The globe. (Huntingdon, Pa.) 1856-1877, July 25, 1860, Image 1
I= TERMS OF THE GLOBE. Per annum in advance Six mouths Three moilths A failure to notify a discontinnance at the expiration of the term subscribed for will be considered a new engage. meat. TERMS OF ADVERTISING 1 insertion. 2 do. Four lines or ............ 25 $ 373 A $ 50 One square, (12 lines,) 50 i 5 1 00 'LW squares, Three squares, Over three week and less than three mouths, •?5 cents per square for each insertion. 3 months. 6 months. 1 mouths. 50 $.3 00 .$5 00 3 00 5 00 . 7 00 Six lines or less, One sepiare, Two squares,. Thrce squares, Four squares, 9 00 13 00 9 0 00 Half a column, 12 00 10 00 ...... ....24 00 One column, ` , O 00 30 00.... ..... .50 00 Professional and Business Cards not exceeding four lines, ono year, . , .. $3 00 Administrators' and Executors' Notices, $1 75 Advertisenients not Marked with the number of inset , tions desired, will be continued till forbid and charged ac cording to these terms. olifitaL [From the Bedford Gazette.] To the Democratic Party. It is, no doubt, already known to you that the late National Convention at Charleston and Baltimore, nominated Stephen A. Doug las, of Illinois, for President, and H. V. John son, of Georgia, for Vice President. It is also, known ,that a portion of the Convention seceded and nominated John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, for President and Joseph Lane, of Oregon, for Vice President. Having been present at both sessions of the Convention, and a spectator of all that transpired, I pro pose to give a few of the reasons why I regard the nomination of Douglas and Johnson as the regular nomination of the party, entitled to its universal support, and that of Breckin ridge and Lane as irregular and disorgan izing, meriting no favor at the hands of any Democrat, but, on the contrary, as justly de oerving the hearty condemnation of the whole party. Under the regular call of the National Com mittee, acknowledged by every Democrat in the United States, and in conformity with the universal custom of the party, the Convention ze-smbled at Charleston, on the 23d of April, 18GO. After a preliminary organization, made without objection from any quarter, it was found that there was one contested seat from the State of Massachusetts, one from Maryland, eleven from Illinois and thirty -live from New York. These cases were re ferred to a Committee of thirty-three mem bers, being one from each State. After a careful and patient investigation by the Committee, a report was made to the Convention. This was unanimous in every ease, except that of New York. Six members of the committee made a minority report re commending the admission of one half of each delegation from that State. The report of the committtee was adopted by the Conven tion after a full discussion. The vote in every case, except New York, was unanimous.— That part of the report relating to the New. York Delegation, tiva,s adopted by a vote of 2104- to 55. This completed the organization of the Con vention. The Rules of the House of Repre sentatives of the United States were adopted for the government of the Convention. This was done by/the entire - vote of the Conven tion. The rule requiring two thirds of the votes given, to make a nomination, was also unanimously adopted, as was a rule requiring a two-third vote of the Convention to alter or amend the Rules of the Convention. Every Congressional District in the United States and every State at large, was now fully rep resented. There was not a single vacancy. The Convention consisted of 303 members, and continued in session for several days, every member participating in the proceed- Two principles of Legislative, or Parlia mentary law, may be here stated, as they nave important bearings upon the regularity of the nomination now being considered. First : Every Legislative Body shall judge Oho qualifications of its own members. Second: A majority shall constitute a Quo ntillfor the transaction of business. It is confidently asserted that both of these propositions are clearly established by the common law on the subject, in all civilized countries, unless some statute should provide otherwise. But in this case we are not only left to the common law, but have also the statute. The Convention, as we have seen, adopted the Rules of the House of Represen tatives. By these both of the propositions above stated, are clearly maintained. In deed, it could not be otherwise, as the Consti tution of the United States declares the same rules in the fifth section of the first Article thereof. With the first of these propositions every member of the Convention was fully satisfied, because every one acquiesced in the decision of the Convention and remained to participate in the further proceedings thereof. The sec ond proposition embraces two parts; to wit, that a majority shall constitute a Quorum and that less than a majority shall not constitute such Quorum. Here it will be well to remember that every member of the whole Convention, including the subsequent Seceders, or Bolters, voted for the adoption of these rules. The Convention continued in session with .ts 303 members, until the seventh and eighth clays. At this time, some of the delegates became dissatisfied with the Platform adop ted by the Convention, and for this reason and for this alone, fifty-one members with drew from the Convention, separated finally and entirely from it, met in another part of the city and attempted to organize another Convention in opposition to the one they had left. This they adjourned to Richmond.- 11lost, if not all of you, have always held that every gentleman who agrees to enter a Con vention, is in honor bound to abide by its de cisions and. support its nominees. These gentlemen, however, seemed to have adopted a different course. As already stated, the ground and the only ground, of this secession was the Platform adopted by the Convention. You will, doubt less, feel anxious to know the character of the Platform which could thus drive off one sixth of the members of the Convention. I think you will credit me when I assure you that it was the identical creed of the party in 1844-1848 the compromise measures of 1850 —the Platform of Pierce, in 1852, the Kan sas Nebraska Act of 1854, and the Cincin nati Platform, of 1850. The Convention re affirmed the Cincinnati Platform, upon which James Buchananwas elected, and upon which the great battle of 1856 was fought and won ; and this was deemed sufficient to justify 51 members in bolting. The Convention (252 members remaining) continued in session and proceeded to ballot for a candidate. Fifty-seven votes were taken. On several of these, Judge Douglas received a majority of the whole BleCtoral College— the veto standing 152 e for Douglas, to O 0 for all others, $1 50 F.~+! UM 1 50 1113 5 00 8 00 .10 00 7 00 10 00 15 00 = ME 3 00 WILLIAM LEWIS, VOL. XVI. Before proceeding to a ballot, a proposition was offered on behalf of some of the Southern States remaining in the Convention, to the effect that the President of the Convention shoilld not declare any person nominated until such person should have received a two-thirds vote of the whole Convention when full.— This was adopted by a vote of 141 to 112. It was not offered as a rule, or as a change of the rules, but simply as a resolution of construction and direction to the Chair. On the tenth day of the Convention, at Charles ton, having failed to make a nomination and the 51 seats being vacant, the Convention ad journed to meet at Baltimore, on the 18th of June, having first passed a resolution request ing the Democratic party of the several States to supply vacancies in their respective dele gations. On the 18th of Jane, the Convention re-as sembled, at Baltimore. No delegates ap peared from South Carolina and Florida.— One delegation appeared from Mississippi— these were the Seceders at Charleston, but having been re-elected by a State Convention, they were admitted. One delegation (the Seceders) appeared from Texas. This was not elected_ by the people, or by any Convention, but was ac credited by the State Central Committee.— Owing to the position of Texas—her large size and great distance from the Convention, and difficulty of calling a Convention, this delegation was also admitted. There was one contested seat from Massa chusetts, one from Missouri, one from Dela ware, three from Arkansas, six from Loui siana, nine from Alabama and ten from Geor gia. These were referred to the Committee on Credentials, then consisting of twenty-five members. This committee, after a session of several days reported by an average vote of about fifteen to ten, in favor of the admission of the Seceders from Delaware, two Seceders and one new delegate from Arkansas, the new delegates from Alabama and Louisiana, and one-half of each from Georgia. The report of the committee was adopted in every case, except that of Georgia, in which all of the Seceders were admitted. By this action of the Convention, seventeen, votes were admit ted to the Convention contrary to the views of the Seceders. Although this could in no way effect the result of the nomination, even if wrong, and although every member of the Convention had voted for and acknowledged the rule which declared that the Convention should judge of the qualifications of its own members, yet this was considered sufficient ground for.a, further secession of fifty mem bers. The Convention proceeded to make its nom inations, passed an additional resolution on the subject of the platform, appointed a na tional committee and adjourned. Of the sev enteen votes before mentioned, sixteen were in lieu of Seceders from Louisiana, Alabama and Arkansas—one half vote from Massachu setts and Missouri each being contested on other grounds-51 and 50, or 101 deducted from 303, left in the Convention 202 mem bers to which were added the 1G new dele gates making 218 members. On the first and second ballots at Balti more, several of the delegates declined to vote —on the second ballot Judge Douglas re ceived 1814 votes to 15 for all other candi dates and the remainder blank. After the first vote Gov. Church, of New York, offered a resolution declaring hint nominated and by implication rescinding the resolution of inter pretation and instruction to the Chair adop ted at Charleston. Objection being- made, Gov. Church withdrew his motion. After the second ballot it was renewed by Mr. Clark of Missouri and a delegate from Vir ginia. It was then distinctly put by the President (both the affirmative and the neg ative) and adopted by acclamation and with out a dissenting voice in the Convention. As we have already seen, the Seceders at Charleston adjourned to meet at Richmond, on the 11th of June. At that time and place, they met and adjourned until the 21st of the same month. At Baltimore the 50 Seceders were joined by 40 of the Seceders from Charleston (South Carolina with 8 members and Florida with 3 remaining at Richmond) met in another part of the city, organized an opposition, or hos tile Convention, gathered up some fifteen ad ditional delegates from some quarter or other, and with 105, delegates of all descriptions, nominated Breckinridge and Lane. At least 90 of those delegates were in the Charleston Convention and aided in the adoption of the rules of that body, one of which required a majority, or 152 members to constitute a quorum for the transaction of any business. I have already stated that the admission of 17 votes contrary to the wishes of the Sece ders did not affect the result. On the second ballot, Judge D. had 181 k votes. All oth ers 15.; the balance declining to vote. De dUct the 17 votes from 181 k and you have 1641, and add them to 15 you have 32 votes for all others. There is still being more than a quorum present and voting and Judge Douglas having received more than two thirds of the votes given, be is clearly enti tled to the support of every Democrat who ac knowledges the binding force of nominating conventions. To say that he is not and that Breckinridge is the regular nominee of the party seem to me to be an insult to the un derstar ding of every impartial voter. I have full confidence in the wisdom and pa triotism of the masses of the Democratic par ty of the country, and hope that upon sober reflection the people everywhere will as here tofore rally to the support of regular nomi nations, and preserve the integrity. of the party. In the present aspect of affairs, it becomes important to determine correctly who is responsible for the present situation of the party. I assert that the Seceders and their allies and abettors, alone are responsi ble. - There are but two reasons given by themselves for the secession. The platform at Charleston and the admission of the 17 delegates at Baltimore. Those I propose to consider very briefly. Before I do this, how ever, I venture to assort that there are at least three causes which have led to this re sult: First, the failure of the Convention to adopt " Intervention" instead of " Non-In tervention" by Congress with the question of slavery in the territories. Second the de sire among the friends of the Seceders, if not among themselves, to bring about a dis solution of the Union itself. Third, the per sonal hostility of some of these gentlemen, and others high in authority, towards Judge Douglas. These propositions shall also be briefly considered. The first secession of 51 members took place at Charleston on the adoption of the Platform. This we have already seen was a simple re-affirmation of the Cincinnati platform of 1856. The bolt ers desired the convention to declare in fa vor of Congressional Intervention in favor slavery in the Territories. The same doc trine was demanded by Mr. Yancey, of Ala bama, from the Baltimore Convention in 1898. He there obtained 36 votes for it to 216 against it. He demanded it in 1852 and failed to obtain it. I learn that Mr. Yancey who headed the Secession at Charleston, de clared before the Committee ma--eredentials that he had opposed General Cass in 1848, and General Pierce in 1852, because he failed to obtain a recognition of his doctrine by the nominating Conventions. Time will not permit a further examination of this reason for the secession. It was upon a question of doctrine—one of the cardidal principles of the party. The Convention stood upon the same ground occupied in former times, ad hering to the Cincinnati platform. The Se ceders demanded a change and because it was refused, withdrew. The Republicans of the North declare that it is the right and duty of Conrgess to intervene against slavery in the Territories—the Seceders declare that it is the right and duty of Congress to inter vene in favor of slavery in the Territories.— The Convention regarded both propositions as erroneous in principle, and adhered to the old doctrine of the party that it belonged to the people to regulate their domestic affairs in their own way, subject only to the Con stitution of the United States. True, there was, to some extent, a difference of opinion as to the time when the right to legislate on the subject of slavery commenced. But the Convention, by an almost unanimous vote, disposed of this subject, by a resolution de claring it the duty of all good citizens to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court upon this question. The right to hold slave property in the Territories, even against an enactment of the Territorial legislature, involving as is does, a case at law, or in equity, as well as the . constitutionality of the supposed law, is com mitted by the Constitution, directly to the judiciary. Should the decision of that tribu nal be in favor of the right to hold the slave, all the powers of the Federal government are pledged to enforce the judgment. This is imously adopted at Reading, iu March, 1860. substantially the doctrine of the platform unan- The second and only remaining reason given by themselves, to justify their secession, was the action of the Convention on the con tested seats. Here it will be well to observe that had not the first secession taken place, no such reason as the second would ever have existed. If then the judgment of the country should be that the adoption of the Cincinnati platform was no good cause of complaint, the entire responsibility for the present state of affairs rests with the Sece ders. Had they remained in the Convention at Charleston, there would have been no con tested seats at Baltimore. We have already seen that a majority, or 152 delegates, constituted a quorum, and that the Convention was to judge of the qualifi cations of its own members. From such a decision there could be no appeal. In our State, the Lower House of the Legislature, consists of 100 members, 51 being a quorum : the Senate consist of 33 members,l7 being a quo rum. Suppose ten seats in the House and five in the Senate are contested. They are, howev er, settled—even erroneously if you please. Some law receives 26 votes in the Lower House with 25 against it, and 9 votes in the Senate with 8 against it, being signed by the Governor, even though 5 of the 9 votes in the Senate and 10 of the 26 in the House were members whose scats were contested, it becomes as binding upon all the citizens of the Commonwealth as though it had re ceived one hundred votes in the House and 33 iu the Senate, and no seat in either branch had ever been contested. As well might the criminal on his way to the gallows, or to the prison, call upon the people to assemble in town meeting for his rescue, because the laws which tried and condemned him, were not regularlyl.:Jsed according to his notions of justice, as for these gentleman to say that these nominations were not regular. But there is no just ground for complaint. In Massachusetts Mr. _Hallett was elected a delegate, Mr. Chaffee was elected alternate, Mr. li. could not go to Charleston. H. noti fied Mr. Chaffee of his inability to attend, and as I learn, he (Mr. IL) removed with his family, from the District. The seat was contested at Charleston and decided unani mously in favor of Mr. Chaffee. At Balti more Mr. H. appeared and claimed his seat. Ile was rejected. In Arkansas neither Con vention was regular nor in accordance with the usages of the party. Both were admit ted—the seceders with power to cast two votes—the new delegates to cast one. The Missouri case was similar to that from Mas sachusetts. In Louisianna two Conventions were called. The one a Convention of the people—the other the old Convention whose time had expired and who had no more pow er to send delegates than any other similar number of individuals accidentally called to nether. The new delegates were admitted—the old ones were liable to the objection already stated and also to the same objections here after given in the Alabama case. The old delegates from Georgia were liable to the same objection. Yet, the Convention refused to admit the new delegates, and actually ad mitted the old delegates, because a part of the delegates to the Georgia Convention, by whom the new delegation was chosen, at first met in Convention with those who had sece ded at Charleston. It was because a portion of these had seceded or bolted, that their rep resentatives were rejected. -PERSEVERE.- HUNTINGDON, PA., JULY 25, 1860. In the State of Alabama, the delegation admitted to seats, were chosen by a State Convention called together by the people, " for the purpose of appointing delegates to the National Democratic Convention at Bal timore, to nominate candidates who may be able to save the Government from the hands of these who will not regard our constitution al rights, and be the means of securing the perpetuity of the Constitution and the anion." The Seceders from this State, were rejected. They were elected to the Richmond Conven tion—a body hostile to the Democratic party and proposing to nominate their own candi dates. The meetings by which the delegates to the State Convention which elected the Se ceders were chosen and the speeches made at those meetings, were almost entirely of a character hostile to the Democratic party.— One of their orators (and a Delegate) said of the Baltimore Convention, that " the man who would represent Alabama in that Con vention should be branded with the brand of Cain. Though not a murderer of his kin, he would be a murderer of principle and of the constitutional rights of his section, that he would be more than the assassin who but takes the life of a fellow man." Others declared " that to entertain the prop osition to send delegates to Baltimore, would be at once to step with a coward's tread from the highest pinnacle of honor to the lowest depths of degradation and abasement." Such was the tenor of all their meetings and speeches. Their Delegates showed cre dentials to Richmond and utterly refused to be bound by the action of our Convention.— Under these circumstances, the Convention deemed it wise to learn whether the great horse contained soldiers who were allies, or enemies, before it should be safely stabled within the gates of Troy. I have before stated. that the admission of the 17 delegates already named, did not affect the general result. I have shown that on the vote given. I now desire to show the same thing in case no se cession had taken place. 101 delegates sece ded. Of these South Carolina and Florida re mained at Richmond. This left 90. From this number deduct 16 Seceders whose places were supplied by new delegates, and. we still have 74, who, by the action of the Baltimore Convention, had at any moment a right to re sume their seats. There remained in the Convention 21 ; from Maine, 21 from Connec ticut, 41 from New Jersey, 17 from Pennsyl vania, 31 from Missouri, 2 from Delaware, and 7 from Kentucky, in all 39, who declined to vote for Judge Douglas. These added to the 74 Were more than sufficient to prevent his nomination. It is well known that some persons in the South have for a long time desired a dissolu tion of the Union. I believe some, if not all of the South Carolina Delegation to Richmond, avow that desire. This Convention at Rich mond also nominated Breckinridge and Lane. Some declare that the election of a Republi can President will be sufficient ground for a dissolution. Those who really desire a dis solution, could scarcely devise a surer method to accomplish it than by the dissolution of the Democratic party, thereby promoting the elec tion of Mr. Lincoln. Is not the fact that such sentiments are avowed, a sufficient rea son for all true Democrats to shun the nom ination of Breckinridge and Lane, as they would shun the enemies of their country ? Hostility to Mr. Douglas has had much to do with effecting the secession. That this Hostility is unwise and unfounded in reason, public judgement and future history will surely determine. That ho is able, patriotic and capable few if any will deny. That this hostility exists, a very few examples will clearly prove. In Massachusetts, three gen tlemen were elected to Charleston as the open and avowed friends of Judge Douglas. All three of them were found among the Seceders at Baltimore. Two of them were appointed to high positions and lucrative offices after their election as delegates and before the meeting of the Convention. The third has been similarly rewarded since the adjourn ment of the Convention. Almost all the of ficers of the General Government and all the papers under their control, are now bitter against Douglas and warm for Breckinridge. All the rules, usages and customs by which they went into power are now disregarded and held inferior to the personal hatred and subserviency of at least some of the minions of power. It is no use to multiply examples on this point. The two causes of Secession given by those who withdrew and the reasons to which their conduct has been attributed, have been hasti ly considered. There are two other causes of complaint, not yet mentioned—these are not given in justification of secession, but as reasons of dissatisfaction. One of these was the course of the convention in regard to the motion, or resolution of construction of the two thirds rule. This was, or was not, a rule of the convention. If a rule, it never was adopted because that (then) required a two-third vote and this only received 141 to 112. If it was not a rule, then it was a mere resolution, subject to the will of the majority at any time. It was clearly rescinded, or repealed, by the motion made by Gov. Church and re newed by Mr. Clark. Even if it had been a rule, it was repealed, because the motion was adopted unanimously. The motion adopted. after the secession at Charleston, never received a majority of a full convention, and was repealed by the entire vote of the convention, 218 delegates being present. Another objection urged in some quarters, was the unit rule of the convention. This was simply.reducing the common law of the party on the subject of voting to a stat ute. The rule provided that minorities might vote, except in eases when the State conven tion had directed the vote to be cast as an unit. Such had been almost the universal custom of former conventions. The records of conventions will show minority votes from many of the States of the Union. Under the old rules and practice, it seldom, if ever, happened that the majority of an uninstruc ted delegation attempted to stifle the will of the minority. But from the fact that such high-handed efforts were being made by some of the delegations to this convention, the rule was adopted. It *as fully considered and discussed in committee, and passed by a vote of 25 to 2. In the convention it was again fully discussed and adopted by a vote of 107 to 1031. Indeed, the chief, if not the only argument against it, was that it was unnec essary, as the right to cast such votes already existed. This rule received the votes of Ken tucky, Tennessee, half of Deleware, nearly all of Missouri and Arkansas, part of North Carolina and several other delegates who af terwards seceded. But aside from this, it was right in itself. It provided that in cases of instruction so to do, Delegations should vote as a unit. In other cases, delegates should be allowed to vote for themselves. The first part of the Rule can not be objec ted to. When a gentleman accepts the trust under instructions, he does not represent himself, but his State. He has no individual views and if he had, he is in honor bound to suppress them. Any other course of action by the individual, or by the convention, would conflict with State rights and State sovereignty. This method made N. York, Ohio and In diana unanimous for Douglas, and Georgia, Aladama, Mississippi and Louisiana unani mous against him. On the other band, in all cases where the State conventions had neglected or refused to instruct, the delegates were allowed to vote as they saw fit. Any other course would again have been an interference with State Sovereignty, in electing their delegations, and an act of tyrrany by the majority towards the minority. This method gave Judge Douglas. a few votes in Pennsylvania, one in North Carolina, one in Tennessee and one in Virginia. It lost him 3 in Maine, 21 in Connecticut and LI- in Minnesota. Maryland, Missouri and Massachusetts, being equally divided, were not affected by the Rule. All these, however, appear to me to be ob jections hunted up, on purpose, by, men de termined in advance to be dissatisfied, and going abroad iu search of reasons to justify or bolster up as far as possible their course of action. Half the effort to find reasons in favor of the action of the national convention of their party, and in support of its nominees, would lead to a very different result. Not only have we the regular nomination of the National Convention to urge us to the support of Douglas Johnson, but we have also the action of our own delegation. Mr. Douglas received 10 votes on both ballots at Baltimore from our Delegation. This re quired twenty members of our Delegation, while it contained in all 54. In addition to these 20 delegates, the nomination wits*rati fied by several others of the delegation— Messrs. Dawson, Hughes, Jones, McGee, Van Zant, Blood, Brodhead, Clymer, Gloninger and others. Wo have then all the binding force of a regular nomination and we have the usages of the party urging us to the support of our nominees. We have candidates in every way worthy of our support. We have the union and harmony of the Democratic party of the country to preserve. Let no personal prefer ences, or faint dissatisfaction, weaken our strength or divide our forces. 'We have a common enemy before us; let us have no treason in our camp, but stand together as one man for the success of our ticket and our party. Above all, let us not for a moment encourage those who in any event look to a dissolution of the Union, as a remedy for their fancied ills. Beware lest secession from the organization of your party, may land you in the ranks of an army, if not enlisted, at least commanded by officers engaged in constant efforts to accomplish a secession from the Union itself. JOHN CESSNA. BEDFORD, July 10th, 1860. The Sunbury Gazette tells the whole truth in the following article. Read it : Most of our Democratic exchanges have come to us, since the nominations at Bald ! more, in a very shaky condition, and piti fully weak in the knees. They appear not to know exactly to whom they belong, and seem to be anxious for some high authority to tell them for whom to go. Hence they have declared neither for Douglas nor Brock inridge. They present a beautiful specimen of a sturdy press—an edifying example of independent and conscientious journalism, waiting for some action of the State Execu tive Committee to remove all responsibility from their shoulders ; in short, hesitating, until a cabal of scheming politicians and in terested office-holders shall give them their instructions. Why, gentlemen, at this time there is no reason for hesitation. On the one band you have the nominees of the regular Democratic Convention, and on the other the men selected by a factious portion of that body, who twice seceded from the regular organization because they were not allowed to dictate both the platform and the candi date. You have Douglas who has fought out an acknowledged principle of the party— that of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Cincinnati platform—fought it out in the face of the most malicious persecution and violent opposition ; and you have Breckin ridge, that misguided young politician, who has lent himself a willing tool in the hands of Yancey, Jeff. Davis, Rhett, Toombs, Wise and Slidell, who for years have openly avow ed the treason of disunion. Is there reason to waver between the representative of the old doctrines and land marks of the party and the representative of anti-Democratic dogmas, recently devised, and designed ex clusively for the protection and extension of slavery ? Is there occasion for doubt and uncertainty in selecting the standard bearer from the two presented to the party—the one springing legitimately from the regular or ganization, and the other the offspring of a factious assembly drawn off by conspirators and governed by disunionists ? The choice is easy, and the hesitancy dis played most contemptible. It is not the duty of the press to hesitate until a parcel of inter ested politicians, government officials, Ad ministration stipendiaries, custom-house offi cers, tide-waiters, postmasters, Sc., shall mark out the course to be pursued, but, as the conservator of political honesty and the leader of public opinion, the press should Editor and Proprietor. Weak in the .IKnees. take the lead ; and when it abjectly waits to receive instructions from those who are in fact its creatures, it compromises its influence, and very properly f - Jrfeits the respect of the public. And had the Democratic press of the North hitherto spoken out in plain terms against the ruinous doctrines of Southern fire-eaters; slavery extensionists, and clisunionistS, which have been thrust upon the party as its polit ical faith, we would not have been compelled to witness in this section of the Union that wholesale stampede from our ranks Which has reduced us to a minority in the North; and has swollen the ranks of the Republicans until they threaten to overwhelm tis. And if we continuo otir abject subserviency to the slavery domination, y ielding td its every demand, and asking nothing more than to b© its menials; past experience is sufficient to convince us that in a very short time there will not be Democrats enough in the North to elect a township constable. The fight for Douglas is not merely fur principle, but it is for the existence of our party. NO. 5. The advocates of the disunion ticket tell us John C. Breckinridge is no secessionist— that his opinions and sentiments are fervent for the integrity of our great Confederacy.— They point to his renowned ancestry, his gal lantry as a soldier, his talents as a man, his once popularity as a Democratic citizen, and to his distinguished position of Vice Presi dent, as overwhelming proofs of what they se exultingly aver. John C. Breckinridge was once a patriot, and might have execrated as much as any man those who would raise their felon hand against the unity of these States. But, has he not banded himself with secessionists ? Has he not compromised the historic past of his own family by lending himself to the traitorous aims and ambitious aspirations of Southern disunionists ? Is he not the cho sen candidate of that Southern Lucifer, whosd aim for years has been to disrupt the great Democratic party and "precipitate the cotton States into a revolution ?" who, after his se cession from the Charleston Convention, iz4 said to have declared that in that city, with the associations of Calhoun clustering around them, was the proper place, and that the time to inaugurate a Southern Confederacy : and who, in his speech at the Bolters' Convention at Baltimore, proclaimed that because the Congress of the United States had admitted to the sisterhood of States the sovereign State of California, in derogation as he thought of Southern rights, he was prepared to break u this mighty Confederacy, sanctified by the patriotism of our Washington, and the last best hope of oppressed humanity throughout the world ? It will not do to say that this man is not their exponent. Was ho not their leader in secession at Charleston, their chief counsellor at Baltimore and Richmond ? And all know that in their meetings and con ventions, their banner cry has been "Yancey I Yancey !" John C. Breckinridge, say of him what you will, is banded with disunionists. He has his parallel in our own brief history as a nation. A son of clerical ancestry, of brilliant tal ent, at an early age conspicuously and brave ly participated in the struggle of the revolu tion. Ile was brought into intimate soldiery relations with Washington. He took part in the heroic daring and suffering of the lit tle American army that invested Quebec, and when the brave Montgomery fell, dying at the base of its craggy heights, this- young man, his aid-de-camp, shouldered t body of his general, and retreated through the deep snow, until compelled to abandon his precious bur den by the pursuing foe. Through all the •war for independence, none bore a braver part. And after its close, he rivalled Alex ander Hamilton at the bar of New York anti became the very Warwick of the Democracy of that great State. No man was more pop ular and facinating with the people. lle was their idol, and their favor elevated him to the Vice Presidency, and, like Breekinridge, hd too presided over the Senate, but with far greater ability. He even fiercely and almost successfully contended with the great Jeffer son fur the Presidential prize. For some reason, perhaps because of disappointed Pres idential aspirations, he too banded himself with conspirators against the integrity of the Union, and saught its dismemberment. The strong arm of the government pursued hiat to the far-off South, arrested him, and at the city of Richmond Aaron Burr was tried as a traitor. With scarcely a tithe of the treason of a Yancey about him, Aaron Burr, the once Vice President and the idol of his party, died execrated in wretched poverty and ob livion, and his once fair name went down to posterity a hissing and a byword of reproach' and ignominy. At the same city in the State of Virginia, where a Vice President was tried for treason, Secessionists and Disunionists inaugurate another Vice President for their leader. Let John C. Breckinridge ponder well over the cereer, and take warning at the fate of Aaron Bum—State Sentinel. Republican Relics of the Campaign. The New York Herald publishes the fol lowing list of relics, discovered by a political antiquarian, which he proposes to tell cheap' to those who may desire to adorn some cam paign wigwam, The list NS ; ill be read with interest: 1. Handle of the maul with which Lincola split his first rail. 2. Chew of tobacco masticated during the operation. 3. Waistband of breeches split during the operation. 4. Patch of seat ditto. 5. Portrait of the man who stood against tree looking at Old Abe . splitting the rail.— [Old Abe told him if he kept on sogering there he'd never go into Congress, and he didn't.' 6. Horns of the oxen which hauled the rails. 7. Half pint of whiskey (rifle warranted to kill at a hundred yards) distilled in the hollow, by Old Abe. 8. Original tin pot out of which Old Abe took his drinks. 0. View of that grocery, (by " our own ar tist on the spot." 10. String of ono of the original brogans worn by the prophet in his hegira from Ken tucky to Illinois. 11. Half a pound of best Young flysori sold by Lincoln, as a grocer, to the sire of the first white child born in Sangamod county. 12. Pine knot front' the' original hut built by Uncle Abe from lumber got out by hie own hands. 13. Ilair from the mane' of horse which' won a race of which Uncle Abe - was judge. 14. Ditto from tail of losing horse in the' same race. 15. Tooth knocked out of man's head who fought another man, and chose Honest Old Abe for reference. IG. Portrait of Old Abo when he tried to look pretty and frightened a child of ono of the first families in the country into convul sions. There is a Parallel. II