The constitutional union., 1860-11-30
The Citizen Playing the "ArtfuI Dodger.r


 Our fre-eating neighbor of The Citizen, in his last issue, has donned his Democratic the atrical costume, and commenced the time honored party" farce of the "Artful Dodger," which is invariably put upon the bills for successful run when all others fail. His style Is similar to those old dodgers" of the party, DAVIS, TooMBs, and YANcEY, when they read that celebrated passage which tells the Southern people that all who do not bow the knee to the dictates of Southern fanatics and secessionists are abolitionists, and in con clave with the foes of the Slave States.
 In reference to the record of 1Ir. LINCOLN, which we published last week, to show that he was not so bad man as such papers which advocate secession, like The Citizen, would have them believe our coleric neghbor con fning himself strictly to the Democratic text, reads the following:
 The Constitutional Union evidently covets the notoriety of being the apologist of Lincoln.
 Now we all know, for so long a time that the memory of the oldest inhabitant" run meth not contra-wise, such lines never failed to bring down thunders of applause" upon the head of any of the "dodeers," from the greatest to the smallest, by an unterriGed" audience. We admire it ourselves for its time-honored" usage. Let us see wherein we became the apoloeist of Mr. LINCOLN. That he is a Black Republican, and one to whose doctrines concerning Slavery, as cnun- cated in the Chicago platform, we do not in the least subscribe, nothing las appeared in our paper which indicated differently. That We published, in the record of LINCOLN, a quotation from a speech which lie delivered in debate with 1Ir, DOUGLAS, at Freoport, Illinois, Eth August 1858, which reads as follows, we do not deny:
 Il have never hesit4tcd to say, and do not now hesitate to say, that think, under the Con stituton of the United States. the people of the Southern States are entitled 10 a Congressional fugitive slave law"
 Will our neighjor deny that LINCOLN made such a speech? Win our neighbor deny that LINCOLN in the same discusson said, concerning the admission of any more Slave States?
 "I should he exceedingly glad to know that there would never be another Slave State adlni,- ted into the Union; but must ald that f slavery shall be kept out during the Territorial existence and the people shall having fair opportunity and clear field, when they come to adopt their Constitution, do so extraordinary thing as to adopt slave constitution, 1 sec no other alterna- tive, if We own the country, but to admit them into the Union."
 Will our neighbor deny that LINCOLN made use Of the following language in 1858, concerning the abolishins of slavery in the District of Columbia?
 ''I should not, with my present views, be in favor of cndcavoring to abolish slavery in the District, unless on these conditions: First. that the abolition should he gradual; second. that 1t should be vote of the majority of the qualified voters of the District; and third, that compensa- ton should be made to unwilling owners"
 We know our neighbor could not have so lit tie regard for truth. Is there anything in the above aggressively unfriendly to the South ? Will the dodger" point out wherein we are an apologist for LINCOLN, when we say that such sentiments as contained in the extracts above, show the rail-splitter not to be so Jada a man as the disunionists would have us be- lieve?
 The next scene in which the dodger" appears, :: struts and frets," and exhibits some of his most brilliant acting, is tic one which presents the Oregon bill. In The Citizen of the 21st, our neighbor, in summing up list of grievances, which, in his opinion, were sui fcient causes for the Southern States to secede from the Union, occurred this paraeraph:
 The attempt to exclude slavery from acquired Territory by the so-called Nilmot Proyiso pre- sented the third occasion.
 We asked our neighJor of he did not mean Oregon as the Territory, which came in on the Wilmot Proviso principle, with slavery excluded and if the bill Was not signed by JAMES K. POLK, then q Democratic Prcsi- dent of the United States, and voted for by RHETT and YANcEY? The dodger" here makes a most admirable and graceful pas seul, skips to the foot-lights, and says we are mistaken in saying that RHETr voted for the bill l.; and adds that YANcEY was not then member of the House, without telling us whether the admission of Oregon did not make one of the grievances of which he com plained, and denounced as Northern aggrcss- ion. The curtain drops upon him as he con- eludes thus, with touching pathos, upon the admission of Oregon:
 This Is a matter ofn oimportance since every one knows that the clause inhibiting the existence of slavery in Oregon was attached to the bill by con seryative men of all parties, with a view of effect ing final adjustment of the question of slavery upon the basis of the Missouri Compromise.
 And yet last week, according to our neigh bor's way of thinking, the Territory of Ore gon brought into the confederation, without slavery, under a democratic administration, ''presented the third occasion" which the States of the South had for disunion. Now. neighbor you were not absent when his ground and lofty tumbling was done; " Tell us, Tityrus," how came this about?
 Hon. w K. SEBASTIAN and Col. T q