Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1856-01-10
FLOR the Indiana State SENTINEL

inc freslo = bright.
At no period in the history Of our country
have the Democracy been better united and
more thoroughly purged of f~actious spirits.
In Congress the Democracy present an un-
broken front, and have held heir position
against a superior force, with a courage that
would have done honor to the defenders Of
that contest, the shouts of a Marengo victo-
~ will greet our ears before the close of the
year. 1t only remains for US to choose a
standard bearer, then the road to victory will
be plain. We may congratulate ourselves
that so much harmony prevails, and that the
people are not involved in a war Of words
relative to the fitness of candidates for the
Presidency. 1t is true there are always ex-
c~eptions to general rules. We observe that
the Democratic paper at Chillicothe, O., re-
commends the name of Hon. William Allen
for the Presidency. Mr.. Allen is eminently
qualified for that position, and, should he be
nominated, the Democracy would rally to
his support. But this Chillicothe editor has
seen fit to speak disparagingly of Mr.. Doug
las, IN eminent statesman, no less worthy Of
that high position.
Hor. Jesse d. Bright has been spoken of
in connection with the Presidency, in vari-
Gus parts of the Union, and unless we are
mistaken in the signs of the times, he is the
choice Of Indiana. Yet some of the more
tinid imagine that his name will create diff
Guilty in the State Convention, and predicate
that opinion upon the fact that an anony-
nous writer in the Brownstown Democrat
has seen fit to attack Mr.. Bright. But | am
of the opinion that a man of Mr.. Brighrs
standing cannot be vanquished by an anony-
nous writer. This writer charges MIR.
Bright with being a dodger, but the traits of
his character are quite the reverse. All who
know Mr.. Bright, whether friend or foe, will
admit that he has ever been open and frank,
and that frmness and decision have, at all
times, marked his course. The simple fact
that a member, by some accident, is not
present when a vote is taken, does not show
that such member would avoid responsibility
unless it be made to appear that he has at
tempted to conceal his opinions. But no one
ever need be in doubt in regard to Mr..
Brghts opinions upon any leading question,
because he has always fearlessly taken his
positions. But such is the animosity of the
writer alluded to, that he charges that Mr..
Bright is a dodger because his vote is not re-
corded on the passage of the Fugitive Slave
Law or the Nebraska Bill. If this writer
cannot do justice to the living, he should
have some regard for the ashes of the dead.
Who does not remember that distinguished
statesman and able advocate of popular rights
the lamented James " hitcomb? He too
was absent when the vote was taken on the
Fugitive Slave law. So was Cass, and so
was Douglas. The circumstances under
which that vote was taken are still fresh in
the memories Of many Of our people. 1t was
well understood on the day previous, that a
long speech would be made before the vote
was taken. The consequence was, that when
the day arrived, Mr.. Bright and some other
Senators went to the Departments to transact
business for their constituents. and, in the
meantime, the vote was taken before it was
possible for them to reach the Senate cham
Der. But neither Bright, nor Whitcomb,
nor Douglas, nor Cass eau be regarded as
dodgers, because they made not the slightest
attempt to conceal their principles-they
avowed their opinions boldly. Il is well
known hat Mr.. Bright was a member of the
committee frum which the compromise
measures emanated that he was one of the
majority that recommended their passage
that he endorsed them in the Senate-and
that when he returned to his constituents, he
took ground in favor Of all, including the
Fugitive Slave Law, in his speeches.
In regard to Mr.. Brighrs position on the
Nebraska Bill, but little need be said, be-
cause no one is so blind as to doubt that
Mr.. Bright is a thorough Nebraska Demo
craft, and that popular sovereignty has ever
been his POLAR star. The writer that tradu-
ces him, furnishes a sufficient vindicatiou in
the same breath, by saying that Mr.. Bright
was absent from Washington, attending a
Democratic convention. II he was absent.
how was it ,-ossiLle for him to vote? If he
was attending a Democratic convention. he
was certainly in good business, and | hope
the writer has no worse sin to answer for. 1t
would have been we'll If the writer had sta
ted the fact that, at the same convention, Mr..
Bright was among the first to endorse the
Nebraska Bill. and that he has endorsed that
measure in every speech he has made 10 his
constituents.
/ am no man. worshiper, but why should
not do justice to the living and revere the
memory of the dead? In the great contest
Of '43, the Democracy knew well who to
choose as their standard bearers-Whitcomb
and Bright. They fought the battle well, the
victory was won, and more than five thous-
and can datc their conversion to Democracy
at that period. NEBRASKA.