Indiana State Guard, Volume 1, Number 45, Indianapolis, Marion County, 30 October 1860 — Page 4

TO THE DEMOCRACY OF THE STATE OF INDIANA. Fellow Democrats: For the first time in the annals of our political history, we have two candidates for the Presidency before the country, both claiming to be Democratic, For the first time we have to engage in a contest for the highest oiliee iu the gift of the People without a regular nominee. The Delegates sent to the late National Democratic Convention, returned to their constituents without accomplishing the object for which thev were commissioned. Instead of compromising the'difliculties resulting from the different claims of the several candidates for President before that Convention, they broke up in wild disorder. Instead of uniting upon the ground of principle, and presenting an united" front to the common enemy upon one Democratic nlatfomi. thev divided the Convention .into two

. .. r . . - r..i. k.,j,

Douies anu presenoeu uvo piaiioriiis. wui uuu; p...sented to the country candidates for President and Vice President, without either having received a regular nomination by a two-thirds vote. Each body presented these candidates contrary to the old established usages and systems adopted by the Democratic National Convention of 1844, and which have existed for the last sixteen years. One of these divisions presented the names of John C. Breckinridge, of Kentuckv, for President, and Joseph Lane, lately of Indiana, but now of Oregon, for Vice President. Tiie other presented the names of Stephen A. Donglas, of Illinois, for President, and Benjamin Fitzpatrick, of Alabuna, for Vice President. Mr. Fitzpatrick having declined, a sub-commniittee of the friends of Mr. Douglas at Washington substituted the name of Hersehel V. Johnson, of Georgia, for the second ' oiliee. . As both of these tickets have come before the country without the pre3tigc of a regular nomination, which one has the strongest claims to the support of the Democratic party ? Let us reason together, as brethren of the' same 'political family, having a common stake in the welfare of our Union and in the support of Constitutional Government. Shall we adhere to our National organization in the Union, or shall we cling to the 'Slate organization? There is a divided house before us. One or the other, if not both divisions, will fall. We intend to go with the. National organization of the Democratic Stites, which presented the names of Breckinridge and Lane, in preference to the mcliomil organization of delegates from the R-pub'ic in States, whudi presented the names of Douglas and Fitzpatrick. How will you go? Wc intend to support the nomination made by the fifteen Southern Djuvwratic Statestogether with California and Oregon, and a Urge number of Democratic delegates from Pennsylvania. New York aud other Northern States, forming a National organization, in preference to the nomination made by the Delegates mostly from the Republican States of the North. Which one will you support? We will give you, as brieily as we can, the reasons which iiilluen-e us in our course, in a plain and candid manner; and wo trust that .jou, as National Democrat, loving your country, your whole country, and nothing but your country, will give them your serious , consideration. In doing so, we shall "neither extenuate nor set down aught in malice " against either of the candid ites claiming to be Democrats, although a sober aud serious duty" to the Democratic party will compel us to speak plainly of men and things, as well a of principles and measures. Wiiy did not the National Democratic Convention make a regular nomination for President ? Why did not two-think of the Convention unite upon one man for that hitlh office, iu the same manner oilico-thirds of former Conventions united upon the nominations of Polk, Cass, Pierce, and Buchanan ? Because a majority of the delegates representing a minority of the Stales voted down, in the Convention, the Platform reported bv the majority of the Committee on Resolutions, representing a majority of the members of the Confederacy. In thus voting down the Report adopted bv a m yori'y of Slate, they struck a blow against the principle- of States' rights, which formed the basis of the Kentucky anil Virginia Resolutions of 1708, drifted bv Jefferson and Madison, and incorporated in the Cincinnati Platform, as well as in every other Dem vera'-ie Platform since the first organization of the Democratic party in 1800. Why did a majority of delegates, mostly from the Republican States, thus reject the- Platform adopted bv a majority of S'utes, mostly Dr-mocratic t Because it contained the following propositions: 1, That the Government of a Territory organized bv an .act of Congress is provisional and temporary, -and durins its existence all citizensoflhc United States have.au equal right to settle with their property in the Territory, without their l ights, either in person or property, being destroyed, by Congressional or Territorial legislation. . .. 2, - That it is the duty of the Federal Government, in all the Departments", when necessary, to protect the lights of persons and property in the Territories, aud w'lierever else its Constitutional authority extends. 3, That-when the settlers in a Territory, having an a lerpiate population, form a State Constitution, the right of sovereignty commences, and being consummated by their admission into the Union, they stand on an eqn v'ity with the people of other States, and a State thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union, whether "its Constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery. V What is 'there, in the above propositions that any delegate, claiming to be a Democrat, should vote aiiiiistV -That the Government of a Territory, orgutizeil by an act of Congress, is provisional and tempo -dry, we presume every citizen of the once Territory, and "now State, of Indiana, will admit. Have not all citizens of the United States an equal right to setttle, with their property, in the Territory, without their rights, either iu person or' property; being destroyed bv Congressional or Territorial legislation? The Constitution of the United States, adopted by the several original States, in their separate State capi -ity, as a eoinpa -t between them, places all their citizens, as well as all the States, upon an equal footing. It gives them all, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Died Scott cas", an equal right to settle with their properly iu the Territories. So far as this goes, Breckinridge and Douglas agree. Has either Congress or the Territorial Legislature power to destroy their properly, no matter whether .it co.isists of slaves or horses, after their settlement in the Territory, during its provisional and temporary organization, under an act of Congress? Mr. Breckinridge holds, in accordance witli the decision of the highest judicial tribunal in the country, that neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature have such power under the. Constitution. Mr. Lincoln, the Republican candidate for President, asserts that Congress has such power. Mr. Douglas says thai the Territorial Legislature possesses such power. Which one of these candidates is right? We believe that Mr. Breckinridge occupies the true position. We believe that he stands on Constitutional ground, and we think that he ought to be supported, not only because t ie Supreme Court of the United States lias decided his position 1o be right, but because all the Democratic statesmen in both Houses of Congress, who have sworn to support the Constitution, pledged themselves, as the representative men of the Democratic party, (a nbule the decision of that trUiunal. We believe that it is our dutv to sustain the great body of Democratic representatives in Congress, both from the North and the South, in the pledge which they made upon this question. We believe that the honor of the Democratic party is closely and indissolubly conneted with the acts of its representatives: and that disgrace would fall upon any party that does not sustain its a?ents in their adherence to good faith, in carrying out a pledge so solemnly made to support the decision of the Supreme Court.B'Jf justice towards all our Southern brethren, who have stood shoulder to shoulder with us in so many contests, and who have never infringed Uu any of. our Constitutional rights, compel us to say, that we cannot perceive any practical difference in the positions taken by Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Douglas on this question, so far as the rights and interests of the slave States are involved. Mr. Lincoln believes that Congress the creator of the Territorial Government, can abolish slavery in the Territory, and thus i destroy the Southern man's property in the labor of his slaves. Mr. Douglas believes that the Territorial Legislature, tbe crtalure of Congress, can virtually do the same thing through - unfriendly legislation. He maintains that the creature can do what the Supreme Court tavt its creator cannot do. He asserts that the Territorial Legislature can tax slav.-s. Idee liquors, so

high as to. make the property unprofitable to its owner, and thus drive it out of t lie Territories; that they have the. same right to enact a law for the purpose of taxing slave labor beyond endurance as it has to enact a Maine Liquor law. Mr. Douglas ought to know, that tho Supreme Court of Indiana, as well as the judicial tribunals of other States has deckled that even State Legislatures have no such uower. If a State

Legislature has no constitutional power to pass a Maine law, does it possess the power to authorize the Board of Commissioners in any county, (a body created by the Legislature,) to do w hat it cannot ? Can the creature, in any case, xefcise, constitutionally, more power than its creator t We say not. If Mr. Lincoln, who would abolish slavery in the Territories, directly by an act of Congress, is an Abolitionist, what is Mr. Douglas, who would do the same thing, indirectly, by an act of the Territorial Legislature ? Will, not. such legislation on the part of either Congress or the Legislature destroy the property of the slaveholders in the labor of their slaves? Will not such legislation violate the equal rights of the Southern people, and prevent them from settling in the Territories ? Would its adoption be "doing unto others as we would have others do unto us?" We are not the advocates of slavery but we are the advocates and supporters of the great compact between the States which forms the basis of our Union. Judge Perkins, a friend of Mr. Douglas, lately said, in his Richmond speech "that a man or a party that will not support the Constitution is a ' tlisuuionist.' " If one party violates a compact, he releases all the

other parties from its observance. Can we expect our Southern brethren to adhere to the Union, if we, ourselves, first become "disunionists?" The same obligation rests uKn us to adhere -to tho conditions of out-National compact as bind our Southern brethren. They have their rights under it, the same as we have. Their blood and treasure contributed equally with our own in the conquest and purchase of all the Territory under the control of pur common government. And truth and history, urge us to say that it has all been added to our country under the administrations of Southern men while those, of Eastern men have uniformly opposed the annexation of Territory. Mr. Jefferson, a Southern man, annexed the Territory of Louisiana, which now embraces the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, and the Territories of Kansas, Nebraska. Mr. Polk annexed Texas, California, New Mexico, Dacotah, and Utah, which will, in time, embrace at least twenty additional States. Southern men in Congress aided those illustrious Presidents to annex these Territories by voting . the means,' contributed equally by the people of the South and North, to pay for all those vast domains. A Southern State old Virginia after having contributed 1 er full share of men and money to carry on the Revolutionary war, made a free gift of all the' Northwest Territory, which now embraces Indiana, Ohio, Illinois. Michigan and Wisconsin, to raise means to pay off the debt incurred in that war. Southern policy and Southern generosity have made land plenty and cheap, and put it in the power of every poor and industrious man, whether of the North or South, to provide himself with a farm to " sit under his own vine and fig tree." While Southern statesmen have ever been friendly to the acquisition of territory, Massachusetts and other New England statesmen have ever opposed it. And shall we, who have reaped the largest share of the benefits and advantages of these acquisitions, turn our backs upon our benefactors, and say to them, thou shall not participate with us? Shall we say to the descendants of the noble-hearted Virginians who laid open to us all the land between the'Ohio River and the Lakes, you shall not be equal with us in the Territories west of the Mississippi ?' Shall we say to the gallant Kentuckians who came to our rescue in the days of our weakness, who fought our battle at Tippecanoe, and shielded us from the tomahawk in our infancy, you shall not be equal with us there ? Shall we prohibit them from going into these Territories with their properly, or make it useless to them, when there, by "unfriendly legislation" while we permit those vast speculating corporations of the East, under the name of New England Emigrant Aid Societies, to colonize, those fertile regions with their subservient squatters? Shall we permit the rich manufacturers of tho East : to go there with their labor-saving machines, designed to throw poor laboring men out of employment, and give them air the protection which the Constitution guarantees to property while we deprive, through the various arts of legislation, the people of the South of the same advantages? Shall we give our countenance and aid to a privileged class in this laud of equal rights, which would have a tendency to oppress one portion of our fellow citizens for the benefit of another ? We all recollect the rush into Kansas, some six years since, bv the tools of the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Societies. We all remember that a few hundred men, armed with Sharpe's lilies, seized upon not only the most fertile tracts of the best soil, but also ution every city and town site in that Territory. Wc all remember their depredations upon the rights of the Southern people, and the reports of strife and bloodshed which followed. We all remember the audacious conduct of the small band of New England Squatters, in setting up a government of their own superior to the Territorial government organized by the act of Congress. We all remember the Shocco Springs Government and the Topeco Constitution, and all the other developments of "Squatter Sovereignty" which were then made. Shall such scenes be played over again? Shall we give our assent to the overgrown capitalists of the East to extend their power over all the other Territories yet unorganized ? Shall we allow them, through the instrumentality of small bodies of men, devoted to their interests, to avail themselves of the facilities of "Squafer Sovereignty," in acquiring the control of every Territorial Legislature, and give it the power which Congress itself does not possess, to trample upon the Constitutional rights of any section of the Union ? Shall we permit the representatives of such small bodies of men in buckram, in the Territorial Legislatures, to possess more power than the Constitution gives to the National Legislature, representing the entire confederacy? No no. We cannot approve Mr". Douglas poiicy of "Squatter Sovereignty," any more thanwe can Mr. Lincoln's Congressional Sovereignty. Both are hostile to the genius of our institutions'and the equal rights of the People of all sections. Both are hostile to the equality of the S ates which compose our Union. Both are hostile to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which pi tees all the States and all white men upon precisely the same tooting. The next proposition advanced in the report of the

Committee representing the majority of States is "that it is the duty of the Federal Government in all the departments, when necessary, to protect the rights of persons and property in the Territories, and wherever else its constitutional authority extends." Is not this proposition a truism, requiring no argument to sustain it? What is government organized for, unless it is to protect the persons and property of the governed! For what purpose do we send our squadrons and fleets to the Mediterranean and Pacific oceans, as well as to the Gulf of Mexico, but to protect the property of our merchants ujion the high seas, as well as the lives of such of our people as are engaged iu commerce? Will any one can any one seriously argue, that the agricultural classes of the South and North have not the same claims u(on the Government for the protection of their persons and projierly recognized bv the. Constitution, as the commercial class possess?' Do not the agriculturists of the South contribute at least as much towards the support of the Government as any other clas? Do they not produce all the cotton, sugar and rice, much of the wheat and corn, and three-quarters of the tobacco that arc exchanged for foreign goods, the duties on which pay three-fourths of its expenses? Ought they to meet their share of the burthens of the Government with-

! out participating in its benefits? No one can sincerc-

i lv deny the force of such a self-evident proosition. But there are many who cannot meet the argument, in it favor, who will content themselves by denounc

ing an act, granting the protection sought for by our Southern brethren, as n-'tlave code? and yet they will not positively deny that the Constitution guarantees to them such an act, call it by whatever name they

I ilease. i It now remains tor us to look at the last proixisition 1 of the Committee representing the majority of the i States. The ouestion arises, whether any Territory

should be admitted into "the Union, upon an equal footing with the original States, without an " adequate population?" Should any Territory, like Kansas wa. (when a handful of emigrants from Massachusetts,

under the patronage of the Aid Societies of New England, took ' possession of the soil and adopted the Ttpeca Constitution,) be allowed to set up squatter sovereignty, call it a Slate Government,' and be admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia or Indiana, with

their several millions of inhabitants ? Every Territory should have a sufficient number of inhabitants to entitle it to at least one Representative in the lower House of Congress before it should be recognized as a State. Then her popular sovereignty, in contradistinction from squatter sovereignty, should commencenot before. Any number less than that for a ratio would spon fill tho Senate with the representatives of squatter sovereignties create a rotten borough system, (like that of England,) and remove the political power from the many to the few. We have thus given our views and reasons in stippon of the Platform upon which Joux C. BliECKiN-. hidge and Joseph Lane are presented to the Democracy of the Union the whole Union as candidates for President and Vice President of the United States. They are true and tried friends of their country true and tried Democrats tried in peace and in war and have proved themselvesable iu council : and gallant in the field. While one was found among the ' heroes in the front ranks, and in the hottest of the fighu bleeding in his country's cause on the battle-ground of Buena Vista, the other was among the victorious legions that entered the halls of the. Montezumas under Scott. Not a single sentiment of theirs can be brought against them to excite suspicion as to their loyalty to the Union not an act to prove disaffection to the Democracy. I We wish we could say as much in favor of either Mr. Douglas or Mr. Lincoln. While the latter is an open and bold advocate of Abolitionism, and avows ' himself a supporter of the " irrepressible conflict" be- . tween the free and slave States shadowed forth by ; Mr. Seward, which he says will end in the subjugation ' of the Sputh the Territorial policy of the former j cannot fail to keep up sectional agitation, contention and strife. Suffice it to sav, that both of these candi

dates are so obnoxious to the South, that neither of them can receive the support of a single slave State ; while it is certain that Mr. Douglas cannot obtain the electoral vote of any State in the Union. AVherever he has addressed the people in tho free States, they havo given increased majorities against the Democratic party. Wherever his friends have been presented for State offices, they have been defeated. The People, as well as nearly all the Democratic Representatives in both houses of Congress, appear to have no confidence iu him. They have assembled together in large masses to look at him and hear him; but they have not, as yet, given him a single Slate, North or South. ' What can be the cause of such a manifest want of confidence in Mr. Douglas? Wc say nothing of his personal traits of eharactir; but truth and candor compel us to admit that his political course in the Senate has not been such as to entitle him to any further support from the Democratic party. lie has acted, and voted, lor the last two years, more with the Republicans in that body than with the Democrats. He not only voted in favor of turning out of the Senate Messrs. Bright and Fitch, the Democratic Senators of this State, but he volunteered his services to engineer Messrs. Henry S. Lane and McCarty, the bogus Republican candidates, into their seats. He thus struck a blow over the shoulders of Messrs. Bright and Fitch, at the Democracy of Indiana, who appointed them as their representatives, and in so doing sacrificed all claims upon them for support. But not satisfied with the indulgence of his private animosity towards these gentlemen, he has also been identified in intrigues and coalitions with the Republicans to turn out of the Senate General Lane, of Oregon, and Mr. Green, of Missouri, and to put into their seats two of the most notorious Republicans of those States, and thus contribute to the overthrow of the Democratic ascendancy in that body. While thus engaged in these intrigues and coalitions, his house in Washington was turned into a caucus room for the Republican Senators and Republican editors, where overtures were made and given for mutual aid and comfort. The limits of this address will not admit of an exposure -of- all the political tergiversations of Mr. Douglas; but suffice it to say that ho has lost the confidence of all his old Democratic associates, with one exception, in the Senate; and of nearly all the Democratic members of the House, who have had an opportunity to witness his recreant course, and form a proper estimate of his delinquencies. We would gladly stop here, and confine ourselves to this manifest duplicity and treachery of Mr. Douglas himself, towards the Democratic party of the nasion. But as if his intrigues with Republican leaders were not enough to damn him as the most unprincipled politician known to the country since the days of Martin Van Buren, he has followed them up by open and bitter denunciations of Mr. Breckinridge, and of other leading Democrats wherever he has made speeches. And while ho has thus emptied the vials of his wrath upon men whose political records are without blemish, his leading friends in every State have been busily engaged in forming coalitions with the Know-Nothing party. These coalitions are now open, undisguised, avowed, and approved in nearly all the papers in Indiana favorable to his advancement. And while they are thus engaged in theirlaborsof love with the Know-Nothings, they have treated with silent contempt all overtures from the Democratic State Central Committee of Indiana representing the friends of Breckinridge and Lane, for a union with thein upon one Electoral ticket, made in order that the Democrats might present a united front to the Republicans, and thus save the State from the grasp of Lincoln. Is it not, then, apparent that Mr. Douglas' treachery, as well as his policy, aims, directly, at the dismemberment of the Democratic party ? Is it not evident, lo use the words he made use of in one of his intrigues with a Republican editor at Washington, that he. has " checked his baggage," and " taken a through ticket" for the Opposition camp, and designs "cutting down the bridges" which now connect him with the, Democracy, as soon as he can get the " crowd over " on the other side ? We apprehend, however, that if he should succeed in accomplishing this end, his success will be of short duration ; and that the " crowd " will all prove to be good swimmers, and speedily return to the Democratic shore. The signs of the times give note that the contest for the Presidency is now between Breckinridge and Lincoln. While Mr. Douglas' friends have not carried a single State in the Union, Mr. Breckinridge's friends have carried all the local elections in Delaware, Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, and lastly, where it was notexpected, in Maryland. There can be. no doubt that the whole South is rallying in his favor; and if New York elects the Union ticket, as is confidently hoped by its friends, he will certainly be elected. Will not, then, the gallant Democrats of Indiana come to the rescue, aid in the redemption of the State, and unite, as of old, with the only National organization of the Democracy of tho country, in favor of Breckinridge and Lane ? Let the true Democrats organize iu every school district, and prepare for a vigorous onset against the Republicans in November. let them, after the Presidential contest is over, still keep up their organizations for future elections for Slate, County and Town officers. If overthrown in the coming contest, let their watchwords bo, " up and at it again.'' The true Ieinoeracy may be defeated, but they can never be conquered. By order of the National Democratic State Central Committee of Indiana. W. H. TALBOTT, Chairman. John R. Elder, Secretary.

LAXB mm SALE! Forty acres of Government Land for sale, in Jasper County. Indiana. Price 8400, payable when John C. Breckisridgk gets the electoral vote of Kentucky for President. Addiess Editor of Old Line Guard tf Wood For Sit le! 200 CORDS Price (55 Cents a Cord ix mile nnrth-WMl of lb cilv. nboul bail, mile from th Crfor1-illr Pli.uk road, will bv ..W nil Ik r"""'' '' qiiir Ulu uprU-ir