Indiana State Guard, Volume 1, Number 41, Indianapolis, Marion County, 20 October 1860 — Page 1

AMD H U A Da THE CONSTITUTION, THE UNION, AND THE EQUALITY 01? THE STATES!

TLB

IN

d3"

VOL. I

THE OLD LINE GUARD. IS PUBLISHED THI-WEEKIjY, 7t" 1 IV l I A WA 1 O tIsriNIANA; HY EL.DF.lt A: HAUKHESS. t H n 3vr s, SI.O0, until utter I lie Presidential Election. In advance, in all cases. Advertisements inserted at the usual rates. Froiii thu New Orluum Uella. STAETLINGDIS0L08UEES 1 DOUGLAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION! His Pledge to Support it His Violation of his Pledge and Treachery to ins t nenas. READ! READ!! READ!!! To the People of the United States, KOOX OV THIS lEMOCIUTI: .8SO UTION or LkaVKNWORTII, j l.uurrii worth C" il . Kaiism Territory, Seil. Sib, IMiO. 1 ivc. ruiiiiri! having been in circuI..-; ; tin IWriinrv. ciuiiiiL the last two years, attributing to Hon. Stephen A. Douglas, United States Senator from Illinois, a course of conduct in regard to the Lecompton Constitution, involving his sincerity to the country, his fidelity to the Democratic party, and his honor as a gentleman, Lewis Burnes, Esq., President of the Democratic Association, has opened a correspondence with tho view of obtaining authentic information on the subject, if the tacts would justify an extended and formal inquiry. That correspondence is given below under a proper caption. The information imparted to Air. Burnes in the correspondence, was deemed sufficient to authorize an investigation, designed to be made public, and the undersTgned were, at a meeting of the Association, chosen a committee to conduct the inquest and submit the result to the consideration of the American peoPl We have sought to discharge this disagreeable, we might say painful duty, with the impartiality and completeness becoming us, as citizens regarding our own reputations as depending upon tho aspect, in which our conduct in this inquiry shall appear to our countrymen. It has been our aim to draw out the truth and the whole truth. We have therefore addressed every member of the Lecompton Convention whose residence we could discover, and several gentlemen who were not in the Convention, without reference to the past or present political asseverations or predilections of either. Whilst acquainted with the present political sentiments of but very few of those with whom we have communicated of those few as many are supporters of Mr. Douglas as are supporters of Mr. Breckinridge. And we feel it due to ourselves to mention the former: they are Mr. Donniphan, Mr. Diefendorf, General Whitetield, Mr. Fain and Mr. Jones. It will be observed, that with the exception of Mr. Donniphan, they are all silent. Below, we give in full, under a descriptive heading, the questions we put and the answers we have received. We do not think we assume too much in saying that there is a fearful weight of evidence against Mr. Douglas. We give the case to you without argument. Citizens here, citizens a hundred and fifty miles west, citizens fifty miles south, citizens a hundred miles east, with unfailing accuracy, with a solitary exception, contribute to the indubitable establishment of the fact that Mr. Douglas suggested to the late John Calhoun the form of submission determined upon by the Lecompton Convention, and pledged himself to support it in Congress. The letter is proved to have been in the possession of General Calhoun himself, to have been in the possession of his family after his decease, and to have been made an object of traffic. For reasons which will readily suggest themselves to every feeling person, we have not made any inquiry of the widow of General Calhoun. We leave it to Mr. Douglas to apply to that source for his vindication, if vindication he shall venture upon. FitEi) Emory, Chairman, William G. Matuias, Daniel Scully, P. Dyer, John W. Henry. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION. Leavenworth City, August 25, 18C0. Daniel Scully, Esq.. Hon. 'Win. G. Mathias, and Fred. Emory, Esq. Gentlemen : The report has been current about here lor some lime that Mr. Douglas' course upon the Lecompton Constitution was far from being such as presented to the public eye. It seems to me that if there has been duplicity or intrigue on his part on this subject, the facts should be shown in this Territory, and to citizens in our neighborhood. If his conduct has been such as persistent rumor avers it has been, it is due to the Democratic partv nay, to the whole country, that his falseness should be published to the world. Understanding that you are possessed of some information touching this matter, I beg that you will communicate to nie, as President of the Democratic i Association of Leavenworth, such knowledge as you j may have relating thereto, I have no hesitation in saying that my puriwse in addressing you is to pro-! cure a more extended inquiry, if the facts should warrant it, and trust that, bearing this in mind, you will, aid me all in your power to direct the investigation. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Lewis Burkes. . REPLY OF DANIEL SCULLY. Leavenworth, August 27, I860. . Sir: In reply to your note of yesterday, I cheerfully lay before vou such information as I possess pertinent to the inquiry you propose. I was an officer of the Lecompton Convention from my position, necessarily, a watchful observer of its proceedings, and I became somewnat conversant with the influences brought to bear to sway its determinations touching the questions of submission and non-submission of the Constitution. The Convention first met early iu September, 1857, and having elected officers and appointed committees, adjourned to the latter part of October. It was given out that, the object was to await the result of the Territorial elections, which were to take place early in October, and to shape the conduct of the Convention! accordingly, but the main purpose of the recess wasj to allow time to ascertain the views of Democrats! holding influential places in the councils of the nation, j When the rc-assemblage took place and the subject j of the disposition of the Constitution, intermediately j between the Convention and Congress, came up, it was found that the body was divided into three par-! ties one in favor ot sending the instrument direct to Congress: the second in favor of submission of the wliolo instrument to the people; and the third in favor of submitting the slavery clause only. It was understood that Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton were in favor of an entire submission. It was very naturally supposed that they represented fie views or wishes of the administration. The partial submission rty was led by General Calhoun, the President of the Convention, reported to be a favorite of Mr. Douglas, possessed of his confidence, and in correspondence with him. and the scheme generally known a the " Douglas plan."

INDIANAPOLIS,

After a protracted and acrimonious debate, the question was put on the 5th or Gth of November, and Hie nOU-SUUIIUSSlUniSlS iriUllipueu uy one Ul inu rmBO. By extraordinary exertion a re-consideration was had on the 7th. the dav of final adjournment, and the plan of submission," through "which the Constitution " went before Congress, was carried by a bare majority. k On the evening of the day on which the non-sub miSsionists were successful, General Calhoun request ed me to secure for his side, a member, since dead Mr. Swift, of Jefferson county, who had previously voted against tho submission, and over whom it was supposed I could exercise some influence. In the course of our conversation, General Calhoun informed me that he had, in his possession, a letter from Mr. Douglas, either suggesting the project of partial submission, or giving assurance of his support to it, I do not recollect which. Since the death of Gen. Calhoun, I have had several conversations with Mr. Oliver Diefendorf, his brother-in-law who manifested with him and his family all the intimacy such a relationship bespeaks on the sublet t ot the letter, and upon every occasion Air Diefendorf referred to tho letter as being among the papers of the deceased, m the possession ot his family, I have more than once expressed my surprise that a man of spirit, as I supposed Gen, Calhoun to have been, should have silently submitted to the gross in dignity put upon him in the Senate by Mr. Douglas, and Mr. Diefendorf has challenged my respect for the deceased by answering that very lew knew the nice sense of honor he had; that he had considered the correspondence private, and would have submitted to anything rather than violated that privacy. If a formal investigation of the affair should lie de termined upon, permit me to suggest that you address to every member ot the Convention, ana particularly those who voted with Gen. Calhoun on the submission issue. I would also indicate for your consideration, the propriety of communication with Col. Andrew J. isacks, ot this city, though not a member ot lie Convention, he was present during the whole struggle on submission ; he zealously labored with' Gen. Calhoun for tho form adopted, and, like him, was an ar dent friend ot Mr. Douglas, putativcly representing his views. Having thus laid before you alt the knowledge I have in this connection, I remain, Your obedient servant, Daniel Scully. Louis Burnes, Esq., President of the Democratic Association of Leavenworth. REPLY OF WM. G. MATHIAS Leavenworth City, K. T., Sept, 26, 1860. Col. Lewis Burnes Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of the 25th inst., I can state that I was well acquainted with General John Calhoun, President ofthe Lecompton Constitution, in his life time, and we were warm personal and political friends. We stood together in the Lecompton struggle. I have been a citizen of Kansas for nearly six years, and having been a member of three several Legislatures in Kansas, am soxiewhat conversant with the history of politics therein. Some time before the Lecompton Constitutional Convention assembled at its adjourned session, Mr. Calhoun showed me a letter, which he told me had been written by Hon. Stephen A. Douglas, and sent to him for the purpose of influencing members of the Convention to adopt a particular form of submitting the Constitution. In that letter, Mr. Douglas advised a plan of submission, which plan was finally adopted by the Convention. And it was further stated by Mr. Douglas, in the letter before spoken of, that if the plan which he (Douglas) had advised should be approved by the Convention, that he (Douglas) would pledge its passage through Congress. And, in order that what little I could do towards bringing this plan about might be done, Mr. Calhoun invited my co-operation, but I did not go to Lecompton during the silting of the Convention. After the Lecompton Constitution had been framed, the Democratic party assembled in Convention at Lecompton for the purpose of nominating a State ticket. During the sitting of that Convention, Gen. Calhoun, desiring me, against my wishes, to accept the nomin ation for LieutenanlrGovernor, and seeming to supnose that my indisposition to accept arose trom doubts as to its ultimate success, frequently and emphatically assured me that Mr. Douglas would stand by the Constitution in Congress, and would in no event abandon "us." Hence we made the canvass with strong hopes. A short time before the meeting of the Charleston Convention, I saw Mr, Calhoun's eldest son in Leavenworth City, and asked him whether his mother was in possession of the letter referred to, and he replied that she was. I then suggested to him, my intention of addressing her a letter, requesting of her, for the purpose of using it in the present political contest, if necessary. lie said I could get it. I did address a letter to Mrs. Calhoun, and in response a letter was addressed to Oliver Diefendorf, Esq., of Leavenworth City, by one of her children. This letter I saw and had' in my own hands, and in substance it stated that Mrs. Calhoun had already been offered the sum of two thousand dollars for the letter in question, and that she hesitated to part with it, on account of reasons of her own which I shall not repeat. I suggested to Mr. Diefendorf f Mrs. Calhoun's brother-in-law) to advise her to hold on to it, as it had become an important political document. What became of the letter lam not prepared to say. Yours, tiuly, &c, Wm, G. Mathias. REPLY OF FRED. EMORY. Leavenworth City, K. T., Aug. 20, I860. Col. Lewis Burnes Sir: Your note of inquiry of 25th inst. is before me, and in reply I have to state, that during the residence of Gen. Calhoun in this Territory and up to the time ot Ins death, we were uKn the most friendly, and I may say, intimate terms. I was not, however, at Lecompton during the session of the Convention, nor do I know auything of the action of its members, except from report. But shortly after the adjournment of the Convention I met General Calhoun at Weston, Mo., and discussed with hiin the propriety of submitting the Lecompton Constitution in its then form. He (Mr. Calhoun) then assured me that the Constitution could not possiblv pass Congress in any other shape, the plan of submission was the pet measure of the. Hon. Stephen A. Dowlas, and he had assurance of the earnest, support of the Constitution, in a private letter from the Hon. Senator. Feeling thus convinced by Gen. Calhoun, I voted for ami supported the Constitution. Very respectfully, Your obedient servaut, ( Fred. Emory. CIRCULAR OF COMMITTEE AND ANSWERS THERETO. Leavenworth City, K. T., Sept. 13, 160. Sir: The. Democratic Association of Leavenworth being informed that the course publicly pursued by Stephen A. Douglas in regard to the Iecompton Constitution, is inconsistent with advice privately given to his particular friends in this Territory which advice controlled 'their actions lfj've thought proper to appoint the undersigned a I bmmittec to investigate the fact!". They need not refer to the momentous issues now before the country, to advise you of the importance of this inquiry. " The integrity of the Democratic partv nay, the permanency of the Union itself, are involved in the contest now going on. We, therefore, make no apology for addressing you the following inquiries, and request that you will answer them at your very earlht convenience : 1st. Did you, or not, before or during the session of the Leco'rnpton Constitutional Convention, or after the adjournment of the same, see a letter addressed to John Calhoun, President of said Convention, or to any one else, by Mr. Douglas, in which he, (Mr. Douglas.) suggested tho plan of submission which was

IND , SATURDAY, OCTOBER 20, I860.

adopted by said Convention, or signify that such a plan ; submission," and thereupon read a letter which purof submission would meet his approval? ; ported to be written by Stephen A. Douglas, and

2d. Did not John Calhoun, the. President ot the the plan of Mr. Dowlas ? A . o . .. , , , - 3d. Did you, or not, in conversation with JVir. cat - houn, or with any one, whose political and perfoual relations towards'Mr. Douglas and Mr. Calhoun au - thorize a belief that such person spoke authoritatively, learn that a plan of submission had been indicated by Mr. Douglas, and was it not understood that if tho plan thus indicated was adopted, he (Mr. L-ougias; nuum oujjjjui b ami oudlciiii lis iii vim"1 4th. Aside of these questions thus formally put, we . . . .! i. xi. j. iy tfrom you any information touching the object ofS . inquiries, which you may have in your power 1 ' J . 1 SOllCH these

Leeonipton Convention, inform you that a letter had plied that I might be deceived as to who are great been received from Mr. Douglas, in which was fbre 1 statesmen, but that that letter could not convince me shadowed a plan of 'submission, and was not the plan 'as to what was true policy. " I heard that letter spoken' finallv adorned the same that was understood to be of freely, and frequently afterward, and I am satisfied

We beg leave to inform you that a copy of these Thatl was a member of the Lecompton Const -interrogatories has been addressed to each'iember ot j Convention. I here was at one t.nie a nrnjor. ty the Lecompton Convention, and that copies have also i "8 f PFf d submission of hat in- , . I- ,i .ti K..i;,n,i ir. strument to the people. It is useless to go into detail been sent to a number ot othergentlemen behoved to ; .i , , c fj. . , , , i .. ., ..i.: of the reasons that influenced them, bumce it to Bay

possess va uaum Knowieuije. m inis cuiiuccmuii. 1 , .1.. ..,! i lease address your repiy 10 me uuueisiuucu, rn- .. pti' f" 'n i Mwi. r;tr V sas Wi.-G.Mathias, P. Dyer, Daniel Scully, J. W. Hi:nky. REPLY OF JANET TODD. Leavenworth City, K. T., Sept. 22, 1860. Fred. Emory, Esq., Chairman of Committee of Dem - ocralic Association: Dear Sir I received your printed circular to-day, inquiring as to the position occupied by Stephen A. Douglas to the Lecompton Constitution. lour second and third interrogatories l can answer in the affirmative. I have no other information that I can give your Committee. ; Respectfully, Janet Todd. Note by the Committee Mr. Todd was a member ofthe Convention. REPLY OF O. C. STEWART. Kansas City, Sept. 21, 1800. Mr. F. Emory and others-Gents : Yours of the 13 th is before me, and its contents duly considered. In answer to the first, inquiry : At no time have I ever seen the letter referred to. In answer to the second inquiry : I can state positively that John Calhoun informed me, on the night that "the submission caucus met in this office, after I had submitted the proposition, finally adopted by the Convention, that he was informed by letter from Mr. Douglas, that if that plan was adopted, he would give it his hearty support. It was clearly the impression as far as I could learn, that Judge Douglas was with us, and for the plan. Respectfully your obedient servant, O. C. Stewart. REPLY OF B. J. FRANKLIN. Ciiii.licotiie, Mo., Sept 17, 1860. To Messrs. Fred. Emory, Wm. G. Mathias, Daniel Scully, P. Dyer and John W, Henry: Gentlemen of the Committee In reply to your letter of inquiry, I will state that I was present during the sittings of the Lecompton Constitutional Convention, and that many of its members were my warm personal and political friends. There was much debate as to the manner of submission, and also upon the question of non-submission. Mr. Calhoun was the chief leader of the submissionists, and it was owing to his influence and management that the Constitution was submitted in the manner it was. Most of the members, who were regarded as true to the South, took the ground that it was not incumbent upon the Convention to refer the Constitution to the people, and consequently voted to send tho Constitution direct to Congress, and carried the proposition by one vote. Upon that night there was a meeting in Calhoun's office to devise means to have the question reconsidered, and adopt the plan which they did afterward succeed in adopting. Calhoun was bitterly denounced by many of the members, and openly charged with endeavoring to make Kansas a free State, in violation qf the wishes of the party to which he belonged, and by which he had been chosen leader, It was generally understood, and the information came from Mr. Calhoun, that Mr. Douglas was in favor of the plan which was adopted, and would advocate its passage through Congress ; and I have heard some of the members say that they voted for the plan which was adopted, because they entertained such belief. I never saw any letter from Mr. Douglas to Mr. Calhoun, in which any plan was suggested for the Convention to pursue; neither did I see a letter from Mr. Douglas to any man. Sometime after the death of Mr. Calhoun, his brother-in-law, Oliver Diefendorf, of Leavenworth, stated to me that the family of Mr. Calhoun were in possession of a letter, or letters, written by Mr. Douglas to Calhoun, in which Douglas advised Mr. Calhoun to pursue the course he did. He also said to me that he intended to get possession of the letters and use theui as he saw proper. I was opposed to that plan of submission ; would have preferred the Convention to have sent the Constitution direct to Congress. I was a wami advocate of the Lecompton Constitution before the people ; advocated its adoption, and ran for an office under it, on the Democratic ticket, and voted as all true Southern men did vote, to make Kansas a slave State. ' lours, truly, B. J. iRANKLlN REPLY OF C. R. MOBLY. Ogden, Riley Co., K. T., Sept. 18, 1860. Messrs. Fred. Emory, W. G. Mathias and others: Gentlemen: In reply to your circular, dated 13th inst., I have to make the following statement : Having been sent from this county as a member of the Lecompton Constitutional Convention, I attended its first meeting. The question of submitting the Con stitution to the people was at once privately discussed, and I am satisfied that a majority of the members were opposed to such a course, but before any vote

Ti. i., tt rii.: i luev w e re ueivriiuueu now, mj im as in men

ill III 'i H113 vUiiiiiiit nv--, iAn,cuuiiu vni,.iuu . . , . i ,

J . , 1 ... tO

was taken upon tins point an hujuuiulkui, nas imu, ; mgion, jusi previous 10 me seuiuiiij;c ui me unmand 1 was absent for a tew days after the re-assembling j more Convention. At the same time, Mr. Yancey of the Convention. ! also received a visit from a very influential member

. , 1 ., l i : j question of submission ; in Calhoun, President of! Soon after my arrival the was again talked about. John the Convention, approached me with the remark that i he understood that I was in favor of submitting the! Constitution to the people. I told him I was. He then invited me to a conierence of those favoring that '

measure, at his room, in the evening. 1 attended the i means to unite the Uernocratie party ana ensure its caucus, but when the plan of partial submission, the j success, would be to couple the names of Mr. Dougplan finally adopted, was advocated and generally sus-j las and Mr. Yancey on the Democratic ticket. He tained, I informed them that I could not support such ' assured Mr. Yancey that this could be effected at a plan, and withdrew. j once, if Mr. Yancey would but consent to take The question next arose in the Convention, and; the Vice Presidential nomination, to be coupled with when the plan of partial submission was on the floor,! Mr. Douglas' nomination for the Presidency, loitered as an amendment that the whole Coustitu-j With a quiet smile, and his mual bland manner, tion should be submitted, and that the ballots, instead j Mr. Yancey promptly replied tliat the arrangement of reading, " For the Constitution with slaver-," and i was one to which he could, under no circumstances, " For the Constitution without slavery," should read i consent ; remarking that " oil and water would not "For tho Constitution," and "Against the Constitu-, mix." tion," and, in support of my amendment, I denounced The New Yorker then remonstrated; reminded Mr. the "dodge submission," as I termed it, saying that noj Yancey that politicians were frequently obliged to refriend of the Union, nor true Democrat, could support sort to such expedients ; and assured him that the arwhat was cheat and ft swindle, designed to split the j rangement proposed, if adopted, would secure not Union, and that no statesman of any foresight could , only Mr. Yancey's personal promotion, but ihe ulticountenance it, and that Congress could not approve j mate ascendancy of Mr. Yancey's jiolitical views and it, but spurn it. I governmental policy; that Mr. Douglas was alivady Mr. Calhoun again invited me, with one or two oth- j so enfeebled by disease that he could scarcely live six ers, to his room, and, knowing that I was an admirer! months after the Presidential election, and thus Mr. of the political course and character of Mr. luglas,J Yancey's candidacy would be sure to make him not he said " he wished to convince me that I was mistaken ; only Vice President, but very soon President of the about the way statesmen regarded the plau of artiaJ United State.

wmcii recommended mat precise plan, i mereiy re-

! that the plan of partial submission would not have ,,,,'.,,., - , , ... ;s l..l . V. 1 oeen auoptea oy me onvenuon, n ii uau uui wcu : .for the influence of that letter, j. Yours truly, C. R. Mobley. j j REPLY OF LUCIAN J. EASTIN. ! Chilicothe, Mo., September 22, 1860. . Mr. Fred. Emory, Chairman ofthe Committee: Sir: The letter from yourself and others, making inquines concerning the course of Stephen A. f? t0 th.e Iompton Constitution, has been received. In reply, 1 have to state : j ,, . .... , ., , ., , . 4i - ! that thev mstified themselves on the ground that the ... r " , , , . i... j ; free State men had refused to recognize the laws, and power, get rid ot the Kansas question. A considerable feeling had arisen between the anti-submissionists and those in favor of submission. About this time, John Calhoun, President of the Convention, and the known friend of Mr. Douglas, declared to me and others that he was authorized to say, if the slavery clause was submitted, Mr. Douglas would sustain our action. He read from a speech made bv Mr. iloug- : la8j I think, at Springfield, Illinois, and also from a ! letter written by Mr. Douglas to John Calhoun. I The main points ofthe letter, as I remember, were substantially as follows : That the free State men of i Kansas had refused to vote, denouncing the laws as bogus; and if they continued to refuse to vote, even though thev had a majority, deserved to be defeated. That if the Convention would submit the slavery clause of the Constitution, which was the bone of contention, it would be sustained, and the Constitution passed through Congress, and he would give it his support, lu this way tho Constitution could not be voted down, and the Democracy and the country would get rid of the Kansas question. That Mr. Douglas wrote the letter to Mr. Calhoun, as above referred to, is certain to my mind. Mr. Calhoun urged the reasons of Mr. Douglas with much earnestness. He said it was important to have the influence of Mr. Douglas. His arguments prevailed. Enough ofthe members changed to give a majority to carrv the plan of submission as adopted by the Con vention. It was owing mainly I might say entirely i to the letter ot Mr. IJouglas, and the arguments oi Mr. Calhoun, urged with much force, that the submission ofthe slavery clause was finally adopted. I have now. given you what came under my own I observation, without coloring. I have aimed at as.nv pie narration of filets as they ciecnrred. Truly yours, Lucjan J. ; Eastix. REPLY OF GREEN B. REDMON. Leavenworth, Sept. 11, 1860. To Fred. Emory, Esq., Daniel Scully, Esq., Hon. W. G. Mathias. John Henry, Esq., and Dr. P. Dyer, Committee, &c. Gentlemen: Your favor of the 13th inst. is just received, and I hasten to reply. I was a member of the Constitutional Convention that framed and passed the well-known Lecompton Constitution. During the pendency of the proposition to submit the slavery clause of that instrument to the people, as it was submitted, I was shown a letter by the Hon. John Calhoun, addressed to him by Hon. Stephen A. Douglas. That letter suggested and urged the plan of submission adopted by that Convention, approving the Constitution as then agreed upon, which had been submitted to him, and pledging himself to pass the Constitution through Congress, if we would insert the clause of submission which we did insert. This letter was declared by General John Calhoun to embody the entire sentiments of Judge S. A, Douglas, and that the entire plan of the Constitution was suggested in this letter, and that the plan of submission was all that was wanting to make the Constitution emphatically a Douglas measure. On examination of the letter I found m it a verification of all that General Calhoun had told me. Up to the time of seeing this letter, I had opposed the plan of submission, but in view of the pledge of Senator Douglas to put it through Congress if submitted in the manner it was, I then supported the Constitution after the adjournment of the Convention, with the submission clause and all. Shortly after, Senator S. A. Douglas took position on the Lecompton Constitution. I met Gen. Calhoun at Leavenworth City, and referred to Senator Douglas' course and his letter above referred to. General Calhoun, in reply, said that Judge Douglas had betrayed us, and if it had been sworn to before he would not have believed it, until he saw and read Senator Douglas' action in Congress. I have lived in Illinois seventeen years; was personally acquainted with Judge S. A. liouylax, haying received a great many communications, documents, etc., from him, under his frank, and I am well acquainted vrith his handwriting. I know the letter alluded to was in the handwriting of Judge Stephen A. Douglas. I have been uniformly and invariably his friend and supporter, until he took his position on the Lecompton Constitution. G. B. Redmon. Was the Vice Presidential Nomination on the Douglas Ticket tendered to William; L. Yancey ? We have received a large number of letters from j different parts of the Union, asking exact information as to the statement, made in several public speeches bv one of our editors, concerning the tender of the Vice Presidential nomination by the Douglas men to the Honorable Wm. L. Yancey. With the pressure of work now upon our hands, it is impossible for us to answer all these letters severally. We trust that the folloyving explanation will answer every purpose : A member of the Virgiuia delegation to Charleston and Baltimoie paid a visit to Mr. Yancev, at Wah- . . ... . .1.- i.i .1... TI..1: also receiveu vimi iiuiu jiiiiutmtuu mmiuci of the New York delegation, a distinguished and anient supporter and intimate confidant of Mr. Douglas. The New Yorker commenced au unreserved coi versation with Mr. Yancev, m the presence and heai ing of a Virginia delegate, by stating that the best

NO. 41

' To all such persuasions, Mr. Yancey replied with the same polite and decided refusal to permit his name to be used on a ticket headed by that of Mr. Douglas. ' ' ' Wo are informed of the name of the New York "delegate, and the information above repealed was furnished us long since by the Virginia delegate who was present during the conversation. We have held communication with neither on the subject of any publication. The communication was made to us without any seal of confidence, expressed or implied, and we consider that the hypocritical pretence exhibited by Douglas and his followers, of horror at the idea of political association with Wm. L. Yancey, not only justifies, but imperatively demands this publication. Still, ve prefer not to publish the name of either tho Neyv York" or the Virginia delegato without express authorization. The delegate from Virginia is known in and out of the State as a man whose distinguished character for truth, courage, and a delicate sense of honor is incapable of impeachment from any quarter. We know too, that he will shrink from no just responsibility; and if he shall abstain from publishing the name of the New Yorker, he will only be restrained by motives of extreme delicacy. We also knoyv the New York delegate to bo the intimate and confidential personal and political friend of Mr. Douglas. Nor is this all. We are firmly convinced, from our oyvn knoyvledge of things, that after the nomination of Mr. Douglas, at Baltimore, an intimation of wil'ingncss on the part of Mr. Yancey to accept it would undoubtedly have secured him the Vice-Presidential nomination on the same ticket. We yv-jre approached bv man after man, in the F rout Street Convention, ail of them expressing the same desire to secure Southern support for the ticket by means of the Vice Presidential nomination Of some man of the most ultra Southern political views, and all vere extremely perplexed by the difficulty of selecting such a man whoso acceptance could be regarded as even probable. So universal was the sentiment, that the Southern men left in the Convention were not only permitted by all, but requested to consult apart, as they did, to dictate, as they did, the name to be put in nomination for the Vice Pi esidency. The name of Benjamin Fit zpatrick was finally agreed on by the Southern delegates, was by them proposed to the Convention, and accepted by acclamation, although a short time, before, he voted for the Davis resolutions, and although it yvas knoyvn that he yvas uncommitted to accept the nomination, and might refuse, as1ie did refuse afterwards, to permit the use of his name. Richmond Enquirer. " Whip Them In. " On Saturday last a leading Douglas organ, the Indianapolis Sentinel, told us in words of ominous plainness and frankness, that " it' Lincoln should be elected, one ofthe tiro results is certain, either secession on the tart of the South, OR ELSE ITS SUBJUGATION TO THE DOMINION OF THE PREVAILING ANTI-SLAVERY SENTIMENT OF THE NORTH." We have before us the Pittsburgh Post, the Douglas organ in Western Pennsylvania, of Friday last, and it, too, speaks to tho people of the South with equal plainness, whether to threaten or to warn, time will show. It says: It is useless to speculate on the result. In a few weeks we yvillknow yvhether the effect will be advantageous or injurious to the country. -We shall know whether the citizens of tho slaveholding States will acquiesce in the overwhelming decision of their Northern brethren, that slavery must be extinguished. There is no longer any room tor dodging. The question has been fairly put to the people of the free States, and as far as public sentiment has reached us. they have by large majorities decided that negro slavery is not authorized by the Constitution ofthe United States, and that it must be extinguished. The edict has gone forth, and the Southern States must either submit, or array themselves against the Union, The time for compromise is past. There can be no more. , This is significant language, and it must startle the people of Kentucky, who have had their attention too much drawn to side issues by the arts of the Opposition, who use them only to conceal the unholy conspiracy in yvhich they are engaged. While they have been abusing Southern disunionists, falsely accusing them of desiring to break up the Union, they have been perfecting their infernal plot to compel the South to submit to degradation, to outrage, to a violation of the Federal compact, to robbery, or to go out of the Confederation. It should have opened the eyes of our people, that the Black Republicans equal the Bellringers and Douglasites in the ardor of their professions of attachment to the Union, and in the violence of their denunciation of disunionists! No Bell man, no Douglas orator, has shrieked louder for the Union than Seward, and none have been more profuse in threats to hang seceders than Douglas. Now that Lincoln's election is marie more than probable, by the success of his friends in the Northern States of Indiana, Pennsylvania and Ohio, the supporters of Douglas tell us that the "edict has gone forth," "slavery must be extinguished," and the "South must either submit "-be "subjugated" or go out of the Union t Those who sought to obtain power by false professions of attachment to the Constitution, failing to do so, tell us in language surprisingly free from any ambiguity, that they are no longer going to fight under false colors, but will submit to the " dominion of the prevailing anti-slavery sentiment of the North," and m the arms of Black Republicanism find a more acceptable reward than adherece to principle and fidelity to the Constitution can promise. Douglas promised two years ago to fight the battles of the Black Republicans in 1860. He is doing it." He has done more than all others to weaken, demoralize and break doyvn the Northern Democracy. He originated and has maintained the dogma of Squatter Sovereignty, " the most switt, unerring, and destructive agency of anti-slavery ever conceived in the fertile brain of the North ;" he attempted, in violation of his solemn agreement, and in opposition to the decision ofthe Supreme Court, to thrust this odious doctrine "down the throats of an unwilling people ;" he refused to yield his Presidential aspirations, to do aught, or say one word, to restore harmony and give success to the Democracy ; he has pursued the only course that could have divided the Democratic party, and made the election of a Black Republican possible. For this, John Hickman, who was slapped in the face for his insolent threat to subjugate the South, and compel obedience to the will of Black Republicanism, should it obtain control of the Government for what he has doneaud is doing, John Hickman, less than a fortnight since, publicly proposed "three cheers for Stephen A. Douglas T' For this, the Philadelphia Sbrth American and Gazette, the leading Abolition paper in the State, whose editor is a candidate for U. S. Senator from Pennsylvania, only a few days ago, returned thanks in these words: Gratitude to Douglas. The returns from Indiana and Ohio justify us in expressing our thanks to Mr. Douglas for his efficient service in this campaign. Wherever he spoke in Vermont and Maine, the Republican majorities increased. Without his assistance in Pennsylvania, we should probably have fallen several thousand behind our present triumph. And now on the heels of thes' the Western States come booming along with results which are almost astounding. Indiana is redeemed on the popular vote, in Congress and in the Legislature, mostly owing to the speeches of Mr. Douglas only a week ago. He has gone to Iowa and Wisconsin, and will probably contribute to like smiessv in those States. If we could send a few ntor sti -h missionaries abroad there would be no use in organizing a campaign. Our allies would unconsciously do all the work themselves. And when his work is well nigh done when be thinks succes ks about to crown hut labors when be lielicvc the time is almost at hand to take over his