The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1858-10-16
4 virginia Democrat On tI.e Inhuiy ALI
auce 10 Defeat Douglas.

y correspondent of the Richmond En-
qu.ger, writing over the signature Of Jack
son Democrat makes the following stirring
remarks on tie unholy alliance 10 defeat
Douglas in this State His historical ailu-
sIons to Buchanan'S course on several I'M
portant occasions, gives i peculiar po'Et to
what hc says:
.'NLv is it that the State Of Illinois is
now being flooded by the agents and tools
of the Washington Union With documents TO
break down the Little Giant" and to elect
/ lincoln? Wxy Is it that the clerks III
Washington are abused by this same organ
because thyy VIII not GO: tribute to carry
out the purposes of " cnieli? Is it to pro
mote the interests OF the Democratic party
that this inpertincnt interference III the al
fairs OF Illinois is restored to: IL cannot
possibly bc 80 from the nature o: things;
but is sole object IS clearly and unnlstaka-
hlv TO defeat Do=slas. And why. ask:
Because lie represented Illinois on the Nam
s.s Question; had the boldneSs TO stand Up
IN Congress and defend the rights and IN
;er,s,S o! his constituents. " bat Csc could
lie have dnne2 What more could have b.en
drearlt Of, SAKE 10 represent the people OF his
own State who had elected him to the . nj
ted States Senate TO represent their sove-
r:rury? Dii not III. DEchG7.an cote TOR
iIC tari6' az 1928, aye, and for tie tar.J 81
1872. and justify that cote upon the gEoH''d
that he yra> carrying cut tie e-tSaes dad 10'u
cf Ets constituents az Pegsylcal.IG? DID
L.. Slas Wright, also do the same thing in
voting for the tariiTof 1872, and Claimed :or
LIS defense that he was re- rescnt!nS tae
great State Of New York? Certainly AID
why cannot the party award 10 Judge Doug
las, also, IN equal share OF Ike justice !:
L 4!t-
d.cn ousiy and absurd in the extreme!
''tosc It .-W be ploiaIy asen that here Is 4
graf Constitutional q"estioR, against aoh'ch
TIE ,rhOlc DcGocratjc party Coted ~ the Una
TOD STATE. >cautc ia 1872, Scih tie t'c0 ef-
.eg'iohS Gjy5e aan.ei. Mr.. W. {. R'vos
himself declared it to be a measure more
oiious than the tariff of 1896 and yetneitdc7
James BachaHdH nor .S.tu, Wright uere haa-
ded darn by the Pdrtg .for that r0te, as
.S3,pLca l. DougiGs IS HOlc tetng ctgtGteK :
Lc having infatuated the example, YOU, pur-
sue! the very identical course taken by
these two statesmen, pelthcr Of whom cX-
Yer eaced any !ebuhe; and tie Little Clan;
deserves more credit than either of those
,nvn did. because he not only carried Out
the viii OF his constituents, bat more thar
IN II be was true TO Democratic principles
defended the Nebraska Kansas bill, ant
u'antcd himself on the Cincinnati! Flat orIn
al stands there now, dclying all odds ar'
al numbers. On the contrary, Silas VI RICH
was afterwards taken up and run by th'
DEMOCRATIC party OF New York, in 1874, a
,h.ir ca.d date for Governor, which carrie,
th.t State for James h. Polk in tee sam,
wear for Presiaent, between h'm and iienri
Clay And 80 also in regard 20 Mr.. Buct.an
an so FAR from treating him as Mr. Douglas
is nos experiencing at the hands of the Adj
,n'nistratiOn party, Presiden, Polk honore'
Lin with the othce OF Secretary If State
which was Il popular move-as ); proved t
BE-. These are facts which 40 man dare de
ny. And now the miserable. llortifyin:
spebtacle Is presented Of the greatest sinner
through his friends, for will not agree tha
il meets with Ar Buchauans sanction try
ing 10 defeat Judge Douglas for representa-:
me s ate Of Illinois the Kansas question
Verify, the party viii have their iewsld fo
such con3uct.