The Daily Wabash Express

THE DAILY EXPRESS.

TERRE-HAUTE:

THURSDAY

MAY 29, 1862

"As a member of Congress, I would never vote one man, or one gun to the Administration of Abraham Lincoln to make war upon the South."—Daniel W. Voorhees.

We publish to-day the names of those of this county who have signed the call for the State Union Convention. The Convention will doubtless be the largest ever held in the State. Let the Union men of Vigo county prepare to go in large numbers. We are aware that the 18th of June is a busy season of the year, but our people should make arrangements to give one day to a cause so glorious.

"As a member of Congress, I would never vote one man or one dollar to resist the South."

The above was published in the Express of yesterday and attributed to Dan. W. Voorhees by the editor of that paper. We denied that Voorhees ever uttered such language and called upon the Express to point out the time and place when and where he used it. In reply to this the Express this morning publishes the following from the speech Voorhees made at Greencastle, before hostilities commenced and when great efforts were being made by conservative and patriotic men to bring about an adjustment by which the present war might have been avoided and the Union preserved in peace—for the Crittenden Compromise, or the border State proposition, or any other fair and honorable adjustment which will give peace to the country; but I say to you, my constituents, that as your representative, I will never make one dollar, one man, or one gun to the Administration of Abraham Lincoln to make war upon the South."

Now we ask all candid men if the Express has not proven that it willfully misrepresented, on yesterday, the position of Mr. Voorhees. Is there any resemblance between the language attributed to him by the organ on yesterday, and that actually used by him at Greencastle? None whatever.

This shallow trick of the men who do not care a fig for the Union as it was, to ruin one who loves the Union of these States with honest and devoted devotion, will recoil upon the authors of it.—Journal.

We have to say now, as we have stated heretofore, that we have not the slightest disposition to injure Mr. Voorhees by misrepresenting his speeches or anything he may say or do. But he is a public man and aspires to retain his seat in Congress as the representative of the people of this District, and we have a right to examine his record and criticise his conduct as a public servant. We believe that the loyalty of Mr. Voorhees can be successfully denied upon his record. The Journal in undertaking to defend him, botches the case in the most unskillful manner. It defends Mr. Voorhees in his sympathy for the rebellion, and thus makes itself equal in guilt with him. The position taken by Mr. Voorhees on the 10th of April, 1861, at Greencastle, according to the Journal's own showing, is more vulnerable than we stated it to be in the three lines at the head of this article. The Journal in its editorial the day after the speech was delivered at Greencastle, stated that it (the speech) was patriotic. Is it patriotic in Mr. Voorhees or in the Journal to refuse to aid the Government with one man, one dollar or one gun to sustain its lawful authority and defend the objects of rebels and traitors? Mr. Voorhees and his organ here may call such conduct patriotism, but the voters of this District, this fall, will give the country to understand they entertain different views of patriotism and loyalty, than those expressed by their present representative and defended by his organ of this city. But the Journal says that the speech of Mr. Voorhees was made at Greencastle before hostilities commenced. Let us examine into the truth of that assertion, and see whether it is correct or not.—That speech was made on the 10th of April, 1861, as before stated. On the 21st day of January, 1861, nearly three months before Mr. Voorhees delivered his speech at Greencastle, the following charge of Judge David I. Swalley to the Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, was published in the National Intelligencer. The language of Judge Swalley in his official capacity as a United States Judge is as follows:

"It is well known that war, civil war, exists in portions of the Union: that persons owing allegiance to the United States have confederated together, and with arms, by force and intimidation, have prevented the execution of the Constitutional acts of Congress, have forcibly seized upon and hold a custom house and post-office, forts, arsenals, vessels, and other property belonging to the United States, and have actually fired upon vessels bearing the United States flag and carrying United States troops. This is a usurpation of the authority of the Federal Government: it is high treason by levying War against one of these acts will constitute high treason. There can be no doubt of it."
The Express says "that some mischievous persons posted up calls for a meeting to rejoice over the reverses of our arms in Virginia, and that the names of some individuals, who are known to sympathize with the rebels were attached to it." If the Express had have said that some malicious scoundrels and midnight assassins had done this and that the names the cowardly dogs had attached to the calls, were all good Union men, it would simply, for once, have told the truth. As the editor of that paper, who is recently from Charleston, Illinois, has said that some of those whose names were attached to these calls, were known to be in sympathy with the rebels, we call upon him to point them out. We challenge him to designate them by giving their names. Democrats have been slandered long enough by this mercenary sheet, and we now, in behalf of those whose names were put to these calls by prowling abolitionists and cut throats, to come out and make its charges good, or take back the slander.—Journal.

We have to say to you Mr. Cooksey, that we despise your threats, and will see you a thousand miles in hell before we will take back anything, or make any explanation at your bidding. Do you understand that? We shall be at our office, this morning, at 9 o'clock, and a portion of the day on the street. Do you understand that?
"It is well known that war, civil war, exists in portions of the Union: that persons owing allegiance to the United States have confederated together, and with arms, by force and intimidation, have prevented the execution of the Constitutional acts of Congress, have forcibly seized upon and hold a custom house and post-office, forts, arsenals, vessels, and other property belonging to the United States, and have actually fired upon vessels bearing the United States flag and carrying United States troops. This is a usurpation of the authority of the Federal Government: it is high treason by levying War. Either one of these acts will constitute high treason. There can be no doubt of it."

Here, then, we have the charge of a United States Judge, made to a United States Grand Jury nearly three months before Mr. Voorhees's speech at Greencastle—that we were, on the 21st of January, 1861, in the midst of civil war. Forts and arsenals had been seized, custom houses had been robbed; States had seceded from the Union and defied its power, and were organizing armies to overthrow the Federal Government; Fort Sumter was surrounded by hostile batteries, and the Star of the West, a United States vessel, had been fired upon by rebels in arms against the Government. It is needless to accumulate evidence on this point. Every man of common intelligence knows that at the time of the delivery of Voorhees's speech at Greencastle, we were in the midst of civil war, in the language of Judge Swalley, as quoted above. And yet the Journal has the unblushing effrontery to tell its readers, in palliation of Voorhees's treason, that when he made the speech referred to hostilities had not commenced.

When Claiborne Fox Jackson, once Governor of Missouri, was called upon by the President for troops to assist in quelling the rebellion, and bringing the leaders to punishment, replied that he would not furnish one dollar, one man, or one gun for such a purpose. Jackson was a traitor, and had the boldness to take the sword to strike his rogn. Daniel W. Voorhees is a traitor at heart, as well as Jackson, but he has not the courage to take the sword as Jackson did; however, contemplates returning to this District, to again become a candidate for Congress, in the face of his treachery to his constituents and sympathy for the rebels, who have dug up the skulls and bones of our soldiers who fell at Manassas, for trophies, with which to satisfy their fiendish malignity. The Journal says that he (Voorhees) is "unsurpassed in devotion" to the Union of these States. The following extract from his first speech in Congress, shows how much devotion he has for the "Union of these States."

Let them announce that the pledges of the Government, so freely given in the early part of this struggle, will not be broken at the mad behests of Abolitionism. But that THE CONDITION OF EVERY HUMAN BEING IN THE SOUTH SHALL REMAIN UNCHANGED, WHETHER THE REVOLUTION SHALL SUCCEED OR FAIL.

This devotion is to slavery. It is "unsurpassed" for that institution. He says rather than destroy slavery, he would destroy the Union. He loves slavery better than he does his country, according to his own admission. What kind of "devotion" must a man have for a republican government, when he says he would allow it destroyed, rather than have the barbarous institution of human bondage obliterated. We believe that the people of this District, will not disgrace the State by returning him to Congress.