their　adoption。〃
  Now　can　there　be　any　difficulty　in　understanding　this？　　To　you
  Democrats　it　may　not　seem　like　principle；　but　surely　you　cannot
  fail　to　perceive　the　position　plainly　enough。　　The　distinction
  between　it　and　the　position　of　your　candidate　is　broad　and
  obvious；　and　I　admit　you　have　a　clear　right　to　show　it　is　wrong
  if　you　can；　but　you　have　no　right　to　pretend　you　cannot　see　it　at
  all。　　We　see　it；　and　to　us　it　appears　like　principle；　and　the
  best　sort　of　principle　at　thatthe　principle　of　allowing　the
  people　to　do　as　they　please　with　their　own　business。　　My　friend
  from　Indiana　（C。　　B。　　Smith＇　has　aptly　asked；　〃Are　you　willing　to
  trust　the　people？〃　Some　of　you　answered　substantially；　〃We　are
  willing　to　trust　the　people；　but　the　President　is　as　much　the
  representative　of　the　people　as　Congress。〃　In　a　certain　sense；
  and　to　a　certain　extent；　he　is　the　representative　of　the　people。
  He　is　elected　by　them；　as　well　as　Congress　is；　but　can　he；　in　the
  nature　of　things　know　the　wants　of　the　people　as　well　as　three
  hundred　other　men；　coming　from　all　the　various　localities　of　the
  nation？　　If　so；　where　is　the　propriety　of　having　a　Congress？
  That　the　Constitution　gives　the　President　a　negative　on
  legislation；　all　know；　but　that　this　negative　should　be　so
  combined　with　platforms　and　other　appliances　as　to　enable　him；
  and　in　fact　almost　compel　him；　to　take　the　whole　of　legislation
  into　his　own　hands；　is　what　we　object　to；　is　what　General　Taylor
  objects　to；　and　is　what　constitutes　the　broad　distinction　between
  you　and　us。　　To　thus　transfer　legislation　is　clearly　to　take　it
  from　those　who　understand　with　minuteness　the　interests　of　the
  people；　and　give　it　to　one　who　does　not　and　cannot　so　well
  understand　it。　　I　understand　your　idea　that　if　a　Presidential
  candidate　avow　his　opinion　upon　a　given　question；　or　rather　upon
  all　questions；　and　the　people；　with　full　knowledge　of　this；　elect
  him；　they　thereby　distinctly　approve　all　those　opinions。　　By
  means　of　it；　measures　are　adopted　or　rejected　contrary　to　the
  wishes　of　the　whole　of　one　party；　and　often　nearly　half　of　the
  other。　　Three；　four；　or　half　a　dozen　questions　are　prominent　at　a
  given　time；　the　party　selects　its　candidate；　and　he　takes　his
  position　on　each　of　these　questions。　　On　all　but　one　his
  positions　have　already　been　indorsed　at　former　elections；　and　his
  party　fully　committed　to　them；　but　that　one　is　new；　and　a　large
  portion　of　them　are　against　it。　　But　what　are　they　to　do？　　The
  whole　was　strung　together；　and　they　must　take　all；　or　reject　all。
  They　cannot　take　what　they　like；　and　leave　the　rest。　　What　they
  are　already　committed　to　being　the　majority；　they　shut　their
  eyes；　and　gulp　the　whole。　　Next　election；　still　another　is
  introduced　in　the　same　way。　　If　we　run　our　eyes　along　the　line　of
  the　past；　we　shall　see　that　almost　if　not　quite　all　the　articles
  of　the　present　Democratic　creed　have　been　at　first　forced　upon
  the　party　in　this　very　way。　　And　just　now；　and　just　so；
  opposition　to　internal　improvements　is　to　be　established　if
  General　Cass　shall　be　elected。　　Almost　half　the　Democrats　here
  are　for　improvements；　but　they　will　vote　for　Cass；　and　if　he
  succeeds；　their　vote　will　have　aided　in　closing　the　doors　against
  improvements。　　Now　this　is　a　process　which　we　think　is　wrong。　　We
  prefer　a　candidate　who；　like　General　Taylor；　will　allow　the
  people　to　have　their　own　way；　regardless　of　his　private　opinions；
  and　I　should　think　the　internal…improvement　Democrats；　at　least；
  ought　to　prefer　such　a　candidate。　　He　would　force　nothing　on　them
  which　they　don't　want；　and　he　would　allow　them　to　have
  improvements　which　their　own　candidate；　if　elected；　will　not。
  Mr。　Speaker；　I　have　said　General　Taylor's　position　is　as　well
  defined　as　is　that　of　General　Cass。　　In　saying　this；　I　admit　I　do
  not　certainly　know　what　he　would　do　on　the　Wilmot　Proviso。　　I　am
  a　Northern　man　or　rather　a　Western　Free…State　man；　with　a
  constituency　I　believe　to　be；　and　with　personal　feelings　I　know
  to　be；　against　the　extension　of　slavery。　　As　such；　and　with　what
  information　I　have；　I　hope　and　believe　General　Taylor；　if
  elected；　would　not　veto　the　proviso。　　But　I　do　not　know　it。　　Yet
  if　I　knew　he　would；　I　still　would　vote　for　him。　　I　should　do　so
  because；　in　my　judgment；　his　election　alone　can　defeat　General
  Cass；　and　because；　should　slavery　thereby　go　to　the　territory　we
  now　have；　just　so　much　will　certainly　happen　by　the　election　of
  Cass；　and　in　addition　a　course　of　policy　leading　to　new　wars；　new
  acquisitions　of　territory　and　still　further　extensions　of
  slavery。　　One　of　the　two　is　to　be　President。　　Which　is
  preferable？
  But　there　is　as　much　doubt　of　Cass　on　improvements　as　there　is　of
  Taylor　on　the　proviso。　　I　have　no　doubt　myself　of　General　Cass　on
  this　question；　but　I　know　the　Democrats　differ　among　themselves
  as　to　his　position。　　My　internal…improvement　colleague　＇Mr。
  Wentworth＇　stated　on　this　floor　the　other　day　that　he　was
  satisfied　Cass　was　for　improvements；　because　he　had　voted　for　all
  the　bills　that　he　＇Mr。　Wentworth＇　had。　　So　far　so　good。　　But　Mr。
  Polk　vetoed　some　of　these　very　bills。　　The　Baltimore　convention
  passed　a　set　of　resolutions；　among　other　things；　approving　these
  vetoes；　and　General　Cass　declares；　in　his　letter　accepting　the
  nomination；　that　he　has　carefully　read　these　resolutions；　and
  that　he　adheres　to　them　as　firmly　as　he　approves　them　cordially。
  In　other　words；　General　Cass　voted　for　the　bills；　and　thinks　the
  President　did　right　to　veto　them；　and　his　friends　here　are
  amiable　enough　to　consider　him　as　being　on　one　side　or　the　other；
  just　as　one　or　the　other　may　correspond　with　their　own　respective
  inclinations。　　My　colleague　admits　that　the　platform　declares
  against　the　constitutionality　of　a　general　system　of
  improvements；　and　that　General　Cass　indorses　the　platform；　but　he
  still　thinks　General　Cass　is　in　favor　of　some　sort　of
  improvements。　　Well；　what　are　they？　　As　he　is　against　general
  objects；　those　he　is　for　must　be　particular　and　local。　　Now　this
  is　taking　the　subject　precisely　by　the　wrong　end。　　Particularity
  expending　the　money　of　the　whole　people　for　an　object　which　will
  benefit　only　a　portion　of　themis　the　greatest　real　objection　to
  improvements；　and　has　been　so　held　by　General　Jackson；　Mr。　Polk；
  and　all　others；　I　believe；　till　now。　　But　now；　behold；　the
  objects　most　generalnearest　free　from　this　objectionare　to　be
  rejected；　while　those　most　liable　to　it　are　to　be　embraced。　　To
  return：　I　cannot　help　believing　that　General　Cass；　when　he　wrote
  his　letter　of　acceptance；　well　understood　he　was　to　be　claimed　by
  the　advocates　of　both　sides　of　this　question；　and　that　he　then
  closed　the　door　against　all　further　expressions　of　opinion
  purposely　to　retain　the　benefits　of　that　double　position。　　His
  subsequent　equivocation　at　Cleveland；　to　my　mind；　proves　such　to
  have　been　the　case。
  One　word　more；　and　I　shall　have　done　with　this　branch　of　the
  subject。　　You　Democrats；　and　your　candidate；　in　the　main　are　in
  favor　of　laying　down　in　advance　a　platforma　set　of　party
  positionsas　a　unit；　and　then　of　forcing　the　people；　by　every
  sort　of　appliance；　to　ratify　them；　however　unpalatable　some　of
  them　may　be。　　We　and　our　candidate　are　in　favor　of　making
  Presidential　elections　and　the　legislation　of　the　country
  distinct　matters；　so　that　the　people　can　elect　whom　they　please；
  and　afterward　legislate　just　as　they　please；　without　any
  hindrance；　save　only　so　much　as　may　guard　against　infractions　of
  the　Constitution；　undue　haste；　and　want　of　consideration。　　The
  difference　between　us　is　clear　as　noonday。　　That　we　are　right　we
  cannot　doubt。　　We　hold　the　true　Republican　position。　　In　leaving
  the　people's　business　in　their　hands；　we　cannot　be　wrong。　　We　are
  willing；　and　even　anxious；　to　go　to　the　people　on　this　issue。
  But　I　suppose　I　cannot　reasonably　hope　to　convince　you　that　we
  have　any　principles。　　The　most　I　can　expect　is　to　assure　you　that
  we　think　we　have　and　are　quite　contented　with　them。　　The　other
  day　one　of　the　gentlemen　from　Georgia　＇Mr。　Iverson＇；　an　eloquent
  man；　and　a　man　of　learning；　so　far　as　I　can　judge；　not　being
  learned　myself；　came　down　upon　us　astonishingly。　　He　spoke　in
  what　the　'Baltimore　American'　calls　the　〃scathing　and　withering
  style。〃　At　the　end　of　his　second　severe　flash　I　was　struck　blind；
  and　found　myself　feeling　with　my　fingers　for　an　assurance　of　my
  continued　existence。　　A　little　of　the　bone　was　left；　and　I
  gradually　revived。　　He　eulogized　Mr。　Clay　in　high　and　beautiful
  terms；　and　then　declared　that　we　had　deserted　all　our　principles；
  and　had　turned　Henry　Clay　out；　like　an　old　horse；　to　root。　　This
  is　terribly　severe。　　It　cannot　be　answered　by　argumentat　least
  I　cannot　so　answer　it。　　I　merely　wish　to　ask　the　gentleman　if　the
  Whigs　are　the　only　party　he　can　think　of　who　sometimes　turn　old
  horses　out　to　root。　　Is　not　a　certain　Martin　Van　Buren　an　old
  horse　which　y