The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1858-08-06


the interest on the debt, from year IL
year, adding to the principal at seven pei
cent, and letting the money in the Treas.
ury to the banks, they paying the State
one per cent This is the economy, We
hear so much Boosting about.
But this brings me to the next ques-
ton. And ! answer, that they did not
fcare half million of dollars in the
Treasury when they went out of Office
No, sir, you labor under slight mistake.
They had, on the 30th of Nov. 1851
just one month before they went out Of
ofice-oper half million, but during
that last one month the Board of Auditors
allowed and paid out about ss4, 000!! A
great deal more than he'd been expended
for whole year before. So that when
they passed it over to the Republicans,
there was great deal LESS than half a
million. But suppose we call it half a
million. Will that prove that they left
the State any less bankrupt than it was in
1872? Why the amount would not pay
% cents on the dollar, Of their indebted
ness, to say nothing about the necessary
amount to carry on the State government.
1t was then just as bankrupt as in 1912,
or at any other time.
On the other hand the Republicans
since they came into power, have paid up
the interest that has accrued, thereby
stopping the increase Of the debt, and re-
duced the debt itself more than 1926, 600
One hundred and tWeaty-Si1 thousand
dollars.
l have few questions, right here, to
ask you
Why did the democratic Administra-
tious neglect to pay the interest on the
State debt and suffer it to increase at the
rate of screen per cent. per annum, when
there was SO much money lying in the
Treasury, on which the State was realizing
only ONE cent per cent, and on some of it
not even that?
Was it that the officers might let the
money to the Banks for as much interest
as they could set, and pay the State ONE
per cent. and themselves pocket the bal
ance?
l have now got through with the an
swers to your questions, and | have few
words to say in relation to your attempted
reply to my answers to your first ques-
tons.
Your exposition of my pos tiol-that
Congress has the power to prohibit SLAYER
in Territory, bat not to prohibit it in
State--is so far from possessing any Of the
i.-.~...s vr 'vsiv- si-"V ~ t,vv- Up
to the dignity of sophism
We say Congress have the right to pro-
hibit slavery in territory, and therefore
we are in favor Of Their doing so. But
they have no right to interfere with it in
a State, and because they have no right,
we do not desire them to do it, And from
this you draw the conclusion that we
are "opposcd' to slavery in territory
but not "opposed" to slavery in State"
Is this the kind of logic by which you ex-
pect to Put down Repub ieanism? Why,
if you were to as! sensible boy of ten
years old to clucidate this matter so that
you could understand it, he would proba-
bly, tell you that we are opposed" to
slavery everywhere and anywhere; but
hat we don't propose TO meddle with it
where we have no right to.
Your reply to my answer to your ques-
ions on the Nicholson Letter, is a sheer
evasion. You say you "have nothing to
10 with the Individual acts Of any leading
democrat" etc. Well, sir, have given
'ou something more than "individual acts
f leading democrats.
The Nicholson Letter in 1913 was sim I
'ly the individual act of leading demo- Q
rat" and nothing more.
gave you resolution, for instance, G
assed by the democratic Legislature of {
bis State, electod at the sane election in I
S4S, that gave Gen Cass the electoral a
ote Of this State. Did not that legisla-
ire represent truly the sentiments of the G
emocracy Of the State " no cent them Y
mere, and who instructed them by the a
of their conventions? a
You attempt to evadc the force of my D
uotatioDs by saying that "thosc resolu- il
passed prior to 1850 and prior f,
1882" etc. Then you admit, do you, y
lat the Democratic party hare changed q