The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1858-07-23

y
But "H' proceeds to PROFOUND to me
quite a number of intelrogatories, which
he seems to think, show an inconsistency
in myself and other individuals who have
left the democratic party, and requests
me to answer them; expressing a willing
ness also on his part to reciprocate by an
swering any that | may PROFOUND. This
appears very fair, and l am disposed to
accept the proposition. But his ques-
tions are put with such a want of arrange
ment and perspicuity, that | shall not
take them all up in the same order in
which they are propounded; and as seve-
raj questions are grouped into one, in
several instances, shall be under neccs-
sity of considering several of them to-
gether
He asks how / reconcile the position |
am Crying" to assume, with the Rcpub-
lican platform of 1856?
As this question is rather yague, / an
swer it by saying that l can find nothing
in the Platform referred to, inconsistent
with the position that l am trying to as
sumo, or that needs reconciling Herewith.
If you can, will you be so good as to point
Il outP
The Next question that l shall take up
is the following:
"Did not you in concert with many
others, who are now recognized as leaders
of the Black Republican party of Mis
State, in 1913, support Gen Cass, and
the doctrine of the Nicholson letter.
AS the answer to this question will in
volve, in considerable degree, the an
swers to several of the others, shall en-
deavor to answer it pretty fully. But be-
fore | proceed | wish to remark that the
questions, which are designed to show the
inconsistency of myself, and others, as in
dividuals, if they should show it ever SO
successfully, would not show that the Re.
publican party had changed; nor would
1t relieve the democratic party from the
fact Of having undergone the mutations
which | ascribed to them in my former
article. And it would not place US in
worse position than most of the present
democratic leaders; for even Douglas
Bigler and Buchanan desired the benefit
Of g statute Of limitations" for their DO.
litical acts; whereas ! think it will be
found that ! and my associates will not
be under the necessity Of pleading a stat
ute of limitations
The boye interrogatory embodies two
distinct questions. To the first clause
did you not, in 1913 support Gen
Cass ?' I answer, Yes
To the latter clause" Did you not in
1913, support the doctrine of the Nichol
son letter." | answer, No.
These are my answers Now for tho
proof.
Ia 1913, the democratic party "of thi,
State" and Of the Other northern States
did not maintain the doctrine of the Mich
olson Letter. On the contrary, they were
at that time, by their acts, and by The
resolutions passed at their conventions
and by the public avowals of their lead
ing men, committed to a doctrine il
direct conflict with the doctrine of tina
letter, namely the very doctrine now adyo
Gated by the Republican party; That Con
gress has the right to prohibit slavery il
the territories, and that it is expedicnt fol
them to do so; while Gen. Cass was al
most. the only, if not in fact the only prom
inent man among them that proclaimed
the doctrine of that letter. But, as Gen
Cass had received the nomination of tn,
party, they chose to support him, notwth
standing the difference of views in this
particular, rather than to abandon thei
party and support the opposing candidate
To prove this statement | shall refer
first to the opinions advanced by some o
their leading man; and next, to resolu
tions and public acts Of their convention
and legislative bodies.
The Hon. Charles L. Stuart was in 1915
the democratic candidate for representa-
tive in Congress from this district. In
letter written by him in Oct, lS47, h,
avowed the following sentiments:
" So TAR as the slave states have right
"under the constitution, they should, il
my opinion, be held inviolate. But in tn
organization Of territorial government
whether out Of our present D Jssession. O
"such as we may hereafter acquire, pro