The Tiffin weekly tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1859-1868, 1859-09-09

--lzs--s-lrl.-r1rEf..I'- 1-l1-'-rl-'.l-E--u-
I noritics. The North have no, tho chair
man OF a single Important committee in
The sonute.
IN tho House ofelcctcd members, not
over 20 Democrats are from tho free
states, while O. are nom the slave staiss.
The Republicans have ia members from
the free states. The whole power Of the
democratic party then Is in the South and
the South rules the party. Northern
doughfaces always yield to the demands
Of their southern masters, and are their
most obedient slaves.
Mr, ID. then went on TO show how the
North was surrendered in the repeal Of
the Missouri Compromise--in the purchase
Of the Mesilla Valley.--and now in the
power and duty egjoinod upon Congress
by adjudication to protect slavery in the
Territories. As Democrats have surrender
ed he North, 80 they will surrender. Nor
therh Democrats may disclaim aud soy
they diger from the South; but they
must yeild 70 the rowEH whsicvcr Il may
domand--sluso trade, Cuba, or anything
else.
The mission Of the Republican organi-
zation is 10 resist the encroaohments Of
slavery. Its basis IL the Declaration Of
Independence itself; thut Freedom il bet
ter than Slavey-Freo labor than Slave
labor.
Mr.. d. then propounded several ques-
tons, Of which the following are the most
important:
Do You deny or affirm the Constitution
al power OF the Federal Legislature 10
| prohibit Slavery In the Torritoricsl
Do You deny or affirm the rights Of
Shareholders 10 take slaves into the Terri
tories and hold them as property
DO you deny or affirm that a Torritori-
al Legislature may exclude Slavery by
law--thut IL, prohibit by law the bringing
Of persons into the Territories to be held
az slayesl
Do you affirm or deny the right Of slave
holders in Territory 70 demand compen-
aation in the full value Of their slaves
whom tho Territory comes into the Union
as a Free Slntei
Are you for or against tho repeal Of
the Fugitive Slave aotl
Has Congress or a Territorial LeRsla-
turo the right TO establish sluveryl
Do you approve OF the Sub-Treasury
$50 called Law of Ohio, in the partcu-
lars heretofore mentioned
[Mr. d. spoke ono hour and thirty-two
minutes His speech was full Of telling
points and was listened to with marked
attention as we'll on account Of the can
did courteous manner Of tho speaker, as
the incontrovcrtiblo arguments Il con-
tained.l
JUDGE RANNEY's REILLY.
Tho reply Of Judge Ranney was hand
some in style, respectable in point Of
ability, but full Of evaslons, subtcrruges
and misrepresentation, and proved It's
author to bo the political trckstcr and
ortful dcmogogue that he is, instead Of the
able, high minded and honest statesman,
that his friends would have us believe he
is. The contrast between the two men
must have been apparent to every one
Dennison expressed his and his pSrty's
sentiments fully and freely on the ques-
tons Of the day, without any attempt at
evasion or reservation, while his oppo-
nept was all the time trying to ovade, g-
more, cover up, palliOte, dodge, defend and
crawl out Of the smalles, Mind Of holes, as
though he was In bad scrope and was
trying to make the best Of Il.
We charge, and we think Justly, that
Judge ROnney did not meet fairly and
squarly a single important issue, raised
by Mr.. Dennisoni nor did he answer ono
Of the interrogatories propoundod to him.
lie dare not DO It, His party places him
IN position where ho dare not do it,
The people expected, as they had right
to expect, that these plain questions wo'd
bo squaroly met and answered by Mr..
Ranney, but they were doomed TO disap-
pointment. Tho democratic party Of to-
day have no principles that they dare
openly avow at the North. The leading
principles Of the party, which are the ex-
tension, perpetuOtion and naturalization
of of slavery, are utterly ropulsiye to the
people Of the free states. We call upon
our oponents 10 show wherein Judge
Ranney answered, directly or indirectly,
one Of MT. Donnison's questions, or re-
iuted one of his important propositions. -
IL can't be done, .u.'
Did he show any plausible reason why
the democracy when they had the power,
increased the expenses Of tho State 80
enormouslyl No. Did he explain why
the democracy year after year, refused
to legislate for the protection pf the peo-
pies money! His argument that the
| Wings voted against Il, and that therefore
the majority we're not responsible, wAs as
puerile as il was stale.
| He charged q great part Of Rreslin's
dolalcation upon Bliss,whon he knows that
Bliss paid over every cent he owed the
State, for which he now holds Bresln's
receipt. lie said lhRt Breslin was by no
means "the chief of sinners.n
He did not defend the Sub-Treasury
Law in detail, nor attempt a reply 10 Mr..
Donnison's objections TO Il, but made the
bold and false assertion that 1t was mold
ed after the U, S, Suh-Treasury Law
There is no identity between the two
BY the one paper money Is received, by
the other gold andsiRer exclusively. The
one authorizes depoaitories, the other does
not
Mr., Rsnney, feeling that he was not
at home in State matters, slid off on the
"niggeg question: leaving his opponent
unanswered Here he became wrookless
--uttorod many gross Inconsistencies and
rendered himself liable 10 the severest