Some Political Truths

Human experiencia recordud in hiatory shows thtit a mau cannot be so puro in thought, or so virtuoua in act ion, as to esoape the lying lips oí the virulent traducer. Tho godliest man of ancient times had his revilers, who filled th poisoQud oup that was lifted to tho lipa of the dying Sócrates. It was by revilers thftt the defamad but noble Aristotle was driven into exile. When the greatest orator of all antiquity sought to iniorin the Athenian deinocracy of the danger threatening him bocause of the Maoedonian spoiler, the verj' rabble of the street hooted and jeered. So in modern times, Yoltaire has inforiuod tba world that there never would have been such a thing as Protostantism, had the sale of indulgeuoes been given to Luther rather than Tetzel. And when Washington did the noblest aot of his life in signing the Jay treaty, theie were those of his countrymen who stood ready to burn hitn in effigy. We do not wonder that political parties, liko individual men, should be subjected at times to undeserved abuse. Such is human nature. But where this abus arises trom ignorance it is a duty to dispel that ignorance, A person indulging in unmerited abuae deserves reproaoh, whether the abuse in ignorant or malicious. We have previously showu how unfounded and unjust are the vuhemnnt attaoks made upou the Democratie party besause of its record on the slavery question up to the time of the war. We did uot uudertake to show that the Demooratio party was right in its position on that subject, but only that tho denunciation of the party on that ground cannot be justifiud by the faots. We propose now to consider the oppositiou made by the üemocracy to the abolition of slavery through the thirteenth amendment, and to see whether Republican abuse is ualled for uu thut point. Abolitioii of Slavery by Thirteenth Amendment. - We inteud to try this question aocording to the standard of Republican doctrino, and to leave all Democratio argumenta out of view. What then was the standard ruis, d by the Rupublican party ? 1. The Republican National Convention at Chicago, in 1860, adopted the following as its fourth resolution : "That the maintenance in viólate of the rights of the States, and etpecially the righta of each State to order and cvntrol Ui oicn domestic mutitutions, according to iti ownjudginent exclushely, is ea-untial to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our politica] faith depends." This was a very emphatio affirniation of the doctrine thal the Eepublioan party would not interfere with the domestic institution ol slavery in the Southeru States, 2. This doctrine was reaiürraed by President Lincoln in his inaugura address, Alurch 4th, 1861. Mr. Lincoln quoting tho above resolution, said : " J now reitérate these sentiments ; and, in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive ovidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in anywise endangerec by the now incoming administration.' He also said : " I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to iuterfere with slavery in the States where it exista." 3. Just previous to the inauguration, the House of Representativos, being atrongly Eepublican, passed the following rusolution, the Republicans being unanimous in its support: "Resolved, That neithar the Federal Government nor the people, or the governments ol the non-slaveholding States, bave the right to legislate upon or interfere with slavery in any of the slaveholding States ia the Union." 3. Congress, being Republican in both branches, also passed the following proposed constitutional amendment : " No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, in any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that ol persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." The above was introduced by Mr. Seward and cairied through by the Republicana. Mr. Linooln, speeking of it in his inaugural, says: " Holding such a provisión now to be imphed constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Now the Ropublican party held, through its National Conveution, its Congress, and its President, that tho domestio institution of slavery was a matter over which the Federal Government and the people of tho United States had no just authority ; that tuey oould not interferu with it in any manner; that the slaveholding States had " exclusive " right to control it ; and that any interference by federal action would be a violatiou of good faith and implied constitntional law. Did Republicans ever condemn themselves as politically infamous, and as opprossors of the negro race for holding such doctrines as the above ? Did they condemn themselves as trampliug upon truth and right and justico, and the Constitution which they had sworn to support? If not, it comes with an illgraco for them to hold up the Democratie party to public scoru for rejecting the thirteenth amondinent. Did the Republicans perjure themselves and trample the Constitution under their foet in 1860 ? If not, they did in 1805, when they took exactly the opposite position for tho sake of gaining a purtisau advantage. In either oase thoy have no right to denounco the Demooratio party for consistently standing by what it had alioays held to be the true oonstitutional theory. The fact that souie of the slaveholding States had attempted to go out of the Union does not alter the Coonstitutional obligatious. The sound doctrine is that those States were never out of the Union. But the Constitutional amendment abolished slavery not only in thoHu Utates, but also in the slaveholding States witbin the Union. Away then with this ill-founded, lying, and malicous abuse of the Demooratio party, every word of which is a living rebuke to the policy of the Republioan purty itself and ought to be a nuil in it.s cotHn. The days wlion the Republican party can live upon the malicious stander of the Deinocracy, in reference to these questions t least, are nambured. PUBLICUS. I)OKS TUK liansing correspondent of the Dutroit l'ost tuean to prejudice tho interest8 of tho 1 m vi-mi ty, in the Legislature and with the public, by persisting in stüting the permanont aid or appropriation to the Univorsity, under Act Mo. 32, session laws of 1873, at $50,000 inatead of $31,500, nearly tho exact snm to be i "tilr."il undor that bill, hereui'tiT as heretofore? The inauaging editor of the Pust should enligbten it.s correspondtant. In THE Senate, on Monday, Senator Kornan, of N. Y., was eleoted to take the place of Thurnian (sick) on the Electoral Commission.