may preserve intact the government our fathers transmitted to us, unimpaired, unchanged, and vigorous as it came from the hands of its founders. To do this, we conscientiously believe, the great Democratic party of the Union now offers the best means by which this can be done. It reaches out into every section of this great country; it stands united upon these grand principles of fraternal union, upon the basis of the Constitution; the just rights of the Federal government undisputedly granted to it, while the reserved rights of the States are equally preserved to them. It is the only national party that can conciliate angry sections, and make this country what the sages and heroes of the revolution designed it should be, a sisterhood of States, a land of freedom, a home for the oppressed of all lands.

THE RIGHT OF COERCION.-It has been said by some who have but poorly studied the formation of our government, that because Democrats opposed coercion before the rebellion commenced, that therefore it was "a disloyal party." Andrew Johnson, Senator from Tennessee, then applauded for his opinions, and the candidate of the Republican party for Vice President in 1864, elected by them, and afterwards President of the United States, held these views. He said in the Senate of the United States, on December 18, 1860: "The Federal government has no power to coerce state, because by the eleventh amendment of the Constitution of the United States, it is expressly provided that you cannot even put one of those States before the courts of the country as a party. As a State, the Federal Government has no power to coerce it; but each State was a party to the compact to which it agreed with the other States, and this government has the right to pass laws, and to enforce

those laws on individuals, and it has the right and power, not to coerce a State, but to enforce and execute the law upon individuals within the limits of a State."

This was the view held by Hon. John A. Logan, subsequently their candidate for Vice President, and by many other members of the Republican party, and why should it be strange that Democrats announced those doctrines?

They did not deny the duty and power of the Federal Government to enforce its laws at the point of the bayonet, if resisted.

President Buchanan, in his message to Congress, on January 8, A. D. 1861, says:

"The dangerous and hostile attitude of the States toward each other, has already far transcended and cast in the shade the ordinary executive duties, already provided for by law, and has assumed such vast and alarming proportions as to place the subject entirely beyond executive control. The fact cannot be disguised that we are in the midst of a great revolution. In all its various bearings, therefore, I commend the question to Congress, as the only human tribunal, under Providence, possessing the power to meet the existing emergency. To them, exciusively belongs the power to declare war, or to authorize the employment of the military force, in all cases contemplated by the Constitution."

Congress might then have taken action. The Republican party had the power in both branches of Congress, by reason of the secession of Southern Senators, who left the Republicans in control of the Senate, and they had held the House of Representatives before that event occurred. No person ever doubted the right and duty of Congress to pass laws to enable the President to defend the Union against armed rebellion.

At this time the question of coercion had already passed away. Some of the Southern States had already seceded and taken forcible possession of public property, and had, themselves, become the assailants. To this Congress the President appealed to decide the question; but though the Republicans were in power in both branches, Congress shrank from its duty. It might have been commendable had it desired to prevent the effusion of fraternal blood, and restore the Union. Perhaps that was their object; still the duty of the hour confronted them and they shrank from it. Had Congress promptly passed the bill to enable the President to call forth the militia, or to accept the services of volunteers, as Lincoln did when Congress was not in session, it might complain; but it failed to do so, and is estopped from charging others with a want of vigor in this respect.

Why, then, charge Democrats with dereliction of duty, when its own chosen party legislative power was then assembled, and failed to do that with which they would now blame the Democracy! It was his duty to enforce the laws theirs to pass them! Then how absurd to blame others for that which they were guilty of themselves.

This, then, is a brief allusion to the subject of cocercion, and the exercise of military power to suppress the rebellion, and there is nothing in it that any Democrat need blush to acknowledge.

These sound views of the Constitution, and convictions of patriotic duty in those trying days of our national peril, should induce men to rally under the flag of Democracy, and place in power those who have been true to the great principles of free institutions, upon which our government is founded.

CHAPTER VII.

SOME CARDINAL DOCTRINES OF DEMOCRACY-THE RIGHT OF PETITION, PUBLIC MEETINGS, SUPREM

ACY OF THE LAW, ETC.

The Right of Petition for a redress of grievances, is at right conceded and sanctioned by Democratic principles. That this right has been abused is no argument against its proper use. When it is made the means of insulting legislative bodies, and of consuming much valuable time, and merely for political effect, it is not to be commended. Still it may correct many wrongs, and the foundation upon which the right rests is and must ever remain inviolate. The people deprived of this right, would immediately degrade the real sovereign-the people in the eyes of the servant-the representative. It is as necessary a right as that of free speech or a free press. It is a privilege not denied by Deity itself, and is a right inherent in the people, or wherever the relation of inferior to superior in power exists. How much more proper is it, where the real sovereign has entrusted his authority, for a brief season, to his chosen representative. To petition, in the Democratic sense of the word, is, simply directing those in power, in what their constituents conceive to be, the discharge of their duties. When considered however, in the light of a possibility, that the servant has taken the oath of office, and his supposed superior facility for acquiring necessary information, and his relations to his oath of office, where required to bind his conscience as such, it is of doubtful utility. It is

always commendable when resorted to for a redress of grievances, and in such instance is, in accordance with the highest conception of free government. The right of petition here spoken of is, that right of citizens to petition the law-making power for a redress of grievances. It must not be confounded with that of petitioning, by force of numbers, to the executive in case of pardons, which is, in many instances, rather the subversion of the wholesome execution of the law. So also petitions by the army are not favored in free governments. So carefully is this right, and prerogative of the legislator and legislative bodies guarded, that they must be presented in accordance with the rules of legislative bodies, and within the true spirit of the privilege granted. When presented by large bodies, accompanied by physical demonstrations, either by crowds, armed or unarmed, in or outside of legislative halls, they partake of the nature of threats and intimidations, and are therefore subversive, rather than conducive to the well being of a free people. In such instances, the demonstration is contrary. to Democratic principles. Legislative and deliberative bodies must be perfectly free.

Democrats therefore should discriminate between the uses, and abuses of this right of petition.

This right, when asserted for its rightfully intended purposes, is a right never to be surrendered. The weakness of men, oftimes induces them to grant their signatures to petitions, rather than refuse, and thus this means of informing legislative bodies, is rather calculated to confuse than to direct. Yet when it is considered, that this sacred right of the people to petition, can in no event do harm, especially when directed to a body of men ordinarily intellingent, and serve, to direct public attention.