Another argument employed by these apologists is, that the 'Proviso,' or a law prohibiting slavery in these Territories, is unnecessary; that it is an abstraction--a 'firebrand' employed by demagogues and factionists to kindle strife in the Democratic party; that the Territories are now free, and that they will so continue, unless an act of Congress is passed establishing slavery. It is impossible to avoid asking ourselves why, if these gentlemen are sincere--if they truly believe that slavery can not and will not go there, and they do not desire that it should--why they so strenuously oppose the passage of such a prohibition? If their views are correct, then such a law would be a mere harmless superfluity. But, sir, this '_firebrand of freedom_' is a thing more exalted and noble than a mere abstraction. It is wielded by men of strong arms, adamantine will, and hearts animated by the divine impulses of patriotism and liberty. They have registered a vow in Heaven to employ every lawful and constitutional means to roll back the dark tide of slavery from the temple of Freedom, and vindicate the character of the Republic from the disgrace and reproach of establishing slavery in a free territory. We are no abstractionists. The Representatives in this Congress from the fifteen slaveholding States of the Union, without an exception, and without distinction of party, avow an intention to carry their slaves into these Territories, and there hold them in bondage. They assert, with passionate vehemence, that they have such a constitutional right. They have even told us, sir, that, regardless of the remonstrances of the people of the North--heedless of any prohibitory law of Congress upon the subject, they would invade the free soil of the Pacific, and take with them their slaves, and weapons of defence! Are these declarations abstractions? Do they make no appeal for immediate, energetic and prohibitory legislation? [Illustration: W. Collins]