Indiana State Guard, Volume 1, Number 46, Indianapolis, Marion County, 1 November 1860 — Page 4

TO THE DEMOCRACY OF THE STATE OF INDIANA. Fallow Democrats: For the first time in the annals of our political history, we have two candidates for the Presidency before tho country, both claiming to lc Democratic. For the first time we have to engage in a contest for the highest office iu the gift of the Peopl without a regular nominee. The Delegates sent to the late National Democratic Convention, relumed to their constituents without accomplishing the object for which they were commissioned. Instead of compromising the'difficulties resulting from the ditferent claims of the several candidates tor 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 platform, they divided the Convention into two bodies and presented two platforms. Each body presented 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 estalilished usages and systems adopted by the Democratic National Convention of 1841, and which have existed for the last sixteen years. One of these , divisions presented the names of John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, for President, and JosEPn Lane, lately of Indiana, but now of Oregon, tor Vice President. The other presented the names of Stephen A. Doug-

las, of Illinois, for President, and Benjamin Fitzpatrick, of Alabama, for Vice President. Mr. Fitzpatrick having declined, a sub-eommmiltee of the friends of Mr. Douglas at Washington substituted the name of Hersehel V. Johnson, of Georgia, for the second . office: As both of these tickets have come before the country without the prestige of a regular nomination, which one has tho 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 Stale organization ? There is a divided house before us. One or the other, if not both divisions, will fall. We intend logo with the National organization of lire Democratic Stales, which presented the names of Breckinripge and Lank, in preference to the sectional organization of delegates from the R".pub'.ic-iH States, which presented the names of Douglas and Fitzpatrick. How will you go? We intend to support the nomination made, by the fifteen Southern Democratic States, together with California and Oregon, and a large number of Democratic delegates from Pennsylvania, New York and 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 briefly as we can, the reasons which Inlluenee us in our course, in a plain and candid manner; and we trust that 1011, as National Democrat-, loving your country, your whole country, and nothing but your country, will givt' them your serious consideration. In doing so, we shall " neither extenuate nor set down aught in malice" against either of the candidate claiming to b.i Democrats, although a sober and serious duly to the Democratic party will compel us to speak plainly of men and things, as well a of principles and measures. . . Why did not the National Democratic Convention make a regular noinina'-ion tor President? Why did not tico-thirds of the Convention unite upon one man for that high office, in the same manner as two-third of former Conventions united upon the nominations of Polk, Cass, Pierce, and Buchanan ? Because a majority of the delegates representing a minority of the States voted down, in the Convention, the Platform reported by the majority of the Committee on Kcsolntions, representing a ma jority of the members of the Confederacy. In thus voting down the Report adopted bv a majority of S'ate, they struck a blow against the' principle of States' rights, which formed the basis of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions' of 1 798, drafted by Jefferson and Madison, and incorporated in the Cincinnati Platform, as well as in every other " Democratic Platform since the, first organization of the Democratic party in 1800. Why did a majority of delegates, mostly from the . Republic :in States, thus "'reject .the Platform adopted by a majority of State., mostly Democratic f Because it contained tho following propositions: 1. That the Government of a Territory organized by an act of Congress is provisional and temporary, and during its existence all citizensof the United States have an equal right to settle with their property in the Territory, without their rights, cither in person or property, being destroyed by Congressional or Terri- . torial legislation, 2. That it is the duty of the' Federal Government, in all the Departments, when necessary, to protect the rights of persons ami property in the Territories, and wherever else its Constitutional authority extends. 3. That when the settlers in a Territory, having an a (equate population, form a State Constitution, the right of sovereignty commences, and being consummated by their admission into the Union, they stand on an equality with the people of other States, and a State thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union, whether its Constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery. What is there in the above propositions that any delegate, claiming to be a Democrat, shuuld vote against? Tnat the Government of a Territory, orij'inizcd by an act of Congress, is provisional and tempo -ary, we presume everv citizen of the once Territory, and note 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 in person or property, being destroyed by Congressional or Territorial legislation? The Constitution of the United States, adopted by the several original States, in their separate State capacity, as a compact 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 Dred Scott cas, an erptal right to settle with their property in the Territories. So far as this goes, Breckinridge and Douglas agree. Has cither Congress or the Territorial Legislature power to destroy their property, no matter whether it consists 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 with the decision ot the highest judicial tribunal in the country, that neither Cingress nor the Territorial Legislature have such power under the Constitution. Mr. Lincoln, the AVpnUican candidate for President, asserts that Congress his such power. Mr. Douglas says that the Territorial Legislature po.st-sscs such power. Which one of these candidates is right? We believe that Mr. Breckinridge occupies the true portion. We believe that he stands ou Constitutional ground, and we think that he ought to be suxrted, not only because the Supreme Court of the United States has decided his position to 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, lo abide the decision of that tribunal. We believe that it is our duty 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 wilh the acts of its -representatives ; and that disgrace would fail upon any party that does not sustain its agents in their adherence to pood faith, in carrying out a pledge so solemnly made to support the decision of the Supreme Court But justice towards all our Southern brethren, who have stood shoulder to shoulder with us iu so many contests', and who have never iu'ringed ujwu any of our Constitutional right's compel us to say, that we cannot perceive any prtw'ical difference iu 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 Conpress, the creator of the Territorial Government, can abolish slavery in the Territory, and thus destroy the Southern man's property in the labor of his slaves. Mr. Douglas believes tliat the Territorial Legislature, the creature of Congress, can virtually do the Mine thing through " unfriendly legislation." He iittintaint that the creature can do what the Supreme Court savs it creator cannot do. He asserts that the Territorial legislature can tax .-laves, like liquors, so

high as to make the property unprofitable to its owner, and thus dnve it out of the Territories; that they havethe same right to enact a law for the purpose .of taxing slave labor beyond endurance as it has to enact a Maino Liquor law. Mr. Douglas ought to know that the Supreme Court of Indiana, as well as the judicial tribunals of other States has decided that even' Stale Legislatures have no such power. 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 crea ted by the Legislature,) to do what it cannot ? Can tho creature, in any case, exorcise more power than its creator T constitutionally: We say not. If Mr. Lincoln, who would abolish slavery iu 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 ot 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 Slates which forms tho 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 ' disunionist.' " If one party violates a compact, he releases all the other parties from its observance. Can we expect our Soul hern brethren to adhere to the Union, if we, ourselves, first become "disunionists? " The same obligation rests upon us to adhere to the conditions of our National compact as bind our .Southern brethren. Thev have their rights under it, the same as we have. Their blood and treasure contributed equally with our own in the conquest and purchase ot all the Territory under the control of our common government. Ami 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 oil' the debt incurred in that war. Southern policy and fxmtuern generosity nave made land plenty anil cheap, and put it in the power o! 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 Eng land statesmen have ever opposed it. And shall we, who have reaped the largest snare ot the benefits and advantages of these acquisitions, turn our backs upon our benefactors, and say to them, thou shall not participate wilh 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 Kentuekians 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 property, 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 pennit the rich manufacturers ot the .Last to go there with their labor-saving machines, designed to throw poor laboring men out of employment, and give them all 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 iu this land 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, by the tools of the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Societies. We all remember that a few hundred men, armed with Sharpe's rifles, seized upon not only the mot fertile tracts of the best soil, but also upon every citv and town site in that Territory. We all remem ber 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. Wo all remember the Shocco Springs Government and the Topeco Constitution, and all the other developments of "Squatter SocereJgnty" 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 'Squat'er 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' policy of "Squatter Sovereignty," any more than we can Mr. Lincoln's Congressional Sovereignty. Both arc 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 Sates which compose our Union. Both are hostile to the decision of the Supreme Court of tho United States, which places all the States and all white men upon precisely the same footing. 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 properly 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 proiKtrtv of the aovernj etH For what purpose do we send our squadrons and fleets to the Mediterranean and Pacific weans, as well as to the Gulf of Mexico, but to protect the property of our merchants upon the high seas, as well as the lives of such of our people as are engaged in commerce ? Will any one can any one senou:Jy argue, that the agricultural classes of the South and North have not the same claims uon the Government for the protection of their jersons and property recognized by the Constitution, as the commercial class ks.-css?" Do not the agriculturists of the South contribute at least as much towards the support of the Government as any other class? Do they not produce all the cotton, sugar and rice, much of the wheat and corn, and three-quarters of the tobacco that are exchanged for foreign goods, the duties on which pay three-fourths of its exK-nses? Ought they to meet their share of the burthens of the Government without participating in its benefits? No one can sincerely deny the force of such a self-evident proposition. But there arc many who cannot meet the argument, in its favor, who will content themselves by denouncing an act, granting the protection sought for by -oar Southern b-ethren, as a '(' code-" and yet they will not positively deny that the Constitution guarantee to them such an act, call it by whatever name they please. It now remains for us to look at the last projwsition of the Committee representing the majority of the States. The question arLe, whether any Territory should be admitted into the Union, upon an eqwd footing with the original States, without an " adequate Imputation 'i " Should any Territory, like Kansas was. (when a handtul of emigrants from Massachusetts

under the patronage of the Aid Societies of New England, took possession of the soil and adopted the Topeca Constitution,) be allowed to set up squatter sovereignty, call it a State Government, and be admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia or Indiana, with their several millions of inhabitants 1 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 commence not before. Any number less than that for a ratio

would soon fill the 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 iu sup" port of the Platform upon which John C. Bkeckinkidge and Joseph Lane are presented to the Democracy of the Union the whole Union as candi dates 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 themselvesablein council and gallant in the field. While one was found among the heroes in the front ranks, and in the hottest of the fight, 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 Montezuma 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 1 emoeracy. We wish we could say as lnuch iu 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 tree and slave States shadowed forth by Mr. Seward, which he says will end in the subjugation of the South the Territorial policy of the former cannot fail to keep up sectional agitation, contention and strife. Suffice it to say, that both of these candidates 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. Wherever he has addressed the people in tho free States, they have given increased majorities against the Democratic party. Wherever his friends have been pre-', sented 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 in 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 State, North or South. " What can be the cause of such a manifest want of confidence in Mr. Douglas? We say nothing of his personal traits of character; but truth and candor compel us to admit that his political course in the Senate has not been such as to entitle him to anv fur ther support from the Democratic party. He has acted, and voted, for the last two years, more with the Republicans in that body than with the Democrats, lie 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 scats. He thus struck a blow over the shoulders of Messrs. Bright and Fitch, at the Democracy of Indiana, who aipointed them as their representatives, and in so doing sacrificed ail 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 scats 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 he 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. . ; j We would 'gladly stop here, and confine ourselves ! to this manifest duplicity and treachery of Mr. Doug- j las himself, towards the Democratic party of the nasion. But as if his intrigues with Republican leaders j were not enough to damn him as the most unprincipled i politician known to tho country since the days of Mar- j tin Van Buren, he has followed them up by open and ; bitter denunciations of Mr. Breckinridge, and of ! other leading Democrats wherever he has made j speeches. And while he has thus emptied the vials of ; Ins wrath upon men whose political records arc with- ! out blemish, his leading friends in every State have U 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 arc thus engaged in their labors of 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 them upon one Electoral ticket, made in order tliat 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, to 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 jn the redemption of the State, and unite, as of old, with the only National organization of the Democracy of the country, in favor of Bhe( kinridgk and Lank ? Let the true Democrats organize in 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 be, " up and at it again." The true Democracy may be defeated, but they can never he conquered. By order of the National Democratic State Central Committee of Indiana. W. II. TALBOTT, Chairman. John- R. Ei.pkk. Srrretaru. LAND von 8 ALE! ! Forty acres of Government Land for sale, in i Jasper County, Indiana. Price S40O, payable j when John C. Breckinridge yets the electoral i vote of Kentucky for President. Address Edit- j or of Old Line Guard. if j Wood For Sale! j 200 CORDS. Price .05 Cents a Cord Sin mile iinr1h--4 of the eil. nbwil linir a mie fmm r r f.,M.ilte Plal.k rut. ! "M n U ! - quire ml Gi aw. .ri w