Rensselaer Gazette, Volume 2, Number 23, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 29 September 1858 — DAVID SNYDER, ESQ. [ARTICLE]

DAVID SNYDER, ESQ.

We wish it distinctly understood that anything we have said of this gentleman during the present canvass, was intended to refer to his political course alone. We have no desire to cast reflections on any man’s private character, and shall avoid doing so in this case. It is the custom arriong many editors of all parties, during seasons of high political excitement, to publish statements without being overscrupulouS as to their correctness, if by that means they can gain a temporary advantage over their opponents. This is a pernicious custom, and should be frowned down by all good citizens. But as we came here with the intention of making Jasper county our home for life, and desiring to maintain a good reputation among men, we resolved from the first to shape our course in such a manner as to compell alTobscrving men, of all parties, when they, became well acquainted with us, to give the Gazette credit for truth, if for nothing else. Therefore, we have stated through the paper nothing but what we conscientiously believed to be the truth. Sometimes we have had to say hard things of individuals, but it has been done “more in sorrow than in anger,” for facts we will publish, let friends or foes fall thereby. The constant i readers of the Gazette from the first number | will bear us out in this. We now propose to show up somcTsf Mr. j Snyder’s inconsistencies as a politician, aind! we make the above remarks that the public may know that we do it from no improper motive; in fact, were Mr. Snyder the Republican candidate, and Mr. Parker the 1 Democratic, wc would take the same course as the present, and urge the defeat of Mr. Snyder, believing that it would be better to ; be defeated than to elect a man to the Leg-j islature unfit for the post. We do not con- 1 ; sidcr that Mr. Snyder is deficient in taleikt, i but we do believe that he has no sound or fixed political principles, and is ready to j change those that he lias at any moment for | the sake of popularity or personal advancement. We understand that Mr. Snyder, in a speech at Brook, and probably has at every place where he has spoken since, declared that he was an Anti-Leeompton Degiocrait, and in favor of the principles advocated by Douglas. He also denounced Bright arid Fitch, the Washington* Union and the Slate Sentinel. In order show what his principles j are, if any he really has, we publish the filling facts: When Congress met last winter, and the great battle for freedom was fought, with the Republicans and Douglas and his follow!ers on the one side, and the Administration!, our two bogus Senators and the whole Prof slavery party on the other side, Mr. Snyder was then what was termed a Douglas man. We then honored him for his position, and believed him to be honest in his political principles. He remained firm in those principles until after the Bth of January State Convention, when lie suddenly changed, and became lound in his laudations ot the Administration, even writing a letter to the Stale Sentinel to evince his “National Democracy”, and gain a State reputation as one of the faithful to the tottering fortunes] of James Buchanan. The Sentinel, the same paper which lie now denounces, in publishing his letter, indorsed him as a “sterling Democrat.” To show liis position after the Convention, we make the following extract from, the letter referred to, which was written in j answer one received by him from Austin 4 11. Brown, of Indianapolis, requesting the 1 use .of his name to he signed to the call for the Douglas Convention,, which was held on the 23d of February last. Mr. Snyder’s let- i ter is dated “Rensselaer, Ind., January 21, 1858,” and the first paragraph is as follows: j ‘‘Dear Sir: Your favor of the 18th inst.,j inclosing a circular to the ‘Democracy of; Indiana,’ calling a State Mass Convention, signed by yourself and others, came duly to hand. You ask me to concur in the proposed call, and also to send you the names of such others as may choose to sign it. I am not willing to such a call, nor have I been able to find any Democrat in this vicinity who is willing to do so.” It is known that this Convention was called for the express purpose Of explaining a resolution in regard to submitting Constitutions, which the Douglas men claim to have been mutilated in its published proceedings-. Of this resolution we will speak again further along in this article. Mr. Snyder said in his letter in regard to this resolution; “Does the fact that the popular sovereignty resolution, last passed by the Convention, ! is misconstrued, misinterpreted, and differently published, create the; necessity for calling a Convention to say wh’at we meant'— to define the meaning of unmistakable language!—to explain that which needs no explanation?” Mr. Snyder admits that the resolution was “differently published,” and then triumphantly asks if an explanation is needed of “unmistakable language.” Further along he says: “Approving the whole action of the Convention, "t"\vi 11 he excused, humble as s jiiy name is, from appending it to your call fora Mass Convention.” Now let us see what a part that action was, which he so unequivoea approved. The 7th resolution says that opposition to the Dred Scott decision leads “naturally and inevitably to the odious doctrine oi negro I equality.” Yet he on the stump upholds I Douglas, and Douglas in effect repudiates

that decision, by telling the people of a Territory, how they can avoid it by passing laws, while a Territory, unfriendly to the institution. The Bth resolution approves the manner ot the election of Bright and -Fitch, and then goes on to resolve “that Jesse D. Bright and Graham N. Fitcln the Senators elect, arc. worthy the high position in which they were unanimously placed by their party.” Mr. Bright said in a speech in Congress: “So strong, Mr. President, is my conviction of the viciousness of the principle of submitting to a direct Vote of the people the propriety of the enactment or rejection of laws, that, for-one, I am prepared to extend the same objection? to the submission of entire Constitutions to the same tribunal! * * * * Independent of other objections to the submission of entire Constitutions directly to the people, how an intelligent vote re given by those who -attempt it!” Mr. Fitcli said in Congress that so strong was his attachment to the Lecompton Constitution, that he only desired to retain his seat in the Senate long enough to vote for the admission of Kansas under it! And yet Mr. Snyder, approving as ho docs the. entire, action of the Convention, indorsing Bright and Fitch among other things,, declares on the stump that lie is an Anti-Leconipton ; Democrat! “Defining the meaning of unj mistakahle language” with a vengeance! The 10th resolution reads Alius: “Resolved, That Jumps Buchanan was the first choice of the Democracy of Indiana fur the Chief Magistracy of this Republic at the nominating Conveivtian hi June, 1856, and | of the people of the State at the ballot-box in the ensuing November, and nothing which \ he has done since his elevation to the high poI sition which he now occupies has abated or ; diminished our confidence in his ability, integrity. patriotism and statesmanlike quaiij ties, and we cordially approve and indorse f his Administration.” Mr. Snyder, although he once declared I that nothing which tile President “has done j since his elevation has abated or diminished : his,confidence in his ability, integrity, pai triotism and statesmanlike qualities,” said j at Brook that The. President had been right all his life until now, and that it would be ungrateful to desert him in his old-age, when it was evident that lie could live but a little while longer. The correct inference to be drawn from this is, that Mr. Snyder thinks it would he better for the fair plains.of Kan- , sas to he blighted with the curse ofjslavery, , than tiie ‘breast of respectable bid gentleman in the white house should he racked with the pangs of beholding the ingratitude and desertion of his friends. We deeply sympathize with Mr Buchanan—can almost shed tears over his fallen estate. He is in a depjornble predicament, and we are sorry for it* but not to the extent Mr. Snyder is. He beseeches the people with rueful face, outstretched arms, and imploring voice, not to desert the President now, who-.already has one foot in the g ave. His appeals for pity are almost irresistible, and- his hearers are almost constrained to leave Kansas to her fate. According to the proceedings of the Bth of January Convention, as published in the Jasper Banner oi the 14th of January, one week before the date of Mr. Snyder’s letter, the following resolutioif* was offered by Mr Wallace, of Crawfordsville: “Resolved, That we are still in favor of the great principle of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and that by a practical application of that the people of a State or of a Territory should be as they are unalienably, ] invested with the right of ratifying or rejecting. aj. the biillot-box, any Constitution that Hi ay lie framed for their governmpnt; and that now ami hereafter no Territory should bo admitted irito the Union, as- a State, without a fair expression of the will.of its people being first had upon the Constitution accompanying the application lor admission.” | The resolution was referred to the Committee on Resolutions, and it was finally || adopted by the Convention in the following j altered form, according to the report pubI fished in the Banner: “ Resolved, That we are still in favor of the great doctrine of the Kansas-Nebraska hill, and that by a practical application of that doctrine the people of a State or of a Territory are vested with,the right of ratifying or rejecting nt the ballot-box any Constitution that may bo formed for their government; and hereafter no Territory should be admitted into the Union, ns a State, without a fair expression of the will of the people being first had upon the Constitution accompanying the application for admission. It will be readily observed by the reader that the Convention indorsed the course of Mr. Buchanan, and Mr Buchanan had iccommended to Congress to admit Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton Constitution. To bo sure Mr. Wallace, an AntiLecompton Democrat, introduced a resolution denouncing the scheme, and providing that ‘‘now and hereafter” no State shall bo admitted without fii;st submitting her Constitution to the approval or rejection of the people; hut the Committee? on Resolutjions altered it so as to read “hereafter” only shall Constitutions be submitted; and in the case of Kansas,;whose Constitution was made by Border Ruffians from Missouri it was thought expedient to. let the President have his own way. We know it is said by some that both resolutions have the same meaning, arid apply with] equal force to Kansas; but if so, why was the original one, offered hv Mr. Wallace, changed? It was for a purpose, and that purpose was to cheat the honest Democrats of Indiana into an indorsement of the Lecompton swindle, and to screen Bright and Fitch Irom the just «

odium attached to them lor their infamous course on this question. Mr. Snyder approved of this then, whatever he says now; and if he thinks differently now, we have nio assurance,judging from his past political wjeathercockism, that he will remain as he is (long. The saying of Paul, , “all tilings to aft men,” fits him q-fosdy and neater than, ever did a new coat Id his hack-