Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1860-10-19

! w tHo opium anu duJuulcallOu Of Lno
Courts. More than this no law abiding,
honest thinking man could ask.
The tariff question is lext in order. Mr..
Skinner must certainly have drawn largely
upon his Imagination to have brought him.
self to the enunciation of the proposition
that Mr.. Douglas differed with the Der.o
cratic party on the tariff question. Ia his
speeches in Pennsylvania, and especially
the one delivered at Reading, in that State,
the idea advanced was, that the revenue Of
the country should be increased sufficiently
to meet the expenses Of government, or the
expenses should be curtaied SO as to cor
respond with the revenue. No statesman, he
argued, could for an instant justify the pol
icy of borrowing $40 600, 600 annually to
carry on the government The whole his
tory Of the public acts of Judge Douglas en-
phaticaIly negative the idea that he is in
favor Of high protective tariff. This is
new count ia the Indictment against him,
and could scarcely have originated in a less
fertile brain than that of Mr.. Skinner 1t
is, too an objection that comes with bad
grace from gentleman who supportec Mr..
Buchanan in 1856, with bis iron interests
hedging around him. and is now associated
with him in the ungracious and unrighteous
war waged for the destruction of one Of the
brightest ornaments to American states
rnanship.
The Pacific Railroad objection is decided
ly consistent when made bv supporter Of
Mr. Breckenridge, the resolution favorable
to that enterprise as contained in the Brock
inrdge platform being 50 antagonislic to the
Charlottesville Convention that they exclu
ded it from their batch Of State resolutions
thus involving the inconsistency Of franz
ing State platform antagonising with that
constructed at Baltimore, and upon which
Mr.. Breckenridge stands. We would fur
Their remind MIR. Skinner that tAe leading
stays Of bis candidate in this contest are
warm and ardent supporters Of the Pacific
Railroad project--such as JEFF. Davis, Of
Miss, Wigfall. Of Texas, Green and Polk,
of Missouri, Johnson, of Arkansas, and
others of like distinction in the ranks of the
seceders. How can be act with these avow-
ed friends of d Pacific Railroad, if Judge
Douglas friendship for it is one of the OBJ
! jectons which, when accumulated, are suf-
ficient to drive him and his friends out Of the
Democratic party?
| In relation to the "Homestead Policy"
we would simply make the enquiry, whether
Mr. Skinner did not favor the nomination
And further, if Breckenridge has ever COM
mted himself against such ''pocy,' and
whether be is not supported now by the au-
thor of the ''Homestead BilF' Andy John
son, Of Tennessee. and also by Bright and
Fitch, Of Indiana
| We find, then, that Mr. Skinner is en-
gagged in the not very enviable work of seek
ing to widen the present unfortunate divis-
ion in the Democratic party by assalling
Judge Douglas upon abstract questions OF
no practical importance-m ythical specu-
lative and non-essential las well as by at
lacking himfor entertaining sentiments SIM
liar, or rather Identical, with those contain
ed in the platform which his own candidate
has endorsed, and which the Secession Con-
yention at Baltimore enacted.
There is one other and far the more sig
niGcant interrogatory presented by Mr.
Skinner, which furnishes the principal rea
son why we have devoted our editorial space
to the consideration Of his letter It is this !:
DO his Douglas) supporters coincide with
him in opinion If so, do ne and they
constitute one pary2" This, taken in con-
nection with the classification Mr.. Skinner,
in his charity and wisdom, has chosen to
give to the Committces,as the "Democratic
Committee" and the ''Douglas Committee, F"
impels the conclusion that he has assumed
the character Of High Priest in the Demo
cratic Church, and by virtue Of that posi-
ton, issues his Ukase expellipg the support
ecs of Judge Douglas from.the Democratic
party With due Difference to this sanity
gentleman and self-eonstituted expounder Of
Democratic faith we rebel against bis au-
thority. IF Mr. Skinner does not desire
hereafter to act in party affairs with the reg
ular organization of the Democracy and
those who support Judge Douglas then be
can chose more coDgenial association. TO
designate his assumption in any milder term
than that it is the most bare-faced imperti-
nence, would be doing injustice both to our
self respect and the Democratic party. Mr.
Skinner can affiliate with whom and where
his inclination may lead, but as for the
friends of the National Democracy as repre-
scented by Judge Douglas, they intend t
remain where they have ever been, within
the pale of the Democratic Church
We have noticed these interrogatorie
briefly, because the propounder does no
favor the intelligent public with solu
ton Of the difficulties which they have en-
gendered in his own mind.
Mr. SINNERS inconsistency is not alon
contained in his heterogeneous. each 0
which seems to declare a proposition, tn
opposite Of which he has indirectly support
ed heretofore; but is found in the contras
his present relation to the regular nominee
of the Democratic party bears to his con
noction with the Congl essioual contest il
this District in the Spring Of 1859. Him
self the nominee of the Harrisonburg Con
vention, yet opposed by gentleman who
would not acquesce In, or, If more express
i've, who s'bolted'' his nomination. gen
tleman who had always acted with the De.
mocracy-Mr. Skinner went forth in the
consciousness Of right, and with the proud
resolve Of defending the Democratic banner
that had been placed in his hands by Con
vention Of his party, from the assaults o
s:rebels within and foes from without .
Animated by this spirit, he traversed on
horseback and on wheels the rugged passes
OF our mountain District, and the Meade
mic grades Of our beautiful Valley now soft
ly pleading in eloquent whisperlngs for the
Nd ri