The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1858-09-24

suffering - 10 Increase Anu IhAhf
VIC have pretty good evidence that FOL
the last few years of their power they
were guilty OF o good deal Of corruption
and fraud Aud, if l continued TO sup
port that party during any Of said time, i
was before thorough investigation O.
their doings had hid bare the facts. Blu
1 see that you cannot get along without
maligning my mOtives. 1t Is strictly II
accordance with honorable discussion ioI
you to show, ii you can, that have been
unreasonable or inconsistent; but it ID
not consistent with challenge to "honor
able combat" to be continually maligning
the motires Of one whom you honor with
ssch challenge. | did not consent tc
stoop to discuss, with you, CT any one, my
motives for the course have pursued
nor have attempted to impeach your mo.
tves | am perfectly willing to leave all
your insinuations and inuendos on that
subject, to the decision Of those ac-
auainted with ils 10th, without any re-
ply from me.
You make a great ado about blunder
of mine in stating that SS4 600 paid out
during the last month of the democratic
administration "was a great deal more
than had been expended for whole year
before" had in my mind the Report OF
the Board Of State Auditors, and not the
Trcasurer's Report; and what / intended
to say, and should have said, was that the
Board of State Auditors, during the last
month Of their admin, tration, allowed and
paid out about $S4 900, which was great
deal more than they had oiloued for a
whole year before 1t was a casual re-
mark, and not at all necessary to the point
| was discussing; ard Was, | admit, "pery
careless" acknowledge, sir, that the
statement, as | worded it, was Incorrect,
and that, instead of less than sS4, 900, the
democratic administration had actually
expended during the preceding year, over
FOUR HUNDRED AND TulRTY-THREE
THOUSAND DOLLARS. The nature Of the
error should satisfy any orc that It was
not intentional.
You express the opinion that if yoH
chad made such an error it might not
have excited much attention :" but that
in me at was monstrous Well, sir,
perhaps YOU are correct in this opinion !;
and if 80, am glad tina; YOU seem to op-
tycciatc the vast difference between your
self and n man of very moderate degree
of information AMI accuracy. b.
ses,. The following are the questions
that | have propounded to h" after
answering his, and which he has failed to
answer; although in his challenge he
proposed to answer any that might pat,
after had answered his.
"Did not the Democracy of thi. State support
Gen. Cass in 1858!
Z" Did they, at tha, time, sustAin the doctrine Of
Squattcr Sovereignty, a. cxpoundtd IN the Mich
olson Letter!
"Can you find anything in the Republican Plat
form Of 1856. denying 10 the people Of the terrific
rcs 10, right to determine their own institutions
when key como TO form State constitvton7
"Dd not The doctrine of Popular Sovereignty ,as
cXpounded in tho Nicholson Letter, aud tho Me-
braska Bill; aud as proclaimed by the journals
4. 4. -, 4 =
1896, declare that the people Of the territories III
their Territorial capacity have the right aud the
power 70 determine whether slavery shall exist
among them or not!
Have they not since rcpudiatvd that doctrine,
and now declare that the people Of the territories
have no right to prohibit or prevent the existeiee
Of slavery among them?
" Did not they hold the doctrine IN is49 and
1850, tina. the Territories of New Mexico and Utah
were free territories and that slavery was efiectu
ally prohibited herein by force Of the existing
Mexican laws?
DO they n ot now declare that siarery and not
freedom il the legal condition Of these Territories
by fore. of the constitution Of the United States?
=" Did not their editors and orators, in 1885,,
proclaim that slavery could not exist IN Kansas,
that it wac prccluded by the laws Of climate and
productions, etcY
HAS not the result shown, and have not they
since admitted, tha, slavery has existed and does
eAlbt tlerci 'tIy 30 naJO'Uy
Of he. people are violently opposed to it
{" Do you not, by your support OF the present
administration, endorse the tecompton Consttu-
ton, and the action Of the democratic party in
Congress in favor Of it, together with the English
Substitute?
And have you not admitted, in conversation,
hat the English Substitute, so-called, looked very
much like prescribing rule Cor The admission
IF Stare STATE, and different rule for the admis-
sion Of u fee state
WAS the Joint Resolution for the annexation Of
Texas in ls45, democratic party measure3
"Does not the third article OF the secoud section
IF that Joint Resolution contain the following pro-
vision in such STATES may be formed out of
laid territory lying north of $50 80 north latitude
commonly known ss the Missouri Compromise line
llayery or involuntary servitudude Except for |
,rime) shall be prohibited"
Was not the Texas boundary Bill ono Of tho cloe- !
rated acts which constitute the compromise meas
Tree Of 1902
Ibid not the Il fth section Of said Tsxae Bound /
.ry Bill provide that nothing therein contained /
hould be construed to i'm pair or qualify anything
Contained in the third srticlo Of the second section
4 tho Joint Resolution for annexing Iexss 10 the