Weekly North Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1850-1858, 1857-12-09

ssThe Standard'' .Ssver ssDodees."

ssThe Standard'' - Nicer ssDodses." .
The last Register contains the following, which
presents more mistakes and misrepresentation than
We remember to have seen in the same num-
Der OF lines:
"IHE STANDARD DoDGEs.-The Raleigh Standard
seems to try its best come up to the model of the
Arttul DOdger." We have been induced by ar.
tcles OF its own. to put question after question to it,
without el'c'ting response. Among other inter.
rogatorIes We have asked to tell why it is that
It's party now in the enjoyment Of full power have
not fulfilled the promise which it admits they made
viz: That under the Kansas. Nebraska act slavery
might 6" into Kansas that there was chance for
1t to do So" The Standard cannot, and dare not
answer this question With all its faculty of special
pleading, IL cannot get around this question, and
therefore, passes it sub silento. 1t pronounce
&c cathettrd, who are, and who are not, Democrats
II can hector and threaten expulsion and utter repu
d'at'"n to any man who dares to advocate Disribu-
ton-a measure advocated by James Buchanan, a
Democratic President but it has neither time nor in.
cilnat0n to explain the of the notorious short
comlnss OF its own party"
The Democratic party did promise that "slavery
might go into Kansas-that there was a chance for
it to do So" They did more than this,-they opened
the way for it. by repeating the Missouri restriction,
which repeal the Editor of the Register and his party
opposed. Slaves were carried into Kansas, and are
has been secured by The Lecompton Constitution.
II the Editor of the Register and his party had had
their way, african slare seouM erer haze been
carried into Knnsas
But the Democratic party made promise to es-
tabsh slavery in Kansas Congress has no power
either TO establish abolish slavery in the Terri
tories. All it do is to leave the Territories open
or, finding any of them shut to open them to slave
ry, and then let the institution be established or in
terdic,ed as the people themselves may decide.
Is not the Register answeredg IL so-and we
think it is-all we have to say is that we had al.
ready answered it above at least half a dozen
times.
And now, will that paper answer us just one ques.
ton? Is 1t for against tho action Of the late Con.
stitutional Convention of Kansas? Does it. in other
words, hold that Kansas ought to be admitted into
the Union by the next Congress, remanded to q
Territoi ial condition?
The Register says "hcctor and threaten ex.
pulscn and utter reputation to any man who dares
to advocate distribution-a measure advocated by
James Buchanan, a Democratic President" Now
we deny that we have thus "hcctored" or
"threatened' Whenever any one protesting to be
Democrat, takes ground publicly for distribution
other federal measure, he cuts himself off from the
Democratic Party,-he steps off the platform and
falls, and man set of men in the party could
put forth arm long enough or strong enough
even if they were so disposed to reach him and
bring him back. We have no power to expel any
man from the Democratic party; and we are not ir
the habit of "hectoring or "threatenng." But
we do profess to be able to understand plain English
and therefore tell when Democrat is MOI
acting in accordance with the principles of the Dem
ocratc party and when he is opposing its principles
and its organization In such it is dut,
speak out, and put the Democratic people on the
guard and this is what the Register calls "hector
ing" and threatening"
But the Register asserts that distribution is &c,
measure advocated by James Buchanan, Democrat
ic President" Can it be possible that that pape
would make the impression on the minds of it
readers that President Buchanan is in favor of dis
tribution?