charged that, instead of performing his duty in suppressing it, he secretly encouraged it. This imputation, although denied and even disproved, was reiterated until after the election in 1864.

Now, when all motive for further perseverance in this slander has ceased, it is nearly universally conceded that he not only performed his whole duty, but did so with untiring zeal and unwavering perseverance, and with the most perfect success. In the convention at Albany, Mr. Opdyke, who was then mayor of the city of New York, publicly refuted the accusations that had been falsely made against Governor Seymour, and paid a warm tribute both to his motives and actions, showing them to be of the highest and most worthy character.

But slanders of another character were invented and applied to him, although equally destitute of all foundation. Under the law of New York, authorizing soldiers in actual service to vote at the election in the fall of 1864, it was charged that he had been engaged in obtaining fraudulent soldier-votes. The trial of Colonel North and others disproved this charge. It was then also proved that Governor Seymour proposed in writing to Depew, the Republican Secretary of State, to arrange agencies, consisting of one Democrat and one Republican, to visit the army together and receive the soldiers' votes in a public manner, so as to avoid all possibility of fraud, and that no notice was taken of Governor Seymour's letters. The inference that the Republicans preferred separate secret action, to aid in obtaining fraudulent votes, is clearly to be drawn from the recorded evidence on file in the War Department. The facilities for accomplishing such purposes were in proportion to the number of Republican commissioned officers. Although it is well known that two-thirds of the rank and file of the army were Democrats, the Republicans held three-fourths of all the commissions. In this lay the power of that party to control what should be returned as the soldier-vote. Governor Seymour's action on this occasion was honorable and just, and above suspicion. Not so of his adversaries.

In the approaching campaign a large political capital of slander will be used by the Republicans. No purity, capacity, or nobleness of character on the part of Democratic candidates can shield

them from the usual assaults and denunciations. Every vile epithet in the old vocabulary of abuse, as well as those newly invented, will be applied to them. The whole Republican press, and the army of Republican orators, will use the like epithets in every section of the Union. The old song will be sung to the same tune, lauding Republicans to the skies, and in denouncing the Democratic candidates as only fit for everlasting perdition. We have only to turn back to the precedents to find the whole already in print, and the answers and refutations fully recorded. Without a new special varnish, these Republican slanders will never be believed, not even by those who feel bound, as a sort of duty imposed upon them by the leaders, to repeat them. We neither ask their silence nor solicit their commendation, both of which would be the subjects of suspicion. By nature they are enemies of democratic principles, and distrust those who best represent them. As a matter of policy it is best for the Democracy that they should continue to act out their natural instincts. Being warned and put upon their guard, the Democrats protect themselves from all such assailants.

135.-WHAT HAS THE COUNTRY GAINED BY REPUBLICAN RULE?

Such a question hardly need be asked, but there may be some profit in briefly answering it. In 1856 and 1860 we were told that the administrations of Pierce and Buchanan had been worse than failures-that they had been absolutely injurious to the peace, welfare, and interests of the country. The Kansas difficulties were pointed to as evidence establishing these assertions. If they had caused these difficulties, these charges would have been supported. But they were caused not by the Administration of Mr. Pierce nor of Mr. Buchanan, but by the abolitionists and Republicans, in spite of these gentlemen and the exertions of the Democratic party. They resorted to every possible means to increase and intensify these difficulties for political effect. But these were trifling compared with those brought upon the country by the same partisans under Mr. Lincoln. What did the Republican party do or propose in Congress to avert rebellion and civil war? What did Mr. Lincoln do or suggest to avoid these calamities?

Nothing. He

neither did nor proposed to do one single thing to prevent or avert either. Congress spent a whole session without taking one step toward avoiding insurrection or war, and Mr. Lincoln made no recommendation in his inaugural address, although secession had swept away several States before it was delivered, and the temporary secession Confederacy had been formed. If Mr. Pierce and Mr. Buchanan are in any way the least responsible for the Kansas controversy, then Mr. Lincoln and the Republican party are far more responsible for the civil war in the South. But the Kansas war was a struggle for control, by resort to the ballot-box, over which no President could exercise any control. Neither Mr. Pierce nor Mr. Buchanan made the laws, nor could they control the voting or frauds charged in that respect. They were both non-interventionists. But the Republicans in Congress, before Mr. Lincoln was sworn in, could have passed appropriate laws, or at all events could have proposed them. But they did nothing, although called upon by Mr. Buchanan to act. Neither in his travelling speeches coming to the capital, nor in his inaugural address, or otherwise, did Mr. Lincoln do or say one thing to avert civil war. Instead of doing so, he drew about him the very men whose advice and acts were calculated to precipitate it—to render it inevitable. He put forth and adhered to a policy which all knew must plunge the country into a long and bloody war. This came upon us and lasted four years, when all fighting by contending armies ceased, and the war in fact ended. But the Republican party were not satisfied with the return of peace and the restoration of the Union. They wanted something more. It was feared that, if these States resumed their former relations in the Union, they might range themselves with the Democracy, and thereby render the defeat of the Republicans entirely certain. The policy of worrying, annoying, and irritating them was adopted. Instead of treating them as erring, repentant, and returning sisters, they were spurned and told they were conquered provinces; and instead of restoration, reconstruction through the negro vote was resorted to, and they are still kept out. Ten whole States at the South are this day in a far worse condition than Kansas ever was, and no steps calculated to relieve them are taken. Are

the Southern States better off for Republican rule? Has that party done any thing beneficial to the North or West? Our grinding taxes and the sad demoralization of the country are the direct result of their coming into power. Have morals and religion improved, or are the laws better respected and obeyed? The reverse is true. Few will insist that our enormous public debt is a blessing. No one will pretend that our currency, which neither our public ministers abroad, nor our people when visiting other parts of the world can use, nor our Government at the custom-houses, will take, is an improvement upon the Jackson gold currency. No one will rejoice over the death of our brave volunteers. Then it is inevitably true that in no way has the country been benefited by the Republicans coming into power. In no respect are our people as contented and happy as before Mr. Lincoln came into office. As far as that party can do it, democratic principles have been ignored, blotted out; and to entertain and practise them is rendered criminal in a portion of the Union. When Mr. Lincoln became President, we had thirty-three States (three more have been added since)-but ten have been repudiated, driven out, and cease to be counted. Republican rule has lost these ten States to the Union. Is that a blessing? Ten stars have dropped from our flag as the fruit of Republican ascendency. But this is not all. Senator Hendricks, of Indiana, thus pithily enumerates other wrongs brought upon the country by this party:

"1. You have made ten States subject to military authority. 2. You have made the civil tribunals subject to military rule. 3. The lives, liberty, and persons of the people are subject to military authority. 4. Juries are abolished. 5. Habeas corpus

is abolished; I mean, of course, at the pleasure of the military commanders. 6. You have clothed conventions with authority to fix their own salaries and levy taxes from the people for their payment. 7. You have empowered the commanders to displace Governors, judges, and legislators, and fill their places, thus making them dependent on the will of the commanders. What a spectacle we behold, sir! The judge taken from the bench, and the lieutenant placed in his stead! Legislators driven out, and others appointed by the military to make the laws which the peo

ple must obey! Sir, what were the causes of complaint which the colonies made against the British crown? Speaking of the King of Great Britain, our fathers declared:

'He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices and the amount and payment of their salaries.

'He has kept among us in times of peace standing armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

'He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.

'For imposing taxes on us without our consent.

'For depriving us in many cases of the benefit of trial by jury.'”

These quotations from the Declaration of Independence aptly describe the doings of the Republicans in Congress and the military rule that they have established. Congress has done what our fore fathers charged upon a British king as a crime, fully authorizing them to throw off the yoke of tyranny.

After considering what the Republican party has done, and what it has omitted, no candid man can say that the country has been benefited by its coming into power, but, on the contrary, it has been largely and seriously injured. How long will the people be content that the present state of things shall continue? This is a question for the people to settle. They have now a thousand unsettled questions, where they had one before the war.

136.-ARE NOT ALL THE STATES IN DANGER?

The broad ground is now assumed that all the States must have governments republican in form, and that Congress has the power to determine whether they are in such form or not. If it shall be of opinion that any one is not in such form, then Congress claims it can coerce and compel it to adopt such a form as it may see fit to require. It is not the people of a State, but Congress, which prescribes the standard and forces States into conformity with caucus dictation. Maryland was one of the original thirteen colonies, and afterward States, and has produced its full proportion of able, wise, and patriotic men. It has just now been