Indiana State Guard, Volume 1, Number 11, Indianapolis, Marion County, 11 August 1860 — Page 3

The Principles of the National Democracy. Tho Democratic party has become divided; and it is well worth while to inquire what is th cause of this division ? A reference to the platforms of the two sections will settle this question. But in order to understand the difference in these platforms, it is first

necessary to run back a little into the history ot the past. Four years ago, the Convention which nominated Mr. Buchanan, adopted what is known as the " Cincinnati platform." That platform, so far as relates to the present division, reads as follows : " Resolved, That we recognize the right of the people of the Territories, (not the Legislature,) whenever IIIU 11 Li 111 ir l - - j --7 constitution, with or without slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States." This platform was accepted and approved by the Democracy of every part of the Union, North and South alike : and uniting in support of the candidates nnnti if. he was triumohantly elected. But scarcely was the election over, when it was discovered that two different constructions, in di rect antagonism to each other, wero being put upou this platform. Now, without saying at present what these constructions were, it is very certain they could not both be right, for the same words could not, at one and the same time, have two different and contrauiciory meanings, ahc oi ui.ut.-i itj muujj, . . i M, and when we ascertain which is tho right one, that must settle the question as to which of the two sections into which the old Democratic party has so unfortunately become divided, constitutes the real, true Democratic party : it will be that section which conforms to a proper construction of this platform. Both sections still equally insist that this platform is right : the disrupted convention which nominated Mr. Douglas, and the equally irregular convention that nominated Mr. Bkeckixridge, alike re-aflirm it, with their own interpretation of its meaning. . One of these conventions adopts it, after this manner : Resolved, That the platform adopted by the Democratic party at Cincinnati be affirmed, with the following explanatory resolutions : 1. That the Government of a Territory organized by an act of Congress is provisional and temporary, and during its existence all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their property in the Territory, without their rights, either in person or property, being destroyed by Congressional or Territorial legislation. 2. That it is the duty of the Federal Government, in all the departments, when necessary, to protect the rights of pei-sons and property in the Territories, and wherever else its constitutional authority extends. 3. That when the settlers in a Territory, having an adequate population, form a State Constitution, the right of sovereignty commences, and being consummated by their admission into the Union, they stand on an equality with the people of other States, and a Suite thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union, whether its Constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery. The other convention adopts it, after this wise: Resolved, That we," the Democracy of the Union, in Convention assembled, hereby declare our affirmation of the resolutions unanimously adopted, and declared as a platform of principles by the Democratic Convention at Cincinnati, in the year 1856, believing that Democratic principles are unchangeable iu their niltun , when applied to the same subject matter, and we recommend as our only further resolutions the following : That inasmuch as differences of opinion exist in the Democratic party as to the nature and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the powers and duties of Congress, under tho Constitution of the United States, over the institution of slavery within the Territories: Resolved, That tho Democratic party will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States over the institution of slavery in the Territo--. ries. . ; To this last was added at Baltimore, (as if what had been said at Charleston was not sufficiently explicit,) the following : " Resolved, That it is in accordance with the Cincinnati Platform, that during the existence of tho Territorial governments, the meiisure of restriction, whatever it may be, imposed by the Federal Constitution on the power of the Territorial Legislature over the subiect of the domestic relations, as the same has been or shall hereafter he decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, should be respected by all good citizens, and enforced with promptness and fidelity by every branch of the General Government." Thus it will be seen that each section still insists that this Cincinnati platform is right ; but only right, with j their respective interpretations of it. Now tho question is, what is the difference between their interpre- ' tations? and which is the right one ? A casual observer might suppose, from a careless or inattentive reading of them, that there was little or no difference ; such, however, is not the fact, as a brief reference to the history of the past will show. When the Kansas-Nebraska bill was pending before Congress, in 1854, it was apparent that there was a diversity of opinion, among Democratic members, as to the power of Congress, and of the Territorial Legislature, over the subject of slavery in the Territories; some asserting that a territory, when organized' became, by virtne of its organization, invested with a species of sovereignty "squatter sovereignty," possessing complete power, through its local legislature, to introduce or exclude slavery.at its pleasure: others contending that the territories arc the common property of all the States, alike open to the people of all the States, to go there and settle, with their property, whatever it might be ; and that, under the Federal Constitution, neither Congress, nor a Territorial Legislature, which must derive its power from Congress, could rightfully exclude them or their property, so long as the country remained in a territorial condition. That the inhabitants of a territory can rightfully exclude slavery, when they come to form a State constition, all agree; but it was insisted that this could only be done at or after that period. The doubt or diflicultv, therefore, was, not whether slavery could at all be excluded, but when, one opinion being that it could be done immediately, by the Territorial Legislature, so soon as it was organized; the other, that it could not be done, tintill the settlers come to form their State constitution, preparatory to admission into the Union. Though time, the time when slavery may be excluded, be thus involved in this question, yet it that were all, it would be of little moment ; for a territorial condition is but provisional and temiiorary, and the period between the organizatiqn of such a government, and its transition into a sovereign State must always be short. But this matter of time converts this question into one of Power; a question whether there be any power, under the Federal Constitution, short of that of the people of the territory themselves, and to be exercised by them at tlie precise period when they come to form an intlrpendent Stale government, and at uo other, which can rightfully interfere with slavery, to its exclusion from the common territories. In this view, it is a grave question. The Republican party have always insisted that Congress possessed complete power over this subject ; either to introduce or prohibit slavery ; and that it was its moral duty to exercise this power, by its ex-

elusion. On the other hand, a portion of the Democratic party, agreeing with the Republicans, a3to the existence of this power in Congress, have nevertheless deprecated its exercise by that body; contending that it should be conferred on the Territorial Legislature, to be used by them or not, as they might

think proper. Another portion, denying that Congress has any power itself over the subject, assert that the Territory, when organized, possesses it, by virtue of a species of inherent sovereignty "squatter sovereignty"; and that whilst Congress ought not, and cannot rightfully interfere, the local legislature are at full liberty to do with it as they please. Still another portion, whilst they agree with the last, so far as to say that Congress has no power to prohibit, yet assert that it has the power to -protect? and not only power, but that it is its duty to protect, to the extent at least of preventing any infringement of the rights of property iu slaves, in the Territories, so long as the Territorial condition continues. This contrariety of views, with others equally discordant, have been entertained by one party or another one set of men or anotherfor the last forty years. It is not necessary to say that those opinions are not, or have not been honest; it may bo conceded that they have; for it would be uncharitable to suppose that so many different classes of men were actuated by an unworthy motive of promulgating sentiments, to the correctness of which they themselves did not subscribe; still it is inevitable, their opinions were not, could not, all be right. How then were we to net at the right? "Where so many disagreed, who should settle between them? The question, it is apparent, is not one of expediency about which men may continue forever to differ but of power; the powers of the Government under the Federal Constitution a naked, abstract question of law. In every well ordered community there is, of necessity, tribunals established, to which disputed questions of this sort must be referred" and whose decision shall be final and conclusive. If it were otherwise, there could be no end to controversy. Now, in this country, that tribunal is the Supremo Court of the , United States. This Court is composed of gentlemen ! from different localities remote from each other j some North, some South, some East, some West who are selected out of the great mass of their fellow-citi-! zens, on account of their distinguished talents, their ; experience, their legal learning and their integrity. They hold their offices for life, and receive a salary i which cannot be diminished; and are therefore re-j moved from all fear of popular favor or furor, and ', all temptation to commit wrong. There is not, prob-. ably, in the whole civilized world, a tribunal more ' august, more talented, more honest, more disinterest-j ed, more impartial, more learned in the laws, or more ' deserving, from its whole structure, of the confidence I and respect of the universal public. To this tribunal ; properly belongs, sooner or later, the settlement of all such questions of disputed power. . . . j Now, when the Kansas-Nebraska bill was pending, ' this diversity of sentiment among Democratic Sena- i tors and Representatives, as to the powers of the Gen-i eral Government, under the Constitution, over this subject they differing not only with the Republicans, as to the expediency of its exercise, even if it did exist, but also differing among themselves as to whether it existed at all or not, and if so, how far it existed, and in what manner it could or should be exercised led to the adoption among themselves of this arrangement, namely, that the bill should be so drafted, as that, whilst it should not couipromit their various opinions, the question as to the powers of the Government should be left open, to be decided by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, it was provided in the bill not that the people of the Territory should be left free to regulate their domestic affairs in their own way, but that they should do this, " subject only to the Constilulion of the United States." If the Constitution would permit them, through the action of their local Legislature, to exclude slavery, either directly, indirectly, or " by unfriendly legislation," then they were to be at liberty to do it; otherwise, not. Mr. Douglas opinion !. was that they did possess this power inherently or if: not inherently, certainly the power, if unrestricted in its exercise by Congress, of regulating tin's subject of j slavery as they pleased. Others insisted that neither j Congress nor the Territorial Legislature could rights J fully interfere to prevent a citizen of any State from , going into the common Territory with his properly, j whatever it nugm uu wwcmv cio.cavi uv.ovo enjoying it there, under the Constitution of the United j States, until the people of the Territory come to as- j sume popular sovereignty, by the adoption of a State j constitution, and their admission into the Union upon j an equality with the existing States claiming that a; Territory was not a State, nor upon an equality with ! the States, and that so long as it remained a Territory, j not being under any constitution of its own, it was un-; der the Constitution ot the United States, and of the I acts of Congress made in pursuance of it ; and that nn- j der the Constitution of the United States, Congress : had no power (and could not, therefore, delegate it to ! a Territory,) of interfering with a man's rights of prop- j ertv in the common country. Which of these views j was right, and which wrong, it was agreed should be j left to the Supreme Court, and by its decision all were to be bound. . j This was in 1854. In 1856 Mr. Buchanan was: elected, and it so happened that early in the year 1 85 7, ' (shortly after his election) these very points, which i had been so long in controversy, came before and were ' decided by that same tribunal to which it had been ; agreed they should be referred. The points came up ' in a suit, brought by an old negro of the name of Dred : Scott, for the recovery of his freedom. The suit was ; commenced in the State of Missouri, and was duly re-j moved from thence to the Supreme Court of the Uni- j ted States. So far as the liberty of Scott was in-; volved.it was comparatively of little moment, for he! was an old and decrepid creature, and had not long to; remain in this world, at any rate ; but as regarded the j principles, it was of infinite consequence. The case j was elaborately argued by some of the ablest lawyers ; in the United States; but not satisfied with that, such; was the importance attached to the principles in-j vol ved, and so much did the Court hesitate to pronounce a hasty opinion, that it was, by their direction, j re-argued before them by other, and as able counsel as J before; aud after the most mature deliberation, the ! Court deli vered their opinion. It is not proposed here I ; to examine this decision, ot to refer to it further than j j as it relates to the questions under consideration at j j the game time, it cannot be inappropriate to recom-! i mend to every citizen of the Republic every lover of j j his country to read for himself the opinions of those learned men, on these important and vexed questions. The Court decided : First. That the territory of the United States tliat is, any country within the limits of the United States, which is outside of any State belongs to the people i of all the States alii '. j Second. That the citizens of any one State have just! a much right as those of any oAt to go to the mtnmmi

territory, and to take with them anything which they call, and which is recognized as property ; and are entitled to be alike protected in the enjoyment of it so long as the country remains under the jurisdiction of the United States. Third, That neither Congress, nor any body deriving its authority from Congresj such as a Territorial Legislature can rightfully prohibit the immigration of any citizens of any State, into any portion of this common country, with his property, whether that property be slaves or horses; nor can they, by any legislation, take away or impair his rights to his property. Fourth. That when the people of a Territory came to declare their peaceable independence of the United States, by forming a Slate Constitution for themselves, then, and not till then, does their right of sovereignty commence ; and then, and not till then, have they the right to interfere with the institution of slavery, to

prohibit it from their new State. (It is not attempted here to quote the precise language, but only the substance of the decision.) Now, to this decision, it is the duty of every good citizen peaceably to submit, whatever may have been his previous views ; for without a propor observance and maintenance of the law, as it may be expounded to us, by that the judicial) department, to which all such questions are required to be submitted, there would be no security for life, liberty, or property; and especially ought all true Democrats to yield a readyobedience, because of the agreement that their conflicting views should be submitted to this tribunal, and that they would be bound by its decision. Referring to this subject in his last great speech iu the United States Senate, Mr. Douolas says : ' We agreed to refer it to the judiciary; we agreed to be bound by their decision." Adhering to this agreement, the Democratic party generally acknowledge their obligation. The President of the United States all the heads of Departments thirty-six out of thirty-eight Democratic Senators nine-tenths of the Democratic Representatives, and all loyal citizens and true Democrats everywhere recognize this decision as an authoritative exposition of the law. But the difficulty is, whilst the mass of the Democratic party acquiesce, that Mr. Douglas rebels ; he will not be bound. Notwithstanding the decision, his views noiv, he says, are the. same, as they were before. In his deliberate speech, before referred to, made in the Senate, a few days after the disruption of the Charleston Convention, his great effort was to demonstrate that his position remained unaltered; the same as it ever had been. Now, the objection to Mr. Douglas by his former associates, is, not that he once entertained unsound views but that he still adheres to them. He agreed to abide by the decision, which the court might make, and to abandon his previous notions, if they were found to be incorrect; and now, that the court has settled they were incorrect, it was his duty, it is claimed even independent of any agreement to that effect, but doubly his duty in view of his agreement to abide by the decision ; and it is because he wiHjiejf abide by it, as he agreed to do, and abandon hlsformer erroneous opinions, that he has become so distasteful to the true Democracy. What his opinions were, can be best ascertained by quoting his own words. In reply to an interrogatory propounded to him by Mr. Lincoln, when they were canvassing the State of Illinois, with a view to the Senatorship, whether the people of a Territory, in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, could exclude slavery from their limits, prior to the formation a State Constitution, Mr. Douglas says: "I answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times, from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion, the people of a Territory CAN, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits, PRIOR to the formation of a State Constitution." Now, this opinion of Mr. Douglas is in direct conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court; for the court declare, in as plain words as the English language can express it, that the people of a Territory. CANNOT, by any lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits, prior to the formation of a State Constitution ; and yet Mr. Douglas, in disregard of his duty as a loyal citizen, and in violation of his acknowledged agreement, still persists that the people of a Territory can do, what the Supreme Court have solemnly declared they cannot do. The new friends of Mr. Douglas would persuade us that the hostility to their idol is personal springing from envy or malignity it is, on the contrary, political, as every one must see, and arises from his desertion of his party and his faith. Whether Sir. Douglas denounces in terms the decision of the Supreme Court, we know not ; his adhesion to his former erroneous doctrines and opinions, is a virtual denunciation of it; for if he were to concede that the decision was valid, and yet not stand by it, his conduct would appear still more reprehensible. But whether ho himself repudiates it in express words or not, his friends do declaring it to be extra-judicial, unofficial, an obiter dictum, as lawyers would say the inere sayings of the court without being necessary to the determination of the case before them unauthor itative, and not binding. The Republicans, equally with Mr. Douglas, repudiate this decision ; bnt they assign a different reason ; their reason is, that it is corrupt, and was obtained by bribery: one thus attack ing the integrity, the other the judgment ot the court, But what difference can it be to the country, whether the decision be invalidated for the one reason or the other; the effect, in either case, must be precisely the same ; and that is, by keeping this vexed question still open, to prolong the contention, strife, and bitterness that have grown out ot it There is another striking coincidence between Mr. Douglas and the Republicans, on this subject: they both advocate the right of intervention differing only as to the mode. The Republicans insist that Congress should intervene directly, by prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the Territories; whilst Mr. Douglas contends that it should be left to the Territories to introduce or exclude them as they please. The dif ference is almost immaterial; for what can it matter to that class of our citizens, whose interests are to be affected by it, whether they are deprived of their rights by congressional or territorial legislation ? the wrong, in either , case is the same. Now, the true Democratic doctrine, sanctioned and sustained by the decision of the Supreme Court is, that neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature can rightfully in tervene, but that the citizens of any and every Mate have an equal right to go into the Territories taking with them anything, which is recognized as property; and may enjoy it there unmolested, until the people come to assume independence and sovereignly, by the formation of a State government. The resistance of Mr. Douglas' friends to the incor poration of this principle into the platform, was the cause of the disruption of the Charleston Convention. When the refusal came, those delegates whose con stituents, on acconnt of their particular locality, felt a deep interest in this matter, seceded. They might have remained notwithstanding, and have defeated Mr. Douglas for the nomination; for it is certain that, at no time and nndcr no state of rirrnmtauj"es. could

he have carried two-thirds of the regular delegates constituting that Convention ; and had their object been simply his defeat, as some of his injudicious supporters pretend, they would have remained and ac

complished that purpose. But they were contending j for a principle to them, a substantial, practical reality and 'when the recognition of this principle was j denied, they pursued the honorable course of retiring from a body, from which they differed so widely, ra-j ther than continue to cooperate, for the ignoble pur- j pose of defeating the nomination of any one man or; another. We commend them for their course. Had they remained, they would have been compelled to 1 place the candidate whom they might have nominated, I upon the platform occupied by Mr. Douglas which, ! with the construction he puts upon it, is almost as distasteful to the true Democracy as,diat of the Republican party; for Mr. Douglas construes it to mean that " the Democratic party will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States" not thut is, but which is to be made hereafter " over the institution of slavery in the Territories;" and in the meantime, until (another) decision is made, he is to be at liberty to advance doctrines, in direct conflict with the opinion delivered, and to keep the country agitated from one end to the other, by their advocacy. If the Cincinnati platform was liable to two constructions, this, on which Mr. Douglas stands, is still more so; for whilst saying that the Democratic party will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court, it does not admit that any decision has been made ; on the contrary, we know, Mr. Douglas denies that any has: and whilst savin", in the addenda made at Baltimore, that " the measure of restriction, tehatever it may be, &c, as the same has been, or shall hereafter be decided, &c, should be respected," &c, it is left, and it is believed was purposely left in such form, as that it can be urged in Southern localities, that "iV has been decided:" whilst Mr. Douglas shall be left free to say in the North, " cm it shall hereafter be decided." All this uncertainty and duplicity could have been easily avoided by the enunciation at Charleston or at Baltimore of the simple principle, that rights ot persons and property in the Territories cannot be infringed by either r:nrrpsxional or Territorial legislation. Why was it ""O w not done ? Let Mr. Douglas and his friends answer, why. Under this state of circumstances, but one course was left for the true Democracy; and that was to present right men, on right principles for their suffrage, This is done in the persons of John C. Breckin ridge and Joseph Lane, on the platform adopted at the Maryland Institute. It is not pretended that these gentlemen have been remilarlv nominated : they have not ; but neither have Douglas and Johnson : there has, indeed, been no regular nomination of any candidate; and every Democrat is at perfect liberty to vote as lie pleases. But even if Mr. Douglas were a regular nominee, and Ir. Breckinridge not a candidate, with Mr. Douglas' platform of principles, we should vote for him with great rejuctance, (ifut all,) and as a choice of evilsconsoling ourselves with the alleviation that though his principles be bad, those of his competitor, MiLincoln, are still worse. There are many good men in Indiana, who are advocating the support of Mr. Douglas in this State, on the ground of expediency. Repudiating his doctrines as to the efficacy of the decision of the Supreme Court, and as to the right of a Territory to intervene in respect to slavery, they nevertheless urge a union of the whole Democracy upon him, for the reason that division will insure defeat, and that with all his faults, he is to be preferred to that competitor (Lincoln) who will be most likely to carry the State, unless such union be effected. With these good men, we have no quarrel. We think they are taking a mistaken view of the subject; and that the time will come and that at no distant day when they will regret they did not throw "exjiediency" to the winds, and stand firmly up for the true principles of the party. The Fusion in Georgia. The Rome Courier, the leading Know-Nothing or-j gan in Northern Georgia, thus spoke of the offer of j the Douglasites to fuse with them in that State. If, as is represented, the fusion is agreed upon, the Courier may consent to postpone its objections to squatter sovereignty for " further adjudication." Hear it: " Such a shameless, unprincipled, insulting proposition was never before made to honest men. We look in vain for suitable terms with which to denounce it. Upon the part of the Douglas fac tion it is a confession j of their utter imbecility, is promoted by the fear of j the overwhelming and merited defeat which awaits i them, and evinces a disregard, yes, a contempt forourj honor, honesty, and fidelity to principle, which should j meet with nothing but indignation and scorn. We could not agree to such a coalition without surrendering those principles for which we have contended for j vears, and which we have regarded as essential to our Interests, our safety, and our equality in the Union., We could not prove so faithless to our section, so recreant to our duty, as to join those whom we have always denounced as our worst enemies, and who arc j striving to put in power a party whose political heresies are more dangerous to the South than the doctrines of the Black Republicans." The Position of Gen. Cass. The Washington Constitution thus settles definitely , the question in regard to the position of the veteran and hero, Lewis Cass, in the pending struggle between ; nationalism and sectionalism between Democracy ; and Black Republicanism : " AVe see a paragraph going the rounds ot' the pa- i pers, which doubtless originated in either the Povi-, dence Post, Cincinnati Enquirer, or the Selma Sentinel, stating that General Cass has expressed himself, strongly in favor of Mr. Douglas for the Presidency, i and in distinct approval of Mr. Douglas' position on i the question of slavery in the Territories, ! AVe know of our own knowledge that there is not a scintilla of truth in this statement Whatever may ! have been Gen. Cass' opinions on the Territorial ques-; tion in the past, and whatever accord may have ex-, isted between his views and those of Mr. Douglas, we j know that since the rendering of the decision of the j Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred j Scott case, he has declared repeatedly that he accepts that decision as final and binding on hitn as on all other good citizens, and that his future action will be ' controlled by it absolutely." j A Modkl Nation. The Choctaw Nation seeum to be a model community, as witness the following, usages: i " All land, it is said, are held in common, and each 1 Indian, or those connected with him by affinity or con-; sanguiuity, settle down, and no one is allowed to come' nearer than a quarter of a mile of this inclosure ; and ! this is his claim, and he is protected in its posoesion by t the laws of the Nation, as though it were his fee-sim-, pie. Merchants, ntechanics, professional men, ma-j chinisU, &c, are allowed to live there by permit from j the Council, but no one is allowed to produce anything : more than is necessary for the use of himself and his j family outide of bis trade or profession. Not a drop j of yp'iritous liquors is allowed to be given away, or f transported through the Nation ; and all that is found : by the officers i poured out, and if found in any . wagon, water craft, or on horseback, the whole estab-; lihmnt is confieati to th n.c of the Nation-

' Hurrah for Breckinridge and Lane ! " Unfurl the banner to the breeze From Georgia through the land to Maine, And let its waving folds display The names of Breckinridge and Lane. From East to West loud ptcans ring; On every hill-top every plain 1 The shout goes up from old and young, Hurrah for Breckinridge and Lane. The statesman wise, the hero brave, Our rights and honor will maintain; Our councils guide, our battles fight Hurrah for Breckinridge and Lane. Our institutions shall abide, Our glorious Union long remain, - ' And every threatening storm outride, Uphold by Breckinridge and Lane. Disunionists in vain desire Our common country rent in twain; Their spite and envy tend to give Success to Breckinridge and Lane. Aspiring demagogues may strive, And every nerve for office strain ; Such giants shrink to pigmies small, Compared to Breckinridge and Lane. Then let us to the contest hasfe ; All opjioiition will be vain ; A glorious victory awaits Tho friends of Breckinridge and Lane. New Hampshire.

Political, Mii.lf.dukvili.e, Ga., Wednesday, August 8. At the Breckinridge State Convention, to-day. Chas. McDonald and Henry R. Jackson were appointed Electors at large. The Convention was large and harmonious. Mr. Toombs made a speech. Mr. Col ib was not present, SHOW YOUR FAITH BY WORKS. A deputy State official has offered to wager $500, with a gentleman of this city, that the Ticket of Breckinridge and Lane will not get 10,000 votes in the State of Indiana. As the gentleman to whom this wager was offered is not a betting man, he declined it; but he has a friend in the city who has deposited the above sum with the publishers of this paper, and if this deputy State official will call, his money will be covered on the spot. And as an inducement to the deputy State official, or any others that, desire it, to take early action in this matter, we will add the offer of $500 more that Breckinridge and Lane will get 20,000 votes in Indiana. . If this shall be taken, we are authorized to make further offers, on a still higher figure. tn3 FACE THEMUSI0! For the OM Line Guard. The following bets will be taken promptly, by a gentleman in Indianapolis. If accepted, address 1 X.,' care of Old Line Guard, Indianapolis, Ind.: $500 that Douglas will not carry one Southern State; $500 that he will not carry a State, North or South; $500 on each, that Breckinridge will beat Douglas in the following States : Louisiana, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Indiana. $4,000 that Breckinridge will receive more electoral votes that Douglas. All the above bets to bo taken together. If preferred, the above amounts will be increased or diminished, to accommodate takers. tn3 WAM'S TO I I'ltC II ASK. THE ADVERTISER WANTS TO PURCHSE, Two or three pairs of Boots, ; A first rato Gold Watch. One or two suits of Clothes. Two or three Hats, Almost Buy kind of Dry Goods, A No. I Dressing Bureau, A flrst rato .Spring Muttraas, A good Sofa. A pood Carpet . And almost any useful article, which he will pa) for on the 4th of March next, if Stephen Ai Douglas Is then inaugurated President. Address, care of Editor Oli lint Guard, Indianapolis, until the election, auirll-t nov 3. WAGER. COPPER TUBULAR LIGHTNING ROD, WITH SPIRAL FLANGES Mill! KOD IS .71 aim: of JL Copper b caiiso that metal is one of the very best conductors, and does not rust; and in a Tubular Splr.nl 'or ni. Unit being the natural shape of the thunder bolt, as demonstrated when lightning penetrans s juid. Thn t JangeN and Hough Edge dissipate the electricity and destroy its power. The Joints are seeurely connected in such a manner as to make the rod continuous throughout, and hi every particular this protection it most durable. It has been endorsed by Dr. Ruckin an, rof. ot Cliemiidry in the Pennsylvania Medical Uhiverpit): Or. lto n ton, the celebrated Scten title Lecturer; John Young. lute Profesor of Natural Science in the N', W. O, University; Dr. Brown, late State Geologist; Dr. Athon, Superintendent Insane Asylum; President Andrews, of Kenjon College; ami in"iSStfWT overJ,,u r rotessors m colleges i )r and other scientific men. . It has rem a reived the flrst premiums at six or I I eight Ntnie Fairs and as many Inati- ' tules; and 51 count v and district htfecri over 3(H) Professors in Colleges F:nrs in all sections of the country. It lias nevor been beaten in an; contest. Over 100 newspapers and othorjournalshavespoken of it in terms of highest praise. and it lias been liberally patronized by the most intelligent people wherever introduced. As evidence of '.ho popularity of this rod, of the confidence felt in it by the people we give below the uaines of many persons in this city, who hare liad it erected on their buildings. Similar lists miffhtbe given of numerous places throughout the country, for we sold rods last season quite extensively throughout the Western and Southern Suites. Iitician Barbour, Dr G W .Miller, John Mtuiuph, John D Defrees, Calvin Fletcher, Charles Moore, V K Kofsinger, K C Meredith, Hervy Bates, James Oram, Robert McChet. K J PecK, W Thornburg. KSAIrord, Win Gnuse, Col T A Morris, llr Bellis, X P Cunningham, Eden drCopelaud, Henry Scbnull, Daniel Yandes, James A Jolly, Gorge I. owe, Samuel Wilmot, v H T.lhntl. A I. Tilford, C J Campbell, J Berrvman, J P Pope, O Tousev, T H Kharpe, J. K. Elder. Kilby Ferguson, Misses Mc Kev 1) Stevenson, Judge Koach. tarland. Elv Wood, Oavid Wallace, A G W illard, Chas (i French, A li Wood, Fred Shove. K S Tvler, Chas A Raj. C PI' Hruwn. H I Horn, S A Fletcher, Thos Ilium, V & H Glenn. Jas M Kay, Hineslv A Herein, John Sullivan, Wm Hading. John Blake, Elder A Harknuss, DrTParviu Wm Hnrgcrt, Alfred Harrison. John 1. Kctcbaui. Wm Wallace, S B Phelps, BenJ Harrison, ) M Lonl. Joseph ttert, Howard W Mills. Erie Locke, Mrs A W MoiTis. J C Harrison, Wm Maimir, Wm Mcljioghllu. J McCord Sharpe, WmTinalev, l.swronee M Vance, J K Sharp. Kev J B Simmons. Rev J A Brouse, Re? Sidney Dver, Kev M G Clark, Jacobs Pratt, Wm Sullivan, Samuel McGiltili, Wm Felbanui, George Hill, T Browning, J M Dilly, Dr T J Doukglt), J M Frost. Edwin May. F Ntoelting. SlonghtoD Fletcher. R T Tenevck, J 8 Walker, C Vonnegnt, Ac, Ac. Ac. William Stewart, The fblloin buildings in this cit) are ahw protected by Motion's Rob: Slnkiug Fund Building. State Bank do, Aetna Ins. Co's do. Odd Fellow's Hall. McLean's Female College. La na tic Asylaa1- j . Indianapolis Fmiale Colleg.. Terre Haute Railroad Depot, Third Presbyteriai ('butch, Foarth do do. Baptist Church, Episcopal Church, LOCKE A Ml'WSOX, MANUFACTURERS, llil.Al.l IMI?IA. rnayM-

f

7. i

V

0