Indiana State Guard, Volume 1, Number 4, Indianapolis, Marion County, 26 July 1860 — Page 1

'"'nn.TrjrTiT''

OjLJD)

PI TF

All

H THE CONSTITUTION, THE UNION, AND THE EQUALITY OF THE STATES!

TT

VOL I

THE OLD LINE GUARD. IS PUBLISHED X" n.1- "VST 33 3E3 15: Xj 7C , A T INDIA IV A 1 O l I S ,.I JV I 1 A A , HI EI,DEII Sc. IIAUKNESS. T U XX 3V0C e, .00, until arier tlio Prcnidcntial , In advance, in all cases. Election. ' Advertisements inserted at the usual rates. SPEECH OF HON. J. P. BENJAMIN, OF LOUISIANA. DELIVERED IN THE UNITED STATES SEIiATE, MAY 22, 18C0. CONCLUDED. Now, sir, let it not be said that I am reading Republican doctrines here, because these very passages from the speeches of Mr. Lincoln were introduced as discoveries by the Senator from Illinois--these and the other passages in relation to the contusion between a State and a Territory. When the Attorney General had replied to tlie magazine article of the Senator from Illinois, a rejoinder was issued, called "the rejoinder of Judge Douglas to Judge Black," in which he says, speaking" of the magazine article: " In that article, without assailing any one " He never assails any one " In that article, without assailing any one, or impugning any man's motives, I demonstrated beyond the possibility of cavil or dispute by any fair-minded man, that if the proposition were true, as contended by Mr. Buchanan, that slavery exists in the Territories bv virtue of the Constitution, the conclusion is inevitable and irrisistible, that it is the imperative duty of Congress to pass all law3 necessary for its protection; that there is and can be no exception tq the rule that a right guarantied by the Constitution must be protected by law in all cases where legislation is essential to its enjoyment ; that all who conscientiously believe that slavery exists in the Territories " Senators, listen to me now. The Senator from Illinois stood here last week, hour after hour, and asked what was this new issue which we were trying to force on the party, and whence its necessity. Why not stand, said he, on the platform of 1856 ; why not take that Cincinnati platform which we agreed to in 185C ? Who is it, he says, that is forcing these new issues on the partv ? 1 have tracked him through Illinois. AVhat did he sav in his defence of the Harper's Mag azine article about the necessity of putting this very very resolution in the platform? He says he has demonstrated " That all who conscientiously believe that slavery exists in the Territories by virtue of the Constitution are bound by their consciences and their oaths of fidelity tO tlie COIlSlUUtlon lo support a VUiiyiirsaiuuai slave code for the Territories." I deny that ; but I want to show his view of what our duty is : " And tbat no consideration of political expediency can relieve an honest man, who so believes, from the faithful and prompt performance of this imperative duty." That is Judge Douglas' view of our position ; and yet, hour after hour, he stands up here and attacks us i'or doing that which he says our oaths and our consciences impose upon us, as a duty so imperative that it is impossible for us, as honest men, to avoid doing it. He says further, in tlie same " rejoinder : " "I also demonstrated, in the same paper, that the Constitution, being uniform throughout the United States, is the same iu the States as in tlie Territories is the same in Pennsylvania as in Kansas ; and, consequently, if slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, it must of necessity exist iu Pennsylvania by virtue of the same instrument ; and if it be the duty of the Federal Government to force tlie people of the Territory to sustain the institution of slavery, whether they want it or not, merely because it exits there by virtue of the Constitution, it becomes the duty of the Federal Government to do the same thing in all the States for the same reason. " This exposition of the question produced consternation and dismay in the camp of my assailants." He just copied the arguments from Mr. Lincoln's dispute with him, put them into the Harper's Magazine article, and tells us that this exposition of his of the constitutional rights and duties of tlie States of this Union produced consternation and dismay amongst his assailants! Why, Mr. President, what is there in this argument which the honorable Senator from Illinois has copied from those Republicans who again and again have attacked the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States that un der the doctrine of the Dred Scott decision slavery exists as well in the States as in the Territories; a sophism so bald, a proposition so destitute of a shadow of foundation, that it never was used by any man who believed it, but was put forth to deceive those who could not understand the question. What is the decision of the Supreme Court of the United Stites? It is this, plainly nnd simply : Congress has jurisdiction over and power to govern the Territories ; the powers of Congress under the Constitution are limited ; amongst the limitations is a prohibition to destroy and impair or confiscate the property of citizens without due process of law. Slaves are property, and therefore Congress has no power to confiscate them, to destroy thein, or to impair tlio rirrht of property in them, without due process of law. That is what the Supreme Court says. What has that to do with a State ? Does Congress legislate for a State? Does Congress govern a State? Is there anything in the Constitution of the United States prohibiting a State from doing as it pleases in its own legislation, except a certain clause in which the prohibitions are plainly stated, and which does not include the slavery question at all. There are certain prohibitions on the States in the Constitution, and amongst them are emitting bills of credit, raising armies and navies, levying taxes or duties on imports, on exports all these are prohibited to the States. The State are not prohibited from legislating on slavery in their own limits; but the Supreme Court of the United States hold that Congress is prohibited by the Constitution from doing so in the Territories, and yet the Senator from Illinois repeats this absurd position, that because Congress cannot destroy property in slaves in a Territory, therefore State Constitutions cannot destroy it in the States 1 It was, Mr. President, welt known to the Senator from Illinois when he penned this article, that there was nothing in it whatever. He was driven to it Every time ho discuses the question, if ho holds to the principles he has promulgated in the Senate, and now adheres to before the nation, he will be driven step by step, back and back, to the Black Republican camp. Let him beware. Let him beware of the first step outside of the intrenchments of the Constitution. Let him beware lest he gets so far that return becomes impossible. He has ali-eady got to using their arguments, to adopting their principles, and after vaunting here that he is the embodiment of the Democratic earty, and offering indulgence and quarter to all emocratie Senators and all Democratic States that disagree with him, he joins in the cry that Democratic sentiments, truly expounded, lead to disunion. Sir, I have trespassed on the attention of the Sonate rather longer than I intended. I shall be as brief as possible tor the remainder of the time I shall occupy. The Senator from Illinois, the other day, went

INDIANAPOLIS,

further. He has not only evaded, avoided, and circumvented the South by the Nebraska bill, if, indeed, it be susceptible of the" construction he gives it, and confers on the people of the Territories the right he now alleges, but, with all his promises, the cloven foot again sticks out lie warns us yes, Senators, he warns us that if the Tennessee resolution is adopted at Baltimore he will explain away that, too. Nothing can bind him, according to his present statements. Let me read this Tennessee resolution, and I will ask every man within the sound of my voice whether it does not seem to be as plain and clear as the English language can make it ? Pass it, and, he tells you, it will not bind him. lie says it has a double construction and a double meaning. ,He has prepared everybody for a double meaning to it. He asked the Senator from Ohio to read it-; and here it is: "Mr. Pugh read, as follows: "Resolved, That all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their property in the Territories, and that under the decision of the Supreme Court, which we recognize as an exposition of the Constitution, neither their rights of person or property can be destroyed or impaired by Congressional or Territorial legislation." I confess that I read it over and over, and could not see a loon to bans a doubt on. All the citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their property in the Territories, and no territorial legisla tion can impair it. mat is tlie Tennessee resolution. AVhat is the warning given to us by the Senator from Illinois. Here it is: y "AVe have had predictions that the party was to be re-united by the adoption of that resolution. The only objection I have to it is, that it is liable to two constructions." . . The Cincinnati platform that he warns us to stick to that, of course, is not? Oh, no ! But this will be, liable to two constructions, and I have puzzled my brain for an hour to get at that other construction. I will read what the Senator said, and perhaps other Senators may be more fortunate than I have been. I think I have got a glimpse. He says it is liable to two constructions "And certainly and inevitably will receive two, dir ctly the opposite to each other, and each will be maintained with equal pertinacity." AVe know what the South will maintain under that resolution; and who will maintain any other construction ? Surely, the Senator from Illinois means that he will, because he knows he will not. AVe can see but one meaning, and no man imbued with coustitutional principles can discover but one, and that is, that all citizens those who own slaves, as well as those who own horses have a right t go with their property into the Territories have an equal rigjit to go there ; and that their property shall not be impaired. But the Senator from Illinois says there is another construction that will be maintained, and persistently maintained. And what is it ? He says : " The resolution contains, in my opinion, two truisms; and, fairly considered, no man can question them." 5 . AVhat is the fair consideration that ho gives it ? " They are, first, that every citizen" Not " all the citizens." The resolution says all the citizens. He says every citizen. But I will show you why he says so : " Every citizen of the United States has an equal right in the Territories; that whatever right the citizen of one State has may be enjoyed by the citizens of all the States." See how he is changing it now ! " That whatever property the citizens of one State may carry there, the citizens of all the States may carry." And then they will so on with the old Republican objection, that we are all at perfect liberty to go into the Territories without our property ; that we are all on an equal footing. The old llejublican argument that was brought up here in the discussions on tlie Kansas-Nebraka bill in 1854, the Senator from Illinois tenders to us now for the canvass of I860. He will tell us : " You are not excluded from the Territory; a northern man goes with his horses, you may go with horses; a northern man goes with a cow; you may go with a cow ; a northern man doe3 not go with a sl"ave,.aiid you shall not go with a slave ;" and that is the equality which he says it means. The Senator from Illinois is kind in warning us in advance this time how this proposition may he got rid of. The South will be fools if they do not take advantage of the warning, and see if something cannot be devised which tlie astute and practiced ingenuity of the Senator from Illinois cannot get around, if tl e English language can hold him. Now he says: " And on whatever terms the citizens of one State can hold it, and have it protected, the citizens of all the States can hold it and have it protected, without deciding what the right is which still remains lor decision." So that the Tennessee platform will leave us just where we are now. AVhat is his objection to it?. "I want no double dealing, or double construction."! That is his objection. He wants things clear, plain, I and straight ; and then when we ak that they shall j be put down clear, plain and straight, he abuses us for making new tests in the party; talks about assaults on hiin ; kept the Senate occupied for eight mortal ; hours, whilst he was attacking every man and every j State in the entire Union that would not support his; pretensions for the Presidency. Now, Mr. President, the people have at last come to this point ; the Democratic delegates from the South have come to this point. I speak not of the delegates in either House of Congress. It is the fashion to speak of congressional dictation, in a certain class of public journals under tlie control of certain public men, and yet one would suppose that a seat in Congress allbrds at least some prima facie probability of the possession of the confidence of the constituency, and that the unan'mous concurrence of opinion of the chosen representatives of the Democracy, both of States and constituencies, is some prima facie proof of what Democratic principles are. But j all that is nothing. In modern slaiig, this is a lancey and caucus platform, and we are congressional d eta- i tors. I, therefore, leaving out of view the opinions of, members of Congress in both branches of the Gener-! al Assembly of the United States, now say that it has been demonstrated by the delegates of the South,! sent by the State conventions from primary meetings, ; that the time has come when all constitutional rights, guarantied to us under the decision of the Supreme, Court which was taken by the Senator from Illinois j and his co-adjutors as the common arbiter of our dis-j putc shall bo acknowledged; that all that we de-; maud shall be put down in the bond ; that there shall! be no longer a doubt in relation to it I i Mr. President, when mere private rights of property are concerned, when the question is, who owns a I farm, or who owns a horse, or who is entitled to $100, j it is an old aphorism of the law, imsera est serctlus, ubi juitaut vagum. out incertum est wretched and deplorable is the slavery where the law which governs a man's right is vague or uncertain. And shall we, we who represent Democratic States and Democratic constituencies, be asked why it is that we will not leave these rights on which they rest for their property, whirh an' even vital to their existence, open to doubt and denial ? Shall we be aked why it is that we demand that the charter of these rights be written clearly, plainly, beyond the possibility of doubt or misconstruction ? Oh, no, says the Senator from Illinois, "in 1856 we were unanimous upon the Cincinnati platform : I have riven it a construction, and the Charles-1 ton convention has backed my construction, and I am j the Di-mocratic party;" and it is his conitruction, and ? the construction adopted by a minority at Charleston, that he presents to us here, and asks us by what right we call for something plainer or clearer as the charter; of our constitutional privileges? Misei able and de-; plorable is the slavery where the law governing the'

INDIANA, THURSDAY, JULY 26, 18G0.

nmrwrtv nf tho individual is doubtful or uncertain.) Degrading and dishonoring to a State is it when its sovereignty cannot ask for an expression or acKiiowiedjiment ot its sovereign rights m an assuming oi equals. The people ot the South do not mean to De put off this time with any vague or doubtful construction.r - The Senator from. Illinois is .opposed .to double meanings anil double constructions ; he dislikes the Tennessee platform on that Ground. AVe share his dislike : fas est ab lioste doceri we wil dislike ; fas est ab hoste doceri him. We will ask that everything in our platform ; be put down plainly and clearly, Mr. President, the honorable i Mr. PrPd..nt. the honorab e Senator from Illinois, in the plentitude of his power, tells us that the Demous power, tell i cratic plattorm has been adopteci, and oacKS niin. nu . . .. , , . . i i ,i .... tr. next tells us that it is dory enough for him to have been supported by a majority of the delegates of the Democratic party at a convention ; auu men wuu an allusion, somewhat transparent, to a course of pro ceeding by others which would De agreeable to mm, . he savs tliat when to his friends to he thinks everybody linn, but he leaves oral, to draw our own coi dent, I know what happened at that convention only from the public records of the country, and the rejiort of its delegates. It is reported that, as his highest vote, upon one or two ballots, the honorable Senator from Illinois received one hundred and fifty-two and a half votes, and I think that was the highest Mr. Pugh For several ballots ; seven or eight. All Riini'atnin T Irtw H irl Im aft t licm ? Was there one hundred and fifty-two delegates in the convention of whom he was the choice V Mr. Puh Certainly, they expressed it by their vote. " Mr. Benjamin Oh, that was part of tlie arrangemont bv which those who were not candidates tor the Presidency were caught; but the truth of history will leak oift in despite of those little arrangements. fLauMitei-.l I had here amongst my papers, I think, the speech of a delegate, who explains this majority. Mr. Pugh Sta te the substance of it. If it was said at Charleston I shall recollect it. Mr. Benjamin Well, sir, I will state the substance of it. I cannot find the extract I had, and I shall have to affix it to my speech. Gentlemen have doubtless seen it. Scarcely had the Charleston convention met, and a cojnmittee been appointed on organization, when it reported an organization of presidents, vice presidents and secretaries, and sprung this resolution on the convention instanter- the convention had previously adopted the rules of the previous Democratic conventions " The committee further recommend" The subject was not committed to them at all " The committee further recommend that the rules and regulations adopted by the Democratic conventions of 1852 and 1856 be adopted by this convention for its government, with this additional rule : That any State which has not provided or directed by its State convention how its votes may be given, the convention will recognize the right of each delegate to cast his individual vote." As a certain gentleman was a candidate for the Presidency Heaven preserve the country from candidates for the Presidency wherever the gentleman's friends were in the majority, they had taken special pains, by preorganization, to get a resolution passed at the State conventions instructing the delegates to vote as a unit, and thus they fastened down every nian in a minority in the United States, and in spite of himself got his vote cast for the Senator from Illinois, although he was opposed to him. But the conventions in other States, leaving the Democratic delegates to the instincts of their own judgment; leaving in operation the time-honored traditions of the party ; not tying up their delegations by instructions, left them to act as. they might think proper; and when they got to Charleston, by forcing the otes of all the minorities that were against Mr. Douglas, and freeing the hands of all the minorities that were in his favor, his friends had cast for him all the minorities, both those for him and those against him, in all the United States. That is the way he got one vote more than half the convention. Now, what I was looking for was this: the distinct statement of a delegate from Massachusetts Mr. Butler that there were fifteen steady, persistent votes against the Senator from IIlinois from the State of New York alone. I am telling you what Mr. Butler said. Mr. Pugh I read his speech last night, I think he said twelve. Mr. Benjamin I read it this morning ; it said fifteen. It may have changed since last night. , Mr. Pugh Very well ; fifteen delegates. Mr. Benjamin He says there were fifteen delegates from New York alone who were steady, persistent opponents of Mr. Douglas ; yet those votes were cast for him. There was a minority in Indiana ; but those votes were cast for him. There were minorities in other States, which I added up ; and instead of having a majority of the delegates of the Democratic party throughout the United States in his favor, Mr Douglas was in a lean minority of but one third of the delegates, and that one-third exclusively I f,nm Kmni i n an s fa p.s. l ie w hole ueinocra ic party of the United States, as its Democratic electoral votes will testify, was opposed to lum unanimously.. Mr. Butler says so. My friend from Minnesota Mr. Rice has just handed me the extract in the Constitution of this morning; and I will read not the whole of it, but portions of it, and if I am wrong in my memory as to fifteen, I will give up. Mr. Pugh I read it in the Herald last night. Mr. Benjamin Mr. Butler, iu giving an account to his constituents at a 'meeting called to censure him, j but which approved and endorsed him after he was through, said : " In New York there were fifteen votes opposed to Judge Douglas from first to last, yet her thirty-five votes were cast for him on every ballot ; in Ohio six votes." Mr. Pugh Not one. Mr. Benjamin "In Indiana, five votes; in Minnesota, two votes opposed to him, yet by that rule cast for hiin, so that the majority was more apparent than real." I leave out the six votes from Ohio. The Senator ( from Ohio, who was a delegate himself, must certainly i know better than the delegate from Massachusetts, ; and I abandon the point to his superior knowledge ;;

others cot a majority he sent woru e;-' - - - . i

vote for them. He does not say that "en - pariy, a, " ? ",-'Y"

ought to send word to vote for " aV "

it to us, it wo are generous or no-, - """L. T.VT" "TJ " i, m La.

but here, without counting any more, fifteen in Jew ; cam, the war ;nto tle cn,.mv's country. I belong to York, five in Indiana, two in Minnesota, make twenty-; no l0Ol of politicians that "stand on' the defensive, two. Take twenty-two from one hundred and fifty-; if attat.ked I strike back and ever shall. If the Sentwo, and there remain one hundred and thirty, with-j a(or fl0m mino;s wants the world to know that he out counting a solitary vote against him from the State; s1oke olliv jn Hnkfence, let the same measure of of Ohio. But, sir, I will not enter into these minutiic, jllstce be' meted out to me, and in answer to anv one which ought not to be entered into in the Senate, and j who cai)i bv possibility, consider what I have said as which I certainly never would have thought of speak- j an aita I replr, "'self-defence ! " Laughter. I ing of, but for one constant vaunt of the Senator from ; wjsn mv SjK.eci, qualified just like that of the honorIllinois that the majority was his, and he was entitled ; abe Senator from Illinois. If his is an attack, mine to a nomination ; that the party had backed his prin-, js . ;f ;s " 50ltKlefenec " against some unknown ciples, and that we were all rebels against his high ma- i per50ni mnc a!o is " self-d. fi uce " against someliody jesty. I should not have inquired into tlus matter but that naJ ata, ked ine and mv State, whose name I do for that. And now what dot s this delegate say as the not know. Laughter. That is just my position, I sum total of w hat occurred ? He Bays : j stato ;t plainly ; I am sorry the Senator is not here to " Now, with the South opposed to Judge Doujlas, hear it stated. even to disruption of the party : with every Demo- j

cratie free State voting against him; with two-thirds' BRECKINRIDGE AND LArsE. i of the delegation of the great, State of Pennsylvania ..... i t. .i .i. ' firmlv against him, one-half nearly of New York hoH P00' r,e aXV 1 tile. New Jersey divided, and the only State in New uhc'ans; that the former unders and the true posj-j England where tie Democracy can nave much hope 1 uon of thin- and are wilhng to act upon the question.(Connecticut) nearly equally bilanced, what was' it i ut gi to tb Readers of e,ther faction. The, the nart of wisdom for your dele-ate to do? - I r,aP,d !P?ja.d of the Breckinridge movement m this ,

. s:ate ana the present attitude ot rennsyivania, snow That is the question Mr. Butler presents to his con-j Tery plainly that a Union Cor.se rrative conciliatory stitueney. AA'liat does he say ? i spirit prevails in the greateecter, and that with proper " I found also that Judge Douglass was in opposition ' efforts a great deal of strength outside of the Demote almost the entire Democratic majority in the Sen-! cratic party may be pained for the Breckinridge ticket ate of the United States. No matter who is right or j If the Union peace-loving voters will drop Douglas, who is wrong, it is not a pleasant position for s candi- Bell and Houston, neither of whom can by any possidate of the Democratic party." i bility be cloned, and tura their vote in to B. and L..

This is Mr. Butlefs language:

I found him opposed by a very largo majority of ; tj,e Democratic members ot tlie House ot nepresentatives. ; Wu haye watclica h;m i1(jre. " It is doubtless all wrong that this should be so, yet so it is. I have heard that the 'sweetest wine makes the sourest vinegar.' but I never heard of vineu-ar sour

we will be taught by ' fngh to make sweet wine. Cold apathy and violin,," in our i&tform ; lL'nt opposition arc not the prolific parent of votes. I

found, worse than all lor a democratic canuiuate lor .. . .i . .i s ii i i. ,1 i 1,1! u. - House of Representatives was openly quoted as saying . ... , n'.i u.. i.: ...U mar. r.ni lnitucmini naner coiuruiicu uv inui nuum , c , , - , "" i u " self, apparently, an unpleasant connecting link be tween them. " With these facts before me, and impressing upon me the conviction that the nomination of Judge Donlyjut told me that my votes were woi-se than useless, as they gave him an appearance of strength in the convention winch I felt he had not, in lact, in ine uemoeruuc party." . That is the gentleman who stands up here, and as the embodiment of the Democratic party challenges the entire body of his Democratic fellow-Senators. Now. Mr. President, all that I liave said lias been said somewhat in indignation. It was npt in human nature not to feel indignation at the charges so profusely scattered against me and my friends, and my I State ; but still, sir, after all 1 more in sorrow than in j anger.' Up to the years 1857 and 1858, no man in i this nation had a higher or more exalted opinion of , the character, the services, and the political integrity of the Senator from Illinois than I had. I can appeal j to those who may have heard me in the last presidential canvass, in mv State, where, for months together. day and night, I was traveling in support of the Democratic party, and helping, as far as my humble abilities would admit, to breakdown the Nnow-Nothing party, which had then a decided majority of the voters ot our State inscribed m its lodges, ive succeeueu in the contest. The canvass was a successful one; and it did so happen that, in the course of that canvass, I had again and again to appeal to my Democratic fel low citizens of the State ot Louisiana to stand ny me irallant Democracy ot the North who stood by us, to frown down this new organization, whose only eli'ect could be to injure the Democratic candidate and Ins success; and then, in speaking of that bright galaxy of Democratic talent, Democratic integrity, and Democratic statesmanship, that I now see gathered and clustered around me, the central figure was the honored portrait of tlie Senator from Illinois. Sir, it has been with reluctance and sorrow that I have been obliged to pluck down my idol from his place on high, and refuse to him any more support or confidence as a member of the party. I have done so, I trust, upon no light or unworthy ground. I have not done so alone. The causes that have operated on me have operated on the Democratic party of the United States, and have operated an effect which the whole future life of the Senator w ill be utterly unable to obliterate. It is impossible that confidence thus lost can be restored. On what ground has that confidence been forfeited, and why is it that we now refuse him our support and fellowship? I have stated our reason to-day. I have appealed to the record. I have not followed him back in the false issue or the feigned traverse that lie makes in relation to matters that are not now in contest between him and the Democratic party. The question is ngt what we all said or believed in 1810 or in 1856. How idle was it to search ancient precedents, and accumulate old quota tions from what Senators may have at different times said m relation to their principles and views. Ihe precise point, the direct arraignment, the plain nnd -i ii i . l ii c . in: explicit anegauon niaue against me oeiiaiur num .Illinois is not touched by him in all of his speech. AVe accuse him for this, to-wit : that having bar gained with us upon a point upon which we were at issue, that it should be considered a judicial point; that he would abide the decision ; that he would act under the decision, and consider it a doctrine of the party ; that having said that to us here in the Senate, lie went home, and under the stress of a local election, his knees gave way ; his whole person trembled. His adversary stood upon principle and was beaten ; and lo, he is the candidate of a mighty party for the Presidency of the United States. The Senator from Illinois faltered. He got the prize for which he faltered ; but lo, the grand prize, of his ambition to-day slips from his grasp because of his faltering in his former contest, and his success in the canvass for the Senate, purchased for an ignoble price, has cost him the loss of the Presidency of the United States. Here were two men, struggling before the people ofa State on two great sides of a political controversy that was dividing the Union, each lor empire at home. One stood on principle was defeated. To-day where stands he ? The other faltered received the prize ; but, to-day, where, stands he? Not at the head of mo ueniocratie pany ot mesu Liineu oi.ui-s. no is a fallen star. We have separated from lum. He is right in saying we have separated from him. We i have separated from him, not because he held principles in 185(i different from ours. AVe have separated j from him, not because we are intolerant of opposition j from anybody, for tlio Senator from Ohio Mr. Pugh is an honorable member of our organization. We separated from hiin because he has denied the bargain that he made when ho weut home ; because, after telling us here in the Senate that he was willing that this whole matter should be decided by the Supreme Court, in the face ot his people, he told them that he had got us by the bill ; and that, whether the decision was for us or airain.-t us, the practical effect was to be against us; and because he shows us now again that! he is ready to make use of Ufack itepubucaii argu-j ments used against himself at home, and to put them j forth against the Democratic party in speeches here in the Senate. Now, Mr. President, this will be repivscnted as an attack on the honorable Senator from Illinois ; butlj finish my speech, as he did his, by saying, " the Sena- j tnv will hi-af mi wilni-ss that T have not spoken on ! tmg guhjett until attacked; all I have said is in self-1 Uefencc. J atta(.k o man, and the world shall know ! ;f - cver j aiva;nj it stall be in self-defence." j rLmiilter l jfr. president, the best def.-nce is to;

I frlnc nniihl nnf- bi maflp. with nnv linnP of SafetV tO the

..!.. XT Tiff.. . HliYeil lIlIlfB 1U1- UUU"C XUUUItlB,lUIUU"ll tJM jiiv....v,.v

NO. 4.

they will sweep the country and demolish the Black Republicans as Samson did the Philistines. Mr. Breckinridge is the only candidate, except Mr. Lincoln, who is sure of an electoral vote, and the latter, if beaten at all, can only be overthrown by the former. It is all very well to write and speak against Lincoln and his supporters, but it all avails nothing unless there Is a United opposition to mm. air. .ni-ecKinnuge gains strength at the North every day. It is possible he may conquer Lincoln. It is not possible, so far as we can see, for any other candidate to do so. Therefore we advise the conservative masses of the North to unite and outvote Lincoln at the polls, combining to support the only nominations which have touched the popular heart, those of Breckinridge and Lane." X Y.IIercdd. TUB NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC NOMINATIONS. HURRAH POR THE MASSACHUSETTS DEMOCRACY! At a very full meeting of the Roxbury Democratic City Committee, held on Tuesday evening, 3d instant, at the Democratic Headquarters, a proposition to hold a Douglas ratification meeting was rejected by a vote of 1 1 against 5 in favor. It was then voted, on motion of Charles Davis, Estp, by 10 yeas to 6 nays, to indorse the nomination ot Breckinridge and Lane, " they being the regular nominees of the National Democratic Party." OHIO. Olr Flag is Theke. AVithin the past week the Stark County Democrat, the old organ of the stern Democracy of the back-bone counties the Cadiz Sentineli so ably edited by Charles N. Allen, late candidate, of the Democracy for Superintendent of Common Schools the Steubenville Union and the Carroll Democrat, four of the ablest Democratic sheets in the State, have raised the flag of Breckinridge and Lane, and are doing battle with earnestness in favor of the Union and the Constitution by a vigorous support of the Democratic nominees. The Democrat stales that a mass meeting of Democrats will be held at Columbus, Ohio, at an early day, to put a Breckinridge and Lane electoral ticket in the field. The Breckinridge and Lane Democrats have appointed a State Central Committee. Cleveland Democrat. The Cincinnati Commercial says Even in this county there are as many prominent old Democratic leaders against Douglas as for him, The Douglasites held a ratification meeting at Mansfield a few days since, of which an eye-witness says : The grand Douglas ratification meeting was a failure. There was a pitifully small audience, and a wonderful lack of enthusiasm. The leaders of the party were not there. AVhere were Judge Bartley, Gen. McLaughlin (the old war horse), Dr. Bushnell, M.L. Jeffries, Esq., and Manuel May, Esq., &c, who have led the party in its contests for the fast twenty vears ? Echo answers, "Going for Breckinridge and Lane." PENNSYLVANIA. Old Democratic Berks and Douglas. Berks county, in Pennsylvania, has long been the Gibraltar of the" Democracy in that State, always giving from five to six thousand majority for the " regular Democratic candidate" until die election of the late Mayor Swartz. the anti-Lecomnton and anti-Buchanan can didate for Congress in that district. The Reading Gazette has been the English organ of the Democracy of that county, as the Adler, the " Democi atie Bible," has of the German Democracy. But the Gazette has recently come out for Breckinridge, and the Adler has declared its determination to pursue a similar ..... . rt ' .1 , . . . o course. Ihe liazette, atler reviewing tuc History or the Baltimore convention, says that under these circumstances, and in tlie exercise of the liberty which they allow, "we hoist the flag of Breckinridge and Lane in preference to that of Douglas and Johnson, in the firm belief that it is the mont conservative and national of the two, and that it is the choice ofa large majority of the Democracy of Berks county." BRECKINRIDGE MEETING IN HAGERS- . TOWN, MD. There will be amass meeting of the true friends of the Constitution and the integrity of the Union the friends of Breckinridge and Lane and Democracy in Hagerstown, to-morrow (Saturday) evening, July 7th, at 8 o'clock, in front of the Court House. Rally, fi lends of equal Rights and equal laws ! Rally, friends of the Union and the Constitution ! llayerstown Union. LARGE DEMONSTRATION IN BUFFALO. Buffalo, N. Y., Monday, July 9. There was a large meeting here to-night of the friends of Breckinridge and Lane, who arc making an extended organization for the campaign in all the wards of the city, resolving against all squatter sovereignty and all coalitions, and only in favor of a union upon principlC' BRECKINRIDGE IN ILLINOIS. The Illinois State Democrat has the following item : " The National Democrats of Christian county have called a meeting for the purpose of inaugurating a Breckinridge and Lane Club. Our friends in Griggsville have reared n pole 125 feet high, and on the flag at the m ist-head the names of Breckinridge and Lane proudly meet the breeze." RRECKIXRIDGE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. Dover, N. II., July 2, 1860. On the reception of the nomination of Mr. Breckinridge, the true and faithful exponents of Democracy fired a salute of thirty-three guns in honor of the gallant son of Kentucky, and they were rousers. The friends of Mr. Breckinridge may not be as numerous in our city, and truly they are not half as noisy and blustering as those of other candidates, but they are of pure stock and true true to the Constitution and the Union, and true to Democratic principles and the great interests of the country. Correspondence of ihe Boston Post. HAULED DOAVN THE SQUATTER FLAG. . The Troy Budget has lowered the Douglas flag in exchange for that of Breckinridge and Lane. THE SON OF HENRY CLAY FOR BRECKINRIDGE. The Mountain Democrat of Richmond, Ky., brings to us an account of a Breckinridge and Lane meeting held there, which that paper says was "was one of the largest and most enthusiastic ever assembled in Richmond." The assemblage was addressed by Hon. Jas. B. Clay, who announced his warm support of the platform and the candidates. THE SQUATTERS LOSE ANOTHER MAN. Really we must put a stop to this. The squatters, not content with appropriating the names of Mr. Fitzp.atrick and other friends of Breckinridge, are borrowing from us on all sides. Such conduct is unpardonable. They must let our men alone : So They Go. The Douglasites recently appointed at Washington a National Executive Douglas Coin mittee. In the list of appointees we find the. name of Henry C. Harris, Esq., ol Covington, Ky. In naming him the Short Cutters counted without their host, as we see Mr. Harris made a powerful speech at a Breckinridge, and Lane ratification meeting at Covington on Saturday night lart. He is a true and sound Democrat, loyal to his section and State, and of course refuses to consort with the semi-Abolition crew that support Dougla. Louisville Courier, July ilk. NEW YORE: PAPERS FOR BRECKINRIDGE. . The following list of New York papers supporting Breckinridpe and Lane, we believe, entirelv accurate : Dav-Book, N. Y Journal of Commerce, N. Yi Buffalo Tost; Binghampton Democrat; Putnam County Courier; Delaware Republican; Hudson Gatette ; Dunkirk Frve Press and Argus : Genew Democrat, Batavia; Sehenectadv News; Albany Evening Standard; Brooklyn Eagle: Troy Budget, and we believe vnne other.