Muscatine weekly journal. [volume] (Muscatine, Iowa) 185?-1890, 1860-10-12

One Decent Democratic Organ.
The last number of the CIevelaod National
Democrat has the following manly apology for
having done Carl Schurz unwilling injustice
by publishing the SANDER Of the New York
Erpres: .
"CARL SCHURs-LEr JUsrIcE BE DONE
1t seems that Schurz was commenting upon
a speech of Mr.. Doug as, and gave what he
claimed was fair deduction from the Little
Squatter's speech, comprised in the obnoxious
sentiments which, clipped from their context,
and without word Of explanation, makes
Schurz the utterer Of the sentiments as his
own. The facts being, in brief, as We state
them, Schurz is entitled to the correction from
all who published the extract, which We did,
believing it at the moment genuine. The
fellow who first cut it out and published it
did contemplate act, IN comparison to
which the robbing of hen-roost is virtue,
for want might be plead as an excuse for the
latter, while for the other no excuse can be
offered"
Our Democratic and Know Nothing cotem-
poraries in this city are both guilty Of pub.
fishing the extract in the manner referred to,
and the latter after we had exposed the fraud
Let all honorable men remember this fact,
and hereafter accept the statements of these
papers with just such credence as this circum.
stance shows them to be entitled to.
SENATOR BIGLER's SPEECH. - We have
perused Senator Bigler's late speech at Phil.
adelphia (handed to US by DR.. Risley), in
which he attempts to show that the Repub-
.ca'.s are opposed to the Constitution and the
Union, because they will not quietly acquiesce
10 the attempts of the South to extend slavery
over free territory. The Senator takes the
ground that the Constitution recognizes
slavery. This not being true, his whole
argument falls to the ground. He Indignantly
denies the charge made by Douglas that the
Republicans and the Breckenridge party are
alike interventionists, and claims that the
latter demand only the protection of persons
and property guaranteed by the Constitution
till the Territory shall come to adopt a Con.
stitution, when the people are at liberty to
exercise popular sovereignty on the question
of slavery. He makes a telling point against
Douglas, as follows:
"Let me call Judge Douglas attention to
another piece of logic, and see how he will
like that. Suppose l should say the Repub
icans are interventionists, and so is judge
Douglas, the only difference being that, while
the Republicans propose that Congress shall
intervene, Judge Douglas says, "No, Congress
shall not intervene, but the creature of Con
gress shall" How would that logic do
Laugh ,er The Republicans say Congress
shall intervene, and deny 10 the owner Of a
slave the right to take his property into the
Territory and hold it there. Judge Douglas
says, mo, Congress must not intervene;"
but he forthwith claims the right for the
creature Of Congress, the Territorial Govern
ment, to do that same thing. Applause.
Now, what is the practical difference?
simply make that point for his consideration.
l think it is better logic than that which he
makes against the Breckenridge party"
This reminds us Of luminous editorial in
the Rerss'e, few days since, charging the
Republicans with endeavoring to deprive the
Soathcrner Of his fright to hold his slaves in
Territory. If there is any honesty in the
advocates Of "Squatter Sovereignty" they
hold to the lawtu'ness Of doing the same thing,
only in different way.