Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

i.'-r. tuuxHuKisrs sake-“but you right, teuieast GO ahead-” VOLUME 6. THE INDEPENDENT BLADE, PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY MORNING T. W- BOLTON, EDITOR * FKOFKIKTOK TERMS : For one year, if paid in advance $2 00 “ “ “ if not paid in advance 250 For six months, if paid in advance 1 00 •* “ “ if not paid in advance 125 No paper will be discontinued until all anvma jjes are paid, unless at the option of the proprietor. Platform.of llie Democratic Party adopted in Committee at the Charleston Convention by a vote of Seventeen to Six tern Stales — re-affirmed unanimously by the Convention of Twenty one Seetding States at Baltimore, and endorsed by Breekinridye and Lane. Resolved , That the platform adopted liv tlie Democratic paitv at Cincinnati lie at’ firmed, with the following explanatory reso lotions: Ist, Resolved, That the government of a Territory, organized by an act of Con gress, is provisional and temporary, anil ilnring its existence, all citizens of the Uni ted States have an equal right lo settle with their property in the Territory without rights either of person oi property being destroyed or impaired by congressional or territorial legislation. Sit — R-fUTihsd-'fhni it is the duty of the Jetleral Government in nil its departments to protect., when necessary, the rights of persons and property in the Territories, and wherever else its constitutional authority extends. 3d. Resolved , That wlier. th* settlers in a Territory, having an adequate population, from a State Constitution, the right of sover e'gnlv commences, aiuHieing consummated hv admission into the Union, they stand on an eijtial footing with the people of other States —and the State thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union, whether its constitution prohibits or recog nizes the institution of slavery. 4th. Resolved, That the democratic par ty are in favor of the acquisition of the Island of Cuba on sm-h terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just lo Sp in, at the earliest practicable moment. sth. Resolved , That the enactment of State Legislatures to defeat the faithful ex- ’ eV-mion of the fugitive slave law are hostile in character, subversive of the constitution, and revolutionary in their ellect. oth. Resolved , That the democracy of the United Stabs recognizes’ it as the im perative duty of ihis government to protect the naturalized citizen in all his rights, whethei at home or in foreign lands, to the same extent as its native horn citizens. And whereas one of the greatest necessi- I ties of the age, in a political, commercial, postal and military point of view, is a speedy communication between the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, therefore, he it. Resolved , That the democratic party do hereby pledge themselves to use every means in their power to secure the passage of some bill, to the extent of the constitu tional authority of Congress, for the consti tution of a Pacific i ail road from the Missis sippi river to the Pacific ocean, at the ear liest practicable moment. Acceptance of Hon. John C Breck inridye of the Nomination for the Presi dency. Washington Crrv, July 6, 1860.. Deau Siii : I have your letter of the 23d inst.,by which J am officially informed of my nomination for the office ot President of the United States hy the Democratic N: tional Convention lately assembled at llaltimoie. The circumstances of this nomination will justify me in referring to its personal aspect. I have not sought, norjjesired to he placed before the country for the office of President. When my name was presented to thb con vention at Charleston it was withdrawn by a friend in obedience to inv expressed wish es. Mv views had not changed when the convention re assembled at Baltimore, and when I heard of the differences which oc curred there,my indisposition to be connect ed prominently with the canvass, was con firmed ami expressed to many friends. Without discussing the occurrences which preceded the nominal ions and which are, or *oon will be, well understood by the country, I have only to say that I approved, as just and necessary to the preservation of the national organization, ami the sacred rights of representation, the action of the Conven tion over which you continued to preside ; and thus approving it, and having resolved to sustain it, I feel that it does not become me to select the position I shall occupy, nor to shrink from the responsibilities of the post to which I have been assigned. Ac cordingly I accept the nomination from a aense of public duty, and as I think unin fluencedl in Hny degree, by the allurements character, implied by’the action of the con vention, will always be gratefully remember ed, and it is but just also to my fellings, to express gratification at the association of my panje with that of iny friend Gen. Lane,a pat riot and a soldier, whpse great services in the field and in council entitle him to the great- The resolutions adopted by the conven tion have my cordial approval. They are just to all parts of the Union, to all our citi zens, native and naturalized, and tbcj form a noble policy for any administration. The questions touching the rights of per j sons and property, which have of late been much discussed, find in these resolutions a constitutional solution. Our Union is a con- j federacy of equal, sovereign States for the purposes enumerated in the federal ooiißii*gj lotion. Whatever the common g ov u>'*M§jiii§ in trust for all the jovnl equally by each, il controls the-Yttl'-I ritories in trust for all the States. Nofmuji less than sovereignty can destroy or impatH the rights of persons or property. The territorial governments are subordinate and tempoary, not sovereign, hence they cannot destroy or impair the rights of persons or property. While they continue to be terri tories they are under tbe control of Con gress ; but tbe constitution no where confers| on any branch of the federal government the! power to discriminate against the rights of the Stales or I lie property of their citizens in the territories. It follows that the citizens <rf ali the States may enter the Territories of the Union with their property —of what ever kind —and enjoy it during (lie territo rial condition without let or hiriderance either hv Congress or by tbe subordinate erniiicnts, and from the equality of ihe Stale-. Indeed, they are essential to that c. |iinl ii s’ which is and ever has been the vital j principle of our roiififttattririm Union. They have been settled legislatively, settled judi cially, and are sustnineii bv right and reason. They rest on the rock of the constitution. — They will preserve the constitution—they will preserve the Union. It is idle to attempt lo smother these great, issues or to misrepresent them by the use. of I partisan phi uses, which are misleading and J delusive. The people will look beneath such expressions as “ intervention, emigres- J s : onal slave code,” and the like, and will penetrate to the real questions involved.— j The friends of constitutional equality do not ami never did demand a congressional slave I code, in regard lo properly in theTerritotiegjj| 1 hey hold the doctrine of non-intei ■be-Congress nr liv a territorial Lcgislaiain | • ll.cl |o c-t ahli-ll ..I pieliUt MM they assert, (fortified by the liigtseSf jtfi®| tribunal in the Union) the plain duty of u ;* federal government in all its lo secure when necessary, to the citizens OFI all the Stales, (lie enjoyment of their prop- J ei tv in tlie common Territories, as also every wlmre else within its jurisdiction. The only j logical answer to this would seem to he to j claim sovereign power for the Territories OjgJ lo deny that the constitution recogntfjjjgH properly in the service of negro slaves,or to J deny ihat such property can exist. ,-g Inexorable logic, which works its steady way through clouds and passion, cgjltpels us to meet the issue. There is noefijftbi..faid- j die ground. Already the signs mj) and. t- \ a fanatical and s.ii h den.-- ilmt under the by nss? ot'ne, law, slave property I think it will be imposeiWOSrn Undid mind to discover hostility to lb* Union, Or a taint of sectionalismin the resolution* adapt ed by the convention. The constitution and l lie Union repose on tire equality of the Slates, which lies like a broad foundation underneath our whole political structure.— As I construe them the resolutions simply assert this equality. They demand noth ing for any State or section that is not j cheerfully conceded to all the rest.. It ,iej well to remember that tbe chief disorder* which have offlicted our country have gro*ijji out of I lie violation of State equality ; a bad that as long as this great principle has be erfq respected, we have been blessed with har-sj inony and peace. Nor will it be easy to j persuade the country that the resolutions 1 are sectional which command the ■jMM-'irt ; of the majority of the States, U’ ’ proved by the bone and body of itbtßolti j democracy, and by a vast mass of coitlOna live opinion everywhere, without regard'H party. It has been necessary, more than once joJ our history, to pause and solninly assert tJbgJ true character of this government. A mflje! inorable instance occured in the struggle! which ended the civil revolution of 1800.7—J The republicans of that day, like the deifiS-'l cracv of this, were stigmatized asdisunion ists but they nobly conducted the contest under Ihe constitution, and saved our politi cal system. By a-like constitutional strug le i; is intended now to assert and establish the equality of the States as the only basis of union and peace. When tjris object, so of the whole country jPjflKt together with the bonds of reurrboiiHMfwpf U.vtU-r Umi. and to impel it onward in ,- • The Constitution and the equally of u • HEWNAN, GA„ FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 1860. IState|4 These are symbols of everlasting liawgsLet these be the rallying cries of ttifeoliat this canvass will he conduct jMjjMHt4utncor, and that temperate argil the place of hot words and HHHPptcnsntions. Above all, I veii gpMbly to hope that Divine l’rovi ■lpriiom we owe our origin, our iftl our prosperity, will continue beloved country against all gtrHHn and domestic. I am, with your John C. Bueckiniuimik. l’residenl of the Demo ('^■hition. ;?EEH|or e c. mobley, esq,., itn'ftii HEr Breekinridye and Lone Meet', to, immGra nril/e, Meriwether County, 0,1 Wig 1° your call, w hen it. is to vindi- JgjpohVa cause as you have espoused. MHpvocuting a Platform of principles ■Bpw regard, and have regarded ever e I entered 1 lie political Hrena. as true exposition of our Constitutional Rights.— But having belonged to the American, alias , Opposition party of Georgia, I ask the priv Ifljlge of this meeting (if briefly stating my in this Presidential contest and mv for it. I feel it a duty that I owe to mivself and the party with which 1 have hitherto acted. I feel it also a duty that I Pfive to those, who have stood shoulder U-T. shoulder with me in our opposition to the great National Democratic Party, and who life here to day as well as scattered liroad- Hp over Georgia, the same valiant soldiers in„the defence of our constitutional rights. t under the American banner, | ieve, are all actuated in our ■kinridge and Lane, by the ml the same reasons. There ition of those motives and 1 am gow about to make, 1 liing to all those who have e in former struggles. h me; and shall positively leaver to demonstrate, ;that i Lo the whole Opposition ia, and ought to contrdHßpH -outest. 1 do not i iny dictatorial spirit tdlnHCj uml of them nothing tnmfiE fact* and nrginneiits as tbjM •con firm t tfotr of Tl iif pajJHH I here I would remaGHHH ami waging pefttbnal wars If I freely concede to one and in the heat of discusSion and I feel for the cause that baa issemblage together to-day, 1 liing seemingly harsh, I now ten tion of wounding any gen lgs or wantonly tampering Vnd, in this connection, 1 WOgld further state, that when I use the ■Mi Douglasi.tes, 1 do not mean to include fiereby those South, wdio are inclined to Kvor the nomination of Judge Douglas, but ■un mid bis Northern adherents, who have HToroughly imbibed his heresies, and who mow advocate them in tlieir fullness and en-, “ieety. With these explanations, l sjiall proceed, hoping tliat no one will nlisunder .stand me on this occasion. ■L Americanism was murdered in its swad- Bling clothes, and the “ lloaling art ” of 1” ‘led lo inspire its lifeless corpse ion. Therefore, it forming no contest, can lay no claim to our to-day. But in the campaign hich this Americanism received muds, that parly clearly reveal ity to “ Popular Sovereignty,” edge “to abide by and main ting laws upon the subject of ining the Compromise ineas >,) as a final and conclusive set at subject in spirit and in sub by further staling that, “ es rmitting any expression of opin power of Congress to establish avery in any Territory; it ra dio National Council that Con rot to legislate upon the sub y within the Territory of the. i.” How “ ought Congress not ’ Why to “ establish or pro ve, it is clearly perceivable that I Council intended to plant the ie principles of the Utah and Bills. Presuming that no man t fact. I will not now elabor is in the process of the discus >liticnl issues of the day, I will i to aiialize the principles of My object now is, to hunt out jsWiat principles Georgia and tiio South, as by the two parties here, aro committed to ; and, therefore, what princi ples they ought now avow. In the;campaign of 1066, the very next year following, the whole fight iB Georgia was made upon iDouglasism amlThe Kansas Bill. It i* truer Uiere were other minor issues involved in ■g campaign, but that was tlie vital issue, Eid the only issue then involved, that ,has “lived down to this hour. The American ||*rty met at Macon, in State Convention, afid adopted the following resolution as the exponent of their creed ; “ The Territory of the United States we recognize as tlie erm moii property of all the States as co-equal sovereignties, and as such, open to settle ment by (the eitizens of the Slates with their propertyjas matter of right; am) that no power resides, either in Congress or the (Territorial Legislature, or the people of the : Territories, while a Territory, to exclude from settlement in any Territory any por ! tion of the citizens of this Republic with their property, legally held in ihe State* front which they emigrate. We repudiate, therefore, the doctrine commonly called squatter sovereignty in the Territories.” The doctrine, couched in this resolution, to me tsntayiouia jojlip principles ejbrimed in the 1 flat form of the Constitu tional Democratic party. It is true that they do not insist upon “protection” ex press Iv ; yet, I think they do hy implica tion. For that resolution declares that none of the powers enumerated therein could ex clude us. Then, in the event, they did at tempt it, if such was the basis and tlie end upon, which and for which the general Gov eminent was foimetl, as declared by that resolution, then it is no government of law, and constitution hut of usurpation or impo tent-)’, if through its agency, weakness or want of interposition lo prevent it, we are thus unjustly excluded from this common domain. Dunce, it is undeniable that, occu pying this position, that tlieir whole opposi tion to the National .Democratic party point ed at and centered upon DouglHsistn or. squatter sovereignty. It formed the Sebas uqiol L which we leveled all our avtillei v. Around it was the thundering din of battle; and upon it hung the fate of parties. We labored liard in that contest to make the Democratic party responsible for the acts, heiesi.es ami opinions of Judge Douglas and his followers; and they labored equally as hard to exhonorate Ihe party from such irn - ’ potations ; at the same time plating a con struction upon the Kansas Bill ami Cincin nati Platform unexceptional within itself.— To such liighls was ihe public mind aroused that Judge Douglas’ reply to the lion. Geo. S. Houston, of Ala., in w hich reply he claim ed the Kansas Bill the same, m principle, as the Conmißltlise measure!s of 1860, ami <le dared hfPobject to be, by tliat Bill, to wipe out “ a geographical line—a dividing line between free territory and slave territory ” 1—“ to iuTistitntq ”in lieu thereof” the great wMllslitutional principle ” that was to “ pre- Ksrv* arid penjetuate the fundamental priii s'f*. • y-dki'-r^ HKiiOy through Georgia.’ To tll*t swoie BRw-'whs ‘ heralded the reply of the lion. PRlfijl. imjkjcharilson to Archibald Williams, in whichijje #t(ded that, “the Kansas Ne braska act w m based upon the true princi ples of the tniistiiiitiou in recognizing the right of each Stale and Territory, prepara tory to its admission into the Union, to form and regulatedheir domestic institutions in their own wav.” Bear with me, then, while I minutely, vet blieflv, notice these past issues. We then opposed, in the campaign of 1856, the Kan sas Bill, and therefore tlie Cincinnati Plat form, (for they are one and the same in prin ciple,) on this question, upon the following grounds: Ist. Jqdge Douglas said that it contained squatter sovereignty. As I have intimated, npKedSouthern Democrat defended Judge position, but denied that it was fegitmjately dedncable from the Kansas BiH. Hence, yon perceive that there was’no disa greement between a Southern ’Democrat and an American of Oppositionist in principle ; blit the division that did exist was owing tp the fact, that the Democrat supported the Kansas Bill, believing that it did not contain squatter sovereignty, and the Oppositionist refused to support it, because he believed il did—w hile both alike refused it. We ob jected also to a Southern endorsement of the Bill, because its language was ambiguous, and (Jid admit of two constructions. Blit we were answered that, that ambiguity con tained a “juditial question,” which was to he decided by the Supreme Court. I always understood it as a judicial question and ap prehend the country so understood it. It w-aa so declared in Congress and out of Con gress. Therefore, those who now desire -tftff Cincinnati Platform, pure and aimple, and without any explanation ; and therefore rnziritain tliat the Democratic party always, denied that it was susceptible of two con strut tions, misrepresent facts, as will ineon jirovertihly appear hy reference to the rec ord. But let us enquire why it was made a “judicial question i” Why Judge Douglas said that tlie people of a territory, while a territory, could exclude slavery therefrom, and possessed the solo power to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. The South would not subscribe to the doc ! trine. Hence, if each wing of the party had insisted upon its own theory, it would have inevitably disrupted the party then. But, in order to prevent disruption aruf preserve harmony, each wing ignored its own theory, made tlie language of the Bill admit of each one’s views; and then, by way of further compromise, made it A “judicial question ” To’tSTfccided by the Supreme Court of the United State* ; and, by solemn contract and solemn agreement, each wing bound itself to abide that decision, whatever it might be, and whether pro. or con. Hence, wherever that decision should be made this diversity of opinion was to cease, and the party from thenceforth was to be a unit in sentiment j and opinio® exactly upon and according to that decision. That decision, whenever made, ; was- to be an end and inality of all contro versy thereon within the ranks of the Demo cratic party. Hence, all those that claim r hat Judge Douglas is consistent, or charge tliAt Southern Democrats ruined him at the ■dm up in ’56 ami sr are ignorant of overlook it. But j o prove the fact, ! view and theory e division in the ‘vlfttCßt~prrrtTcs vsf sition to Douglas tore directly eon centrated in the campaign of 1857. Then the whole matter was fully developed, and the whole country fully understood it. The decision had been made, the constitution expounded ami the contract ready to be ful ly consummated. And to learn how near the South was a unity in sentiment and opinion, no sooner was thnt decision made, (familiarly known as the Dred Scott Decis ion,) than the Oppositlbrt party of Georgia and elsewhere planted themselves upon it, and declared it to he a true exposition of our constitutional rights. The Democratic party, according to tlieir plighted faith and solemn contract, were pledged to accept and abide what the Opposition party declared was a true exposition of our constitutional rights, ami, therefore, the two parties were necessarily a perfect unity in sentiment bis this leading am! vital Issue. But Judge Douglas refused to'tfliide this decision. ‘He began to indulge ip technicalities ; began to quibble; began to indulge in subtilty and nice distinctions'to evade at least with the color of excuse his solemn agreement. So full of sophistry and scholastic fineness and every other thing that constitutes a quibble, was his meager defence that we read it with both pain and contempt-, and conclude that lie is hotter fitted for that age, in which met aphysical jargon bewildered all phylosophy and bamboozled all theology limn ihe nine teen th century. II ere, in the fulness cf his ] conceit and tlie baseness of his design, he owes Iris fall and his ruin. But the Demo cratic pnrtyj-i|i,thiit campaign and at that lime, would not repudiate bin:. He bail not ! abandoned, the parly. He lmd not then j appeared asTflSormitlable adversary to bas flc-tbii Jr-1 .m fiEHftsjaay v U had % not. ilicii igiiudiwtyl tire DreicScott Decision.— But ill pardies Soutli endorsed that decision; and again ihe issue between the parties was engwuifeted by this Douglas element. The democratic, party met us upon the Kansas Bill and Cincinnati Platform, triumphantly proclaiming that neither of them contained squatter-sovereignty; for, according to them, the people of a Territory must regulate their domestic institutions in tlieir own wav, sub jeet. to the Constitution of the United States; and tee Supreme Court had decided I.lihl, that (.’destitution was irreconcilable with squatter sovereignty. \Ve pled again, in answer to this, the posilion of the Douglaa ites, and demanded a repudiation of them or else maintained that tlie party to which they belonged was responsible for tlieir acts and liere'ies. In justification of this posi tion we pointed to J.-.sc Buchanan’s course in Kansas, and charged thaCßobt. J. Walk er, acting under instructions, was carrying out Douglasisin in Kansas. that campaign is fully set forth in tlie foU lowing resolution adopted by us in State Convention : A “ That we have seen nothing which we regard as new in Walker’s course in Kansas, ami that the principles maintained, and the policy advised, are identical with the princi ples set fqrth in the Kansas Bill as advocat ed by the National Democracy, with the Cincinnati Platform and Mr. Buchanan’s letter of acceptance.” We hat already seen why the Southern Democrat and an Oppositionist differed upon the Kansas Bill and Cincinnati Plat lorm. Then let us now examine hew and why upon Walker’s course in Sod ‘the following resolution in matter, adopted by the I jjpaooratUjpglj:of Georgia in State Con veßti|Mp*fcjßHrbodving their position : ! ‘ the inaugural address of Gov. WalHPhs prescribing the terms on should admit Kansas into the artd in attempting to dictate the submimbU'of their constitution for ratifica tion, and to what class of persons constitutes a presumptuous interference in matters and that the same address, in expressing his support,that side of the question is a gross departure from the principles of non-inter vention and lien trailty which were establish ed l>y the Kansas Bill; and this convention I bus full confidence that Mr. Buchanan will J manifest his fidelitt* tW the principles that! carried him into offieienjji recaliin£^|j||j| lienee, there was no diversity of opinion j about. Walker’s course—alUperties denounc ed him and his acts—bdl while we regarded it as eminating iioan Mr. Buchanan, an'd as the fruit of Donglasism, they were content NUMBER 1. I those principles by repudiating Walker’s course. Hence, they denied and we affirm ed that lie was acting under Buchanan’s | instructions. Therefore, the issue was not | concerning the correctness of Walker’s j course, but about the fact whether or not Mr. Buchanan gave the instructions. And \ now, why did Mr. Buchanan give these in structions? Because this same refractory, Douglas element was thundering its dentm ! ciations against tlie Leeompton Constitution, j threatening to oppose it and its supporters, and to disrupt the party. Mr. Buchanan, you recollect, even consulted Judge Doug las to ascertain if those “instructions” met his full approbation. Hence, it was not of Me-. 44hcIisr' own free will nnd accord that he gave these instructions, Snt in defer ence to Judge Douglas, or else whv consult him. Then he caused these “instructions” to be given in order to preserve tlie party and secure harmony, and is properly re sposible for Walker’s conduct; sot he not only endorsed it, but opposed the admission of Kansas because they were not carried out in full and to tlie letter. Then he caused fully and solely the divison that existed in the South in the campaign of 1857, and en girded tlie issues that divided the parties here, lie stood in Georgia, in tliat cam paign, in the unenviable attitude of a friend less man, while the denunciations of both parties of his policy and principles foretold pining confidence, and growing hatred, and sliijhorn opppsitiou throughout the South.— But let U 8 now enter the campaign of 1859, and see why the South was not united.— When Kansas asked for admission, tinder the Leeompton Constitution, and the Presi dent recommended, and the great bulk of the party advocated her admission under thnt constitution, Judge Douglas and his followers opposed it, and by that opposition, defeated the design of the party. Not con tent with tliat, he proclaimed war against the administration, and endeavored to hold it up to the ridicule of the country. It was the potency and influence of this element that engendered the English Bill. It was formed but to pander lo him and his follow ers, and thereby reunite the dissevered Democracy. Then, again this petulant and contran element reared its perfideous crest but to distract I lie National Democratic par ty or else bring it to humiliating terms. — From a misguided sense of its importance, a reckless spirit and party tyrany it began to manifest, in the most alarming mode, a set tlgd delei inimitiwn to rule or min thejiartjr. But tins ?i uit oTlKi* element was ;bi issue and ihe theme of the two parties lust tear. Douglas’ eulogies had ceased in the South ; she no longer regarded him as a friend ; and he was spurned by all parties. Even candi dates for Congress found it necessary to denounce biin, and pledge tlie people that they would not vote for him. The Opnosi tiou party, with an e\e to this disruption,- adopted a platform, last year, insisting upon “ protection ;” culled it from the Dred Scott Decision, and formed it tlie same in theory and doctrine as the platform of the Consti tutional Democratic party of to day. The Democratic party made no war upon that platform. They conceded its justness, equi ty and constitutionality. Now, to show you that I do not misrepresent the parties, I have an article in the Augusta Constitutionalist of the Bth of Augu't, 1859, which reads as follows: 1 “ The constitution of tbe United State* to the same protection as property of any other description; and tlie Democratic party therefore does not deny the constitutional power of Congress to legislate for the pro tection of slave property in the Territories.” He concludes this article by especially com mending the.following extract from a recent letter of Humphry Marshall of Kentucky: “Asa practical statesman in the piesent condition of public sentiment as to slavery, I would say that the South bas tbe deepest in terest in tranquilizing the public mind on the whole series of questions connected with slhv ry.and therefore,! would say that we wait for the occasion, which shall prove by the judg ment of a court of competent jurisdiction that the remedy is wanting to ensure the practical enjoyment of the slave-holders rigths in the Territories ; but whenever that fact appears, I would apply to Congress, if necessary, to afford that remidy. and I would agitate session after session and Congress after Congress until I obtained my rights and until l could embody the popular senti ment lo do the Southern people justice un der the Constitution.” No wonder Mr. Marshall is now a constitutional Democrat and doing zealous labor for Breckinridge and Lane, for no better definition of tbeir policy and principles could to day be given, than is contained in this extract from bis letter and “especially commended ” last year by the Augusta Constitutionalist. But I i need not refer alone to this paper, to show J where both parties stood. Your own imme diate representative in Congress, the Hon. Fhem and told us to stand by them in 1860 and we would all be together. J. J. Jones took about the same position in the eight Congressional Dislriot, and in the adjoining District, Ala., the contest between Mr. Judge and Mr. Clopton appeared to he, which could I prove himself the best proteotionist aud th*