Year: 1860

e1


We do not wonder that the Baltimore Repub-
lican," in its zealous support of Breckinridge and
Lane, should complain that " the political horizon
presents hssy and uncertain appearance" We
cited few days ago the example set BY the Breck-
inridge Democracy of New jersey in refusing to
acknowledge the g explanatory resolutions" deemed
vital by the Southern wing of the party to proper
understanding of the Cincinnati platform, and for
refusal to concede which the adherents Of Mr..
Douglas are declared unworthy of further political
fellowship. We had supposed that party SO re-
Gently organized for the defence of single cousti
tuent principle would not prove false to that prin-
ciple at the very threshold 1t seems however that
the true Democracy" Of New jersey are not
alone in their denial Of Explanatory resolutions
part and parcel of the Cincinnati platform in its
latest and, by some, most approved edition. The
Breckenridge Democrats of Michigan, few days
ago, followed their example and disposed Of the ad
ditions to the old platform in the following sum-
mary and logical resolution:


Resolved That as supported Mr. Breckinridge four
years ago for the second Office in the nation which he has
since filed with distinguished ability having seen no
reason for abandoning him. and being satisfied that the
platform on which he accepted the nomination IS the same
as the Democratic platform of 1856, cordially support
him now for the first"


This resolution must be admitted to have the
form if not the force of syogism, and, being con-
elusive of the question in the eyes of the true
Democracy" of Michigan, will, we hope, be equally
satisfactory to their Southern allies.


If any surprise should be expressed at the de-
termination of Northern Democrats to support Mr..
Breckinridge rather than Mr. Douglas, while refus-
ing to accept any of the " explanations" without
which the Cincinnati platform was declared by some
of the Southern Democracy at Charleston, in a
phrase much more expressive than classical, to be
"a swindle," we may find the explanation, so far
as the Breckinridge Democracy of Michigan are
concerned in the fact that they please themselves
the score of candidates. 1t will be found, on re-
ference to the preamble by which their resolutions
prefaced, Gas given in another part of to-days
Intelligencer) that they allude, in the language
of the distinguished leader of the party in 1885,"
to the liberty consistent with party allegiance, to
vote for whichever of the Democratic candidates
they please" as one of the justifying considera-
tions on which they base their decision; and, not
satisfied with this declaration, they proceed to
thenticate their g freedom" by resolution, couch
ed, might be expected, in terms of logical pro-
prety, by carefully guarding against the suspicion
that they would have risked so much independence
if it had not been made necessary, well as pro-
per, by "the course of things at Charleston and
Baltimore" The resolution is conceived in the
following terms:


Resolred, That, hauing been left ss to act by the
Of things at Charleston and Baltimore ,ce act freely ac
cording to the conviction of minds and regard
less of what friends foes may say of u.s. shall con
to bear ao the Democratic standard until the sound
doctrines of the National Democratic party shall finally
triumph, believe they win, in the election of Breck
inridge and Lane"