Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-09-15

unWF SCOTT and TAYLOR, tcere euery man 0f them srea into Me nert ,coYld."
 A member of Congress, Mir. TUCK, of New Hampshire, pending the discussion on the bill for supplies, men and munitions to carry on the wal with Mexico said:
 $ Let the same vote that declared the war un- necessary and unconstitutional st0rpe to death ba acitahotding supplies" Alp. Con. Globe, lst Sess 18th Cong. 2l2
 Mir. LINCOLN, The present black republican can- didate for the Presidency after the btterest denun I citation of the war; and declaring that the Mexi- cans were right and our own country in the wrong, said:
 "Mr. POLK feels the blood of this war like the blood of Abel crying to heaven against him." Alp. to Cong. Globe, Both Cong. 95.
 ToM CoRwIN, of Ohio, said to the Mexcans: "Greet the American soldiers with BLOODY HANDS, and welcome them to hospitable eraues"- [Cong. Globe, ,-Vol. F, 2l7
 But while the abolition journals and senators and congressman - Tuck, Lincoln, CoRwIN and others, were thus plotting treason and giving ''aid anS comfort" to the enemy, where was JOHN BELL, of Tennessee? Did he repel these reasonable assaults on the army and the nation? Did he win dicate the rights of the nation and the honor of our soldiers in battle? NO. He stood side by side with CokwIN, LINCOLN X Co.,, resisting the recommendation of the Resident, and opposing war;" and to the army to "flee the country as you would city doomed to destruction by fire from heaven" Alp. Cong Globe lst Ses Both Cong, l D. lS9, ct seq.l And, in the same speech, MT. BELL said:
 "I hold, sir for one, that gentlemen who be- ieve this war is unjust niquitos or whether just or unjust, that the further prosecution of it is likely to infict upon the country greater evils than can be compensated by all the territorial acquisitions which the courage and resources of the country | may achieve, haue perfect right 10 arroign the outhors of a at the bar of public opinion, and to | THWART ITEM by all the means of spetcl ,oriting and ooting, uhich the Constitution lUar- rants." And, when told that he and those acting with him in opposing the war were giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and that it was calcu- lated to protract the war unnecessarily, at great sacrifice of life he said:
 | "Sir, should the tones of remonstrance against this war; rise high in this chamber as penetrate euery uale tn Merico, reuerberate umong her moun- | taans, AND ROUSE THE WHOLE COUNTRY TO SPIRIT OF RESISTANCE, there are those who believe that greater calamity may befall this country, in the further prosecution of the war, than over sucA re suits that"
 Though an outraged public sentiment was rising to put to everlasting shame such moral and politi cal treason, yet, this same JOHN BELL, who claims l to be the only Union saver, n0p in the whole | country, could brook that storm, and, under the sanctity of oath to support the Constituton declared before Congress-our soldiers in Mexico l the Mexicans themselves, and the world, that t ,cas riqht g TO THwART > government in the prose- cution of the war, even should the tones Of re- monstrance rise so high as to reach Mexico, and ''RoUsE the whole population to a spirit of resis 1 tance.'
 Mr. BELL has been found, in almost every con troversy in which our country engaged, stand ing side by side with northern federaists and aboltionists, opposing the administration, and en- | deavorng to cripple it in prosecuting the same, ha arafas tp intn tin as to what he and his party mean by the Union, the Constitution, and enforcement of the laws. We are not responsible for the record. He made it himself. and by it he must stand or fall. For his opposition to Gen. Jackson, he was in vited to Hartford, and toasted there by the same federalists who burnt the " Blue Lights {" during the war of 1872; since which he has been opposed to his country in all of her wars ia fact or pros pectiye. He voted with them, in 1856, against the policy of the administration in conducting the l Indian war, and sought to inpeach the immortal JACKSON. He stood by them in opposition to the policy of the government in her troubles with the French, when her fleet threatened our When England threatened with invasion of the dis puted territory the N. E. Boundary he joined them in opposing the policy recommended by the | President. And last though not least, when the war with Mexico existed, and when our friends and our neighbors and acquaintances, with com mendable patriotism, rushed to the scenes of | bloody conflict, he was ready to welcome them with bloody hands to hospitable graves,''-to en- 1 gage in any scheme Gro THwARr" the govern ment, even if it should be to '' ROUSE THE WHOLE | (Mexican) COUNTRY TO A sPRIr OF RESISTANCE" With such record in times of war; is he the man to be trusted at the head of public affairs in | tiAes like the present? "We speak as unto wise m In; judge ye."
 | BELL OPPOSED TO THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE. 1 In 1887, MT. BELL introduced into the House of | Representatives odous GAG LAW. The pro- visions of which were, that no person holding any office of honor, trust profit under the federal | government, should exercise any of the ordinary rights of free citizen, by either speech or vote; and, in discussing the propriety of such law, he said: [Con. Deb, vol. l2, part }, D. I453.t l Let us pause for a moment and inquire how this subject of the interference of public officers in elections, has been regarded and provided against m te only country ID ,ohich the principles Of
 free goo1n'neih are correctly understood and appre- ciated besides our own. mean Great Britain: ;" and, after portraying the beauties of the English government, and advocating the adoption of its ktnqLy and 0spresstue precedents, he exclaimed: "Will any man hereafter affirm that the one hun dred h0usGnd office holders, agents. contractors, and dependents on the government in some form or other, any longer TO BE SAFELY TRUSTED ,cth the SUFFRAGE in te elections of free ptople? Sir, the friends of the purity and freedom of the elective franchise in this country should take lesson upon this subject, from the practice | of government in form less free than our own. mean Great Britain; and l beg leave to refer to her statutes. not only for deprving the official de- pendents from voting, but prohibiting, under sepere penalties, the SLIGHTEST INTERFERENCE of public officers in elections. Con. Deb, vol. 12 part i, D. 4412.
 MIR. BELLS ANTI-sLAvERY RECORD.
 The question of slavery was regarded as an in stituton to be fosered by one section of the coun- l try, and opposed by another, at a very early period 1 in our country's history. It was subject of dis cussion and negotiation in the convention that formed the Federal Constitution. HAMILTON and his followers, who were chiefly at the North viewed it with jealousy and suspicion; JEFFERSON and the democratic (then republican, party, were chiefly in the South. They contended for the reserv ed rights of the States, and of their perfect equality under written compact. The latter succeeded and from that day till this the same spirit has ex- isted, in some shape and under some name, in op- position to democracy, and the seat of its power with those who have always shaped its destiny, in the North, which locality has given birth to all the various isns that have divided and dis tracted the public mind from the days of federal ism down to know nottingham, the last great poti- cal ban.ling, unless the present & Union saving party" can be considered different organization.
 Among the many isms to which the North gave birth, at an early period, was abotionism, in the shape of abolition societies " and ' anti-sav cry societies." These, at first, were regarded by the South (the only party interested) as perfectly harmless; but soon they began to gather strength the leaders became arrogant, and began to petition Congress on the subject; but the systematic agita- tion of slavery did not fairly set in until about the year 1895, when the notorious British emissarv, George Thompson, made teur through the North States, and preached the abolition doctrines Wilberforce.
 JOHN c. ADAMS was then the leader of the federal party, and also the champion of abolition fanaticism. Early in December of that year, Mr. ADAMS presented various petitions, praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, which were promptly laid upon the table Mr. BELL voting with the South; but petitions accumu- lated-debates commenced-excitement ran high; and, on the sth day of February, 1886, Mir. PINcK- NEY, of South Carolina, introduced resolution declaring that Congress had no power to interfere with slavery in the States, and that it would be a violation of public faith, unwise, impoltic and dangerous to the Union to abolish in the District of Columbia. The matter referred to a com mitee, who instructed to report in accordance with the sentiment contained in the resolution On the 18th day of May following, Mir. PINcKxEY reported three resolutions; in substance that Con- gress had no Constitutional po,oer 10 intrfve pah stapery in any of the States; that Congress ought not ,nfeere m any icay ,ch sldrery tn lhe District ot Cotu'ne,a; that in order to the agitation and