they will unite with the South in such measures of resistance as the emergency may demand. In MISSISSIPPI the contest is no less animated. It was brought on by the issuing of a proclamation by Gov. QUITMAN, calling a State Convention, for the purpose of taking measures of redress. A private letter, written by Gov. QUITMAN, has also been published, in which he avows himself in favor of secession. On the last Saturday in October, a mass meeting was held at Raymond, at which Col. JEFFERSON DAVIS was present, and made a speech. He was strongly in favor of resistance, but was not clear that it should be by _force_. He thought it possible to maintain the rights of the South in the Union. He was willing, however, to leave the mode of resistance entirely to the people, while he should follow their dictates implicitly. Mr. ANDERSON replied to him, and insisted that the Federal Government had committed no unconstitutional aggression upon the rights of the South, and that they ought, therefore, to acquiesce in the recent legislation of Congress. Senator FOOTE is actively engaged in canvassing the state, urging the same views. He meets very violent opposition in various sections. In LOUISIANA indications of public sentiment are to be found in the position of the two United States Senators. Mr. DOWNS, in his public addresses, takes the ground that the South might as well secede because Illinois and Indiana are free States as because California is. He admits that California is a large State, but he says she is not half so large as Texas, a slave State, brought into the Union five years ago. Mr. SOULÉ, the other Senator, having expressed no opinion upon the subject, was addressed in a friendly note of inquiry first by Hon. C.N. STANTON, asking whether he was in favor of a dissolution of the Union, of the establishment of a Southern Confederacy, or of the secession of Louisiana, because of the late action of Congress. Mr. SOULÉ, in his reply, complains bitterly of the "vile abuse" heaped upon him, charges his correspondent with seeking his political destruction, and refers him to his speeches in the Senate for his sentiments upon these questions. A large number of the members of his own party then addressed to Mr. SOULÉ the same inquiries, saying that they did it from no feeling of unkindness, but merely to have a fair and proper comprehension of his opinions upon a most important public question. Mr. S., under date of Oct. 30, replies, refusing to answer their inquiries, and saying that their only object was to divide and distract the Democratic party. Senator DOWNS, in reply to the same questions, has given a full and explicit answer in the negative: he is not in favor of disunion or secession.