Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1855-09-20
INDIANAPOLIS INDIANA, THURSDAY MORNING, sEPTEN

vast change for the better in the affairs of om
State. By the combination of a secret oath
bound order with all the fags and ends and
isms of the day, the Democracy were defeat
/ ed, and these new relormers, these patrons
of morals and models of good government
had been placed in po%er-ths bright sun OF
! Democracy was for the time being obscured
by clouds. But after these men had got into
power, what did they DO towards legslaiing
the State into that political millennium prom
ised by them? Nothing Literally, nothing!
! They were not the bold advocates Of Reform
/ in the Legislative Halls which it was told us
from the stump they would be. They pro-
posed no new measure of State policy, adyO-
Gated no new principle of Reform, nor even
acted boldly and openly upon old issues. They
had proved conclusively by their nothing
! policy, that to trust them again with power
would be fatal to the best interests OF the
State.
They had proposed an Apportionmes
Bill but such bill. They were determin-
ed to genymander the State into Know Moth
ingism when their brass knuck, honse- burn
ing arguments failed to satiafy the prone Qf
Ishe excchefeIesof thaf delectabIe ins{it on
But their Apportionment Bill failed to pass.
And why? Because the Bill was bill Of
inconsistencies, of abominable outrages and
Of the greatest unfarness.
Democratic counties were to be attached to
Know Nothing counties, and the Democratic
party thus be shorn of its strength. And the
bill would have been al unconstitutional one
had 1t passed The county of Dubois was
left out Of the bill. She was to have no
Representative because. perhaps, large
proportion of her citizens were foreigners.
This Apportionnent Bill was but fair spec
linen of the balance of the bills proposed by
this Fusion, Know Nothing, Abolition Leg
islature. There was the election of United
States Senator also. Who did this new party
propose to represent the Union loving, the
Constitution-revering State of Indiana in the
Senate of the United States? An Abolition
ist--a sectional, bigotted, illibcral man. He,
with his fellow Senators, n noble band OF
twcnty-six men of nerve and determination
had resolved that the fair fame of our flour
ishing State should not be tarnished by so
foul blot. They had put off the election
they had taken appeal from this Fusion
Legislature to the people-and upon their
decision would they stand or fall. He would
ne had told his fellow Senators, stand or fall
with them on this issue-he preferred politi-
cal death TO political dishonor.
This Legislature had given us one law-the
Temperance Lava law which prevented
many of the old, grey headed, honest men then
listening to him from sitting upon a jury in a
case involving the issue Of quart of whisky
law which destroyed the legal and constitu-
tional right TO enioy property law which
opened the citizens parlor, his bed-chamber
and private apartments to the minlons of law
that they might search. seize, confiscate and
destroy his property on the most trivial evil
dence--a law which forced man to prove
himself innocent instead of making his pros
ecutors prove him guilty-a law, in Short as
oppressive and odious, as it is unjust and un-
constitutional. And yet, because the State
Democratic Convention did not pass resottl-
tions in reference to this Temperance Law,
thereby seemingly, at least debating to the
Supreme Court, in whose hands it now is, and
whose decision for or against, will soon be
given to the people, these Abolition Know
Nothing, Fusion Reformers have raised a
great cry.
The decision of the Court in the case will
be supreme--for himself he would be willing
to be governed by it, let the decision be pro
or con. But should the Court decide il un-
constitutional, what a howl would FusiUnism
send up? They teach the people to despise
the Constitution and the laws; they will not
hesitate to denounce those whose province it
is to sit upon and decide the Constitutionalty
Of those laws.
Gov W. then spoke Of the questions of
slavery, the Missouri Compromise, and the
I ia1 hx
the Democratic party and the party of isms
opposed to it. lie proved by the highest au-
thorities that the position of the Democratic
party on these questions was in consonance
with the views entertained by most of the old
Fathers and distinguished Statesmen of the
! Republic. lie read the letter of Mr.. JKFFEB-
Son in opposition to the Missouri Compro
mise, and showed therefrom that the princi.
pies of non-intervention with this question
of slavery was a favorite principle of the all
thor of the Declaration of independence, the
sage Of Monticello. That this principle, as
embodied in the Nebraska Kansas Bill, was
the true policy to be pursued in reference to
the question of slavery. Sectional parties
were the bane of Republicanism - Of the
/ Union. They would be denounced by al
true Republcans-by all honest patriots
This part of his speech was the most eloquent
argumentative, and convincing appeal We
have yet heard upon the slavery question
!, His exposition Of the perniciousness of Know
Nothingsn was as convincing of its rotten
ness and corruption as it was eloquent and
life-ike. The whole speech. in fact, was
master effort of a master mind, and we regre
exceedingly our want of space to give it il
full. We may, hereafter, publish further ex
tracts from it.
Gov. w. waN frequently interrupted by th,
most enthusiastic applause, and his speech
throughout was received with the creates
demonstrations Of delight.
Hon. s. H. BusKIRK, Of Bloomington, fol
lowed Gov. w, in a speech of great power
and eloquence. His speech was the strongest
argument we have yet heard against the isms
of the fsctional opposition. The two points
of controversy, he said, between the Demo
cratic and Fusion parties, are the Slavery anC
Know Nothing questions. On the former
the Democratic party maintained the only
true National and Republican ground. They
were steadfast in their adherence to the prin.
, ciple of Non Intervention, the only National
position to be assumed on the question
This was the doctrine of Jefferson, of Jack.
. son, of Cas-, of Clay, Of Webster, and, in fact
of all the leading and distinguished states
men of the old Whig and of the Democratic
parties. The Fusion party, however, occup,
, the most ultra sectional grounds. They op
pose the right of the people in the States o
Territories to settle the queston-they tax,
, the power out of the peoples hands ant
place it in the hands of Congress; curtailin:
the liberties of the people in the settlemen
, Of question in which they were deeply in
terested.
/ The Fusionists were for tho restoration o
the Missouri Compromise. Jefferson wa
opposed to this Compromise; it virtually CAV
up territory to slavery which might otherwis
E be free.
2 He quoted from Washington, Jefferson
5 and Others, against the building up of sec
, tional parties in the country. They wer
r the certain fore-runners of dissolution o
Q the bonds of National Union now existin