Daily national Democrat., 1860-10-25
Douglns ana BrecI.inridge.

ing, that Brecknridge was gone in the Ex-
pIess says:
at does not follow, necessarily, that a State
viii vote the same way in November that it did
in October. We had a notable example of this in
Ohio ia lS4S. This State in October OF that year
went agaiusl the Democracy, and the supposltuu
was that II was lost to the Democracy in the
Presidential election but contrary TO all expec-
iaiion, Gen. CaSs carried it by 10000 majority
For proof of this we quote from the DEMoCRAr.
Speaking OF Ohio, it says:
This latter State went against the Democracy
in lsis, just before the Presidential election, and
was counted therefore certain against the party III
/ the Presidential election then just at hand. But,
/ 10 aud behold when the votes were counted, II
was found that Lewis CAss the Democratic nomi-
| nee for President, had received majority OF
! 10000 over the opposition"
Taking this into consideration, we come to the
same conclusion that the DENocRAr does, which IS
that.
"lt is not, therefore, certain by any means, that
4 State will go against party IN fresiden'Rl
election, because 1t went against that party IN
State election preceding
| Putting this and that together, we are led to
/ the conclusion that Pennsylvania viii give her
electoral vote to Breckenridge in November.
The Express is all right in the above, till
it gets to its Conclusion" The reasoning is
that Ohio first voted In her State election in
/ ls4S against the Democracy, and immediate
| ly after sustained the Democratic nominee for
the Presidency. Therefore, the Express con-
cludes that the State viii 60 for Breckin
ridge. The precedent of the vote in 1913
justi6es no such conclusion, and the logic of
it is very poor indeed. Ohio did not vote
for Martin Van Buren, the Boiling nominee,
but for Lewis Cass, the regular candidate. If
the precedent is worth anything at all, then,
it signifies that Penusy lvania will go for
Douglas and not for Breckinridge, because
Breckenridge ia what Van Buren was in 1913,
the nominee Of mere faction.
In reference to the fusion in New York, the
Express says:
"The combination entered into in New York
may carry that State against Lincoln, but this will
give Douglas only eighteen votes"
Well eighteen is a majority Of the whole
electoral vote of the State, and shows the
superiority OF the Douglas strength. Breck.
inridge gets only screen votes on the fusion
titket. and that shows his strength. As it
| is in New York SO will it be found in all the
Northern Atlantic States, except that Breek-
/ inrdge is even weaker in the others than in
New y ork. In Illinois he will poll just about
the same that the DANTE Boiling buchanan
ticket polled at the time of the big fight Of
the Administration against Douglas, to wit ::
1000 votes out of the two or three hundred
thousand to which the State is entitled.
Douglas has Illinois beyond all question.
The Express asks, "when did the Democra-
cy ever carry State on Douglass platform p
We answer that they carried Pennsylvania,
Illinois, Indiana California, and every South
ern State in the Union in 1856, except Mary
land, on the platform of Non-intervention,
the Douglas platform. If there has been any
Presidential contest, since that time, in which
the virtue of that platform has been tested
we are not aware of it. 1t remains to be
seen, in this present canvass, whether the
Breekinridge faction can lead away a sufi-
cient number of Democrats from the support
of that platform to defeat it.
This sort of thing is the utmost that the
]
do not expect, and they have no hope of the
election Of breckenridge, but they may de-
feat Douglas,
They certainly can have but small hope
of carrying this State for Breckinridge
Therefore, it is to be presumed that they de-
/ sire to so divide the Democratic party as to
give the State to Lincoln. Anything, they
seem TO think, rather than the election of
Douglas
Win the people support them in this move
ment? We think not
SEEEoH OF Col. KEwEN.-The theatre was
toleraGly well filled, last evening, to hear the
speech of Col. Kewen, one of the Breckin-
ridge stump orators. The Express had
vaunted him as the greatest orator of the
campaign, and good many people were anx-
ious to see what all this panegyrie was worth
We venture to say that every man of intel
lect taste and cultivation was badly disap-
pointed. He was wordy and very theatri-
cal,and sometimes quite felietous in anecdote,
but his language would not bear analysis.
lie uses too many loose, unnecessary and
often meaningless words, while his argumen-
tatiye force is nothing.
To speak of the decisions Of the judicial
tribunals of the country, as expounded by
the Supreme Court of the United States" we
take it is rather ricketty rhetoric However,
we shall not undertake to criticize language
which was not taken down by shorthand
reporter, and which we must repeat from
memory, because it is a very easy matter for
any one disagreeing with us to say that, ac-
cording to his recollection, no such Lam
guage was used. We will only reiterate,
therefore, that, in our view of matters and
things, Col Kewen's eloquence is exceeding
ly wordy and very considerably windy
Still, we heard several persons in the audi.
ence declare that he was fine orator. Their
conception of eloquenee is very different from
ours, and of course they are entitled to their
opinion.
His speech mostly consisted of TRADE
against Douglas. And yet. by his own ac-
knowledgment, it was a mere hedgeing in
the Democratic party who was there ques-
tioning the Democracy of lifelong Demo-
erat.
Ills arguments were mere perversions Of
history, with the exception of those which he
founded upon the assumed decision of the