CHAPTER XXVI.

A NATIONAL DEMOCRAT OFFERS A REWARD FOR A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

THIS chapter will contain a grave charge against a man in public life.

There was issued at Parkville, in Platte County, in the State of Missouri, a paper called the "Parkville Luminary." It was edited by a gentleman by the name of Patterson: the proprietor of the paper was named Park, a very influential and respectable man, and long a resident in Missouri,-in fact, the substantial town of Parkville had been named after Mr. Park. I used to read this paper regularly. There were enterprising men at the head of it. They had made arrangements for the reception of telegraphic despatches directly to them from St. Louis and the East, on current events,―a very rare circumstance for country newspaper publishers, particularly in Missouri. This paper always advocated the institutions of the South and of the State of Missouri; but one unfortunate mistake it made. Just after the election in Kansas, it gave forth to the world its opinion that it was not right for the people of Missouri to go over and vote at elections in Kansas. Now this was treason to the institution of Slavery! It was worse than Abolition; it was a leader of public opinion, telling the people that it was wrong

to force the institution of Slavery upon a people who did not want it! The "Self-Defensives" were called in council, and the destruction of the Press, and the banishment of its editors and proprietors, determined upon, and carried into effect. I assert here, without fear of contradiction, that the Constitution of the United States was violated in the destruction of the press, and in the expatriation of the above-named gentlemen, for the sole reason that in their responsible position they counselled righteousness! Bear this in mind, for I wish to show you a man who offered to reward the iniquity.

My wife and myself were on board of the steamboat Polar Star, on the Missouri river. Dr. Bonnifant, of Weston, and many others whom I knew, were there. The boat was a public place of resort; there was a large crowd of passengers. At Kansas City there came on board a tall, wiry-looking man, about forty years of age, perhaps. There is nothing intellectual looking about him. He has a dull gray eye, coarse, sandcolored hair, very ordinary in every respect. This is J. W. Whitfield, late Indian Agent, and late M. C., but at the time of which I am writing, strong in his assurance of holding his seat in Congress.

Now, nobody could believe otherwise than that this. gentleman had been put in nomination by the "Weston Regency”—I never believed, for nobody in Weston ever tried to make me believe, otherwise. The truth is, it was a piece of good news in Weston, too good to be kept, it was in everybody's mouth. The "Weston Regency" nominated Whitfield, and the "Weston Re

gency" effected his election, he was the Pro-Slavery candidate; the name of democrat never entered into either of the plans for nomination, or of those for election. But when J. W. Whitfield got to Washington, there was some anxiety to learn on what issue he had been elected in Kansas? The friends of the Kansas Bill got it through the House of Representatives, by giving the assurance that Kansas could never become anything else but a Free State; but behold Whitfield comes, having been sent to Congress by Pro-Slavery men, to advocate Pro-Slavery interests! What is to be done? Why, let Harry Hibbard, of New Hampshire, address a letter to Whitfield, inquiring on what issue he had been elected, and let Whitfield write in reply, that he was elected on the "National Democratic issue," i. e., the Baltimore Platform issue: "Let Slavery alone." We shall take you at your word, Mr. Whitfield. I will hold you to it, for I want to pin to you a stigma unworthy an honest man. But just for the moment let me remark, that for this letter to Harry Hibbard, you come pretty near being shelved by the "Weston Regency." The "Platte Argus" came down on you, Mr. Whitfield; it declared, when it first published your letter, that you were elected on the ProSlavery issue, and none other. And the "Argus" was right. But, nevertheless, I am also bound to take you at your word. You have written that you were elected as a "National Democrat". as one who reveres the very letters, and jots and tittles of that Constitution, as much as ever old Jew did the letters or points of the Hebrew Bible,--and yet, Mr. J. W. Whitfield did

loudly, and before his own family, and before the family of Dr. Bonnifant, and in my hearing, and with a glance directed towards where I sat at table, declare the people of Parkville did well when they destroyed the press of the Luminary; and I, for one, will give twenty-five dollars towards procuring a medal for them, to commemorate the deed!

This is the truth, reader: must there not, then, be great morality, much religion, abundance of patriotism, in that upper country?

Pooh, pooh! we do not go to priests to learn politics! Neither do I go to dishonest political quacks, to get my divinity or morality. Tyranny, bloodshed, and civil war, come under my catalogue of crimes-and Slavery is the cause of these three crimes, being perpetrated on the border at this moment. If this is "National Democracy," then I will also add it to the list of crimes.

CHAPTER XXVII.

DEVELOPMENT-A NEW ARTICLE REQUIRED IN THE CREED.

THE liberties of the Church, and the liberties of the State, if not identical, are closely allied. If either is dependent on the other, then the liberties of the Church occupy the subordinate position. In countries where the Church and the State are united, there the politics are common. A statesman is a churchman, and a churchman is a politician. This state of things is unavoidable. For instance, in Great Britain, what Church act does not receive the sanction of a lay parliament, or what purely State act does not receive the assent of the Bench of Bishops; or, if the question be on the rejection of a measure, either of an ecclesiastical or of a secular nature, it must be rejected by the influence of both Church and State.

We have no such union of State and Church in the United States: very true, we have no particular body of professed Christian people recognized as the Church of the nation; but the united body of professed Christian people constitute this nation, with comparatively few exceptions-the only difference is, that a profession of Christianity is not made a test for the enjoyment of any right or privilege of a purely political