Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1851-04-03
The Jefersonian again.

Our friend Elder is out with another three column ar
ticle. We have only time to make the following notes
The in small type from the Jefersonian
We cannot see the propriey of the editor of the Sem
tinel still harping the Wilmot proviso. BIT few
months since, he exutngly proclaimed through his pa
per- that the Wimot proviso was dead 1t would seem
useless, then, 10 have any controversy about dead
thing.
Not useless so long as you trying to galvanize it
into lie.
Now, as the people were not party to the bargain
by which the dustment measures" as they are call
ed passed. they not, in our opinion, bound by
them. The members of Congress who made the bar
gain may consider themselves bound by ii but they had
the power to bind their constituents We condemn
and repudiate the bargaining system of legislation
The fugitive slave clause in the Constitution
compromise. You would call it bargain Better
denim and repudiate it.
In regard to the sacredness of this bargain, differ
with Mr. Brown He seems think the Union depends
upon the Fugitive law, and that its disturbance would
be fatal We think that law should stand on the same
footing with other laws-that its harsh and obectona
BILE features should be modified and the law made
to conform to the public sentiment.
We do think so, and you think differently, send
some Congress who will repeal it. We shall
not help you.
All have say present, on that subject is that
it, the editor of the Sentinel says the rights of color
ed persons better secured by the present. than the
old law then the South must have been woluy cheated
in the bargain
The rights of the free colored person, we said The
object of the law protect the fugitive, but to
deliver him up claim we are required to do by the
Constitution. The South is in favor of kdnap-
ping under color of law, than you
Mr. Brown says nothing about the Democrats who
voted against the law-Messrs Robinson, Harlan, and
Fitch.
We drew the distinction between those who voted
against the law, and those who in favor of its
peal
We shall not quarrel with Mr. Brown because he pre-
iers Wings to free sOiers; but when have to take
choice will take the free soiler, if he is in favor
Democratic measures generally.
We should vote for neither.
Mr. Julian has done all the Democrats expected o
him. He voted for a Democratic Clerk and Doorkeep
and with the Democrats generally, on party ques
tons.
Mr. Julian refused to for Col Forney, the Dem
ocratic candidate for Clerk but voted with six abo
tionists for c. W Pho, when his vote, and the vot
of another free soiler would have elected Col. F.;
the result was the election of Wing He refused t.
vote for Charles L. Weller the Democratic candidate 70
Doorkeeper, from Ohio, when his alone would hav
secured his election and the result failure to elect
and the old Doorkeeper, with all his Wing employees
held over. This, we presume, what Mr. Elder eH
pected him to do but not what the Democrats OF til
District expected.
Every man who is not willing endorse the q adjust
men apI sing hosannas to the fugitive slav
law will not be recognized a Democrat by the orga
at Indianapolis
And every who is in favor of the adjustment, cal
not he recognized Democrat by Mr.. Elder.
gre intoeran but he is in the line of his duty in pre-
ferring Mr.. Julian, to a compromise Democra
Your friend Mr.. Julian is already a candidate. EleC
him, if you cam but would prefer the election of
Democrat. If that cannot be done, let US have NJ
tional Wing, who will support the Compromise mea
e ures, as Mr.. McGaughey is doing. If there is
a be a race between Julian and Wing, as who
= the best abolitionist, then say, hands off.