Mr. DOOLI'F‘LE. Mr. President, those words are equivocal. The inference to be drawn is substantially what I said, if not to cast an imputation, to raise a question as to the sincerity of the motives which have con' trolled me. Now, Mr. President, it is not pleasant for a man to speak of himself; it is not becoming on ordinary occasions that a‘ man should speak of himself or for himself; but, sir, upon a point like this, I may be par doned ifI allude to other crises in my life in which I have been culled upon to take important and decisive action in relation to my political course. And 1st, sir, I refer to 1847. In the convention of the Democratic party of the State of NewYork, when we were in possession by force ofarms of the territories of Mexico, and the question of their disposition was to be determined, after Mr. Polk, then President, had recommended the disposition of those territories in such a manner as to give to slavery a considerable portion of them under these circumstances, and when the responsibility was upon the country, I, as a member of the domi nant party of the country, (a party which had the lyxeentive, which had both branches of Congress which was in a large majority in almost all of the States,) had occasion upon my responsibility to take action upon the ending question raised by the situation of a airs; and that question was the same question which for 20 years has been the great issue, shall slavery be extended into the Territories of the U.S or not? As a member of the convention of the dominant party in the State g of NewYorkI brought forward that resolution denominated the “corner stone resolution, ” upon which we separated ourselves from the majority and the dominant party in the State, an organized what was denominated the Free soil party of the State of NewYork. That corner stone resolution stood at the head of thelctiding newspapers of NewYork and NewEngland and Ohio, and Wisconsin, too, as the corner stone upon which the Free soil organization was laid. Sir, for no purpose but to carry out what I believed to be the duty resting upon me and carrying forward the true interests of the country, wedeliberately went into a great minority, abandoned the majority and office and all chance for office, nll place and all thought of place. abandoned all to give ourselves to the principle which was involved in the struggle. liat followed? The Democratic party was overthrown; General Cass, its candidate, who was in favor of what was called the diffusion of the institution of slavery by way of absorbing it and blotting it out, was laid aside, and General Taylor was elected. What then intervened? One of those things which seem almost as we look back upon it now, as the special providence of Almighty God. The discovery of the gold mines of California happening just at this time carried the people of the free States by 100s and 1000s into‘that new Territory justaequired from Mexico; and they organized a free State government with a free constitution, came to congress and demanded admission, and Congress dared not refuse, for California was the golden State, and a rising State on the west side of the ltocky mountains, and she could not be held against her will. She demanded admission; and the Senate of the U.S., pro slavery as it was, was compelled to yield to the demand, and California was admitted as a free State. That was the result of the organization of the Free soil party of 1847 and 1848. It was a victory for freedom by the admission of that free State which gave in this Senate a majority to the free States of the Union. What then occurred? There was got up what was called agrand compromise. All the great Whigs and all the great Democrats of the country in this body and in the other House got together and produced what was called the compromise of 1850, and then it was re claimed by the greatmen of the country, “ I'lie slavery question is now forever ended; it shall never be agitated n ain; now the country shall be quieted; we sha l hear no more upon that subject.” The 2 parties went into the nomination of their candidates in 1852 upon me cisely the same platform in that respect. the Whig party nominated General Scott, and they declared there should be no discussion of the slavery nestion at all countenanced or encour aged. the Democratic party nominated general Pierce, and they declared the same thing, so that upon this question in 1852 the time when my colleague charges upon me that I abandoned the cause which I had espoused in 1848 because he says I gave my support to General Pierce in 1852 both the great parties of the country occupied the same ground. It is a fact to be noticed also that the great majority of the Free soil party with which I acted in 1848, in the State 0 NewYork, as well as in Ohio and Wisconsin, went into the support of General Pierce in 1852. There was on ya little, small remnant of that party who voted for Halo, who was in 18 52 the candidate of what was called the Liberty party. There were a few who did so. The honorable Senatorwho now occupies the chair Mr. Ponsnov] was one who adhered to Mr. ale, and I believe the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] also adhered to Mr. Hale in 1852; but there were very few of the Free soil organization either in Ohio or in NewYork or in Wisconsin who did. Here was no abandonment of principle on my part. It is true I went upon the bench in 1853, having been elected in 1852, in the State of Wisconsin. From 1853 to 1856 I was constantly engaged in the arduous duties of judge of the 1stjudicial district of Wisconsin, which at that time was the most 0 ulons and had the most business of any of)t e judicial districts of the State; and while I was on the bench I had sufficient regard to what I thought were the proprieties of that position not to engage publicly in political adhirs; but from the moment the Democratic party, which had elected General Pierce on the pledge that the slavery question should not be reopened, proposed the repeal of the Missouri compromise, to every person who conversed with me on the subject freely, openly, frankly declared in opposition to the project, and said that it would be the dissolution and the destruction of the Democratic party. My colleague refers to the fact that in 1856 I gave my open adhesion and my public support to the election of Mr. Fremont, but says that I did not write a public letter or make a public speech until after the adjournment of Congress. You remember, sir and I know you do, for you were a resident of Kansas at the time that for long months herein congress the very question pending was whether Congress would enforce the border rufiian slave code of Kansas, or would repeal it. If congress had repealed it, Kansas would have been a free State. I did not desire to go 'into political life or to go into a struggle. I was engaged in my profession, a profession that brings more profit and much more case than an place like those we occupy here. I had no desire to go into it; but whon the Congress of the U.S., under the influence of the Senate of that day, dgtermined that they cou'ld enforce that bloody code upon the Territory of Kansas, I could not withhold my declaration. Sir, it was like fire in my bones and in my heart. It demanded and would have utterance; and when the utterance came it came red hot in the denunciation of the infernal outrage that was thus practiced upon the people of that Territory; and as my colleague says it would not be becoming in me to say itthe people of Wisconsin perhaps did feel grateful for what I did in the canvass of 1856 in denouncing the Democratic party and overthrowing it and trampling the organization under our feet which would justify and sustain an outrage like that. Mr. President, I never sought alliance with the Republican party because it had offices whose price was high in the market no, sir; never. My collea ne refers to my course in Wisconsin. Sir, during the last 6 months, ay, more than 6 months past, in the State of Wisconsin no man has struggled harder than I have struggled to save the Union party, to save it to its platform, to save it to itsprinciples, to save it in its supremacy. here is hardly a man in Wisconsin this day who does not know that the success of the Union party there is due to those men who in the convention at Madison united with me and agreed with me in opinion there and in resisting what was there proposed, to wit, to declare by the resolutions of the Union convention that the States of the South should never have representatives in Congress until they extended universal suffrage to negroes. Because we resisted that in the State of Wisconsin we saved the Union part and elected its candidates by 9,000 majority when the very proposition presented to the people based upon negro suffrage was voted down by 9,000. Had we, consulting the public news papers, consulting the denunciations and the clamor of the hour, been false to our position and false to the crisis, had we yieldctf) to that clamor, the'Union part would have been utterl overwhelmed in e State of Wisconsin at the last election. Mr. President, it has been charged that it was through in instrumentality that that convention refuse to adopt any such new creed or new platform which never had been incor orated as a part of the Union creed or the I’Inion platform. I have been charged with the responsibility of that. If the responsibility of that rests upon me, then it is true that I had the honor of saving the Union party of Wisconsin in its struggle last fall. But has the course pursued by me there saved me from the denunciations of the public press? Not at all. For 6 months, from one end of Wisconsin to the other, ay, from Boston to StPaul, b every one of a certain class of newspn ers have been denounced as a traitor to the nion party because I saved it from defeat. Sir, it is not the 1st time in the history of the world that men have turned in to crucify their sav iour. So far as I am concerned, my political life may be ended; but the principles for which I have contended, the principles for which I have made the struggle, will ive. Men may suppose that those principles are crucified; they may imagine that the doctrine of the right of the States to control their own institutions, so far, at least, as to be permitted to declare who shall exercise the right of suffru e within their limits, is crucified and buried int c tomb, with a stone rolled at the door; they may im ‘ ugine that these principles are dead and bur ied and will never rise again. So far as individuals are concerned, it is of but little consequence. I, as an individual, may have met enuncintion; perhaps I may be consigned to defeat; but what of all that? What cure I, if the principles live? I tell you, Mr. President, and it is as certain as that the sun W‘lil rise tomorrow, that the great principles for which I have contended wrll hvc; their resurrection is certain; and those who stand in opposition to them will find that they are living, vitalizing principles; that they will have recognition, and you cannot keep them buried out of sight., Mr. President, 'I have been betrayed, perhaps, into saying more than I would have said under other circumstances. I have no unkind words to my colleague, no questions upon the sincerity of his course, no imputations upon his motives. I only rose to say, in my own defense, that so far as my intentions are concerned, I intend to pursue the right, ifI know where it leads; and, God helping me, I will pursue it to the end, he the consequences what they may.