Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1864-07-28
Some Of the Beauties of the "Con.
stitutional Democracy"
From the Indiana Journal

There is raciness in the amount Of
hypocrisy and Inconsistency that can be
exhibited by a democratic Convention,
which has no parallel outside of tine
history Of Capt. Simon Suggs. No other
party than that which prates SO glibly
about constitutional restrictions, strict
construction of delegated powers. the
resolutions Of "9S." and the impossibility
that the Democratic party can do wrong.
would have hal the effrontery to adopt the
following resolution which forms part
Of what is facetiously called the Platform
of the Democracy of Indiana, as manu-
factured July II, 1864.
2. That We disapprove Of and condemn
the action Of Governor Morton in
establishing a Financial bureau" an
institution unknown to the Constitution
the laws and the usages of the State OF
Indiana; in securing. disbursing and
squandering the funds of the State; in
borrowing money on the faith of the State
and pledging the property and the energies
of the people to pay such loans, and
interest thereon. and in paying out such
money in open and hagrant disregard OF
the Constitution and laws of the State,
without any appropriation directing the
payment thereof, and without any of the
checks and safeguards that the wisdom
and experience of the past have dem
onstrated were necessary for the safety.
preservation and economical expenditure
Of the money of the people Of the State.
The party that had the cheek to pass
that resolution claims to be the same
Democratic party that once followed the
leading Of Jackson and his successors, and
gave to the gaze of the world those
eminent statesmen, James Buchanan,
Floyd. Thompson. Yancey. Horace Hef-
fren and Miligan. If they are ambitious
to appropriate the namc and personality
of that patty. they must accept all its
acts, for one Of the fundamental doctrines
of the party is. that the Democracy can do
no vrong Now let us see what the
Dem ocrstic officials of Indiana did in q
like case. At the session of the General
Assembly in 1857, the rival parties in the
Senate got at loggerheads over a contested
election. The Committee on Elections
reported tha. Mr.. Miller. one Of the
Senators. was not duly elected. but that
Mr.. Shyrock, his competitor. was elected
to the seat. The Democrats were in a
min 1rity in the Senate, but true to the in
stincts Of the party, which holds that a
Democrat in office is always rightIully
there, and any one else in office is a
usurper who keeps Democrat out of his
rights, oct ermined that Miller should
keep his seat. He was handy when the
party wanted votes. and, besides, he felt
comfortable where he was. These seemed
to be the strongest titles he had to bis seat.
but these were potential with the Demo
cracy.
The Constitution OF the State contained
o provision which reads as follows:
Each House, when assembled, shall
choose its own officers. (the President Of
the Senate excepted judge the elections,
qualifications and returns of It's oa0n mem.
6ers," dc.
This was q small matter, however, for
q Constitutional Democrat. The minority
determined that they were the proper and
only judges in the case. and prevented q
vote on the question until the final
adjournment. The result was that neither
appropriation or tax bills were passed,
because the majority insis,ed on finishing
the business in hand before taking up
those bills. and the minority protested
that no appropriations should be made. or
revenues provided, unless The majority
would abandon its constitutional rights
in the case OF Miller. 1t was then
expected by the people-with the excep-
tion of the managing Democrsts-that an
extra session would be called to remedy
this state Of things; but the party leaders
thought some capital could be made for
the next election by letting the State 90
without taxes for two years; turning out
the inmates of the State benevolent
institutions. and leaving all claims on the