Mountain Democrat. [volume] (Placerville, El Dorado Co., Cal.) 1854-1860, 1858-02-20
Labor In HnlI1.

exhausted upon the subject. DEMONSTRATIONS
of deletcrious consequences ensuing from an
election. have been freely uttered the prOba-
bilites Of contested Scats,-the non.admisSion
| to Congress of members elect. &c, &c, tedi-
ousy discussed yet no such representations
have been fulfilled no such probabilities have
been bodied forth into realities. Five dclcga-
tions from the State, have, up TO this period,
acted us Representatives. without "let or him
drance" from those who have the right to
pass upon their qualifications and So it will
be to the end of the chapter ut any rate, I'M
I'll the next Congressional apportiOnmcnt is
made. Neither are we cognizant Of any serious
evils which have been originated by the present
mode Of election. Therefore, on the ground Of
tnutiity, we oppose division Of the State into
Congressional Districts, until qtt,r tie returns
NJ tie Hsrt census. and the aPportionmcnts
made Hereunder, are known. Practically
now, the State is distrctcd; for choice of
candidates is always made with reference TO
the hcaitty or Hshi'nce Of the asrirants. And
II law passed ON this subject would control the
NEXT ,i,ciim Ohiy: for before n second Congress
siona election, the additional members we will
be entitled to- under the next census will COM
pei di>tricting law.
The plainly apparent folly Of wasting time
in legislation upon this point is 81 manifest,
that we would not have touched upon the qucs-
ton, had we not have observed recently, an
error Of some Of our contemporaries, i'll con-
founding the d'>t,irting proposition, with the
measure contemplated of Aanging tic Gmo IF
hohi,ng tongr' ~Sionh taHionS. They are en-
tircly distinct topics aud the arguments adj
ducrd in behalf Of Il change of the time, cam
not be tortured into reasons for the passage of
the diStricting law. The first, Is an enactment
for long future; requiring II" repeal or mod
ilicatiun, until there is Il radical alteration III
the frame. work of our government; - the 9TH
cr, must he temporary in its nature, repealed
in MIt, H,a!x at tarthcst, and in the progress
of its elaboration as II statute, may chance TO
excite animoSiticS among the representatives
of different counties. 1t cannot possibly he
beneficial, and may be injurious; IA species
of legislation to he avoided by judiciouS coun-
srnrS
We have heretofore Skctchcd the arguments
for and against ri"mYih1 he time Of election,
leaving the principle and prnpricty Of such
change without comment, To the candid and
mature consideration of the Legislature : but
ON the question Of diStucting the State, al
though we heartily approve the doctrine. that
the Representative should be selected MS di-
rcctv and exclusively by those constituents
whose interests are most Immediately coniidcd
To him as possible, still we feel required to de-
clare our opposition To districing law at tins
iunctIrc because Of the Hmjt'd P,ri"d III which
il can be law; and the pcrplcXity and annoy
ancr occasionrd by it, in a partisan point of
view, if enacted before the permanent lcgSla-
ton we must have on the subject i'll l>6l.-
Onc State Convention for the purpose Of non-
mating candidates for Supreme Court Judge
and Clerk, and tw0 District Conventions, for
the selection of candidates for Congress in "ht
wear, rather "crnwds the mournrrS. We
may again refer To this matter in our next
issue.
The GI,I. is very much inccnscd against
Judge Douglas because he differs from the
President relative to the admission of Kansas,
and ccnsurcS him severely for saying that the
President committed Fundamental error
but il is di&yoNy silent on the conduct and
renal Ks of the Democratic Senators who have
differed from the President and reflected ON
his message with regard to Walker. Its lips
are scaled, il ,Ityt not say word in reply to
the coarse abuse of Tuonlbs ana Pugh, and
the opposition of Davis and Brown. 1t has
"bott!cd its virtuous Indignation" so far rs
they are concerned and vents nll its spleen up
ON Douglas. To be consistent it should de-
nouncc Toombs and pugh in the harShcst
terms. They ticrccly assaulted the President,
vet his srlfconStitutcd organ has not II word
to say against them or in his defence! Has il
reserved all It's malice for Douglas?
The President sent message to Congress
in reference to the capture Of the fillibustcring
hero, Gen. Walker. Although "he recon-
mcndrd no action for the Senate To follow,
asked from them no resolution, sought no APP
preparation for any object of his policy, nor
upheld Commodore Paulding," yet McsSrs
Tonmbs, Pugh Davis and Brown made it an
excuse to Indignantly assal the Administra-
ton. Mr.. Tom5s snccch is filed with the bit
tcrcst invcctivc against the President. In the
course of his remarks he said:
The President ddrtd not defend, while h" en-
dcavorcd to palliate this outrage to an American
Senate
Very respectful language for n Democratic
Senator To use towards Democratic Prcsi-
dent Again, this same Democratic Senator
SAYS:
"what right has the President to use the army
and navy ali over the face of the earth? This was
HNHrJuIfi0H of authority, not only IN dcTogaton oil
law, NIT IN pERoGAIloN of Ills oATM or OFFICE
Judge Douglas deprecated difference of
opinion with the President, regretted the ne
ccsstv that induced him 10 take opposite
grounds, but uttered not one word which the
warmcst friend Of the President could torture
into disrcSpcct TO Mr.. Buchanan. Yet for IL
mere difference Of opinion, n few pseudo Dem
ocratic papers have vindictively assailed him.
Toumbs says the President '0sm'pod authority
and riolrt,d his odh ctOtfct;" maliccus!y false
assertion; and yet these immaculate Democratic
papers. the pretended supporters of the Presi'
dent, swallow the insolent insult, without da-
ring to alludc to it. Such friends arc not
worth having.
What said Mr. Pugh? lie was equally as
disrcspcctful. Not only did he differ from the
President, but he expressed that difference ip
contcmptuous terms. We quote his language:
The principles laid down In this message nei-
thcr warranted by the Constitution nor ny any stat
ute law Of the United States Lor by any principles
Of the law OF nations.
Could ANYTHING be more self sufficient, says