Indiana State Guard, Volume 1, Number 20, Indianapolis, Marion County, 1 September 1860 — Page 1

THE

OJLIJ)

q (Gt H J3 0

ARB

VOL. I

THE OLD LINE GUARD. IS PU13I.ISHKD T XI I W U 33 I Xi Y F A T INDIAN Al'OHS, INDIANA, It V EM)i:i( IIAKKKESS. T33HM8, 1.00 until uf tor the Presidential Election. In advance, in all cases. Advertisements inserted at the usual rates. ADDRESS Of the Democratic State Central Committee to the Democracy of California. Fellow Democrats : It is not at all strange that in the present anomalous condition of political affairs, the question on every hand should arise, " What is the course proper to be pursued by Democrats in the unfortunate distractions and divisions which now thieatentho party V" y , . , ': "' In attempting the solution of this important question, it is impossible to arrive at any just conclusion without entering at some length upou the consideration of many ot the peculiar circumstances bearing upon and involving the action of the Convention at Charleston and Baltimore. Before doing so, however, it mav not be improper to premise, that from whatever stand-point we view the two nominations each professing to be Democratic difficulties and perplexities arise on every side, and it behooves not only every Democrat, but every lover of his country, to pause and consider well, lest by precipitate action we not merely destroy the Democracy, the great conservator of the Union,'but the Union itself. Deeply as we deplore the existing condition of political athiirs, we have our own clear convictions of ultimate duty, both as partizans and as citizens. Without crimination or recriminationwhich would assuredly be out of place here we desire as briefly as may be, to present and commend to every candid mind a fair statement of the facts, which soem to lead to the irresistible conclusion that the nomination of Judge Douglas was neither regular and in accordance with the usagesof the party" nor in any manner binding upon the National Democracy. . In the first place, a careful examination of the record will show that the Douglas, or, so-called minority platform, was not adopted by either a majority ot the States, or a majority of the individuals comprising the original Charleston Convention. It would seem to be a fair proposition, that the resolutions of the National Democracy, to be obligatory, should be adopted either by a majority of the States, or of the delegates constituting the 'Convention, and that any other course would be manifestly unfair and unjust to the whole party throughout the Union. Now, what are the facts? '',' , At an early stage of the proceeding?, the Committee on Organization closed their report by offering the following additional rule, which, although containing the germ of disruption, was quietly and unsuspectingly adopted hv the Convention: "Resolved, That in any State which has not provided or directed by its State Convention how its vote may be given, the Convention will recognize the right of each delegate to cast his individual vote." , Under ordinary circumstances, there could be little objection to such a rule, which prima facie appears not unfair. But it was soon evident that this new regulation was a part of a well-laid programme, designed not merely to cramp, but actually to prevent the deliberate action of the Convention. Some States had passed a general, and at the time apparently meaningless resolution, recommending or directing the delegation to vote as a unit ; while by far the greater number had omitted entirely such action. The result, therefore, of the rule was found to be that in those delegations where the friends of Judge Douglas were in tile majority of one, two or more, the voiee of the minority was entirely suppressed and unheeded; while in others, his friends, although in the minority, were permitted to cast their individual votes. It is only necessary to cite two instances to exhibit the working of the rule. In New York the delegation stood 20 for Douglas 15 anti-Douglas. But the whole vote, (35,) was given for the former, thus practically disfranchising 15 representatives of the Empire State. On the other hand, the delegation from Pennsylvania stood 12 for Douglas to 15against him. The majority here being opposed to Mr. Douglas, the minority were permitted, under the rule, to cast 12 votes for his platform. This was practically exemplified in various other States, and under its operation, the minority or Douglas platform was adopted by an apparent vote of 165 to 138. A careful examination of the record shows that if a uniform rule had been applied to all the States, either requiring each State to vote as a unit, or allowing the delegates individually to cast their votes in accordance" with their views, the following would have been the result: For Douglas Platform. Against. Bv the Unit Rule, (applied 'to all the States)... .........148 154 Votinf per capita. . 144 150 It thus appears that, whether we take the votes by States, or by the individual delegates, a fair and true majority of the National Convention at Charleston was clearly in favor of the rejected majority resolutions and opposed to Judge Douglas. In view of these actual facts, it is hardly surprising that the action of the Convention was deemed and declared by many to be unfair, tyrannical, and revolutionary. Certainly unprejudiced minds cannot resist the conclusion that it did not partake of that spirit of justice and impartiality winch should characterize the course of the great Council of the National Democracy, when deliberating upon the affairs of the party, and the interests of the nation. Here, then, we have the first great reason which primarily induced a division at Charleston. The subsequent adjournment to and assembling at Baltimore, and the final disruption of the Convention may all be traced, directly or indirectly, to the same source of evil, although 'other questions, such as the re-admission of the retiring delegates, arose to still further complicate matters. Tlio m.vt rt,,Mfinn winch it is nmner for the De mocracy to consider, is whether the nomination of Judge ifougias was regular, ana in accordance witn the rules and usages of the Democratic party. Upon the correct solution of this question depends, in a great degree, the obligation of that nomination upon strietly party men. A few facts will suffice to show that the nomination wasjacliievod contrary to the two-thirds rule, and contrary to the declared construction put upon that rule by the friends of Judge Douglas, at Charleston. By reference to the proceedings of the Convention, it a;cars, not only that Mr. Douglas did not, at anytime, receive, Iwo-thirdu of the whole electoral vote, but that after the diTtip'ion at Baltimore, there did not remain in qiirticipatioii two-lhiids of the Convention, although certain delegates originally elected had been excluded, and ulhci-s, friendly lo Mr. Douglas, admitted in their stead. We quote, from the very full report, as published in the Sacramento Union, July 19, FIRST BALLOT AFTER THE VINAL DIVISION. Dougia '...,1734 Dickinson i ti -vckinriuge o Bocock . , vi.it.'uie. . Sevniour. wl ... Whole vote cat. . i SECOND BALLOT. 1814 Guthrie Douglas. . .. Breckinridge.' 'i Whole Tote c?st.

THE CONSTITUTION, THE

INDIANAPOLIS, It is, we presume, unnecessary to state that the' whole National Convention consisted, properly, of 303 votes, being the number of the Electoral College, and that it required 202 votes to constitute two-thirds of the Convention, in accordance with the rules of the party, and without which, Judge Douglas hasrepeatedhj declared, ho would not accept a . nomination In this connection, too, it may be well to recall the following recorded facts bearing directly upon this question: This original two-thirds rule, adopted in 1832, and adhered to ever since, until it has become a part of the common law of the party, after resolving that "each State shall be entitled to a number of votes equal to thaanumber that they will be entitled to in the Electoral College, held the following language: "And that two-thirds of the whole number of votes in the Convention shall be necessary to constitute a choice." At Charleston, after the first division, and before balloting for candidates, this language becomes the subject of discussion as to its meaning and construction, and upon a formal vote, the Convention declared, by a vote of 141 to 112, that two-thirds of the whole electoral vote (viz: 202,) were requisite to constitute a choice; many of the friends of Judge Douglas voting for this construction. Such then being the indisputable facts of the case, it cannot bocontended that the nomination of Mr. Douglas was consummated in accordance with the well known and clearly defined usages of the party, or that it is of binding force upon the Democracy of California. As Democrats deeply attached to the principles, rules and usages of the party, and desirous of maintaining them in their integrity, meaning and spirit, we are forced to say, as we believe has been demonstrated, that Mr. Douglas cannot legitimately claim to be the regular nominee of the party. Upon examining the constituent parts of the two so-called National Conventions, we find the one (Breckinridge) having representatives from twenty States of the Union, seventeen of which it is certain will cast their votes' for its nominee : the other composed of delegates in whole or in part representing States, not one of which is certain for Mr. Douglas. We find, also, that Mr. Breckinridge is warmly supported by every Democratic United States Senator except Mr. Pugh of Ohio; also by nearly every Democratic Representative in the Lower House of Congress. But, above all, we find that the platform adopted by the. National Democratic Convention which nominated Breckinridge and Lane, not merely coincides with the views of the California Democracy, but is the reiteration of the great principles which have been embodied in the resolutions of our last three State Conventions, and which have been ratified at tho polls by overwhelming majorities. Thus standing on National Democratic principles, and fortified by the invariable and time-honored usages of the party, "we confidently appeal, as in days gone by, to the California Democracy, and call upon them to sustain the nomination of John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, and of Joseph Lane, of Oregon. Signed by the Committee. On motion of Mr. Benham, the Chairman was directed to call a Democratic State Convention in conformity with the resolutions adopted. On motion of Mr. Benham, Wm. L. Iliggins was appointed Corresponding Secretary, vice Mr. Uenry who was absent. On motion of Mr. Rightnnre, the Committee ad journed subject to the call of the Chairman. UIIARLES LISDt.LV, Chairman Dem. State Central Committee. Wm. J. Hilton, Sec'y. San Francisco, July 31, 18G0. The Mongrel Ticket. T- :a wp11 in nnr rparlprs tlmt we. have de.nnnnwH the coalition in this State, as aimed just as much at Breckinridge as at Lincoln. Every succeed ing day shows tins more ana more positively, jur. Douglas, at Norfolk, has denounced the Breckinridge partv as no better than the "Republicans," while here . A 11 . 1 . tl.,,,. Lci:n tr. (US lOIIOWers Keep-up uie jrcicucu luai inc., iv :!; : TI.P .Oilrtt- rf tliw ic minnrpnt. TltPV UIUle Willi ji. a i iv. v.yu yj. , j desire to get the credit for a course they do not intend to pursue, and then try to force everybody to vote the mongrel ticket on the ground of defeating Lincoln., v . T. wrt.,l,l rtolt .ffiinfti an m-ticlp in nnnrnpr U VI Ullll nLHUIlW.l 1W ......... . column, from the Chenango (N. Y.) American, which .. .i i ! . l' . i . .i .i.:.. i fully exposes tne aupucny oi me ic.mers m men attempt to swindle the people of this Slate into endorsing Stephen A. Douglas, on the ground of voting a "Union ticket," while it is, in reality, a Douglas tickl -.1 -1 T C Lrt ..Lttttllirv et ana noming eise. ji. is auumci ui mu iuwuig games of the Albany Regency, to accomplish by fraud j las and John Bell have neither of them a fair elective i r . 1. .... .'. T... il.- .1 .. I vote in the union, ana tney Know u. jdui iuo uesjiei- j ate spoils hunters who follow their track hope to bar- j gain, and trade and traffic in such of tho States as afford a field for their talents in such a way as to; cheat, intimidate, and drive the people into their sup-! wort. To effect this they have formed a partnership, ; "... t...i : Ct... :ii. eitner open or couceaieu, ui cvei knoit, unite, their forces on one electoral ticket, or run twoj . 1.1. t . rt' ..A .1. ' where that plan seems most tavoraoie w eueci uiein ..t flmc it" iin-iciiiL. ilnipnt. mi exuression of iuilutE., a..u , . y . the voice of the people upon pending political issues, and keep the country in the "slavery" agitation forj years lo come. j The terms ot the bargain are tnus given in me r "TIVM"; . "Jf, after the election returns are received m Ac-! vember, it shall appear that giving twenty-five of the F Vn Vnrl- In niinrl:w and ten to Bi ll will carry both these candidates into the Houe with Lin-; coin, the votes shall be so aiviaea. xui n mis uisui-; button of the votes would carry Bell and Breckinridge into the House, as many of the ten Bell Electors shall vote for Douglas as shall suffice to exclude iSrecKin-, Tl..- If It oLll nnt Ihnt Rrrilinridnp shnll llilli imi ii it ow i ... ...... . j net into the House in any event, the understanding prob- : " . i .1 . T- F.. 17 l. S -.,.7 i ?. tlm ; atny is iriai vouyifi snail uc jmjnn vn ; cround tnat tne i'emocnuic siquiui wis ui um nmu-, ral ticket are so much more numerous than the Uuion ' men." This corroborates all we have said io relation to this matter. Day-Bool: ! Mr. Douglas' Withdrawal from the Field, j WHY THE UOORBACK ABOUT Mil. BRECKINRIDGE'S WITHDRAWAL VAS STARTED, AND BY WHOM. A private letter from one of the most intelligent gentlemen now in Washington, under date of Friday, says: The telegram sent forth from here as true, that Mr. Breckinridge wished to decline, had a dcepdesign in it. The man that started it is "Cleveland," the j correspondent of the Cincinnati Enquirer, and Pri-; vate Secretary of Mr. Douglas, and it was done to ; head Mr. Douglas off. ; "Mr. Douglas, finding his chance for the Presidency just no chance at all, had written back to confidential friends here, giving fuch intimations of an intention to decline as alarmed them, and the rumor that BreckinivLrn inl(.n?.fl lil fin flip simp flimir. ;i liatmv thought to prevent the execution of Douglas' project. . . .i . . i i . . i . . . . i 1 nave lliese iacxs iruui suiin.es enuiieu it wiii gnrw3i confidence, and so far from Mr. Douglas having given up the idea, he still entertains it, and is anxious to fol-' low out his own views, which he feels confident will result in his nonunation and election four years hence, i Many of his friends here, who have been let into the j secret, approve of his withdrawal, while others, who,j like Fornev, have been playing into the hands of the; Republicans, are unwillingto see Judge Douglas yield 1 the track, for fear it would elect Breckinridge and) Lane. These facts I know to be true facia, and I am : confident that Douglas, who is deeply involved by: some speculation, is still anxious to retire from a i hopeless contest, in order to look after his private affairs." Cleveland Demnrrot.

UNION, AND THE EQUALITY OF THE STATES!

INDIANA, SATURDAY,'

Z7 ' , t, , . ti swindler that fattens upon the corruptions at WashThe Power 01 Congress tO Protect JfrO- ingt(m, has declared for Douglas. DertV in the Territories, ' "Without taking time to enumerate, the same charac- ' J ter of men all over the country are interested in the . .. , ' .' c election of Mr. DouMas. As it is a world-wide maxCongressional intervention tor the Rro '" hn that a man mustbe judged by the company he property ,n the Territories, is not a new idea, now ad- l , honest icn beware of s?ich associa'ions. vw.atl Rw the first time. 1 he territorial Lcisla- mM-ti

ture of Florida had passed laws imposing an unjus anil diseriminatinir tax UDOn slaves owned in mat Territory by non-residents. Several citizens of Virginia, injuriously affected by these Territorial laws, presented a petition to tho Congress of the United States for relief. That memorial was referred to the Committee on Territories, and on the 11th of February, 1834, that committee made the following report, which we commend to the calm and dispassionate con sideration of every advocate of the doctrine ol Hilar sovereignty in the Territories : popular sovereignty "The memorialists allege that they are owners of a number of slaves, removed several j ears ago from Virginia to the Territory of Florida ; that the Legislature of said Territory has imposed a tax of ten doll 1 1 ... ..11 -I - C rt:. .irl.tnll Will ars a neat, on '"" fZ which said slaves may have been hired; that an ex 1VW.1t UtlU uifcuuiuu iiiw tt 7 mvnii In t , d onarfmctlt. hv ; ' i,'.:n n dnvp. lnr,.V nut several weeks before . r :ULm of the law. and that the same, or perhaps ! another law, subjects any non-resident's slaves that may be sold in the Territory to a further tax of fifteen dollars each. They, 'therefore, ask Congress for re lief : : '' ,. "The committee are satisfied that the memoralists are entitled to relief. It is certainly against the policy

... TT . 1 ,.,t, u.uii a t ip 1 1 -tales of com-, fioon as tne iae was maiie Known io me uini-iai i InluS fto officer of rank, with a se.ectcor,, to; Z"L property of uoiojj. Ligher than the . overtake.ie -ean.elnet, JJJ-, same property of resident citizens. ' u i ,.;hpa i "Tie piwMonarv authority appointed under the agreed upon by the other f:, i (0.1 e t? i....",.,. isiq i,nv 1 r n-wspd an ordi- But an enterpnze fraught with such imminent nazact ot 22d of February, 1819, having rt" ! , of bcin(r su .prised by the Indians in their moun-' their execution penal, (hee ,th vol. Laws ' ' tie General in any emergency, he instantly perceived j "The'"committee think Congress should always pro- that the officer's '- ! j. t 7i . ... ne i, nf tiiP I'nitPil States ure, and therefore resolved to undertake the all impoiherewith report a b.ll. , ; , whhout arm with ,lb white cket. , The bill so reported was enacted into a law Dy han(kercn;et- streaming in the wind sas an emblem of ; ' Congress, and was approved by President Jackson on hk friendiv vig;fc j the iJOth of June, 1831. The law is as follows : an i,lstantthe savages were overwhelmed with : . lie it enacted bu the Senate and House of Repre-: f,,P and consternation, thinkins that his abrupt de-:

sentatives of the United States of America in. Congress assembled: That all such acts or parts of acts passed by the Legislative Council of the Territory of Florida j as may impose a higher or greater tax on the slaves j or other property of non-resident citizens be and the same are hereby repealed and declared null and void. " And be it further enacted, That if any person shall attempt to enforce any of the acts or parts of acts passed by the Legislative Council of the Territory of Florida, as aforesaid, by demanding or receivin" any tax, imposition or assessment authorized or prescribed thereby, such person shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by fine not exceeding two hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or either, or both of said punishments." : When this law was under discussion in the House of Representatives, not a single voice was raised in favor of the Territorial laws, or denying the power, the riirht. and the duty of Congress to repeal them for the purpose of protecting the property of citizens in the Territories. The doctrine that tho people of the Territory, acting through the Territorial Legislature, had the power to pass'such laws by virtue of inherent sovereignty, was not then thought of. On the contrary, every member of the House who participated in the debate, Mr. Williams, Mr. White and Mr. Fillmore all concurred in denouncing these Territorial laws as unjust, objectionable, and as passed without right. They say, in so many words, " The Legislative Council had no right to pass such a law." Congress did not hesitate to repeal the obnoxious enactments, and in repealing imposed a penalty of fine and imprisonment upon any one who should attempt to carry out the repealed laws. They treated the acts of the Territorial Legislature with no more consideration, and regarded them as entitled to no higher respect, than the ordinances of a municipal corporation. For what purpose was this done ? Clearly to protect the property of the citizens in the Territory against the unjust and unfriendly legislation of the people of the Territory. The principle asserted by those who advocated, enacted, and approved this law, is the entire subordination of the Territorial laws to the nower and authority of Congress, acting within its Territorial limits. A State Legislature, in the abcause the people of a Territory are not sovereign ; because a Territory is in a state of pupilage is subject to the General Government, and is especially udder the supervision of Congress. But this law establishes as a fact, that a Democratic Congress intervened for the purpose of protecting property in a Territory, and that intervention wa 1 1 J , i i i T. .1 TU. . ..t .1,.. approved ov Andrew tiacssuii. iuv icjjuh mv ."......:.. l.. ,.;(, ,.!.;. .1. In IMA met the nnan-!

n ,:.: i t,:v, t:., ;,. i,n statu I rn. nut at i, hp head or tne Lilian newsiKiwr, v

j:....:.;.,ip Iipim uph ,;tr..nit kinds nf ised. and was or( ered to a dog's work when lie

SUUUIUll, lllcll uir I iimiiniv .'v. v .. v.... . . , , , , ..-".i e. i. liu ..aiil lii- ..ai-li- if mav stood faithful." We do not know what "dogs w

pioneitv, auu ua hic w l" w i'"" j . . . t'. .!.....: i.:.i ftnni nil tamtinn. it rpfprs to. unless it was the conductmg tlie L'hi

... i Ai: . :,,ml.,l tnv UiitJ nin I'rms. Mr. Forney sustained the. President

ailU OOIle tltuer Jvllllin lu J'.i. n nivn... j i .. . i . i 111 i-l n,: ...,. 1.p dmip hv a 'IVrn'torial Legislature, be- the delivery of his Inaugural Address, m whirl

UUUI1111L1UC QUUiC , ... , l'lll. 1 1'1 a.' imous approval of the Democratic President, and the j Tins point has at last been decided by the highest tnDemoeratic party in Congress asserts the same princi-l bunal known to our laws. How it could ever have pies which arc recognized bv the Supreme Court ofi been seriously doubted is a mystery. It a contedeiathe United Slates, bv the resolutions of the Senate, tion of sovereign States acquire a new Territory at audbv the platform reported bv a majority of the ; the expense of their common blood and treasure, sureStates' at Charleston, and adopted' by the Convention lv one set of the partners can have no right to exclude at Baltimore which nominated Mr. Breckinridge for the other from its enjoyment, by prohibiting them President, viz : ! ron taking into it whatever is recognized to be prop-. First That the Government of a Territory organ-! erty by the common Constitution. But when the peoized by'an act of Congress, is provisional and tempo-1 pie the bona fide residents of such le.mtoiy prorarv and durinc its existence all citizens of the j cecd to frame a Slate Constitution, thm it is their United States hav'e an equal right to settle with their! right to decide the important question for themselves, property in the Territory without their rights, either whether they will continue, modify, or abolish slavery, of person or property, being destroyed or injured by To them, and to them alone, does this question belong, Congressional or Territorial legidalion. ' j free from all foreign interference." Second, That it is the duty of the Federal Govem-j c0 Southern man objected to that patriotic doctrine ; uient in all its departments" to protect the rights ofi t the time. They did not, then, sny as Mr. Douglas persons and property in the Territories, and where- j ia3 ij rip.ee, that the people of the Territory could ever else its Constitutional authority extends. j exclude slavery at any time. Now what did Mr. ForThe principle so asserted, adopted and approved nev My aliout this letter of President Buchanan to by the Jacksonian Democracy in 1834, is utterly at' .sifliman & Co.? We quote from one of his editorials variance with that other doctrine, that the people of: ;n t,e Philadelphia Press: a Territory, during its Territorial existence, have the i A put,i;c man w10 ;s fortunate in his friends, is an right, and may lawfully exclude, or effectually pre-) of envy t0 i,;s opponents. But Mr. Buchanan vent the introduction of slave property into theTer-:;s forlunat ,n i enemies, eminently fortunate, m ritory by unfriendly legislation enacted by the Tern-; , . f, , furuished him an opportunity of ap-

torial Legislature, and when such legislation has been passed, that Congress has no power to intervene for the purpose of protection, because of a qualified or absolute sovereignty in the eopie or tne lerntorv H'ushing'on Const tint ion. The Comply of Douglas.

That arch traitor, Martin Van Buren, who, in 1848,1 their vain and vapid sophistry to the irresistible artilabandoned his partv and joined the Freesoilers, de-jlerv of the President's old-fashioned 1 ennsylvania , clares himself iu favor of the election of Douglas. It logic and common sense. ; was fit that he should do so. " (Mr. Buchanan) sheds along the dark pathJohn W. Forner, who abandoned the Democracy I war, that has led into our Kansas troubles, a flood of under the lead of Mr. Douglas on the Lecompton light He dissipates a thousand falsehoods, in an mquestion, and has since been faithful to the Black lie- j slant. lie fortifies his own position. He invigorates ; publicans, receiving th- Clerkship of the House as j the friend of the Constitution. He deprives section-1 the reward of his treachery, is laboring for the elec- ; alism of the only weapons left in its armory of expetion of Mr. Douglas. ' ' dient5. He puts the stamp of authoritative denial Cornelius Wendell, who, according to the testimoov ' upon its statements, and says to misrepresenation I of George J. Jones, is the most unsorurulouj liar nd . Thus for shah tbon go. and no farther. To the tfcons-.

SEPTEMBER" 1, I860.

, . m,.,,. Trm-,W Jntllfl Life of Gen. j awwJoe Lane. Immediately after the General's return from his brilliant and successful campaign in Mexico, President Polk requested him to leave lor tne tar aistani uregon ! after a notice of three days only for the purpose ' of assuming the arduous and responsible duties of i organizing that then territory. j After a fatiguing and perilous journey of five months over sanay aeserts ana loity mounuuus iiuiauncu alone by wild beasts and more ferocious savages he reached the Territory, where he found the infant colony of adventurers scattered and flying in dismay from the midnijrht torch and sanguinary butcheries of ! the Indians-who had combined from every adjacent tribe for the purpose of exterminating them at a smi- ' By that prompt, energetic ana mi rep u gtuexp r - . . ! uiutncuus uiuit. which had so eminently distinguished Ins null tar rv ca reer, and won for him. the title of " The Marion of the j Mexican War." Gen. Lane soon brouMit the chief's ! of those tribes to sue for peace, on any terms with j the exception of the ringleader, who hail escapea wiin : his warriors during the heat of tho last decisive , battle. . . . .i.i . .1... T.n ' ,ut was ,nt ti,c precursor of an advancing army; then : qU;ck as thought they raised their deadly weapons to jjjn the General, but he had sprung from his horse ; and thrown himself upon the magnanimity of their ! chiefrain. w ho threw his protecting arms around him, while the General was telling him that the object of) his intrusion was only to prevent the further effusion of blood ou both sides, should they trust to the fortune ; of another battle, and for the purpose of treating for a . lasting peace. i The old chief read, in the firm, fearless, and benig- j nanteve of the General, the truthfulness of his decla-j rations; and soon arranged the preliminaries of a , friendship which has been sacredly observed by the hiirh contracting tmrties ever since. The warriors were, nevertheless, in the highest statu of excitement, from the conviction that it was only a stratagem on the part of the General to take them the next morning unexpectedly, and burning to take vengeance on their country's conqueror, while they had him in their power, they made the night hideous with their unearthly yells, war .dances, and mock charges, within the fiery circle nround the camp. Gray morn at length dispelled their anxieties and fears, when they dismissed him after they had given him a breakfast of farinaceous berries, kneaded by the filthy hands of one of their squaws, with the assurance, oa the part of the chief, that he could not doubt a General who was brave enough to venture his own life for the welfare of the Indians, when he had it in his power to conquer them by amis, as he had all the chiefs .of the other nations. Rnl igh Press. The Seasons why Forney and . Douglas came out m Opposition to .Buchanan, ,-j The Augusta True Democrat gives the why and the . wherefore that induced Forney and Douglas to take ; ground against the President, in the following article, i They could not obtain the positions and offices which) they required, for themselves and all of their friends.: Read the article : ! The ConstituiioMilist justifies Mr. Forney for abusin" the President, upon the ground that lie was not. romstill : ork"! ladel-' after i he declared that the time tor deciding the slavery question was at the formation of a State Constitution. He sustained him, in his celebrated letter, of the 15th of August, 1854, to-Prof. Silliman and the cler-. gymen on the Kansas question. In that letter, Mr. Buchanan took the same ground that he did in his Inaugural Address. We copy a few sentences: ; Slavery existed at that period, and stili exists in Kansas, under the Constitution ot tne Limea oiates. : waUUJ namst an insane sectionalism, at a critical , 'jfe tlll. prent, to . u 'e do not think that the whole rountrv. lat the 8nnals of controversv ;(an furnish a more complete reply 1" a diKJiimsie a-; i sumption of superior atriotisni and piety than that . ' contained in Mr. Buchanan's response to these Connecticut meddlers. The country owes them thanks, i for the first time in many vears thanks for exposing

NO. 20.

ands of lionest men, of every party, who want peace and an end to agitation, such a voice will be welcomed with gratitude." There is Mr. Forney's endorsement of the President's opinion, as strong as he could make it, Subsequently he changed front, joined the squatter sovereigns, charged the President with violating his -pledges to stand by the Cincinnati platform, adopted in 185G, and joined the Black Republicans in heaping every epithet of abuse upon him. He obtained his reward, for, aided by the Douglas Democrats, he was made the Black f Republican Clerk of the House of Representatives.It is evident, then, that the ground upon which the Constitutionalist justified him is utterly futile. The tm'on newspaper was in other hands. Mr. Forney was editing the Press, and lauding Mr. Buchanan to the skies. AVe can devote no more space, or time, to this apostate from the ranks of the true Democracy. Mr. Douglas was, all the time, aware of the positions taken by Mr. Buchanan in his inaugural address, and his Silliman letter. Not one word of objection escaped his lips. He asked for offices for his friends and relatives, and obtained them. After Mr. Buchanan sent in his message in favor of the Lecompton Constitution, then, for the first time, did Mr. Douglas assail him. Then he began to charge the President with violating his pledges. ' Hence Mr. Cobb had a right to say that he was "a disgraced man. Why did he not assault the doctrines of the inaugural address and of the Silliman letter? Why did he ask for so many place lor hikindred and 'friends? Let his friends justify him if they can. Eiding Two Horses. While in the North, where free soil abolitionism must be tickled by professions of devotion to the "great principle" of squa'tter sovereignty the right of the people of a Territory to decide the question of slavery tbr themselves, irrespective of the Constitution the law and the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in the South, the advocates of the squatter sovereignty candidate are obliged to change the tune, and pretend to be "inexorably committed to the support of the decision of the Supreme Court over the institution of slavery in the Territories." The Missouri Republican, the organ in that State of the heterogeneous ticket of Douglas and Johnson, advocates Mr. Douglas on the ground that he stands by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and lest there might be any mistake publishes the head notes of the Dred Scott' decision as given in Howard's Reports, page 395, to show what the Supreme Court decided, and bv what it is pretended that Mr. Douglas stands. We know that the followers of Mr. Douglas at Charleston wanted a platform that would bear one construction in the North and another construction in the South, but we were not prepared for such flagrant deception as the St. Louis exponent of Douglas-Job usonism attempts to practice. We know that Mr. Douglas has taken different positions to suit different latitudes on the question of slavery in the Territories; that when seeking the favor of the free soilers of Freeport, he maintained at Freeport, Illinois, in 1858, that "the people of a Territory' can, by lawful means, excludo slavery before it comes in as a' State :" and " no matter what may be the decision of the Supreme Court on that abstract question, still the right of the people of the Territories to make a slave Territory or a free Territory is perfect and complete," and that among the pro-slavery population of New Orleans, in the same year, he said: "I, in common with the Democracy of Illinois, accept the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Dred Scott case, as an authoritative exposition of the Constitution. Whatever limitations the Constitution, as expounded by the Courts, imposes on the authority of a Territorial Legislature, we cheerfully recognize and respect in comfbrniity with that decision. Slaves are recognized as properly, and placed on an equal footing with other property. Hence, the owner of slaves the same as the owner of any other species has the right to remove to a Territory and carry his property with him." Mr. Douglas can, of course, hold whichever of these conflicting opinions he pleases.. He can ride the hobbv of absolute power on the part of a Territorial Legislature, " no matter what may be the decision of the Supreme Court;" or he can regard the "decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, as an authoritative exposition ot the Constitution." But he cannot do both at the same time; nor can his friends succeed in making him do both. If any mail believe that the people of a Territory can, "by lawful means exclude slavery before it comes in as a State," it follows, as a matter of course, that the man who entertains the opinion does not regard the decision in the Dred Scott case as " an authoritative exposition of the Constitution." Light and darkness, right, and wrong, are not more opposite than the two opinions. Washington Constitution. The Fusion in New York. The Douglas faction are getting desperate. Con-' scions of their inherent weakness; knowing that they cannot of themselves obtain a single electoral vote, they are coquetting on every side with all the autiDcinocralie influences in the field, to secure themselves from the disgrace of such a defeat as has never yet overtaken a party, This in itself is not so wonderful. Having cast "aside all of Democracy but the name, it is not singular that the adherents of Judge Douglas should court the alliance and range themselves under the standard of the foes of that party which they have abandoned and repudiated. But it is strange' that they should be found fighting side by side with the Know" Nothings of other days, who have never discarded principles proscriptive of ail our natnralized fellow-citizens; that for the sake of securing an inconsiderable number of votes, which, after all, cannot command the electoral suffrage of the Empire. State, the Douglasites should openly ally themselves with the professed enemies of the present naturalization law, argues a degree of fatuity which we should scarcely have expected, driven to every desjierate resort as they are. Meantime, the souud Democracy, which fights under the banner of Breckinridge and Lane, has nowhere compromised itself by seeking for un-Demo-cnitic aid and comfort. It has principles to maintain, which are paramount to any fleeting triumph of the hour. It has nothing in common with the traditional enemies of those principles which have been transmitted to it by the fathers of the Republic. Its strength lies in those principles, and not in the evanescent popularity and trickery of demagogues. It has a mission to accomplish in reconciling conflicting sectional interests and sentiments with the continued welfare and integrity of the Confederacy, and strong in its belief in the patriotism of the great masses, it can afford to rely implicitly on its cause, without courting corrupting alliances.' and forswearing its creed tor the sake of a doubtful triumph. St. Louis Bulletin. The Democratic party, with John C. Breckinridge a-! its laml,inl-bean-r, occupies precisely the same josition that it occupied in 1800, with Mr. Jefferson as its standard-bearer. It adheres rigidly to first principles io the Constitution, in the letter and spirit in which it was adopted. Richmond (Uh.) Enquirer. We advocate no "sectional" or "disunion" cause. If men who have been tinctured with sectional or disunion sentiments unite with us, we welcome their support, for we believe in the truth and justice ot our principles, and therefore desire and expect them to make convert. Mobil Tribune, Breckinridge paper. At the late election of Comptroller iu Texas, the Breckinridge candidate was chosen by 10,000 majority. The Breckinridge electoral ticket will have 20.000 in November. Cleveland Prrucrat.