr. Fisher was a member of the Republican party.  But such is not the fact:  Mr. Fisher rests his hope upon a party “yet to be organized.”  “The extreme Northern, or Free-soil, or Abolition party is only less guilty than the extreme Southern and Democratic party.”  Which?  Does Mr. Fisher mean that “Northern,” “Free-soil,” and “Abolition” are synonymous terms?  And does any or do all of them mean the Republican party?  Or, finally, does Mr. Fisher shrink from the conclusions presented by his logic, and is his vaguely convenient linking together of different words intended to leave his position gracefully doubtful?  And in that case, do the Baltimore nominations, with