Daily State Sentinel, Indianapolis, Marion County, 1 January 1858 — Page 2

precedent to the admieeion of any new State that every proposition in ita constitution shall have been submitted to a popular vote after the constitution has come from the hand* of a regularly organised and legal convention! 11118 is a con struction inconsistent with the circumstances which brought those measures into existence. It is a construction not contemplated by their supporters, among whom, ss a private citizen, I was early ibcluded. It to a construction scarcely compatible with their phraseology. W e are said to be a progressive people. Is this new reading of them measures an evidence only of our general proyees, a part only of our yearly accruing wiadomT Or lurks there behind it some policy of a personal bearing 7 Mr. President, I doubt not that every gentlemen to governed by the most honorable and patriotic motives in amuming whatever position he may take on this question. I will attribute none other to any man. But if there, unfortunately, be men, high in the Democratic party, who deaire to avail themselves of the present phase of this question to take a position outside of that party, with the hope—by throwing firebrands into its midst, or by directing artillery against it—to destroy it, in return (or some past grievance, real or fancied, I would commend to guch the lessons fa.riy deducible from the result of every such attempt, from Burr’s to Van Buren’s. The Democratic is the great conservative party of the country—the only national party.— It is the onl^y mere political link in the chain which now binds the States in one common coun try. It is so deemed throughout the world; so known to its own members; so admitted even by the more candid and conservative of its political opponents; and none of these will hold that man guiltless, who abandons it upon a question having in it so little of practical importance as there is in this, and, by seeking its destruction, thereby ad- • bilts his not unwillingness that a similar fate should be visited on the Union, perhaps, to subserve his selfish purpose. The measures to which I have alluded—the Compromise of I860 and the Kansas act—as 1 hags-said, were .designed to Uke one question, previously, in part atleasOtn'exceptional one, from that position, and apply to it the same rule al wavs previously applied under our Government to all other questions of domeatie policy. They were designed, in fact, to subject that one question to the same control and the same usages to which all others were subjected. They did not contemplate either the enlargement or diminution of the powers previously possessed on other questions: neither an expansion nor contraction of those powers. They left all other powers in •tolu quo, to be exercised as they previously had been, only placing this oM among them. But noWjre find kb effort being made to so construe "them as to make them subversive of the past usages of tfco Government; to make them limit the pa*s* previously possessed by our people, by compelling them to exercise it in one manner, and one only. We find an effort now being made, in fact, to so construe them as to deny to delegated authority the right to form an organic law— a right hitherto often exercised. This denial is explicitly made by Governor Walker in his recent (I am sorry to say somewhat egotistical) manifesto; one in which he sustains his position by quoting from himself only to support it He makes this denial explicitly. According to his opinion, the constitutions of more than one half the States of this Union, and even the constitu tion of the United States itself, are unconstitutional ; because in the case of the former they have been formed by conventions called by acts of Territorial Legislature; and because in the latter, in common with the former, they have become operative without any previous action upon them by a popular vote. Most fortunately for us, his opinion is not the paramount law of the land; otherwise, a majority of the most populous and wealthy States of the Union would be re solved at once into a territorial condition, and even the Old Thirteen would be compelled to fall back either upon tlieir_original articles of con federation or their colonial charters. It was not, to my knowledge, iutimated by any person anywhere, during the discussion of the Kansas bill, that it was the intention to construe that bill, as is now declared, so as to initiate an innovation into the past usage of our Government, by requiring the submission of every distinct proposition in a new State constitution to the popular vote after such constitution has been legally framed by an authorized Convention, as a necessary condition precedent to the recognition of that Constitution here. The Missouri line was a restriction upon the right of self-gov-et nment, upon the doctrine of popular sovereignty, Inasmuch as it denied to the people north of that line any control whatever over the question of slavery. The Kansas act repealed that line, and therefore a^iauled the deniifc placing the question in the same category with, others of a domestic character, subject to the same popular will, leaving that will to be exercised as before, in whatever manner it choose, either through delegates or by a direct vo e. The recognition of popular sovereignty by the repeal ol the Missouri line, consisted iu the fact that it placed the question of slavery where all others previously were. It did not provide, nor did it contemplate, nor did its supporters imagine, nor did its author intimate, that it contem plated the submission of every bank proposition, every internal improvement project, every school system, every election qualification in a new con stitution, to the people, before the people and for whom it was procured should be admitted into the Union. Any attempt at that time to shape its language as to place that construction on it, would have been resisted. I can venture, for the truth of this assertion, to appeal to those about me who acted with its author at the time of ita introduction, not only as an uncalled for and unneoesaary innovation upon the past usage of the Government, but as in conflict with that very popular sovereignty which its author then so ably advocated, and for which he now declaims, by denying to the people their right to delegate their power and authorityIf tile Coustitution of Kansas comes here, as we are told it will, without previous submission to the popular vote, I shall regret the fact as much as any gentleman on this floor, or any citizen throughout the Republic, but yet, if it comes here under such circumstances, it will not be an isolated exception to a general rule. Whence th to newtiorn anxiety as to the manner in which that particular constitution shall come before Congress? The rule, on the contrary, has been quite the reverse; for. as the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Green] so ably told us, a few days since, a majority of the new States, Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois, included, have been admitted with Constitutions which had not previously received the popular sanction, and no complaint followed, neither from the States or Congress. Such manner of submission has heretofore met ihe sanction of the Senator from Illinois himself. I do not make the allusion to convict him of inconsistency, because I know not and care not whether he has been inconsistent or not, As he well said, yesterday, it has no bearing whatever on this question; and if attempts to convict each other of incooaistencies are to constitute the staple argument on tills question, I fancy very few of us will escape unscathed. This manner of submission has before met his sanction, both positive and implied; positive, in his having voted for the admission of States with Conatitntious similarly formed ami similarly presented; implied, in his having, jointly with others, framed a permissory act for Kansas, without providing for the submission of the Constitution it contemplated to the people, beforq that Constitution came here. If tlyt permissory act had passed both branches of Cqagreas, and become a law, the result would have \>een precisely what it now is. ilmau&tiug as it did from a Democratic source —the Senator from Georgia [ Mr. Toombe] and the Senator from Illinois—it met the unqualified opposition of the opposite, or Republican party. That opposition would have been manifested in Kansas precisely as has their opposition to every other proposmon uot emanating from the Topeka faction, precisely as has their opposition to the territorial law calling a convention, namely, by their refusal to vote at the election of dele gates to a convention. Such has been the policy Lid course of the Topeka faction within Kansas, and their abettors and sympathizers without TTiey have constantly refused to recognize any tow in Kansas, except It was the work or the selfconstituted law-makers of their own faction. They have refused to obey any law there, or hold it worthy Of Obedience, except the will of that faction. Their refusal to vote at the election of delegates, under the congressional permiasory act. would have resulted precisely as has their refusal to vote under the territorial act The seme kind of constitution would have been formed end presented here in the same maimer, without previous submission. Tbe manner then would have been chargeable to Congress, especially the Democratic portion, and particularly the author* of the bill. Nbw it is chargeable to the people of the TeirRory, through their Territoruj Legfehuttre, and chargeable in the present eamL sa lt would have been In the former, because ofihe omtosion to provide for its submission. If thn prnswit constitution had come under the conysminntl permissory act, so it would if that net

bad passed, in all probability, to to saarcciy to be 4 abettors and xympsthiKef* without, or upon Con-; scion, thus : believed tlmt it would have met th* samerectp- gres». Then no power outside of itself will h ive I have no hesitat tion it has now, from the same source—that a de . any pretext lor interfering with its d .me.-tic ie us Of the two prop mand would have been made by the Senator trum ’ Then, it one cwiiBtitaiiou be not pt'asu g to a reject this constit. Illinois that it should previously be submitted to majority of its iiihalntditt.s, it can be amended, or o0 8, because it wil the people; that be would have been anpiompt another substituted whenever ilui majority so element of that to condem his own word as he now is that of will, even if it be within a few days. which threatens, i

With all deftreuce to those, especially from the Republic. *

r with me on this sub- th*

It to objected to this coustitution that it was my own section, who differ with me on this sub- U ne or the otherY formed by a convention called into existence by ject, I see no course for Congress to adopt hi the will unhesitfxtingl a Territorial Legislature—a bony, which thoa* present emergency but to admit Kansas with what J ^ ' making tbe objection believed not pomeaacd of • ever eomtitution tomay preaeut here—wswuming the right or aatbority to make the call. Iu my always that the election of yesterday was not estimation, this objection might have been well fraudulent, and was notinterrupted by force—df taken in the earlier daysof tbe Republic, but it is 1 ter brst satisfying ourselves as to the constitu-

nit i waa Politics.” ted confidence in its wisdom, integrity and pa-

, ^ . The Ghitt^aTimrs, under thr above capdon, trittoism” woultkprova not oa^ insj^erity, but

cy of that State certain facts and to coitwct gross future,” would overaom* all considerations of misrepresentations.” We should not notice fhe ’ either party welfare or public good,

article, did it not knowingly and grossly misstate

; this controversy as an sectional agitation, Lteiied, the unity of two, assuming that

■e, my cnoi

i fee the foroierT

cements.

ml jjjfcy in thaStsSSC

■traction, by th*

County, will be •attained " itendent of Public In-

ten tlu i

S be aettd on here, my choice

DAILY

too late to taka it now, after the on-repeated rvcognitiou of this right b£ admitting new States, whose constitutions have been simply framed and presented. Usage, it need not be mid, becomes, in legislative m liters, law. Moreover the Kansas organic act itself, refutes this objection, giving as it does, to the people of the Territory, the right to “form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way.” Then, if they had not previously the right to call a convention by, and through the Territorial Legislature, either as a necessary incident to the right to act through delegate* or representatives, or as bestowed on them by the past usage of the Government in admitting many States with constitutions framed by convention^ thus called into existence, dial

act explicitly gtoes them the right.

The case of^Arkansas has been cited here It has very little bearing on tills. No Kansas act, no organic law, permitting the people of Arkansas to “form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way” was enacted for

that Territory.

Conscious that this objection has really little valid foundation, some of those making it resort to another, namely, that the Territorial Legislature, which called this convention was, iu their parlance, a“bogus’’cne, an illegal one, and that, being illegal, neither the convention it formed,

nor the coustitution framed by that convention, can be legal. The Senator from Illinois (and 1

really feel myself under the necessity of be.'giug differences, like their “domestic institutions,” his pardon,'and that Of LheSeftate, tor such fre- tnust be settled by theih in ewto wSyl^ab

quent reference to him; but it is unavoidable, as I have said, because of his previous connection with Kansas matters, and because his argument lias been the only one in the Senate on that side of the case, in opposition to my views)—the Senator from Illinois does not agree with those who affirm the first of these propositions; in other words, he asserts the legality of the Territorial Legislature of Kansas, but he is understood to concur with the Topeka meu in affirming the two

Utter.

Now, sir, Congress (the Senator from Illinois included) having repeatedly acknowledged the legality of the Territorial Legislature, it is very difficult to perceive by what process of special pleading we are to avoid acknowledging the legal ity of its acts if they do not conflict with the Coustitution of the United States or the Kansas organic act. That many, and perhaps it majority of the citizens of Kansas, did not vote either at the election of representatives to the Territorial Legislature, or delegates to the convention, may be true. Where is your remedy? You cannot compel men to vote. They can only be permitted and invited to do so. If apart iu any given community, in order to subserve some particular political purpose to supply pabulum, it may be, for some political party, to promote the purposes oi some partisan leader, neglect or reject the invitation, and will uot vote, is the machinery of Government hence to stop, and society to resolve itself into anarchy? Because some political party or, perhaps, a sufficiency of them to change a majority, will uot vote, are those who will do so to be deprived of any government? Permit such an absurdity, and you deprive New York of any State government during the period for which its officers were recently elected. Admit such an absurdity, and you enable any faction to overturn your Government by keeping away from thepolls, especially if they can substantiate a probability that they are a miyority, and the laws would have been different if they had voted. Our Government is one of checks and balances; and some of its checks apply even to the people themselves. Among the objects of our Government, one ise to protect the legal rights of the minority against an illegal assumption or denial of those rights by a majority. While the right of the majority to rule is clearly recognized, it must rule in a legal manner. If a majority resolve itself into a mob, and will neither vote nor observe law or order, the minority who are lawabiding, who form and obey government, cannot be deprived of the benefits and protection of that government by such majority. Is mobocracy 10 be substituted for democracy? The denial, by the Topeka faction, of thefcgality of the Territorial Legislature is a partfof their plan to sub serve a particular purpose. 'They design thereby to force upon Congress a retrospective recognition of the Topeka constitution, with the officials created under its pretended adoption. Hence their proclaimed determination to receive no constitu tion, not even that framed at Topeka, from the hands of the late convention. Its acceptance now would imply the necessity of a future election, and the Robinsons and Lanes, and their sympathizers here, are apprehensive they might not be as successful at those elections as they were at such as were ordered and controlled by themselves. Therefore they demand the recognition, and of course the legalization of the Topeka constitution of the past, with all its attendant anarchy, all its attendant defiance of the legal territorial and constitutional authorities, and indeed with all its factious treason. In furtherance of this demand they take exceptions to certain portions of the present constitution other than the slavery clause. To that they do not deem it advisable to object, because being submitted to the popular vote, they know that it will be expected of them by the world oytside of that Territory, if they have the majority they claim, that they show their majority by rejecting that clause. A comparison of the features to which they object in the Lecompton constitution, with similar ones in that of Topeka, which they profess to have adopted, is favorable to the former, showing that their objections are merely factious. Among these objections is, that twenty years* citizenship is required as a qualification for Governor. Their own—the Topeka constitution—permits a semibarbarou# Indian to be Governoi ! There is a bank clause in both ; and if there be any ch ,ice where, as in matters of banks, all is evil, that choice is clearly in favor of the Lecompton instrument, because the bank for which that provides cannot go into operation without the previous assent of the people. Both contain a clause prohibiting amendment for a certain number of years in the future. I grant you it is a dead letter in both, because the people will amend or change their constitution in their own good time. In the Topeka instrument this prohibition extends to 1865. The conduct of that Topeka faction, their resistauce to legal territorial and national authority, their incipient rebellion, are yet too fresh in the minds of our people to permit a direct proposition to be seriously entertained for one moment, to legalise their acts ; yet we are called upon to do so indirectly ; we are called upon to truckle to this treasonable faction, to humbly ask it whether this or some other constitution will best subserve its purposes. We are asked to ignore the exist ence of any law-abiding citizens in Kansas to place such men in power and position. The compromise of 1850 and the Kansas act of 1854 are based upon it; both recognize in the people of the Territories the same right and power possessed by the people of the States, namely : the right and power to govern themselves. subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the laws necessary to enforce it. The recognition of thia right and power has resulted, in all except two of our present Territo ries, in the formation of a legal and orderly government of the character contemplated. The two exceptions are Utah and Kansas. In the former, usurpation, defiance of and opposition to the constitutional authorities of the country have resulted ; in the Utter, anarchy and faction, and a determination to yield obedience to no law except tbe offspring of faction. The remedy in the former cate to a plain one—it to force. In the latter, tbe only remedy must be tbe reoogni Jon of the acts of such law-abiding citizens as have evinced a willingness to be governed and to govern themselves by yielding obedience to a const! tutional and legal government. The interests, the wellkre, indeed, I may say the safety, not only of the neighboring States and Territories, but of tbe entire confederacy, demand that this Kansas controversy, a local one, should be localised ; that it should no longer be permitted to form an irritating element of national politics, disturbing the peace and endangering the unity of our Government, but should be limited to Kansas Tbe experience of the past, and indeed of this moment, clearly shows tlmt this can only be done by admitting Fsnswi as a State. The people of Kansas have no right to demand or expect the entire country to be continually agitated, its prosperity interrupted, ita unity endangered, because they will not reconcile their contemptible feuds- - will not settle their factious tad as* State, then, and then ohl;

tional requirement, is it republican in form? was it formed in a legal inanner?.Tlie3e are the only questions, in my judgment, that we have any warrant for asking. It is not for ns to Inquire how many votes were cast at t*ie election of delgates to the convention. It is not for us to ask whether some portion or all of it was submitted to the popular vote, unit ss indeed, as in the case ol the constitution of Wisconsin, the instrument provided for its own submission; or unless, as in the case of Minnesota, a previous act of Congress required such mbminsion. In ail other than these two exceptioned cases, such questions are for the decision of tbe people alone. If they chose to enact a law for their Territorial Legisla tore, calling a constitutional conv< ntion, n the absence ol any congressional law oil the subject, they have a right to do so. If in enacting soch law they choose to permit or provide (or a submission ol Uk,* entire coustitution, or only a |»art of it to a popular vote, or to have all of it withheld from such submission, they have a right to do either. They possess the right under their organic law permitting them to “form and regulate their institutions in their own way,” and they possess it generally under our recognized doctrine of nonintervention, or popular soveieignty. If any domestic differences occur between them^aelves and their servants, their representative* or delegates, the same doctrine of non-intarvcotion prohibits us from interfering. Their domestic

facts. If the premises upon which it bases its . ^. e it* not yet ready to take Douglas and iu charges are destitute of truth, tbe inferences D^Us wStiSn'oEt aJd omRepublL

and concftlttans it drawn therefrom, prove absr- • caw. fie i

Anoiher year time- Eighteen

all iU memorable iu good and evil, drear winter—iu summer, and iu live in their r

record of the

dial of time has

aa they must, govern themselves. Tnen In Kan—a will have no apology for calling

that the way be legal. If a portion of the citizens chose to refrain from voting, either for rep>yesentiitives to their Legislature, or for delegates to their convention, or (or or against whatever portion of their constitution may he submitted, we have no remedy. We cannot force them to vote. Those who abstain from voting, whether they abstain merely as peaceable citizens or for factious purposes, as has been the case with a vast number in Kansas, permit others to vote for them, audit the decision at the ballot box be adverse to their views they permit that decision to be taken by default. Congress acting under the Constitution, and the doctrine of popular sover eignty, recognizes their right to vote and their right to “form and regulate their institutions in their own way;” butitjs for them, and them alone to say to what extent they will exercise the right of voting, in what manner they will exercise it, or whether they will exercise it all. It is uot for Congress to prescribe the manner and extent, or to dictate a particular waif, in which they shall form their “domestic institutions,” whether im mediately through the ballot box en manse, or by delegating authority to act for them. If they present a coustitution here, republican iu form, emanating from legal authority, formed in a legal manner, it is not lor us to require that a certain number ol votes shall have been cast at the election of tbe delegates who framed it; it is not for us to require that a portion of it, or all of it, shall have been submitted to a popular vote, un less such subuiission be required by the instrument itself or by previous act of Congress; it is not for us to require that it shall contain a bank clause, or an anti-slavery clause. These are all questions for the decision of the party directly interested— the people of Kansas. If these or similar re quirements are adhered to, and the constitution returned because it does not fulfill them, such nation on our part will be a deuial of popular sovereignty, a denial of their right to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, and a demand that they shall form and regulate them in that way, whatever it maybe, prescribed for them and dictated to them by Congress. It would be, in fact, direct intervention with their domestic

institutions, their internal affairs.

I should have greatly preferred, especially in the presentstate of feeling in Kansas and throughout the country, that the entire constitution had been submitted to the people. It wouhl have been, if the people would have exercised the right guaranteed to tnem. The fault is their own, notours. We cannot go behind their own legal actionsrecognized as legal heretofore by Congress and the Executive. We are bound by that action in my estimation. I say I should have greatly preferi ed that the entire instrument had been submitted to the people ; but, notwithstanding this preference, the legal right of the convention, under the law which called it into existence, to withhold the constitution in parlor altogether from submission, is to my mind unquestionable. The conven tion is responsible to the people of Kansas alone

for the exercise of that right.

We are told that if we recognize the present constitution, difficulties will ensue. I believe it; and so they will if we reject it. Indeed, I have heard of no proposition connected with this matter which has not its attendent difficulties. My own sincere desire is to have that course adopted which will be productive of the least evil to the greatest number. Without committing myself for or against any other proposition which ma come up, and which may be rendered necessary perhaps by some exigency—either a failure to hold an election yesterday, or a forcible prevention of an election, or interference with it—I shall only select at present between the two which are likely from the present state of facts to come before us. One of these is to recognize this con-

stitution ; the other, to reject it.

Tlie first of these propositions is recommended by the President, the Chief Executive officer of the nation ; the man but recently elected by an overwhelming majority to preside over its destinies for four years: an old man, almost three score and ten; one who has devoted the greater portion of his long life to the service of his country, and has been placed in almost every position in the gift of its citizens, and discharged the duties of all to their satisfaction; one who has no political future, no schemes of personal ambition to sub serve, who is no candidate for a future nomination, but will retire from the position he now holds with far more pleasure than he entered upon its duties, desiring only to leave behind him a fair fame and name, and to so administer the Gov eminent as will best promote its power, its honor, and its prosperity. The other of these two propositions is supported by the Senator from Illinois. 1 honor him. I have ever admired him ; yet, in some respects, he is the antipodes of the President. Young, of a brilliant intellect, of ahich all his countrymen might well be proud, but ambitious, and a candidate past, and perhaps future. I do uot speak this in any disparagement of iiim, for ambition, divested of self—a desire to hold place without any selfish motive inciting it; a desire to hold place merely to leave the impress of his policy on the Government of his country and to enhance the prosperity of its people-*-!* an

honorable feeling.

In justification for his so ill-timed huirying this debate upon the Senate, and upon the cotmtiy, the Senator from Illinois told us that the President, in his message, had assailed him and his previous course. He intimated further,, that every allusion to him here, in debate upon the affairs of Kansas, was designed as a continuation of the attack, and that there was some person, or some power, using a suborned press and suborned let-ter-writers, to likewise assail him. Iu all this he sees more of himself than others do—fancies himself the object of actions which have little reference to him, and with which little thought of him was associated. Ue did not name or locate this person, or this power, thus suborning tbe press, leaving foil play for our imaginations. It may be some tangible person ; it may be some mrth, some fog, some shadowy nothing, existing only in his imagination ; or it may be that this one of his allegations grew out of a recollection of a similar charge once brought against himself—a charge to which he then very promptly and properly took exception, as I do to this general charge of hit against a somebody who is not designated. He was once charged—and it was not in a subdued whisper, but trumpet-toned and buudred-ton-gued-—with at least no nnwiHingness, that a public journal, thought to be controlled by him, and claiming to be the mouth-piece of the National Democracy should throw overboard Mr. Buchanan, Gen. Cass, and other lathers of the party,

as “old. fogies.” 1 ~

I have thus, sir, briefly stated the qualities of the two gentlemen who recommended these apposite propositions. I have the moat profound respect for them both. Locality, every consideration of self, if such could euter into my motives of action in thia matter, would indue* me to go wfthr the Senator from Illinois. We are geographically neighbors. -1 may almost say that his people and my -people are one. He has, perhaps,

more influence among my ?e»pl*tiu» I have my-

self. These considerations, however, h ing whatever to do with my course, or ion on this question. Between these two coun

y Near Ye*r.

pped into the vast ocean of idred and fifty-seven, with ta; its joys and sorrows; e passed into eternity. Its fill spring—its fruitful autumn harvests, only ; in the memory and One more point in the marked. Another step

h is been taken towards eternity. The year, commenced with igyiting hopes, with resolutions to accomplish good for ourselves, and for our neighbors, has ended. What have been its results? Have we Jrown wiser and better by its lessons, its experietoce—have we less to regret at its close than whan it dawned upon us? Who has beuefitted by;our examples and our good deeds? Does the Memory of the year fade into

or sorrow—upon the

or a shadow? The

its revolving or evil, have

eternity with pt

canvass of Hfe, year has gone

days have

upon another. When it exptodfVhat shall be its record? No human vision can penetrate its his tory. Every living creature heads onward, rtepby step, with no light upon the pathway. We move forward without knowing where each footstep may fall. We know not what a day, an hour, a moment may bring forth. Faith alone is the staff on which we must lean.— We cannot control the seasons, but seed time and harvest are promised us. If we expect to reap, wemustsow; and that we sow, we shall reap. What fruit shall webring forth this

year? It should be our

Desire not to live long, but to live well; How long we live, not years, but actions tell. Our readers will .brgive our moralizing. The close of an old and the beginning of a new year is a point of time when all should stop and think. We wish our readers, one and all, a happy New Year! May peace, prosperity, and happiness— heaven’s choicest blessings—attend them during Eighteen hundred and FIFTY-EIGHT.

Latent from Katina.*.

Mr. Garrett, formerly of Rushville, now a citizen of Kansas, passed through this city yesterday en route for Washington. He left Kansas Wednesday , the 23d December, two days after the election. The Free State men generally did not vote upon the Lecompton Constitution. At Leavenworth the vote stood “For the Constitution with slavery 256; For the Constitution without slavery 27; aud “To hell with the Constitution 9,” At Kickapoo the vote for the “Constitution with slavery” was 1010; at Doniphan 154. The probable vote in the Territory for the Constitution will be about 3000 or 4000. There were no disturbances at the election, as far as heard from, except at Leavenworth, win re one man was killed and two or three wounded. The reported difficulties at Fort Scott grew out of the attempt of the sheriff, with his posse, to nnest a band of horse thieves aud cattle stealers. Mr. Garrett is of the opinion that a large majority of the people of Kansas are Democrats, and that Kansas may be relied on to support the Democratic nominee in i860. The aggrej^te vot« of the Territory is about 14,000. Of these about 9000 voted the free State ticket in October last. These facts show that the “free State party” could have made Kansas a free State under the Lecompton Constitution, if they had so desired. By refusing to vote they manifested the intention and wish to make it a slave State. The “free State party” can now organize the State Government and mould the institutions of Kansas to suit their political principles, if they so desire. They claim to hare a large majority in the Territory. If they had voted for delegates to the Lecompton Convention, as they did subsequently for members of the Territorial Legislature, under the same authority, they could have framed a Constitution in unison with their political notions. They refused to do so, and placed that power, thereby, in other hands The responsibility for the existing state of affairs in Kansas and for a “Constitution with slavery is clearly with the “Free State party.” And if the State organization is inimical to the dominant party, for its character, by refusing to make it what they profess to des re, having the power to do so, the “Free State party” are alone re

sponsible.

Freeman and wife, American Missionaries. They were beheaded. They were both nativesof New-

ark. *

-day we enter it and whatever error," fraud or injustice It has 17* LoeTner, murderer of Ni Tt Ilwrton,

Cincinnati, has been sentenced to death. He is

Foreign News. By telegraph we have news of the arrival of the Arago at New York, with European dates to the 16th ult. The commercial statements show a decline in cotton, with limited sales. Flour had advanced 6d per brl. j wheat, 3d ; corn, advancing. Consols closed the Friday previous at 91^@91^. More failures are announced. The Austrian Government has advanced a loan of 10,000,000 florins to the city of Hamburg at 6 per cent. The loan will be employed in giving aid to large commercial houses. It was rumored at Vienna that news had been received from Constantinople to the effect that that the Porte, acting with the consent of the Powers, would sign the treaty of Paris, and had issued a firman for the dissolution of the divans in the Danubian Principalities; but the statement required confirmation. Other news unimportant. Ueneral Walker. Indignation meetings have been held in N ew Orleans and Mobile with reference to the recent arrest of General Walker by Com modore Paulding. On the 30tb General Walker arrived in Washington and immediately proceeded to the State Department. General Case declined sny particular direction* concerning him. General Walker was, therefore, at instant liberty. Cabi net meetings hare been held respecting him Rumors are rife respecting his arrest for alleged violation of the Neutrality laws ; but it is said that it is hto intention to «sk the Government to reinstate him in the poaition from which he was removed by Com. Paulding.

O’The War Department has received advice* to the 28th of October, from Lieutenant Beale, in charge of tbe mall road from Fort Defiance to the Colorado river, hi which he announces his arrival in California. The expedition has met with the moat complete success, and a fine wagon road from New Mexico to California has been established. ^An Important part of tjhe operations has been effected by the camels, which were Sabfeoted to trials that no other anhnato could possibly have endured. Yet Lieut. Beale terminated his tahom n*t only witbeiutthe loss of a single camel,

left San Antonio.

live. It says When the October election took place in Kansas, and the Democratic press of the Union were denouncing in proper terms the Johnson and McGhee county frauds, the Indianapolis Sentinel

was dumb.

W'hat ar» the facts ? In an article in the Sentinel, in our ixsue of Nov. 3d, upon “the election

frauds in Katuas,” we say :

So says Parson Good wind, pf tho /ruhsn* American, a paper devo&cf td Black kepthlicanism, Maine-lawism, and firea-k>ve-ism. Douglas “may” take that “step,” but when be does it will be a “step” from the sublime to the ridiculona.

Speech wf Senator Fitch. ’

We publish to-dav, entire, the able speech, so

Thu much k „„„, ** .he Admie ^ *- istretiou er lie U.mucrauc p.rty willjiutify elec-1 of P'«*epe» thetpoetion frauds in Kataas or elsewhere. * • * No i t * on message of the President which refers fraud should be or will be justified which would I to Kansas affairs. The Washington L’nion states thwart the manifest will of the people of that that the IndiitUii Senator ,. met , he ^ f territory, legally aid fairly expressed. ^

In the Sentinel of Nov. 4th, we say : The action of Gov. Walker in rejecting the fraudulent returns from Oje Oxford precinct meets with the approval of the bemocratic press. Phis is a certain indication tlrai die popular sentiment approves his faithfulness in preserving the purity

of the ballot box.

Judge Douglas in a speech of *reat powe# and

telling effect.”

HTThomas Emery, an eminent merchant of Cincinnati, was killed on the 30th ult. by falling through the hatchway of a lard oil building he ! had recently erected, from the fourth story to the

At all times and upon all occasions, we have cellar, a distance of some sixty feet. occupied a position as positive in reprobation of j • the Johnson and McGhee county frauds as has the | M,M,0NA *' Ka Muanx.xn.-Utters have been Tunes. Wherefore then this inpudewt and ma rftceived Newark, New Jersey, announcing licious assertion of that print, that we have been '* ie masaacre » at Delhi, India, of tbe Rev Mr.

“dumb,” or the “apologists” of tlose frauds ?— And so too of the action of the Ltcompton convention. We have no sympathy whatever with

committed, we have “held up to pubdc infamy”

in language and sentiment as positive and strong to be hung op the 30th day of April, 1858, by the

as any which has “enriched” the columns of the neck until he is dead. Times. - - _ 1

.... „ ... .... , , fountain County Convention. And what is our offense m the estimation of the r™ r n • > • , , . ,

. . . * 1 he following resolutions were adopted by the Tunes' Honestly, without equivocation or men-1 „ .. „ .

. , .. . i Democratic Convention in this county, held to

tal reservation, we have expressed, what tae Chi-

cago Democracy did, at a public meeting lield on the 17th of December, our “unabated confidence in the integrity, wisdom, and patriotism of the National Administration.” Is that a cause of offense or censure with the Times ? More, we adopted, in good faith, sentiments which that paper avowed on the 17th of December : The Democracy of Chicago, without a single exception, supported Mr. Buchanan for the Presidency with as ardent a zeal and as untiring an industry, as w ere ever brought to the support of any candidate for office. They had an unbounded confidence in the man, an unlimited confidence in his high-toned patriotism and uudeviating attachment to his country. They supported him cheerfully, liberally, and successfully. Nothing has occurred to change their high estimate of Mr. Buchanan. He has brought forward no measure which the Democracy of Illinois cannot give an earnest support. He has recommended to Congress no act to which Democrats may not yield a hearty ap-

proval.

ot BaiailtoD County. J L. B BN SON, M. D.

Oapt. JtMBtS. MUCSfcf. of Hancock County. Clerk of th* last Boom of Roprasentotirw, will be sustained for the office of Superintendent of PuhUc Instruction, outfeei to the dedston of the 8th of January Convention. DEMOCRACY OF CLINTON. NEW ADVERTISEMENTS* A RARE CHANCE!! ANY ENTERPRISING MAN! WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OP MONET, hear of • Profitable Investment by cuffing at thv Tremont House, Room, No. 11, this A. M. before IS o’clock M. jsnldlt. rSMTKroiAOOY- * N~RMlfiE.W01.0ClY is true; anstemy proves it to be so,und it Is destined to do great good ” -Dr. Valentine Mott, in s Lecture before the Medical Department of the University of the City of New York. PROP. FELLOWS will give Private DeUneations with Charts and ad \ ice as to education, choice of pursuits, partners for life, Ac., during this week at Mrs. Forests, on Alabama Street, opposite the East end of the East Market, two door* North from the Pattison House. JayldlOt*

appoint delegates to the State Corention—every Democrat in the county being considered a dele-

gate :

Resolved, That the vote in this county be cast in the Shite Convention as a unit, for the nomination of candidates for State officers, Afc. Resolved, That we endorse the platform of principles adopted by the Natioinii and State Democracy, as the true rule of Our political

laith.

Resolved, That with Mr. Buchanan, we agree that Kansas has occupied too much ot public attention; and that Kansas should be admitted as a State at the earliest practicable moment, consistent with the principles of the Kansas Nebraska bill; and as an abstract question, we believe the people have the right and ought to be , allowed to vote for the ratification or rejection of) the coustitution which is to regulate their future political and social condition. Resolved, That we recognize iu the administration of the eloquent A. P. Willard, Governor of

At Jsj W* _ EARLY INDIANA TRIALS AM SKETCHES. REMINISCENCES, BY HON. 0. H. SMITH. A 8 the Agents of the Author, we offer tbe first eiUtion ot the ai>ove work, at wholesale and retail. Tbit it a beautiful Western Book, finely gotten up, written in the easy style of the author, of 640 octavo page*, one volume complete, with tteel Portrait, by Buttre. It contain* many early trial*, many profe*aional Incident* of the early Bar, some ’AID •ketches of distinguished men, including General Jackson, JohnC. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Daniel Webeter, James Buchanan, John Tyler, Stephen A. Douglas, John C. Fremoifi, Robert J. Walker. Thomas Corwin, ‘ Her. a. ». CookaatoT Battf II. W.IlurifcH, ^ Rev. J. P. Durbre, And other*. The Poet* of Indiana, Agricultural Address, and other subjects. The price of the Wofk is fixed by the author, at the lew price of fig 00 per single volume. Lil>eral discount to the trade. ' STEWART 4t BOWKN, decJl-dt Sole Agents, Wholesale and Retail. THE YOUNG SONS OF AMERICA —OlVK THEIR— Second Grand Social Party, —AT THE— HOOVER HOUSE, —OR— New Year Night, Jan. 1st, 1858. rflO WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE RESPECTFULLY invlbidt Professor Gresh’s CotUlon Baud wiUbein attendance to discourse music to those who wish to “trip the light fsniattic toe;’’ and those who do not, can enjoy themselves otherwise, as the house wiU be open to all. IPJ* Tickets including everything-... U« COMMITTKC or INVITATIOW. CllAS. NORTHWAV, K. WARMAN, A. PENCE, K. GARNER, W*. ADAMS.

Indiana, tiue statesmanlike policy, governed by j a strict adherence to Democratic principles.

Of the Admin.stration, or of Mr. Buch;inan, I Dr. P. Myer offered the following resolution, or his policy, we have not said anything more which, on motion, was adopted : nvrdiniv on T’iio diffonooo* Reived, That the Democracy of Fountain

county, have an abiding faith m the Democracy and integrity of the Hon. S. A. Douglas, U. S.

COMM1TTKK OP RSCKPTION.

JAMES P. DRAKE, Jr., N. HOLMES

M. JONES.

JAMES

dec30 [NEA '•MKK

P at

3. iiun-uas,

M. K. BENDER,

HARDING.

d3t.

Ol'NTEKS—A good assortmen

BROWNING’S

explicit or positive in approval. The difference between the Times and the Sentinel may be that

the former was not candid in the sentiments which | Senator in Congress, as a great statesman and it e> pressed, while we were honest in avowing ! P a, riot. „ v ’ f , On motion of J. W. King, Esq , the proceed-

111 j ings were ordered to be published in the People's

them. But is it wrong to express confidence “the integrity of the Administration and the duty of Democrats to keep out of the Republican organization ?” If so, and the Times insinuates very strongly it is, we plead guilty to the offense. But iu justification we must plead the example of one, whom the Times says, “represents in 'the U. States Senate the undivided sentiment of the Democracy of Illinois.” Mr. Douglas, on the 25th of December, in a speech in Philadelphia, as

reported in Forney’s Press,says:

He deprecated the idea of hostility to the President, or to his administration, and expressed his belief that Mr. Buchanan would prove eminently worthy of the high opinion formed of him by the Democracy of Pennsylvania, w hich had elected

him to the high office he now held.

Our offence, then, hath this extent, no more : W e have expressed our confidence, our “unabated confidence, in the integrity, wisdom and patriot ism of the National Administration.” So has the Democracy of Chicago ; so has the Times ; so has Senator Douglas. If these are any evidences of the sentiment of the Illinois Democracy, as the Times asserts they are, wc have only reflected the sentiments which the Democracy of that State profess to entertain. We take the sentiment as we find it expressed, not the animus or the spirit which dictates it. We were honest in avowing it, have proved it so by sustaining the Administration which we regarded worthy of our confidence, and we trust the Illinois Democracy, Representatives as well as party, will give the same evidence of the integrity of their profes-

sions.

With us, the Times takes Doct. Fitch to task. Its abuse of that gentlemen is most virulent. And why? 'With great ability and spirit, in his place iu the Senate, he defended the Administration—in whose “integrity, wisdom and patriotism,” with the editor of the Times and the Chi cago Democracy, he has “unabated confidence.” We cannot think that the Times, in its wilful misrepresentation of our position and the abuse of Senator Fitch is “dictated by any honest views of political principles, but is one dictated by the personal feelings and private hatred of other persons.” We have presented to the Indiana De; mocracy the able speech of the Senator from Illinois, will not the Times be equally fair by giving that of the Indiana Senator for the consideration of the Illinois Democracy? Its uncourteous attack upon Dr. Fitch personally and upon his speech, and its malicous effort to destroy its effect, is the highest evidence of the'personal feelings and private hatred” which dictates the course of that paper. But Doct. Fitch is fully able to maintain his views of public policy in the Senate or elsewhere, as he has given good evidence, and in our paper of to-day we give the speech in full, so that ou • readers and the Indiana Democracy can judge whether a paper, profeasing to speak for the Illinois Democracy, but really influenced by “private hatred,” is justified in defaming and blackening one of their Representatives in the Senate, who is honestly and faithfully expressing his “unabated confidence in the wisdom, integrity and patriotism of the Aministration,” by defending its policy. The twaddle about Doct. Fitch, or the Sentinel attempting to read the Democracy of Illinois out of the Democratic party, as the Timet charges, is too ri liculoos, contemptible and untrue to be dignified with a reply- It the Times is reduced to this miserable subterfuge to create sympathy for its position and its patron, or prejudice against the Democracy of this State, it really merits pity rather than contempt. The Indiana Democracy stand upon the same platform now that they did during the Presiden tial canvass, and, in the language of the Times, “will be limited by no other land-marks than the Cincinnati Platform, the Kansas-Nebraska act and the Constitution of the Country.” They aided to elect President Buchanan upon those principles ; they believe he will Be true to them, and they have “unabated confidence in the in tegrity, wisdom and patriotism of the National Administration.” While honestly believing he to faithful to the principle* of the party whieh alerted * him and the trust reposed.. in while an opposite one, when expressing “unaba r-.j r . » f f

Friend and State Sentinel.

0 ES1 1 viot 1114 k

4 i

l\ ncription, will find a good assortment at octlT WILLARD’S.

C. K. MOORE,

INDIAN VEOEYAKEE DOC'1 Oil,

FROM THE EAST.

ESPECXFIJL.I. k tender* hi* i>rofeMional ser-

vice* to the citizen* of

tt ii a. |> o I i * and Vicinity.

He flatters himself that a

PRACTICE OF TEN YEARS in diseases incident to the West, and an extensive ohserva tion of Hospital Practice ha* fitted him to render satisfaction to those who patronize him. Particular

attention given to all

CHRONIC DISEASES, of every kind. DR. MOORE will warrant a cure in all curable cases. The best City reference given. T> r’Office 8. E. comer of Meridian and Georgia streets, where he can be found at all hours of the day and night.

nov3-d3m.

BOOKS FOR ALL!

rott THE MECHANIC,. FOR THE MERCHANT,

FOR THE LA WYER,

FOR THE PHYSICIAN;

[From the Cincinnati Enquirer. 1'lie Douglas and Fitch Debate. “Great public curiosity has been excited by the reports of the combat between Fitch, of Indiana, and Douglas on the Kansas question, in ihe 8en- . ate, Tuesday, December 22. Fitch is one of the ‘bogus' Senators, and the certific ite of his election is simply an official lie. His case should have beeu before the Senate long ago, and himself, with the stupid Bright, duly kicked out. To strongly enlist the spmpathies of the Southern Senators, that their votes might maintain hiiu iu his seat, he took occasion, on Tuesday of last week, to make h bold and impudent speech sustaining the opinion of Mr. Buchanan ou the Lecompton constitu-

tion m itter.”

The above is, of course, from the Commercial. No one but the lying scavenger of that scurrilous sheet would presume to speak of the distinguished Senator of our sister State as the “ stupid Bright.” Mr. Bright has many strong political opponents, but we venture to say that it never occurred to any ohc of them but the Commercial vagabond to stigmatize hi n as “stupid.” Indeed, he is generally and justly credited with qualities

precisely the opposite.

A shrewder and more sagacious public man, a more practical and influential Senator, the country does not boast in her National Councils. For his shrewdness, he has long been distinguished, with both friend and foe. With but few advantages in early life, as respects education, and solely by theforceof his natural strength of mind and indomitable will, Mr. Bright has successively reached the highest honors, both of the State and the nation. He has been State Senator, Lieuten-ant-Governor, United States Senator, twice reelected, and President of the highest and most dignified legislative body in the world. If a “stupid man” can run this remarkable career of good fortune, then “stupidity” is by no means a very ugly quality. If Mr. Bright is a “stupid” mati, what are we to think of the editor of the Commercial, who, with greater facilities for acquiring sue cess in life, is now where be commenced, at the foot of Fortune’s ladder, while Mr. Bright has reached almost the highest round ? The very “smart” man (in his own opinion) of the Commercial attempted to ascend through a newspaper promotion, but has been successively kicked out of every journal with which he was ever associated, or else his connection with it was death to it. W hile Mr. Bright has won a nation al reputation as a politician and statesman, the Commercial editor has acquired a local name of being the most consummate blackguard and un scrupulous defamerof private character that ever was connected with the Cincinnati press. The truth is, that while there are more learned and brilliant men in tbe Senate than Mr. Bright, there are few who possess a sounder and more solid understanding, or ate better fitted to acquire an influence with and knowledge of men. The statement of the Commercial, tYmt Messrs Bright and Fitch are “bogus” Senators from Indiana, is simply a bold and unmitigated lie. No argument can be made against them that does not rest upon the flimsiest and sheerest legal'technicalities. The popular sovereignty of the State ha* been expressed in favor of Messrs. Bright and Fitch,

l? A ^

elected to the Legislature. A factious “iuoritv, f County, deceased. Said s3S3ns

FOR THE DIVINE, FOR THE POET,

FOR THE ACTIVE MAN, FOR THE THIN KINO MAN, FOR THE NICE Yu UNO MAN, FOR THAT FINE LOOKING GIRL,

THE WISE MAN,

For the whole family of Smiths, (Including John,) Browns, Whites, Blacks, in fact for the whole family of mankind. Let them who want to buy, bessreto cstlst No. 1 Odd Fellows’ Hall.

TfALUABLE PIANO FORTES and other Musical In fr stramente at the Indiana Music Store. N. B. Pianos tuned and repaired. _decS*dtf WILLARD A OTOwelL. T^T'-^ft'FED ••A GIRL to do the house work of a cl y

OTICE is

disregarding the law which ordered an election, absented themselves on purpose from the call of the two Houses, in Older to produce technical legal defects, for, had they all been pi eeent and voted against Mr. Bright, it would not have changed the result. It was au attempt to use legal forms, which are made to give expression to the will of the majority, to defeat it. It was claimed that, because attendance was not secured of a minority, who willfully and purposely absented themselves, that the election to invalid, although it to evident from the vote that,had thfy all been present and voted against Bright and Fitch, those gentlemen would, nevertheless, have been elected. Those who are declaiming about the will of the majority in Kansas, and insisting that it has been fettered by the Lecompton Convention, are the very persons who, standing upon

a narrow legal technicality, produced with

intent, would stifle the will of the majority of the ' Indiana Legislature, which sent Messrs. Bright

and Fitch to the United States Senate. It is claimed that this Indiana case to anala-

supposed to be insolvent.

dec23-w3w

-J 1 uctraseu.

JEREMIAH HOMAN, . Administrator.

GLA8ER&, BROTHERS’

OAK HALL

.os*

sept 16

2 HATER H O r » E . INDIAN APOLI8,IND.

4. B. WILLARD A C0„ ARE MOW RECEIVING Ji X their VUUu4 Winter Btoefc of 8

. ^ —AT— . ‘

40 West Washington Street

r- mm ^ . AWD see HUK.

gous to that of Harlan, of Iowa, who was exclod- -

ed, two years ago, from his seat in the gynute If it to, then Mean. Bright and Fitch are bound to receive the vote at every Republican Senator; for they all, to a man, voted that Harlan was legally entitled to his seat. If Messrs. Bright and! Fitch are not confirmed in the Senate, it wiU bi?* a decision that will outrage right and equity, in order to gratify aapuitof lartioosneas, which has

set itself to work to defeat them.'

.t BY WML Y. WILEY)

Real Estate Auctioneer. t ASSIGNEE’S SALE

ELECTION NOTICE.

Bask or th* St at* or Indiana,!

Bsawch at Indianapolis, Dec. 1, 1857. |

■JVTOTICE Is hereby given that there wUl be an elecIU tion held by the Stockholders of this Branch, ou Tuesday the 5th day of January n«xt at this office, between the hours of 10 a. m. and 3 p. m., for. the purpose of electing five directors to serve as such during the ensuinc year. [dec2 dim] C. S. STEVENSON, Cashier.

CHRISTMAS GIFTS

» *

missKM that he did not com* out second be** hi

Illinois St. Property

-A.TTOTXOBff.

I ^.. g *. LLo y t,Q 2 DAT - • i . Awc f»’ 1 i, 1 ". "«•

WAMriAHYazaiL *• 0. Hoax, AatigM*.