Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1854-09-01
Nebraska Biil-.EIder.-Confessi sc.

Nebraska observation-disclosures, sc.
Our intended notice Of the leader Of the Jeffer-
sonian of the 18th inst, did not appear last
week. owing to the disturbance occasioned by
the fire. which threatened to leave standing but
little else Of the Palladium than the memory Of
where We had been. There are some things
however. in that leader, which we are not willing
should pass unnoticed. although the scathng re-
ply Of the Democrat leaves hardly anything Of
the article itself. and but little more than hair
of its ostensible authors head to operate upon
1t charges the opponents Of the Kansas and Ne
braska bill with dealing in bombast, while upon
the issue Of right respecting the measure it de-
hes controversy. 1t is truly wonderful with
what urgency and self confidence an absurdity
may be supported If school-boy were to de-
clare that twice two make three, and charge Lo,a-
basf upon his playmate because he insisted that
twice two make four. he would be in position
precisely similar to that occupied by the editor Of
the Jefersonan. We have no hesitancy in de-
claring that there has never been. in or out of
Congress, . single argument adduced in support
of that part Of the Kansas bill which repcals the
Missouri Compromise, that will stand a half hours
exercise OF common sense, saying nothing about
enlightened. cultivated reason. And yet the JEFF
fersonian has the hardihood to defy controversy.
DEFY controversy, forsooth. when every defence
OF this measure has been ground absolutely into
powder, by overwhelming argument that brand
1t. beyond all question, as an infamy un-
called for. and indefensibe. And the read
ers of our neighbours article will search in vain
Tor anything to support or justify the Douglas
bill. Did any portion of the people of this ma
ton demand it? No, and no one will offer such
pretence. Was it needede No, for neither Of
the territories contained any lawful inhabitants
who were citizens of the United States. Was it
in accordance with the assurances and the pledged
faith Of the party in power? No, but in direct
opposition thereunto. A Democratic House of
Representatives, in 81. resolved to abide by the
established Compromises, and deprecated all
future agitation Of the vexed question Of slave
ou." The hast Democratic coT1snuon'to irveneu
.t Baltimore, declared, THAT the Democratic
party will resist all attempts at renewing in Con
gress. or out Of it, the agitation Of the slavery
question, under ,chatever shape color the attempt
may be made" Upon this plank the present Ad-
ministration rode into power, and President
Pierce referring to this 'fnali'y" said IL his in
augural address. that the harmony which had
been secured by it, should not be disturbed du-
ring his term Of Office. And in his message at
at the beginning Of the last Congress. he used
this language. recurring to this same subject
'.Th.t this repose is to suffer no shock during my
official term, If l have the power to avert 1t
those who placed me here may be assured =
That the passage Of the Nebraska bill was IN op
position to the principles upon which the presen
Administration came into power, in opposition
70 all former creeds, Platforms tenets and resolu
tons Of the so-caled Democratic party North
will not be questioned by any sane mind. Eacl
member Of that party must right about face
must with the editor Of the Jeffersonian. sing on
Post Office, presto, ehange-must eat his forme
positions, and face the music that formerly wa
50 sweet, Is if it came from silver throats-mus
do all this if he presumes to support the Nebras
Ia BILL But were the wishes Of the people con
suited in this matter-dd they desire the repes
of the Missouri Compromise? No! 1t wa
forced upon the country in utter defiance OF tn
peoples will, expressed IN an unmistakable mar
ner. 1t is not to be believed that there is an ii
telligent man anywhere to be found, who think
for moment that the reverenced compact
1890, would have been repealed by direct vo
Of the people? Then what becomes of the Pri'
ciple Of popular sovereignty? 1t is an abortio
conceived in infamy, and brought forth an und
welcomed swindle! A bastard--in no wise legi'
mate either by the laws of God or Man!
The article we are noticing says:
1.-THE case is simply this: Congress has pass'
law for the organization Of Nebraska and Ma
sas territories. In reviewing the history of u
past, and looking forward to the prospects of Il
future. they have determined that the mere locs
ity Of any citizen Of the United States, does n
in any wise impair his right to pass upon I
character Of the government under which
Gves-or. in the language Of the Declaration
Independence, the right to life. liberty and t
pursuit Of happiness" Hence they have said
the Nebraska bill. that whether man resides
State or in territory, he is still entitled to
rights and privileges of other citizens
r. TO which the Democrat pungently replies:
IF this is IN emana.icn from 1be s NJ liz; Il
the reader will deem il aAA~>-Sr A =,
HI.-~G~ and ernoluments. 1t certainly I
not led the illuminated to tell the truth; II
\. ,,e.n. that the ciaisens OF the ter
sne aoove - ne" rights and privileges As
tory hsye the Sssss-and it me.as this if an
c's4g@lt = untrue. Is he must well know II
ever rs.d 10 bill. 1t is not true. even, that d
H1 ~ character of the 8overnmens Ice
-. rs withheld this right from the people.
\. .s.umed it itself, and has passed law to
s-,;,n the government, which prescribes