Indiana State Guard, Volume 1, Number 19, Indianapolis, Marion County, 30 August 1860 — Page 1

I

r"vv".

OJ

lor ID J o THE CONSTITUTION, THE UNION, AN D THE E Q U A L ITY OF THE STATES!

VOL I.

THE OLD LINE GUARD. IS PUBLISHED , ' T n X - AA7 E E K L, Y , AT I N lIAI.4POLIS, .INDIANA 111 KLUEIt & HAltKNESS. TEHMS, "V;.',,'.''; 1.00. until after the Presidential Election. In advance, in all cases. . . Advertisements inserted at the usual rates. LETTER FE0MIA.MES S. GREEN. Canton, Mo., August 18, 18G0. To T. Northcull, Enoch Iiooten, and others, Mexico, Mo. : Gentlemen Since my return home, I have received your letter, inviting mo to address the people on the political issues ot the day, ana am sorry to say, in reply, that the state of my health, and numerous engagements, will prevent my naming a nine ai wiucn I can'visit you ; but, if it be in my power, I shall certainly do so before the November election. In the meantime, in order to prevent all misappre hensions' with regard to my real position,! will take the liberty of making a briet statement on tne general subicct. Like all true friends of our country, I exceedingly regret the division of the Democratic party, but it is perfectly useless to waste time and strength in impracticable regrets, and it would be equally unprofit able to go buck and neap censure upon tne amereni parties to the division. I deem it my duty rather to take the subject up exactly as I find it pending before the country, and shape my action just as patriotism requires to "produce beneficial results, instead of stirring up excitement and ill feeling, by attributing the separation of the Convention to the one side or the other to the cause, or to the results necessarily pro. dnced thereby. From my intercourse and acquaintance with the friends of Douglas and Breckinridge in this State, I am satisfied there are true patriots and sound Democrats supporting each of these candidates for the Prcsidency. It would, therefore, be the height of folly and the grossest injustice to speak of such citizens in terms of reproach and abuse. Whilst I shall support Breckinridge, it shall be my purpose to respect the predilections of others, and present for candid consideration the motives and reasons by which I am influenced. The Democratic National Convention divided into two parts, each of which has presented a candidate, but neither of them can claim to have been nominated in the regular way, according to the rules, usages and customs of the party. Neither received two-thirds of the electoral college, which was requisite to constitute a nomination. Douglas never received more than 181 votes, while 303 was the whole number, and two thirds of that is of course 202. And of the 181J votes which were cast for Douglas, many of them were spurious, illegal votes, brought into the Convention merely for the purpose of increasing his apparent vote. I shall not stop to enumerate the spurious votes, together with the evidence of their irregularity, for the simple reason that the highest vote he ever received, including all the bogus ones, lacked twenty and onehalf votes of making a nomination by the rule of the Convention. Hence, it cannot be contended that he received the nomination at Baltimore. The mere fact that Douglas received the majority of the votes, does not amount to anything. Other aspirants have obtained large majorities in National Conventions heretofore, and yet were not, for that reason, declared the nominees. I need only name Van Buren and Cass, in 1844. The fact is, there can be no safety or conservatism in such Conventions without ths two-thirds rule ; and when it is destroyed, National Conventions cease. If a majority could nominate., then twelve States, wholly in the power of the Black Republicans, and without a single Democratic electoral vote, could force upon the party the most objectionable candidate they chose to present. But the propriety of the rule, and its non-observance this year in the case of Mr. Douglas, are incontestable truths, which cannot be for a moment doubts ed. And what is the claim of a nominee worth,when so seriously and so generally controverted as in this case? It "is not to be denied that a large majority in nearly every Democratic State in the Union, utterly repudiate the idea that Douglas has been nominated. They are as intelligent, and we aro bound to believe, as honest, as any other Democrats, and have the same right to judge and determine for themselves. They will not support him, and hence the whole moral force of a nomination is completely lost, whether they are right or wrong in their judgment. They must and will cast five-sixths of all the Democratic electoral votes for President, and surely every true man and patriot will treat them with the consideration due to brethren. They deny the nomination and all obligation to support Douglas, and, the whole moral force and efficacy of this so-called nomination are gone forever. It surely will not be claimed, or even thought of, by the most enthusiastic, that the pretended nomination' of Douglas, will ever induce the Democrats to whom I refer, to extend their support under such circumstances. No I Its charm is destroyed its potency gone. The facts of the case have dispelled all doubt. What, then, remains to bo done ? Shall we quietly submit to the election of a Black Republican, without an effort to prevent it, or shall we indulge in crimination and recrimination, and destroy the Democratic party, or shall we shape our course so as to take revenge on any Democrat with whom we differ ? For myself, I say neither. If we have no regular nominee, we have time to concentrate public sentiment in Missouri, and, I believe, in the nation, on an available, true and worthy candidate, under whose banner we can rally, and rescue the party and the Union from the dangers and calamities that now threaten us. In my opinion, Jno. C. Breckinridge is the proper man. Already the Democratic sentiment, in nearly all the Democratic States, has been concentrated on him, and surely Missouri will not separate from her Democratic sisters, and throw her vote away, and thereby increase the chances and hopes of the Republican party. Such a course would be suicidal. If we can succeed in electing any Democrat, it can only be Breckinridge under the existing state of things. It is a fact well known that he is the ckotce of the Democracy of every southern State, and also in several northern States ; while the fact is equally well known that Douglas has so embittered the feelings of thousands of Democrats, North and South, that they will not support him. Whether t'iat feeling towards Douglas is right or wrong; is not the niu-stion. We mu-t take things as we find them and know them to exist, and then shape our course to the best advantage. This prejudice to Douglas is go strong in different arta of the Union, that even if Missouri should be induced to vote for him, her vote would be thrown away and lost. But I am well satisfied tliat the Democracy of our State will

stand by her true principles, and vote for Breckin-iwitli

rxigc, wuo not only represents her principles, but ; who has tlic onlv chance of success against Lincoln. When availability and coincidence of political opinion both unite in the same person, we cannot possibly hesitate in our coarse. We will stand by our priiciples, and accept the bet opportunity to give them success. The political sentiment! of the Democracy of Missouri, have been repeatedly declared, and do one prett'uiw tliat itnigias enttrtnins the same opinions on the ubject of siavery. The contrary is true. Hi , opinion on tLat subject are directly in conflict with ours. And yet, strange to ray. some of iu admirers, it

INDIANAPOLIS,

are not only his apologists, but undertake to prove the propriety of his opinions. It seems to mo that such persons permit their ardent zeal to drive them into positions winch they had not intended. A tew words will explain the grave errors of Judge Doug las : . . i . ... j . , . . In the 'first place" ho "holds that slavery, and the right to hold slaves, depend entirely upon the local laws ot the Mates, and cannot go an inch beyond. All the Republicans in the United States hold the same doctrine. But the Supreme Court has expressly decided the contrary. In the next place, Douglas says the Territorial Gov ernment established by Congress lias the riyht, while a Territory, to exclude slavery by legal means, not withstanding the decision ot the court as to the constitutional right of any citizen to take slavery therein. To render plausible his last named position, he resorts to his doctrine of " popular sovereignty," and under that he claims that the Territory has as much right to exclude slavery as has the State of Pennsylvania. It will be recollected by all who have paid attention to this important subject, that the Wilmot Proviso was urged by the Abolitionists, and was intended to exclude slavery from the Territories by act of Congress, and it was claimed by them that Congress had full power to make the exclusion, and that the measure would have the effect of hemming in slavery prevent all expansion and finally force the slaveholding States to emancipate their slaves, or abandon those States to the blacks, or become involved in wars of insurrection and extermination. Ihe attempt thus to endanger the property and lives of the people justly excited and alarmed the South. They at once resisted the passage of any such law, and receiving assistance from a patriotic portion of the North, the measure was ultimately defeated. During the discussions, it was contended by the Abolitionists that Congress possessed the power claimed ; and also that slavery could not go into a territory, or anywhere outside of a slaveholding State, without a law establishing the right, On the other hand, our friends, North and South, denied the power of Con gress, and also insisted that the Federal Constitution recognized slaves as property, and any citizen of the United States could go into any of our Territories open for settlement, and there hold his Flave property bu virtue of the Constitution. Here, then, were pre sented two important points of difference, which, in fact, involve the whole question. At this point in the controversy, the doctrine of non-intervention was proposed, which was that Congress should neither pro hibit nor establish slavery; and the other point, the Constitutional question, was left for the courts to de termine. On this basis, the question was settled. In stead of a law of Congress to prohibit slavery forever, as proposed by Abolitionists, it was submitted to the people of the Territory to form and establish their own institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and this was called " popular sovereignty." As thus explained, many distinguished statesmen advocated " non-intervention " and " popular sovereignty," and all the speeches re cently quoted touching this subject, are to be under stood precisely in the manner the questions are here explained. But shortly afterward, another misunder standing arose. One side contended that the territorial Government could, at any time, exclude slavery; the other held that no exclusion or prohibition of slavery could be made until the tune when a Constitution was rightfully made for admission into the Union ; and for this position, two satisfactory and conclusive reasons were assigned, to-wit: 1st. That the right to settle the question of slavery was conceded to the people of the Territory, and not to the Territorial Government established by Congress, which Government could only have such power as Congress could rightfully grant ; and that the people never could act ;n their sovereign capacity until they came to form their Constitution. 2d, That the power in the Territory, by whomsoever exercised, was " subject to the Constitution of the United States," and that, by virtue of it, the right existed to take and hold slaves in the Territory, of which the people could not be deprived neither by Congress nor by the Territory during its existence as a Territory. In the debate which followed this dispute, it was distinctly and unequivocally stated by Gen. Cass and Judge Douglas, that if the Constitution gives the right to hold slaves in the Territory, there was no power on earth to take it away, neither Congress nor the Territorial authorities. See Appendix Con. Globe, 34th Congress, first session, page 791. The question was permitted to remain, awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court to determine this controverted point; and it was agreed and understood by both parties that the judgment of the court should be adhered to as final and conclusive. Not merely that it should end the particular case before the court, for that is necessarily so; but that the questions determined by the court should be deemed settled. In 1857, the judgment of the court was pronounced; and the opinion of that high tribunal expressly determines that the Federal Constitution does of itself, give and secure the right to every citizen, to take and hold any species of property known to the Constitution, including slaves, into the common Territories. Also, that Congress has no power to impair that right; and also, that much less could the Territorial Govern-1 ment destroy that constitutional right ; tor it could only have such power as Congress granted to it, and Congress could not grant a power which is not possessed by itself. This was supjwsed to end the whole matter, and the country rejoiced at the prospect of peace on the slave question, while, at the same time, a solution was had which promised to secure the rights of all. But, unfortunately for the peace of the country and the harmony of the Democratic party, the subject was not permitted to remain at rest. The South had been fully vindicated ; Gen. Casi, and such patriots, were content, but, for some cause, Judge Douglas has revived the whole controversy with increased bitterness and animosity. It now threatens a serious disruption j of the party, and, as a consequence, the triumph of Black Republicanism, with all its attendant evils. The j people, and the people only, can avert the danger. j He now holds, in violation of the agreement, and : in utter disregard of the opinion of the Supreme j Court, that the Territorial Government can, by legal ; means, exclude slavery as directly as Pennsylvania, j and then demands to know how the South is going to help herself, unless by having a Congressional " slave , code." Thus, you will perceive, that his course has 1 given rise to the whole clamor about a " slave code. But the conservative men of the nation do not intend to be driven from their sense of propriety by any PUI. II U1U111U1. Ju liimb e K?ik jo, iuav auajuaic yiv tection be given for the purpose of securing existing; constitutional rights. " Nobody wants more than this. I Nobody asks Congress to " intervene " on the subject of slaven-, so as to give rights of property and of loca-' tion not already possessed; but we do require that our present constitutional rights shall be protected against wrong-doers and malefactors.. If the courts have sufficient power, under the laws of the land, then nothing more will be required ; but if the Territories, acting under the advice and encouragement of Judge Douglas, should interpose obstacles and destroy our present right, then it will be the dutv of Congress to interpose within the limits of its authority. Is this 1 asking too much? Would any citizen be content lens? Government is designed for the proteoi tion of all citizens m the entovment of their rights. of , person and pronertv; and whenever and wherever Bccessary to that end, its power ought to be exerted. This is the doctrine of Breckinridge; but Douglas denies it, and would veto a law designed for that purpose ; and, consequently, I shall support Breckinridge and oppose Douglas, however much I respect him personally. I will here preent a familiar cae by wot of illustration. Under the Constitution we have a ri'ht to reclaim fugitive slaves. For ma tit rears this rcxrnid right wan sufficient. until evil-disposed Pei sons attempted to defeat and destroy that right. Then! twesme BHfwrv f or Congress to intervene bT

INDIAN A, THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 18(H).

passing a law, approved by George Washington, af fording remedies to enforce the right. 4 Now, it is decided that tho same Constitution gives the right to the people to take and hold their slaves in the public Territories. If, therefore, any one attempts to destroy that admitted right, it will be the duty of Congress to provide the necessary remedy to secure this right, as in the case of fugitive slaves, which the Father of his Country approved;; Here again, I may add, Breckinridge agrees with us, and Douglas opposes. But it is contended by good friends of Douglas, against whom I have not one word of censure, that the platform adopted at Charleston and amended by the WicklifVe resolution at Baltimore, for Douglas, places him on the same ground with ourselves oii the subject of protecting constitutional rights. That this assumption is an evident mistake will appear from a few facts about which there can be no controversy. , First If it were true that Douglas, on his platlbrm, occupies the same ground with ourselves, why did they not accept our platlbrm rather than force a division on that subject ? . Second Douglas, and some of ; his friends, denounce our platform for protection (as before explained,) as a disunion platform, and hence it cannot, in their estimation, be the same as their own; but it should be remembered, as disproving forever this charge of disunion, that Gov Fitzpatrick, who holds to all of our doctrine, was good enough to be selected for Vice President on the ticket with Mr. Douglas, but declined to accept. This fact completely disproves the charge ot disunion, Thin! It is known as a fact that Douglas declared that if he was selected as a candidate, it would amount to an endorsement of his opinion on this Territorial question; and after the Charleston Convention ad - journed he asserted in the Senate, that his doctrine on the territorial question and popular sovereignty, had been fully ; sustained by the platform adopted at Charleston; and after the Wickliffe amendment at Baltimore, Douglas, in his letter of acceptance, declared that it was all in harmony with the preceding platform. So that, in the opinion of Douglas, his own principles are fully endorsed and sustained by his platform. Is has already been shown that the views and opinions of Douglas are at war with our best interests, and destructive of our dearest rights, and therefore it is perfectly plain that this platform is not what we require for our protection; and it is also clear that whoever votes for Douglas under these circumstances,' will vote for his notions of popular sovereignty, and against the rights of the people. His construction of the platform will govern himself. . But what are the effects and consequences to follow the endorsements of Douglas' position ? I answer ; every result that could have been apprehended from the " Wilmot Proviso." It will place the power over the Territory in the hands of the mob, and the agents of the emigrant aid societies of the North; and with Sharpe's rifles, Bowie knives, and John Brown's pikes, all Territories will be abolished and overrun by the lawless miscreants sent out by those societies. This is the legitimate result of the popular sovereignty doctrine of Douglas. It is the law of the strong against the weak. It is the law of the mob against j constitutional right. And it will eventuate in strife, contention and civil war. On the other hand, the doctrine of Breckinridge, will be one of peace and quietude protecting the rights of all, until they shall have sufficiently tested the fitness and adaptation of the Territory to slave labor; and after that, leave it, when the State is formed, to determine the question as the people of the Territory desire. The one is sectional, partial and revolutionary the other is peaceful, honorable and constitutional. In such a contest, when I have with others the right of choice, I cannot and will not hesitate. I am satisfied that Breckinridge has not sought his present position. It has been forced upon him as the most suitable Democrat for tho emergency; and being so unexceptionable in all respects, he was compelled to accept it. He has no personal hostility towards Douglas, or any friends of Douglas, but he has firmness, ability, experience, fidelity, and kindness, to fit him for the Presidency. I need not call your attention to tho fact, that the Democratic party was a unit until Douglas commenced his opposition to it. On the Lecompton question he joined the Black Republicans and has been warring on the party, and the administration, ever since. His friends, in several states, united with the clack Republicans to beat the regular Democratic nominees, and, after Congress met, co-operated with the Republican party alone. In the last session the Republicans would have been defeated but for Douglas men, who caused the election ot Pennington for Speaker, and Forney, (his particular friend) for Clerk. Why, then, should the party feel under any obligations to one who has been so disorganizing in his conduct? He is the cause of all the trouble in the party, and is responsible for all the danger of the election of Lincoln. He has" forced this issue upon the country, and has made it a test question, and it becomes a public duty to oppose it, or submit in disgrace to the ruin ot tho country. I have briefly stated the foregoing facts, which can be proved by the history and records of the country, as a justification for my own course, and for the conBiderat:on of my friends who may choose to reflect upon them. It is not my right to dictate to any one, nor would I do so if I could ; but as our interests are all the same, I hoe the truth will have the same effect upon all. But, my friends, there is still another enemy threatening us, and we must, concert means to beat the worst of all enemies. Douglas is bad enough, and will ultimately, without future resistance, plunge us in ruin and degradation, should his doctrine be carried out; but .Breckinridge is sound and reliable on even- question affecting our interests. Lincoln is worse than all, and we should unite together on our time principles to prevent the election of Lincoln. Our true principles are such as Breckinridge sustains, and no other candidate sustains; and we should support him to prevent the domination of Republicanism. I will not entertain a doubt of the people of Missouri. They arc true to the Constitution of the State, and the Union, and should and will stand by those who stand by us. All wo desire is the maintainance of our rights and constitutional protection. These things we can get; and defeat the Black Republicans by supporting Breckinridge. We must adhere to friends rather than enemies, whether open or covert, and in this case, with full right to choose our candidate, I repeat that on the score of principle and availability, there is but one course, and that is vote for John C. Breckinridge. I do not complain of others who think differently; but I beg of them to pause, reflect and examine before they take the fatal step. I am. very truly, Your friend and ob't serv't, James S. Green. Squatter Sovereignty 0ntenahle. The political " reasons why," the doctrine of popular or squatter sovereignty, as understood by Mr. Douglas, " whereby the people of an organized community are given the entire control of their domestic relations," is not only not true, but is destructive of the Government itself, arc these : If the people of an Organized Territory possess this sovereign power, it must be in one of two ways the people who go to and settle in the Territory, roust possess an inherent, original sovereign power which they take with them into a Territory ; or it must be derived from Congress by the act organizing the Territorial Government. If the people settling in a Territory, carry with them into the Territory this unlimited sovereign power, then that power carries with it the right to organize a Government for the purpose of exercising this power, and they may organize just such Government as they choose and hence it will necwarilv follow thev mav

make polygamy one of their domestio relations, or any other absurd, ridiculous, scandalous or. disgraceful practice they please. And, further, they are not hound to apply for admission into tho Union ; hence they may set up for themselves a distinct and independent Government. A doctrine tenfold worse than the right of secession is charged to be. But, if derived from the act of Congress, organizing the Territory, then it necessarily follows that Congress,

in organizing tho Territory, can prescribe the terms upon which the lerritory is so organized ; and hence tho sovereign power, which is the. supreme legislative power, is not in the Territory, but in Congress. This position, that the sovereign power in the Territories, limited in its character, is in Congress, was decided by the Supreme Court a great many years ago in the case of " The American Ocean Insurance Company vs. Canter," 1st Peters R. 511 and again reaffirmed in tho case of Dred Scott, But it may be said this doctrine would give Congress the power to legislate against slavery in the Territories, and so it would if Congress was not restricted by tho Federal Constitution. The sovereign power exercised by Congress, whether in relation to the States or Territories, is a limited one, limited by the Constitution of the United States. By the Constitution of the United States slaves are recognized as property, and by the Constitution, no power being given to Congress directly or by implication, to bestow or impair the rights to property; therefore, Congress has no power under the Constitution to legislate against slavery, in the Territories; in the very language of the Supreme Court, in the case of Dred Scott " The only power conferred I is, the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights." The true Constitutional doctrine is, that neither ' Congress or a Territorial Legislature has any power to legislate on the subject of slavery, except the power coupled with the duty ot guarding and protecting the owner in his property. The doctrine of Mr. Douglas, of popular or squatter sovereignty, is precisely the higher law of Mr. Seward, applied to the Territories; and is the very quint essence of the Red Republicanism of Europe, of which Mr. Soule, the Douglas leader of Louisiana, is the representative, in the United States ; and is destructive ot all Constitutional Government. Memphis Avalanche. fFroni the Hurtfonl Hvoning Post, August 7. Stephen and His Anxious Mother, Stephen was anxious to see his mother. His mother was anxious to see Stephen. The dutiful boy ad vertised it in the public prints that he was on his way to see his mother, lie started from the city ot JNew York to visit his mother, who resides in the western section of New York State. He naturally came to New Haven, Guilford, and Hartford, on his way, and at the latter place he was "betrayed" into a speoch. Still on the maternal pilgrimage, he goes towards Bos ton, attracted by a relative of his wife. It was a case of relative attraction. On his way, at Worcester, some Judas "betrayed" him into a speech. At Bos ton, betrayed again. Now, however, lie started to wards his mother. At Albany, seeking to pass through there as a private man, astonished at the magniticent demonstration, the unexpected reception (like the one at Hartford,) he was "betrayed" into a speech, in which he declared he was on his way to see his moth er. From here the pilgrim son reached Saratoga, Here he lays aside politics, thinks of his long unseen mother, whom he is about to visit, and sinks into the genial pleasures of the place. Previous to this, we ought to mention, he was "betrayed into a speech Full of thought of his mother, he starts in a northeast direction, he lauds at Rutland, the home of his youth, Owing to the wholly unexpected arrival in that place. so hallowed, &c. he well is "betrayed" into a speech. Full of pent up affection, he can no longer restrain himself, but goes to liellows .tails. Amid the bellowing of tho populace, and the sobs of Stephen, he is deceived, deluded, imposed upon in fact "betrayed" into a speech. He flies to the North he lands at White River Junction. AVhat a junction, what a conjunction, in point of fact, was there! Stephen was "betrayed" into a speech. Cutting bis filial stick in a northeast direction, he informs us at Concord that ho is visiting New England to look upon the grave of a relative. Sad Stephen, how skillfully his anxiety to see lib mother is disguised. The statement was made in the course of some extended remarks, which, in point of fact, "betrayed" pious jEneas in a speech at this very place. At Manchester, at Nassau, at Providence, still seeking the maternal embrace that still receded, he is still surprised and still "betrayed;" but why repeat the sad details? Stephen, Stephen, who seems unable to cut his bread and. cheese even, is next seen at aclam-bake at Rocky Point, far, far from mother, relatives, or graves; on this strictly private tour to see his mother, Stephen, wo say, sinks the maternal for a and allows one hundred and fifty bushels of baked clams and thirty thousand people to "betray" him into a speech a brief one of an hour and a half. Look at the map of New England. Where do you think Stephen is now? Why, way down on the rocky end of Rhode Island, at Newport, kicking up his truant heels by the great ocean, as much as to say that, having traveled all over New England on the strength of her, ho now don't care a "brass farthin'" for his maternal! And yet, by and by, when he gets recuperated, and' wants to start sn another tour, we shall hear his low, sweet voice mingling with the roar of the surf down there by tho sounding sea, softly singingt ' Wak o anil call ntt! fitrl. Cull me early, mother, tiisar." The Keystone State. From every section of the Union, our telegraphic dispatches announce the increasing strength of the National Democratic ticket. The South will, unundoubtedly, be a unit in her vote for Breckinridge and Lane; California and Oregon are secure. Let Pennsylvania do her dutv as a great, conservative State, and the election of our nominees is placed beyond a doubt. Since the days of Simon Snyder to the present hour, the Keystone Sta'e has stood shoul der to shoulder with her sister btate ot Virginia, in their Democratic battles and triumphs. As National Democrats, we look with confidence to her for sup port at the present hour ; holding in her hands, in a jrreat measure, the balance of power; in her com. mercial interests essentiallv interwoven with the un broken harmony of the States and the perpetuity .fif tne union, sue is caueo ujion uy every tie, local ana national, to cast her powerful vote for Breckinridge and Lane. ' From the heights of the Allcghenies to the banks of the Delaware, let her calm, industrious, peaceful citizens, her German population, remember the days wnen i anion, oppression ana uisunion, arove mem from their faderland to a home dependent for its security on itf indissoluble union. Let them reflect they are the citizens of a mighty Confederacy, not of a mere section : that the interests of the Nortliern, Southern and Western States are links in the great national chain one of which cannot be broken without involving the security of the whole. In the Black Republican cause hostility to the South and her institutions the Keystone State cannot enlist with safety. The principles of Mr. Douglas, if earned out, would destroy the basis upon which the Constitution was formed the equal sovereignty of the States they would empower subordinate political organizations (Territories) to dispute the rights of the States njxjn which they are dependent for their government and laws. Under the newly created "domestic righu" (so nsmed by the Illinois Senator) thev might stand on the boundaries of their re-jtective limits and say to the citizen of a sovereign State desirou of removing his property within their borders, "thus far maye.t thou come, but no farther." As one of tlie original States, memorable tor the sachems and sagea ot the Revolution, as the cradle of the Constitution, .Pennsylvania in especially called upou to guard the Constitution from danger to cherish it a the child of her adoption to ron- i

NO 19.

crato it to future millions of freemen to watch that no daring innovator enters the sacred ark in which it is deposited, to erase or add one solitary line to its original inscription, whether a Black Republican chief or the agitator or advocate of a political feature unknown, heretofore, to our citizens power in the Territorial Legislatures to violate the rights of sovereign States. Dug Book: Senator Fitzpatrick vs. Judge DouglasInconsistency of the Douglas Faction, Editors Avalanche: Although it may be regarded as entirely supererogatory to show up any one of the many inconsistencies of the Douglasites, yet I cannot refrain from referring to a letter of Senator Fitzpatrick, addressed to Hon. Y. M. Hudgins, and written in October last. This letter was in reply to certain " interrogatories " of Mr. Hudgins, the last of which is as follows: . " AVhat is your opinion of the doctrine of Congres sional Protection to Slavery in the Territories ? " Here Senator Fitzpatrick was allowed the fullest latitude in giving his " opinion " upon the duty of Congress to afford " protection,'' and most admirably did he come to the rescue, lie said: "In relation to intervention for the protection of slave property in the Territories, I entertain no doubt either as to the power or duty of Congress. The Constitution is obligatory on every department of the Government. When rights aro conferred or recognized, either expressly or by implication, it was intended that these rights should be enjoyed and protected,-if legislation is necessary to their full enjoyment and protection by the enactment of laws which will accomplish that end. In other words, we have the right, to hold slaves as property in the Territories of the United States. It is the duty of the Government to sustain this right to its full extent ; and, if Congressional Intervention is necessary for this purpose, it is the duty of Congress to act. Its failure to act whenever its action is essential to secure the citizen of the Territory the full enjoyment of his property slave or otherwise would be equally a dereliction of duty as the failure of a State Legislature to pass laws tor the protection of the citizen within the State." ' In the above extract, Senator Fitzpatrick tnoti emphatically endorses the doctrine of Congressional Protection as essential and necessary to the full enjoyment of slave properly in the Territories. Yet, in the face of this letter, which was published to the world, he is nominated by the Douglas Rump Convention, at Baltimore, as their candidate for Vice President, by men who were then, and are now denouncing all who entertain opinions as promulgated by Senator Fitzpatrick, as " disunionists," " fireeating Yaneeyites," and other slang fit only for the fisher-women of Billingsgate. Why did they not hunt up a Footc, Stephens, or some other recreant to southern rights, if they desired a true representative of their principles? The reason is obvio. They cared nothing for principles. Stephen A. Douglas they intended to have, and little did they cacC who was on his tail, eo they could make some show of respectability and nationality. Nor was this all. Mr. Dudgins interrogated him in regard to the power of the people of a Territory, and he responded emphatically " I am unqualifiedly opposed to squatter sovereignty, as my antecedents and record will clearly show. The people of a Territory, until they meet in convention preparatory to admission as a State, have no power to exclude slavery through the Territorial Legislature or otherwise. Congress has no such power. The Territorial Legislature derive all their powers from Congress, and it is impossible that Congress should delegate powers which it does not possess." And yet it is no stranger than true, that the Douglas party were not only willing, but anxious that Fitzpatrick should be placed on the ticket with Stephen A. Douglas the embodiment of squatter sovereignty and opposition to Federal protection. Is this all? Far from it. They voted for him after he had voted to displace Judge Douglas from the chairmanship of the Committee on Territories. They voted for him after he had voted for the Davis resolutions resolutions which condemn the doctrine of Mr. Douglas and and his squat terite supporters, in language which cannot be misunderstood. I will not occupy space in your valuable paper to quote from Mr. Douglas, as every one is fully acquainted with his position. Suffice it to say, the doctrine contained in Mr. Douglas' Freeport speech, magazine articles, his speeches in Congress, &c, are in direct antagonism to Senator Fitzpatrick's record, and no convention which had any regard for consistency, would ever have thought of placing two men occupying positions so directly antagonistic as that of Judge Douglas and Senator Fitzpatrick on the same ticket. But this Douglas party was begotten in inconsistency, and wo cannot expect other than the most iaeongruous fruits as the result of its labors. II. V. Johnson presents a record equally sound as that of Gov. Fitzpatrick, and it is a question whether the tail will absorb the head, or the head the tail. But, it makes no difference. You may take the tail and : whip the head lo death, or the head and peck the tail to death. BEGULUS. Douglas on the Stump. . Under the shallow pretence of making his acknowledgments for the hospitable manner in which he has been everywhere received, Judge Douglas has contrived to make an electioneering lour through the Eastern States. Day after day he has appeared upon the hustings to defend his political principles, and thereby advocate his claims to the Presidency. He has lost no opportunity of haranguing the people upon the issues in which he has so important and personal an interest, and we may presume he will continue to moor witn ine same assiuuicy imni me euu vi me canvass to secure the prize he has so long coveted. It might have been anticipated that Judge Douglas would pursue some such course, for it has ever been his habit to demand and struggle for any position he desired, rather than to wait until the tardy action of his friends or the public might tender him offices and honors. In the present instance he has overstepped the limits within which Presidential candidates have heretofore thought it becoming to confine themselves, and it he is successful, he will have impaired the dignity of the place he aspires to by the means be has adopted to obtain it. The personal intervention of the candidates in a political canvass is, in any case, ari evil, though, perhaiis, a necessary one. If the aspirants for the less important offices did not themselves undertake to explain their views and publish their qualifications, they might not be able to find persons who took sufficient interest in the matter to relieve them of that duty. At all events, custom has sanctioned the propriety of the course generally followed by politicians, and as they are not likely to depart from usages, it is therefore useless to depreciate their proceedings. But public opinion has, up to thistime) compelled the Presidential nominees to stand, almost altogether, aloof from the contest The people have instinctively felt that if the candidate for that exalted station should appear upon the hustings, he would bring down to a lower level the popular respect for himself and the office. Thev have been unwilling to see the Presidency acruired by the same mean ct? and dMreputable practices that suffice toprocure for a constable the object of his ambition. They have desired that there should be at least one position in the country for which politic al hucksters dare not bid. It is to he feared that we shall be permitted to indulge such fancies but a little while longer. Prominent politicians now claim the Presidency as their due; national conventions ran be patked like ward meetings &d candidates for the office of Chu f Magnate of the Republic take the stump in vindk-tion of their rij;ht to be promoted to that elevated place. In each and all ot these particulars, Mr. Douglas and his dberents have set a deplorobW example to tin- country, nd if