Rensselaer Gazette, Volume 3, Number 46, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 March 1860 — Page 1

IS PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY. \)Jj\ce in. Pointer ff Penn's Building, on Main Street, up stairs. TERMS. tin advance, or within one month $1 «*0 Within six months.... 1 ~5 'Within the year 2 00 o*No paper discontinued until all arrears are paid, except at the option of the Publisher. WAXES OF ADVERTISING. One square, one to three insertions $1 00 Each subsequent insertion. 125 One square three months 3 00 One square six months 5 00 One square one year. 8 00 Husinoss cards,five lines or less, one year. . 5 00 Quarter of a column one year 20 00 Half a column one year 30 00 One column one year 50 00 Legal and transient advertisements must be paid for i n advance, or twenty-five per cent.will be added to the above terms. Yearly advertisers are limited to their own business. Advertisements, unless the number of insertions desired is marked on the copy, will be continued u util ordered out,and charged accordingly

BUSINESS CARDS. PfjBDUE, BROWN A: CO., WHOLESALE DEALERS IN Dry Goods, Fancy Goods, j NOTIONS, HATS, BONNETS, &.C. No. 10 Purdue's Block, Dafayette, Indiana. Invite attention to their New Stock. DAVID SVYDEIt, Attorney at Law, 52] RENSSELAER, IND. tv 11. S. HOPKINS, A TTOR NE Y AT LAW, Rensselaer, Insi. Will promptly attend to collections, payment o f taxes, sale of real estate, and other business entrusted to his care, with promptness and dispatch. 52 JOSEPH a. CRANE, Attorney at Law, RENSSELAER, 48-1 y Jasper County, Ind. 93 W. I>. I.EE. n. W. SVITI.KR. 1,1,1-: A spitlur, Attorneys at Law. OFFICE, NF.XT DOOR TO I.A RDE's STON'E BUILDING, HKNSSELAER, IND. Will practice in the Circuit and inferior Courts of the Twelfth Judicial District. Also, in -the Supreme and District Courts oflndiana. nj>29 •R. 11. MiI.ROY. 1 - A. COI.K. ll<f\ COLE, Attorneys at Law, NOTARIES PUBLIC, And Agents for the Sale of Real Estate, Payment of Taxes, Ac., -EENSSKL.4ER.INI). EDUIN P. HAMMOND, Attorney at Law AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Will practice in the Courts of Jasper and adad ning counties. Particular attention given to the securing and collecting of debts, to the sale of real estate, and An all other business intrusted to his care. Office in the room in the north-west corner of A lie Court House, Rensselaer, Ind. N. B.—He will he assisted during the terms of ihe Courts by A. A. Ilammond, of Indianapolis. 8-1 y T HOS. m’c'OV. ALFRED M*COY. AL-ERED THOMPSON. THUS. McCOY A CO., Bankers and Exchange Brokers, BUY AND SELI. COIN AND EXCHANGE. Collections Made oh nil Available Points. WILL ‘ FAY INTEREST ON SPECIFIED TIME DEPOSITS. Negotiate Loans, and do a General Banking Business. Office hours, from 9 A. M. to 4 f. M. ap29

H. C. KIRK, (Successor to Reich &. C 0.,) DEALER IN ITALIAN AND AMERICAN U a ?. 3 L H , NIONENIEiVTS AND HEAD STONES. riIHE proprietor is determined not to lie sur_L passed by any shop in the State, either as to quality of Marble on the execution of work, and will WARRANT SATISFACTION To all who favor him with a call. Shop on Main street, opposite the Monticello House, Monticello, Ind. Reference. —Messrs. Geo. W. Spitler, L. A. Cole, Jacob Merkle. 35-ts INDIANA HOUSE, JO W. Sc S, O. DUVALL, Proprietors, BRADFORD, IND. The table will be supplied with the best the fnarket affords. A good Stable and Wagon Yard attached to the Hotel. The Messrs. Duvalls are also proprietors of the RENSSELAER AND BRADFORD DAILY HACK LINE. The hack loaves Rensselaer every morning, (■Sundays excepted,) at 7 o’clock, connecting at Bradford with the trains north and south, andreturns same day'. lO"Extras can also be procured at either end of the route, on reasonable terms. 7-ly Cash for Grain. r I 1 HE undersigned will pay the HIGHEST X MARKET PRICE IN CASH for Wheat. Corn, Rye, Barley, Oats, &,c., at the old stand of Iladdix &, Son, in Gillam township. lfi-tf C. G. HARTMAN. A D V E R T I S F.’ IN THE RE N. S&ELAER GAZ TT E

The Rensselaer Gazette.

D. F. DAVIES, Publisher A Proprietor.

% Jfnmihr journal, gibfftfb to Jfonign aub gonustit Ildus, Jilmthtn, mtb

VOL. 3.

fottrjj. <■ [For the Rensselaer Gazette. “FAREWELL FOREVER.” The eye is never dry when the word “farewell” is spoken, Except wiien it is wrung fropCa heart already broken; But tho’ the pulses may beat faster and the lips with passion quiver, Yet your eyes are ever dry when they look “farewell forever.” “Good by” is sometimes said when you’re more in jest than earnest, And “adieu” is often bathed in to irs when your parting is the warmest, But grief will paralyze you—o’er your frame will run a shiver— And your eyes will e’er be dry when you feel — “farewell forever.” ’Tis hard to part from loved ones, even tho' we may meet soon, And ’tis then the eyes are moistened, for tears are easy flown; But when you Lid “farewell” to friends, to meet again—ah! never, Your lips are parched and your eyes are dry, as you say —“farewell forever.” But look beyond this lower world, to the spirit land above, Where those who part “forever” here, shell meet again in love; Your soul will e'er feel happy then, tho’ the dearest ties you sever, And you can smile, and look, and feel, and say—“farewell forever.”

Jlliscdhuuous. DOUGLAS AN 1» POPULAR SOVEIt. EIGNTV. A Speech by Carl Schurz, OF WISCONSIN, In Iliiniiidrn Hall, Spring-field, Mass., Januany 4, ISGO. CONCLUDED. Mr. Douglas’ ambiguous position, which makes it mipossible for him ,to cheat either the North or the South, without, adding a new inconsistency to those already committed* makes it at the same time necessary for him to put his double-faced theories upon an historical basis, which relieves him of the necessity of expressing a moral conviction on the matter of slavery either way; to say that, slavery is right, would certainly displease the North; to say that slavery is wrong, would inevitably destroy him in the South. In order to dodge this dangerous dilema, he finds it expedient to construe the history of this country so as to show that this question of right or wrong in regard to slavery had nothing whatever to do with the fundamental principles upon which the American Republic was founded. Dealing with slavery as a matter of fact, and treating the natural rights of man ar.d the relation between slavery and republican institutions as a matter of complete indifference, he is bound to demonstrate that slavery never was seriously deemed inconsistent with liberty, and that the black never was seriously supposed to possess any rights which the white man was bound to respect.

But here he encounters the Declaration of Independence, laying down the fudumental principles upon which the Republic was to develop itself; he encounters the ordinance of 1787, the practical application of those principles; both historical facts, as stern and stubborn as they are sublime. But as Mr Douglas bad no logic to guide him in his theories, so he had no conscience to restrain him in his historical constructions. To interpret the Declaration of Independence according to the evident meaning «f its words would evidently displease the South; to call it a self-evident lie would certainly shock the moral sensibilities of the North. So he recognises it as a venerable document, but makes the language, which is so dear to the hearts of the North, express a meaning which coincides with the ideas of the South. We have appreciated his exploits as a logician; let us follow him in his historical discoveries, Let your imagination carry you back to the year 177 G. You stand in the hall of the old Colonial Court-house of Philadelphia. Through the open door you see the Constitutional Congress the moment of a great decision is drawing 1 near. Look at the earnest fl ees of the men assembled there, and consider what you may exp >ct of of them. The philosophy of the eighteenth century counts many o, them among its truest adepts. They welcomed heartily in their scattered -towns and plantations the new ideas brought forth by that sudden progress of humanity, and, meditating them in the dreamy solitude of virgin nature, they had enlarged the compass of their thoughts, and peopled their imaginations with lofty jdealß. A classical education' (for most of! them are by no means illiterate, men) has' put all the treasures of historical knowledge 1 at their disposal, and enabled them to apply j the experience of past centuries to the new

RENSSELAER, JASPER COUNTY, IND., WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 1860.

problem they attempt to solve. See others there of a simple but strong cast of mind > whom common sense would call its truest representatives. Wont to grapple with the dangers and difficulties of an early setler’s life, or, if inhabitants of young uprisings cities, wont to carry quick projects into speedy e.xecution, they have become regardless of obstacles and used to strenuous activity. The constant necessity to help themselves has developed their mental independence; and, inured to political strife by the continual defence of their colonial self-govern-ment, they have at last become familiar with the idea, to introduce into practical existence the principles which their vigorous minds have quietly built up into a theory. The first little impulses to the general upheaving of the popular spirit—the tea tax, the stamp act—drop into insignificance; they are almost forgotten; the revolutionary spirit has risen far above them. It disdains to justify itself with petty pleadings; it spurns diplomatic equivo cation; it places the claim to independence upon the broad basis of eternal rights, as self-evident as the sun, as broad as the world, as common as the air of heaven. The struggle of the colonies against the upris ng Government of Great Britain has risen to the proud dimensions of a struggle of man for liberty and equality. Behold two nten are advancing toward the table of the President. First, Thomas Jefferson, whose philosophical spirit grasps the generality of things and events; then Benjamin Franklin, the great apostle of common sense, the clear wisdom cf real life beaming in his serene eye; then the undaunted John Adams, and two others. Now Jefferson reads the Declaration of Independence, and loudly proclaims the fuudamenital principles upon which it rests; “All men are created free and equal!” It is said; history tells you what it meant. The sceptre of royality is flung back across i the ocean; the prerogatives of nobility are trodden into the dust; every man a king, every man a baron; in seven of the original j colonies the shackles of the black man struck off; almost everywhere the way prepared for gradual emancipation. “No recognition of the right of property in man!” says Madison. Lot slavery he abolished by law!” says Washington. Not only the supremacy of Old England is to be shaken off, but a new organization of society is to be built up, on the basi. of liberty and equality. That is the Declaration of Independence! That is the American Revolution. All men free and equal! Not even the broad desert of the Atlantic ocean stops the triumphant shout. Behold, the nations of the Old World are ! rushing to arms. Bastiles ure blown into the dustias by the trumpets of Jericho, and, like a “pillar of fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day,” the great watchword of the American Revoluti >n shows forever the way to struggling humanity. [Long continued applause.] All men are created free and equal! Whence the supernatural power in these seven words!

Turn your eyes away from the sublime ; spectacle of 177 G, from that glorious galaxy I of men whose hearts were large enough for all mankind, and let me call you to the sober year of 1857. There is Springfield, the capital of Illinois, one of those States which owe their greatness to an ordinance originally framed by the same man whose hand wrote the Declaration of Independence. In the Hall of the Assembly there stands Mr. Douglas, who initiates an eager crowd into the myttries of “popular sovereignty.” He will tell you what it meant, when the men 1 of 177 G said that “all men are created free and equai.” He says: “No BfSn can vindicate the character, the | motives, and the conduct of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, except upon the hypothesis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when tliey declared all men to have been j created free and eqaal —that they were speaking of British subjects on this continentfbeing equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain —that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liber’y, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration oflndependence was adopted merely for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegience from the British Clown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country.” What? Is that all? Is that little heap of quicksand the whole substructure on which a new organization of society was to he built? The whole foundation upon which the proud and ponderous edifice of the United States rests! They did, then, not mean all men, when they said all men. They intended, perhaps,oven to disfranchise those free blacks who in five of the original thirteen colonies enjoyed the right of voting!

"FREEDOM NATIONAL—SLAVERY SECTIONAL.' 1

They ment but the white race. Oh, no, by i no means the whole white race; not the Ger- j mans, not the French, not the Scandinavians; they meant but British subjects. “British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing on the other side of the great water!” [Laughter and applause.] There is your Declaration of Independence, a diplomatic dodge, adopted merely for the purpose of excusing the rebellious colonies in the eyes of civilized mankind. There is your Declaration of Independence, no longer the sacred cord of the rights of men, but an hypocritical piece of special pleading, drawn up by a batch of artful pettifoggers, who, when speaking of the rights of men, meant but the privileges of a set of aristocratic slaveholders, but stiled it “the rights of men,” in order to throw dust in the eyes of tlie world, and to inveigle noble-hearted ! fools into lending them aid and assistance. I [Applause.] These are your boasted Revolutionary sires, no longer heroes and sages, but accomplished humbuggers and hypocrites, who said one thing and meant another;

who passed counterfeit sentiments as genuine, and obtained arms and money and assistance and sympathy on false pretences! There is your great American Revolution, no longer the great champion of universal principles, but a mean Yankee trick—[ bursts of applause and laughter] —-a wooden nutmeg—[renewed cheers] —the most impudent imposition ever practiced upon the whole world! [Applause.] This is the way Mr. Douglas wants you to read and to understand the proudest pages of American history! This is the kind of history with which he finds it necessary to prop his mongrel doctrine of popular sovreignty! That is what he calls vindicating the character and the motives and the conduct of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, Thus lie did not blush to slander Jefferson, who, when speaking of his country, meant the world, and, when speaking of bis fellow-citizens, ni'ca'nt mankind; and Franklin, in whose clear head, theory and practice were the same, and who, having declared “all men to be created free and equal,” became the first President of the first great Abolition Society; and John Adams, the representative of that State which abolished slavery within its limits with one great stroke ol legislation; and Washington, who declared it to be “his fondest wish to see slavery abolished by law,” and affixed to the Declaration of Independence the broad signature of his heroic sword; and Madison who deemed it “absurd to admit the idea of prop- | erty in man;” and of the framers of the Con- ! stitution, who took care not to disgrace that instrument with the word “slavery,” and, before adopting it finally, blotted out from the extradiction clause tin* word “servitude,” avowedly because it signified the condition of a slave, and substituted the word “service,” avowedly because it signified the condition of a freeman. Thus Mr. Douglas dares to speak of all those true men, »vho, after having proclaimed their principles in the Declaration, endeavored to introduce them into practice in almost every State, in the way of gradual emancipation! That they have failed in this, is it a fault of theirs] It shows not that they were less great and sincere, but that subsequent gen trations were hardly worthy of so noble an ancestry! [Applause.] There is Mr. Douglas’ version of your history. He despairs of converting you without slandering your fathers. His present doctrines cannot thrive, unless planted in a calumny on the past. He vindicate the signers of the Peclartaion of Independence! Indeed, they need it sadly. I see the illustrious committee of five rise from their graves, at their head Thomas Jefferson, his lips curled with the smiles of contempt, and I hear him say to Mr. Douglas: “Sir, you abuse us as much as you please, but have the goodness to spare us with your vindications of our character and morives.” [Great laughter and applause.] _ It is a common thing that men of a coarse cast of mind so lose them-elves in the mean pursuit of selfish ends, as to become insensible to the grand and sublime. Measuring every event in history by the low standard of their own individualities, applying to everything the narrow rule of their own motives, incapable of grasping broad and generous ideas, they will belittle every great thing they cannot deny, and drag down every struggle of principles to the sordid arena of aspiring selfishness, or of small competing interests. Eighteen hundred years ago, there were men who saw nothing in incipient Christianity but a mere wrangle between Jewish theologians, got up by a carpenter’s boy, and carried on by a few crazy fishermen. Three hundred years ago, there were men who saw in tho great reformatory movement

XEJHIMS: Si s<> per Year, in Advance,

of the sixteenth century,- Hot the emancipation of the individual conscience, "but a mere fuss kicked up by a German monk who wanted to get married. Two hundred years ago, there were men who saw in Hampden’s refusal to pay the ship money, not a bold vindication of constitutional liberty, but the crazy antics of a man who was mean enough to quarrel about a few shillings. And now, there are men who see in the Declaration of Independence and tho American Revolution, not the recognization of human society upon the basis of liberty and equality, but a dodge of some English colonists who were unwilling to pay their taxes. [Continued applause.] But the dignities of great characters and the glory of great events find their vindication in the consciences of the people. [Applause.] It is in vain for demagoguisni to raise its short arms against the truth of history. The Declaration of Independence stands there. No candid man . ver read it without seeing and feeling that every word of it was dictated by deep and earnest thought and that every sentence ol it bears the stamp of philosophical generality. It is the summing up of the results of the philosophical development of the age; it is the practical embodiment of the progressive ideas, which, very far from being confined to the narrow limits of the English colonies, pervaded the very atmosphere of all civilized countries. That code, of human rights has grown on the very summit of civilization, not in the miry soil of i South Carolina cotton field. lie must have a dull mind or a disordered brain, who misunderstands its principles; but he j must have the heart of a villain, who knowingly misrepresents them. [Loud cheers. Mr. Douglas’ ambition might have been ! satisfied with this ignominious exploit. But ! the necessities of the popular-sovereignty [doctrine do not stop there. After trying to [explain away the fundamental principles | underlying this Republic, which are hostile I to slavery and its extension, Mr, Douglas [finds it exceedingly inconvenient to encounj ter facts which prove, beyond doubt, that | these principles, from a mere theoretical e.v- ---! istence, rose to practical realization. Popu- ■ lar sovereignty, which is at war with the Declaration of Independence, demands the ! slaughter of the ordinance of 1787, and Mr. | Douglas is up to th t task. He does not stop ! at trifles.

And here we must return to the IlarperI Magazine manifesto. He leads us through a century of colonial history, in order to show that the people of the colonies claimed the right to legislate on the subject of slavery. And, 1 remarkably enough, all the instances quoted show a uniform tendency adverse- t.. ’lie peculiar instiutmn. Mr. Doug- | las then ; roceeds to discover the germs of j his popular-sovereignty doctrine in the first ] Congressional legislation concerning the Territories. I will not undertake to criticise that singular historical essay, although some of its statements are sucli as to make j the freshmen of our colleges smile. The “statesman” Douglas does not seem to be ; aware that the ability to read history ought Ito precede the attempt to write it. [Laughter and cheers.] He leads us back to the | Congress of 1784. Mr. Jefferson and his i colleagues have just executed the deed of [cession of the North-western Territory, and the same Mr. Jefferson, as chairman of a [ committee, then submits “a plan for the tem- \ porary government of the territories ceded or to be ceded by the individual States to the United States.” Mr. Douglas proceeds to describe how the Territorial Governments were to be organized, what rights and

powers were put into the hands of the people, and how they were to be exercised; and, after having demonstrated that the term '“now States” meant the same thing which | is now designated by “Territories,” lie comes to the conclusion that the spirit prevailing that plan was in exact consonance with his doctrine of “popular sovereignty” Mr. Douglas ostentatiously calls this“the Jeffersonian plan.” “It was,” says he, “the first plan of government for the Territo-ies ever adopted in the United States. It was drawn by the author of. the Declaration of Independence, and revised and adopted by those who shaped the issues which produced the Revolution, anil formed the foundations upon which our whole system of American government rests.” But Mr. Douglas skips rather nimbly over the significant fact, that the same “author of the Declaration of Independence” put into that plan a proviso, excluding slavery from the 'l'erritories. Was that a mere accident! Mr. Jefferson diowed thereby, conclusively, that, in his opinion, the exclusion of slavery by Congressional legislation was by no means inconsistent with the spirit of “popular sovereignty” which Mr. Douglas discovers in the plan of 1784; but this does not disturb Mr. Douglas

“The fifth article,” says he, “relating to the prohibition of slavery, having been rejected by Congress, never became a part of the Jeffersonian plan of government for the Territories, as adopted April 23d, 1784.” Although with a large numerical majority in its favor, (sixteen to seven,) this article did indeed fail to obtain a constitutional majority, the vote of New Jersey not being counted, in consequence of there being but one delegate from that State present; yet it had beei I drawn up by Mr. Jeffersdft ; introduced bit j Mr. Jefferson, and sustained by Mr- Jefferj son’s vote. Nevertheless Mr. Douglas persists in calling a plan ,from which the peculiar , Jeffersonian feature had been struck out, the j “ Jeffersonian plan.'' This is the play of Hamlet with the character of Hamlet omited. [Laughter.] “This charter of compact," proceeds Mr. Douglas, with its fundamental conditions; which were unalterable without the joint consent of the people interested in them, as well as of the United States, then stood upon the statute book unrepealed and unrepealable, when, on the 14th day of May, 1787, the Federal Convention met at Philadelphia.” Does Mr. Douglas not know that on the 16th of March, 1785, a proposition was introduced in Congress by Rufus King, to exclude slavery from the S'ates described in the resolve of April 23d, 1784, and to make this provision part of the compact established by that resolve] Does he ncft know that this provision, restoring thd Jeffersonian feature to the “Jeffersonian plan,” was committed by the vote of eight States against four! Does he net know that the plan of 1784 never went into practical operation, but was expressly set aside by Congress in 1787! Does he not know that tiie ordinance of 1757 was the first legislative act ever practically organizing a Territory of the United States, and that one of its most prominent features was the proviso excluding slavery from all the Territories in the possession of the United States]

NO. 46.

Mr. -Douglas’ historical recollection of the ordinance of 1787 seems to be very indistinct. Indeed, he deems it only worthy of an occasional, passing, almost contemptuous notice. He speaks of it as “the ordinance of the 12th of July, 1757, which was passed by the remnant of the Congress of the Confederation, sitting in New York, while its most eminent members were at Philadelphia,] asffielegates to the Federal Convention.” For three- ! quarters of a century, people were in the habit of thinking that the ordinance of 1737 was an act of the highest order of importance, but we now learn that it was a rather indifferent affair, passed on an indifferent occa- ; sion, by an exceedingly indifferent set of [ fellows, while the plan of 1751, a mere ab- [ struct programme, completely overruled by I subsequent legislation, is represented as the true glory of the age. How is this] The reason is obvious. Mr, Douglas belongs to [ that class of historians who dwell upon those ! facts which suit their own convenience r and unceremoniously drop the rest. I once heard I of a Jesuit college where, tliey used a text book of history, in which the French Revolutian was never mentioned, while the Emperor Napoleon figured there only as a modest Marquis Bonaparte, who held a commission under Louis XVII, and fought great, battles for the glory of the Catholic Church [Laughter and applause.] So it is with 3lr.

Douglas and the history of his country. He ignores the universal principles of the Decla- [ ration of It dependence, and represents the | great founders of the Republic -as merely j paving the way for his “great principles,” j while a few village politicians get up an obj scure ordinance, adverse to the general ten- ; dancy of things. But as those Jesuits never could prevent their students from peeping out of their college windows into the wide world, where they perceived a very different state of tilings, so Mr. Douglas cannot prevent us from travelling out of the yellow covers of Harper’s Magazine, into the open records ©(.history, where we find Mr. Jefferson's anti-slavery clause, although accidentally lost in 1754, strenotisly insisted upon by the leading spirits of the Republic, incorporated in the great act of 1787, solemnly reaffirmed by the first Congress under the Constitution, and firmly maintained even against the petition of the people of one of the Territories. [Cheers.] This is- the true “Jeffersonian plan,” the plan which Jefferson trained, voted for, and which was carried out in his spirit; not that mangled report of 1754, which Mr. Douglas wants us to take as the foundation of ail territorial government, because tin historical accident happens to coincide with his schemes. The true Jeffersonian plan rested, indeed, on tire principle of popular sovereignty, but it will be conceded that Mr. Jefferson's great principle was as widely different from that of Mr. Douglas as the ordinance of 1787 is different from tiie Nebraska bill. While Mr. Jefferson's notion of popular soverrianty -prong from the idea that man has certain inalienable rights which the majority shall not encroach upon; Mr. Douglas’ doctrine rests upon the idea that the highest development of liberty consists in the right of one class of men to Hold another class of men as slaves, if they see fit to do so. [Applause.] While Mr. Jefferson excluded slavery from the territories, i i order to make room for the true popular sovereignly , Mr. Douglas invents his false popular sovereignty in order to make room for slavery. The ordinance of 1787, the true “Jeffersonian plan,” was indeed no mere accident, no mere occasional act of