Newspaper Page Text
VOL. XI—NO. 24.
CAMPAIGN SONG—Revised Edition. Got up for the Pioeeer and Democrat, an l RespeclfiiU* Inscribed to Billy Hubbell, of Winona, a sterling Democrat —Tu*E—“JrfsA Holy, O." BY JEROMES JAYIIAWK. Come one. come all, good Democrats, And rail} - round our flag, To tight the Black Republicans, Who play the game of brag. We’ll meet them in discussion, 0, We’ll meet them at the polls, We’ll beat these same old coons again, And drive them to their holes. Chords.— We’ll make them face the music, O, And then we’ll make them run, Ou! on the next election day We ll have a deal of fun! Repeat, with h'ary s>ress on “Oh!" by the whole compau. We ll send them up Salt River To their dirty homes again, We’ll give them no fresh water. But Democrats reign ; Bluff Aleck shall be captain, 0, And Goodrich man the gun. And Ignatius blow the bugle While Bill Wiudom beats the drum Chords —We’ll, etc. Aldrich shall do the sparring When the boat gets on a bar, And if he can sweat a barrel He will surely do it thar ! Young Scheffer shall be purser, O, And Cole shall be the clerk, And Baker, from Ohio State, Shall do the dirty work. Chords —We’ll, etc. In the boat Repudiation, O, A craft of their own make, With Swizzle’em for cabin maid, They all will passage take ; Bold Banning, he shall pilot them Past all the dangerous banka, And Foster black the boots and shoes Of all those in the ranks. Chords. —We’ll, etc. October twelfth the boat will start, And we shall bid adieu To those poor Black Republicans, A sorry hearted crew ; Then all aboard ye lean and streak'd. And you who Nothing Know, For to the head of Salt River You’re book'd that day to go ! Chorus— We’ll, etc. Important Document Read! Read! Read! A Letter from Senator Rice, on the Homestead Bill, and the Land, Record of the Republicans. TO THE PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA. On my return home, I learned that seve ral prominent Republicans from other States were here, endeavoring to induce the people to believe that I had opposed the passage ol the Homestead Bill. These same gentlemen have said to our citizens tbatjf they wish for “ homes for the homeless,” they must vote the Republican ticket. A few facts will, I trust, show the insin cerity of those who have travelled so far to enlighten the people of this State. The bill came up in the Senate upon three occasions. It was first called up by Mr. Wade, of Ohio. Gen. Shields and myself both voted for taking it up. This was on the 17th day of February last. On the 26th of the same month, Senator Doolittle moved to post pone the Cuba Bill and take up the Home stead Bill. This was late at night, and at a time when every Senator knew that the bill could not be reached. Appeal after appeal was made to Mr. Doolittle to with draw his motion ; in proof of which I make the following extracts from the Globe : Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I wish to call the attention of the Senator from Wisconsin to a single point. He knows that I have been the early and consistent friend of the homestead proposition. 1 advocated that measure when it had but few friends; I have advocated it since it has had many friends. We struggled with it through one branch of Congress, and we have it now before the Senate for action. 1 wish merely to suggest, in this connection, that while I am for it, and intend to vote for it, and speak for it until I am really satisfied that it is either to be postponed finally, or to be come the law, I hope the Senator, in the pres ent state of affairs, with another question be fore the Senate, and Senators willing to speak upon it, and all prepared to vote upon it, will withdraw his motion. It is not worth while to antagonize with tne pending question, when it actually weakens the proposition, and certain ly cannot advance it. lam as much for the measure as the Senator from Wisconsin can be, and I was almost going to say that I am more for it than he can be. I hope he will withdraw his proposition, and let us have action on the subject now before the Senate. The course which he is taking cannot strengthen the home stead measure. It will give ,t no votes, and in the present state of affairs and business before the Senate, 1 am satisfied that there are many Senators who are in favor of the homestead bill who will vote against postponing this bill at the present time. 1 trust, then, he will with draw his motion, and let it be understeod that so soon as the Cuba question is disposed of, we shall make one common ana united effort to bring up the homestead bill and procure the action of the Senate upon it. Mr.. DOUGLAS. I had only a word to say, and the Senator from Tennessee has said that in about the form that I should have done. I think it is unwise in the friends of the home stead bill to occupy time by crossing motions in this way and thus defeating the bill, when if we will consider one question at a time, we shall have ample opportunity to dispose of both. The right way now to pass the home stead bill, and the only chance it has, is to stand by the Cuba bill until we get through with it. then take up the homestead bill, and go on with that until we get through with it, and then take up the appropriation bills and get through with them. Let us take up one meas ure at a time, as we reach it. I voted to give the homestead bill priority over the Cuba bill; but this being up, as a friend of the homestead measure, I think the surest way to pass it is to stand by this bill until we dispose of it, and then take up the homestead bill. Mr. CLARK. As a friend of the Homestead Bill I do not want to lose any votes for it by pressing it at an unseasonable hour. I think this is an unseasonable hour to press that or any other bill [fifteen minutes past nine o’clock.] I therefore move that the Senate adjourn, and on that motion I ask the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. RICE. If there is any one measure before the Senate that I desire to pass it is the Home stead Bill; but I believe that every effort made by those who advocate it to call it up on an occasion like this, will but weaken the measure. It is certain that it cannot be brought-up now; it has not the votes here to do it; and the ten dency of every effort which is made, and which results in a failure, is to weaken the measure. I hope, therefore, the Senator from Wisconsin will withdraw his motion. I ask this as a friend of the measure; and believing him to be a friend of it, I ask him to withdraw his motion. Mr. BROWN. There is no necessary antago nism between these two measures. The Cuba question is now befora the Senate, and its friends mean to press it to a vote. There ought not to be, therefore, any purpose on the part of the friends of the Homestead Bill to thrust it in at this stage of proceedings. I shall not vote for the Homestead Bill, although 1 am not particularly unfriendly to it. I will say to my friend from Wisconsin, that if he will now with draw his motion. I will, as soon as the Cuba Bill is disposed of, vote with him to take up the Homestead Bill. I want to get along with one thing at a time. lam willing to bring it before the Senate on a proper occasion, and let tlm Senate dispose of it as they may determine, l hope the friends of that measure will not press it now, nor fritter away our time by making one measure clash with another. Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I make an appeal to the Senator from Wisconsin, as a friend of the Homestead measure, to withdraw his proposition for the present. Yet, notwithstanding these appeals, Mr. Doolittle pushed his motion to a vote, thus doing all in bis power to strangle the bill. I voted against postponing the business then before the Senate. I was in duty bound so to do, and I did it believing that it was the most certain course to pursue to reach the Homestead Bill—as by reference to the journal it must appear clear to every one that the only object our opponents had was to embarrass, delay, and put over every important measure, for the purpose of secur ing an extra session of Congress, injhopes thereby to secure the organization of the House. On the first day of March, Mr. Pugh, a Democratic Senator, moved to postpone a private bill for the purpose of taking up the Homestead, and upon that occasion both my colleague and self voted with the other friends of the bill. Ido not see that the Republicans have given us credit for this— on the contrary they say that we “ stood nobly by the bill up the 26th of February, and then deserted it.” By reference to the Glebe of March Ist, page 1433, vol. 2d, last session, they will find that both Shields and Rice were then, the last time the measure was up, supporting it. I was anxious that action should have been taken, yet I did not like all the details of the bill ; and Mr. Grow, the author, was either insincere in his pro fessions to aid the landless, or most blindly ignorant of our land system. The bill only gave to the settler lands that had been surveyed and had been put into market, thus depriving them of all except those that speculators would not have, and to effectu ally keep the best lands from going into the hands of the “ landless,” and to keep them until the Republicans shall be strong enough to appropriate them for agricultural colleges, canals, and like purposes. Mr. Grow mover to amend the pre-emption bill, so as to pre vent the President from putting any lands into market until ten years after the sur vey. See Globe, Part Ist, last session, page 493. Mr. Grow will not say that the pro visions of his bill extended to any other than the lands now private entry, and I regret to learn that any other person of intelligence should attempt to make the laboring men of Minnesota believe other wise. I trust that the rt cords will show that the Republicans in Congress, as a party, were opposed to a Homestead Bill—not openly like men, but secretly—and in proof of this I beg to call your attention to a few facts, to show what real disposition that party wished to make of the public lands, and then leave not only the landless of Min nesota, but the thousands now in want of work and of bread, to judge for themselves. Oo the 21st day of December, 1857, Sen ator W ilson, of Massachusetts, one of the Republican leaders, gave notice to the Sen ate that he would introduce a bill “appropri ating one million of acres of the public lands of the United States for the benefit of free public schools in the District of Columbia.” Was this giving land to the landless? was this giving land to the freemen of the north to educate their children? No! it was taking from the North lands made valuable by the labor of the landless, and giving them to the rich of the South. On Tuesday, the 28th day of December, 1858, this same Senator W ilson gave notice that he would introduce a bill for the same purpose. Turning back to 17th December, 1857, I find that he then gave a similar notice of his intention to astf one million of acres of land to aid in educating the children of the cities of Washington and Georgetown. How SAINT PAUL, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1859 many such Republican friends would it lake to ruin every man within our State? As early as December, 1858, Mr. Seward urged immediate action upon the Agri cultural College Bill. This bill was kept ahead of the Homestead Bill, and by unti ring efforts, the Republicans succeeded in forcing it through both branches of Con gress; and had a Republican filled the Pres idential chair, it would have become a law, and there would now be left within our limits but a small quantity of good land for the honest settler; but you could by going to Maine or Connecticut, or some other State, purchase from one of these Agricul tural Colleges, or of their agents, land for from five to ten dollars, perhaps more, per acre. This outrageous measure received the support of Hale, Chandler, Grow and the entire Republican party. Had it become a law, where would the poor man have found land under Mr. Grow’s Homestead Bill? Homes for the homeless indeed ! I trust you will not be deceived by men who wish to secure your votes to enable them hereafter to rob us ot the lands wanted for future cul tivation. By reference to my remarks upon this bill, you will find that I spoke of another Republican devise for taking our lands and giving them to a corporation within the State of New York, to aid in building a ship canal around the Falls of Niagara. That measure asked for three millions of acres to be takeu from the State of Minne sota. Fellow citizens, in all candor let me ask you, if any Homestead Bill would have aided you, had the Republicans been success ful in passing their several land measures ? I have already mentioned enough to take from our midst nine millions of acres. I deem it my duty to bring these facts to your attention, and if hereafter men elevated to power by your votes, shall deprive you of the right to purchase homes at the present rates, and compel you to purchase of States and corporations at speculative prices, you must remember that you were warned of the consequences. Particularly do I wish to call the atten tion of the laboring men to the course pursued by Seward, Hale, Chandler and other Republicans in regard to the Pacific Railroad. The Bill which was reported by a select committee of nine, provided for oue route, and that a central so-called route, although, in fact, a Southern one. Wm. H. Seward was upon that committee. When the Bill was under consideration,! moved an amendment so as to place the North upon a footing with the central part of our country; but the amendment was rejected, and by the votes of Seward, Hale, Chandler, Trumbull, Wade, Wilson and others. Thus you can see how much these political missionaries cared for the interests of the people of the North. Again—when I brought forward the only practicable Homestead Bill that was up before the Senate, a substitute for the Pacific Railroad, a bill providing for a Northern route, and placing the lands at five cents per acre on the line, these very men voted against it. They not only voted against giving us a Northern route, but against giving us an opportunity to com pete with the other portions of the Union for the same. They voted against giving you the public lands at five cents per acre. Yet they now tell you that they were in favor of a Homestead Bill. For giving us a Northern Railroad to the Pacific, for giving the landless of the North land at five cents per acre, for giving the laboring men of Minnesota work, but two Republi cans in the United States Senate voted—and those two were Collamer of Vermont, and Doolittle of Wisconsin. Had Mr. Seward and his friends got through their bill, the people would have been compelled to have paid in taxes over one hundred million of dollars towards constructing a railroad hundreds of miles from the State of Minnesota ; a work so far distant that not one of you could have obtained a day’s employment—a work so far off that our farmers could not have sold to the laborers a dollar’s worth of produce. I mention these things to warn you of the coming danger should you place the party in power that has so unmistakably pointed out the course it will pursue. On the 22d of April, 1858, Mr. Seward, the Republican Presidential aspirant, intro duced into the United States Senate “A Bill to secure the prompt construction of a line of Telegraph from San to Fort Smith, and from Fort Smith to St. Louis, in Missouri, and Memphis, in Ten nessee.” Was this measure lor the benfit ot the N orth ? In the same year, January 21st, Mr. Yu lee, a Democratic Senator from Florida, gave notice that he would introduce a bill giving to the States all the public lands within their limits, which, had it become a law, would have done more for Minnesota than all other bills ever introduced. Thus, you see a National man of the South com ing forward to aid us, and a sectional man of the North, with no other political capital than abuse for Southern men, refusing upon all important occasions to aid the free white man. By many, it is believed that the next Presidential election will go to the House of Representatives. Hence the efforts made by Republicans from abroad to carry this State. Should the election be thrown into the House, you can see the importance of sending two men to represent you in the House, who will under no circumstances cast their votes for a man who has here tofore doue all in his power to take from us, and give to the rich old States, the last acre of public lands within our limits. For a judicious disposition of the public lands—for the speedy opening up of a Northern route to the Pacific— and the placi% of the lauds on the line within the reach of every man, your only hope lies in the Democratic party. I refer yon to the record—it shows for itself—and as the evils of bad legislation will fall the most heavy upon you, and if hundreds of millions of dollar are appropriated to build a Railroad from Missouri to California, you will be the ones by whom the tax will be the most severely felt, I invite your mo3t earnest attention to all the facts—trusting that you will not permit any local, personal, or fancied consideration to bias your action. For six years, fellow citizens, I have had your confidence, and have acted as your representative; and this is the first time I have addressed you, and even now, had not false charges been made in regard to my course, and the policy of the Demrocratic party, I should have remained silent. Your Ob’t Ser’t, HENRY M. RICE. GREAT MEETING AT C(MERfHALL. GOV. A. P. WILLARD, OF INDIANA Tlie Speech of the Canvass.' Thrilling Enthusiasm. On Monday evening Concert Hall was “ rammed, jammed, and packed” with our citizens, anxious to hear Governor*A~. P. Willard, of Indiana. We have no hesi tation in saying that the audience there assembled,exceeded in numbers, intelligence andenthusiasm, anyjpublic meeting ever con vened in this city. Every available corner of the hall—the aisles, the window-sills, and the stairways, were covered with live Democrats. The hall, large as it is, could not contain the number who desired to hear the speaker, and many persons were forced to leave, not being able to effect an entrance into the room. The enthusiasm manifested exceeded anything that has been witnessed in the canvass. The cheers and hurras of the immense crowd, fairly shook the build ing. Before the regular hour of the Club meet ing had arrived, the hall being full, Wm. Sprigg Hall, Esq., introduced in an ap propriate style, Governor Willard, who had previously ascended the speaker’s stand, accompanied by Gov. Sibley. The former, on rising to address the audience, was re ceived with hearty cheers. Governor Willard commenced by ex pressing his cordial thanks for the generous and heartfelt reception tendered him. There were doubtless, before him, many children of his native State, New York ; and many others from the State of hi 3 adoption— Indiana—a State he loved better than all oth ers, because she had loved and honored him. He was startled on arriving here, to find a city like St. Paul, which eight years ago, had barely an existence and a name. Min nesota, too, now takes a front rank among the States, in position, in extent, and im portance ; and she would maintain that rank while she proved loyal to the Constitu tion and faithful to the integrity of the Union. OUR STATE POLICY. The speaker knew nothing of our State affairs, nor of our quarrels and differences about men. He could quarrel with the Republicans, but never could take part in differences among Democrats. Minnesota was almost the youngest daughter of the Union. She was the child of the Democ racy. (cheers.) We welcomed her into the confederacy of American States, when the Republicans said she should cot come in. Yet these same Republicans were now seeking to degrade and debauch Minnesota —to rob her of her dearest jewel—her pub lic virtue. Minnesota has given her bond; they cry repudiate it. (Cheers.) They would have repudiation your first act. He did not know whether our past policy as a State was right; but if your bond has been given, and au obligation assumed under the broad seal of the State, stand to it like men. Such conduct will do you no harm, but add lustre to your already spotless honor. (Cheers.) Many years ago the speaker had wandered from his native State of New York, and by chance became a citizen of Indiana. In diana had been under opposition rule up to 1843. She had, while under that rule, failed to meet her just indebtedness, and pay the interest on bonds issued. The De mocracy came into power in 1843, and like all honest p arties should do, promptly as sumed and met the obligations resting upon the State. We, as a State, were then worth 8100,000,000, and had forty miles of Railroad. From that day to this, Demo cratic have governed Indiana. The State has always met promptly the in terest on her public debt. And to-day, as a consequence of this honest policy, the taxable property of Indiana amounts to §485,000,000; we have completed 1,500 miles of Railway, at a cost of §40,000,000. That shows what an honest policy does for a State. (Uproarous cheering.) Take a boy, and let him, upon his entrance in life, borrow §SO, and afterwards repudiate the debt, and while God lets him live he never would get another cent (laughter). The same rule which governs the acts of men—which conduces to their prosperity or brings on them disgrace—operates on States. The speaker referred to the United States government. It could send to Lon don, and borrow England’s money cheaper and more readily than England herself could do. The reason of this is, because the United States has always met promptly the interest and principal of her public indebt edness. The speiker invoked the people of Min nesota to stand by the honor of the State. Lose that, and every thing was gone. Sacrifice your land, your houses, aye your very cattle, but lor God’s sake, and for that of your children, maintain inviolate your plighted faith. In thirty years from now— and that was but as a moment in the history of a State—the people of Minnesota would thank him that he had given this advice. (Cheers.) THE “ NIGGER.” The speaker said he came now to con sider that particularly interesting, but re markably novel subject, “ the nigger.” He bad started out in political life a very young man, and when other questions excited the public mind. Previous to the canvass of 1844, the political parties into which the people of the country divided, did not talk of what should be the condition of the ne gro ; but where the white man stood, and what could be done to promote the inter ests of the white man. But a little band of Abolitionists thought this was not right. They werd too good and too pure to act with either the Whigs or the Demo crats. They could not consider the inter ests of the white man; the negro—the negro—was the burthen of their soeg. f'l he Whig party passed away. The issues which it sought to engraft upon the policy of the country, become obsolete. The great lead ers of that party--the champions whose mighty genius gave it power and influence were in their graves; and then, there sprung up a new organization —the Repub lican party. It was made up mostly of Whigs, with a sprinkling of Democrats; but they were both -ashamed to take the lead in this new party, so they put this Abolition gang at its head, and there they are now— Giddings, Seward, Hale, and the rest of them. (Great cheering.) POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY. Tne speaker proceeded to discuss the rise of the doctrine of Popular Sovereignty, from 1848, when the Democracy were divid ed on the subject, and when Gen. Gass, the Democratic candidate for the Presi dency, first enunciated the right of the people of the Territories to regulate their local affairs in their own way, down to the Presidential election of 1856. He showed that in 1850, this doctrine of non interference was advocated by Cass, Clay, Fillmore, Webster and others ; that it was then fought and opposed by Giddings, Seward, Gerrit Smith, Chase and all the Abolitionists; that in 1852, the Whigs and Democrats united in battling for it ; that in 1854 it was engrafted on the Kan3as-Ne braska bill, when the Republican party was formed in opposition to the principle, with the cry that the Democracy favored the ex tension of slavery. We were, the truth was, extending freedom to white men, by per mitting them to be their own rulers, and manage their own affairs. The New England Republican notion was, that the further west a man went, the bigger fool he gets to be. If a western farmer sends one of his boys west, he fills up his wagon with bacon and salt and flour, but says nothing about the nigger. The New Englander fills the emigrants’ pockets with anti slavery tracts, and then lets him “ hoe his own roe.” (Laughter.) The speaker weut into an examination of Western char acter, showing that if there was a class of people on earth, capable of governing them selves wisely, it was the pioneer settlers of the Western Territories. DRED SCOTT DECISION. The Supreme Court, in this decision, had merely decided that a black man was tot a white man; and that he, the dark man could not, therefore, become a citizen of the United States. When the Constitution was formed there were bondsmen in every State save one. The framers ot the Constitution deliberated long and well; their mission was to establish liberty and a constitutional gov ernment. They came from the battle fields of the Revolution, to form our organic law. and sat down with the beloved Washington at their head. They found the negro a bondsman in the States already organized, and they left him so. But they declared that States seeking admission into the con federacy should decide for themselves whether they would or would not tolerate slavery. fugitive slave law. Nor would the founders of the Constitu tion permit the people of one State to be thieves or those of another to be robbed. He referred to the Fugitive Slave Law. The people of Pennsylvania, in the Consti- NEW SERIES-NO. 198. tution, said to those of Virginia, you shall not steal from us, and we will not steal from you. The speaker here read the provision from the Constitution in regard to the re clamation of fugitives from labor, and point ed to the signature of “ George Washing ton” thereto appended. Vet, said he, Washington, if now living, for that act would be denied admission into Heaven by hundreds of Abolition preachers. NEGROES NOT SO BADLY OFF The negroes were stolen from Africa and brought to this country, and were sold into slavery, by the ancestors of these same New Englanders who now denounce slavery. The speaker did not be lieve the negro so badly ofl in a philanthrop ic point of view, for his having been trans ferred from benighted Africa to enlightened America. What has been the result of the trade pursued in Africans by the ancestors of the present citizens of New England? It is 200 years since the introduction of Africans into this country, and to-day their number amounts to 4,000,000 ; in that 200 years 700,000 had died in full communion with the Christian church, and to-day, of the total African population in this country, 400,000 are members of the church of Christ. How is it in Africa ? In that 200 years, with all the efforts of opulent missionary societies, not one copy of the Bible of the living God had been carried into the interior. The speaker mentioned these facts, to answer back the pharasaical cant of the men who claim, “ we are better than you.” NEGRO EQUALITY If the Supreme Court had decided other wise than it had done in the Dred Scott case, viz : that negroes could not become citizens of the United States, every negro now held in bondage would have become a freeman, by virtue of a provision in the Constitution of the United States, extend ing the protection of government to all citi zens. What would you have done, Messrs. Republicans, with the negro when you got him free? Would you take him and make him your equal in the church, in the marts of commerce, or in the family circle ? I answer for you, no ! When has ever one proud race been merged aud amalgamated in or with the blood of an inferior oue ? Never! THE “ irrepressible conflict.” While Lincoln, Seward and Chase ac knowledge that the Democracy have secur ed all the free States and free Territories, they say there is an “ irrepressible conflict ” existing between us and the men of the South, and we cannot live with them. We must be all free or all slave. The speaker here referred to the commercial relations existing between Minnesota and the South ; bow they received our lumber and produce in exchange for their sugar and molasses, the fruits of slave labor. Say we separated, said he, would not you men of Minnesota trade as cheerfully with the men of the South as you do now ? England with all her hostility to slavery, does not refuse to take from the South cotton, and with it, she furnishes employment for hundreds of thous ands of her laborers. Even the United States, but a short time since, sent her fleets to a barbarous nation, to compel the opening of ports to the trade of the world. Yet in the face of these facts, they say we cannot live together, except we are all slave or all free. The men of the South and the men of the North, stood shoulder to shoulder in the war of the revo lution. Washngton thought it no digrace to drive the British from Boston, or Morgan, with his Southern riflemen, to encompass Burgoyne’s defeat at Sara toga ; neitheir did the Quaker, Greene, of Rhode Island, deem it wrong to unsheathe his sword and drive the British from the Carolinas. Our Fathers bled side by side, and were buried in the same graves; they bequeathed the common inheritance of liberty and union to their children ; they implored them to be broth ers. Oh, let it be so. Go on, a united people. Hold fast to the Government as created by our Fathers—adhering to it with fidelity and patriotism. Pour into this, our country, every child from a foreign land who loves liberty. And if we have not enough of land, for the millions who seek to live under our institutions, send out our eagle, and bring in new Territories. If he caft find no better resting place, let his talons fall upon Cuba. Go on, conquering, until this great continent is ours, and the islands of the seas are sentries at our doors. Stand faithful to the Constitution ! Execute your part of the contract ! Within a year 500.000 men have been marshalled on the plains of Italy, to see whether a little Territory, not half the size of Minnesota, should make its own laws. Divide this empire, and instead of a stand ing army of 15,000 men, it would take 600,000 to defend the boundaries of the Northern and Southern States. Who would feed and support these soldiers but the laborers and industry of the country. The soldier exists by the toil of the pro ducer. Let 3,000,000 of voters be. our standing army ; their farms fortresses, and their weaponsithe ballot (loud and prolonged cheering). The above is a meagre synopsis, imper fectly taken and hastely written. When he left the hall, Gov. Willard was greeted with three cheers as hearty as a thousand Democratic throats could utter them.