Indiana State Sentinel

Franklin, March 31, 1851.
To David W. Odell, William Shaffer, Frederick Hendrix, and other Democrats of the Fifth Congressional District:
Gentlemen-Having been called upon through a communication published in the State Sentinel, for my opinions upon certain questions therein presented, I embrace this opportunity of giving publicity to my sentiments on the subjects referred to, with perhaps some others. I recognize the right of individuals to interrogate those who may be applicants for public favor, upon political subjects, and deny that any one of those applicants, when so asked for his opinions, has a right to become "mum."
In answer to your first and second interrogatories, I reply-that I have heard of no objection to any of the so-called "compromise measures" within the bounds of this district (and but little anywhere else) except the "fugitive slave law." The Constitution of the United States secures to masters the right to pursue and re-capture their slaves-and requires that persons owing service shall be delivered up to those to whom such service is due. I am willing to abide by the provisions of the Constitution, and to carry out its Compromises. So far as I have been able to examine the fugitive slave law, I believe it but secures to masters their Constitutional right. If it does no more, the law should not be condemned. Believing that it only does this, I should not be in favor of repealing it. At the same time I do not regard it as so sacred as to forbid further amendment or modification. Like other laws experience may prove it defective. Should I be your representative, I should at all times feel it my duty to regard the will of the district-and neither wantonly assail any legal provision, or refuse to modify it according to their wishes.
In answer to your third question-I have never favored the Wilmot Proviso, and have always deprecated the agitation of the slave question. It will be recollected that in 1848, while canvassing the district as Democratic elector, I spoke of the Wilmot Proviso as "a useless, unnecessary, and vexatious" method of settling a question which would certainly be settled in the same way as well without it as with it. California has been admitted as a State into the Union, without slavery, and without the Wilmot Proviso. The people of Oregon, Utah, and New Mexico, have already declared their aversion to slavery. I look upon the question as already settled, that slavery is not to extend to any of our territories; and hence I still think the Proviso not only useless, but provoking to the South. As to the agitation of the slave question, I believe it out of the power of Congress to prevent it. The people were led to believe that the passage of the "compromise measures" would forever quiet this agitation. Has it been so? Not at all. Although less heated, the agitation was little less constant during the last session of Congress than it had been before. Even now, the papers speak of the determination of South Carolina to secede from the Union. I expect this agitation to continue as long as slavery exists and the Union lasts. While the free States have such an aversion to slavery, and the Southern States remain so extremely sensitive upon the subject, it would be folly to expect to suppress agitation. "The only hope we have for the preservation of our glorious Union, lies in the devotion of the great mass of men to the Constitution and its Compromises, in the North and in the South; and far more may be expected in the way of allaying excitement by manly determination to stand up to this sacred instrument, than can be done by denouncing fanaticism, denying the right of petition, destroying the freedom of speech or of the press, or cringing to the arrogance of Southern dictation. While one extreme fattens and flourishes under denunciation and deprivation, the other becomes the more arrogant and exacting, the more you become servile and yielding.
4th-"If the Presidential election should unhappily come before the House" and I should be your representative, I should vote for the candidate who was the choice of the Democrats of the District, or of the State, if his shall be among the names presented to us-if not I would vote for the man or men among the candidates presented, that I supposed would be most acceptable to my constituents, and who might be agreed upon by a majority of the Democrats in the House.
5th "Will you vote against appropriations for rivers, harbors, docks, &c., in all possible cases?" To this I say no-although I infer an affirmative answer might have pleased you better. Our government has been for years improving rivers and harbors, and erecting docks, &c., and the interest of the whole country requires that these improvements should be continued, and the works preserved from falling into dilapidation.
While I say this, I am not in favor of extravagant appropriations-to every object, so as to burden the people either with increased taxation or create a national debt. In all cases, the object should be "clearly of a Constitutional character," and the amount "necessary for the public good."
Having said thus much on the subject referred to in the interrogatories-permit me to express my disapprobation of the seeming effort to manufacture a new Democratic creed. Not a word is said, or a question asked about the principles and policy which have marked every Democratic administration from Jefferson's to Polk's. I protest against this destruction of the ancient and honored principles which have been the rallying cry of our party for the last half century-especially at the present -when our opponents have ceased to contend against them or to advocate their former policy. At the very moment when we have gained the most signal triumph of political principles--it is proposed silently to abandon our position and lose all the advantages of victory. Especially do I protest against the substitution of the new issues proposed in the questions I have just answered, for the time-honored issues of our party. I do so first, because, if we abandon our glorious old principles, our opponents, always bankrupt in that line, would seize upon them and swear that they had always belonged to them; and secondly, because they would say in truth, that we were attempting to steal capital from the administration of Millard Fillmore. This is emphatically their thunder -take this from them and what have they left? I don't believe it right to rob this poor administration in this way; and feel perfectly satisfied with the Baltimore platform. No better can be adopted.
But, gentlemen and fellow-citizens, allow me to state further, that I have seen a communication from Judge Wick, which was chimed in with. by another from A. F. Morrison, Esq., which, I presume, suggested the issues presented in your interrogatives. Both of these gentlemen aver their soundness upon these subjects, and by vague hints of unsoundness attempt to alarm the district and operate against other aspirants.
The Judge "knows" himself to be sound. Well, I know that on the subject of the 'Wilmot Proviso' he is not any sounder than he ought to be-or than some others, against whom he would raise suspicion. I know that on that subject he is not as sound as I am myself. This I say without a fear of discomfiture. The other gentleman steps out of his way, to give it as his opinion, that "no abolitionist ever can be elected in the district no one suspected should be nominated." For what purpose? Certainly to cast suspicion upon some one or more of his competitors for nomination.
While I admit the probable truth of his declaration, would say there are some other characters who can never be elected in the district, and that it is not honorable to create suspicions and false impressions of the character of a political opponent.
I understand this to be the gist of the communication referred; to publish their own soundness on some new topics and cast suspicion upon others, who, they apprehend, might be in their way. in obtaining a nomination These topics are selected to mislead the public-and prevent the democracy of the district from thinking of some other things of more importance which have long been disregarded, and which some have determined shall be hereafter respected.
There used to be an old principle in our party called equality. -It maintained that all men had equal rights- as well to the honors and emoluments of office, as to protection. This principle has never been regarded in this district. Practically no man has a right to go to Congress, from this district, who does not reside in Indianapolis or at least in Marion county. It is presumption in any man out of Marion county to even think of a nomination. So well satisfied are they of this exclusive right to furnish Congressional material that there are, now, no less than six democratic aspirants for Congress. The whigs, owing to their extreme modesty, I presume make no pretensions.
There was also another cardinal principle in our creed that we used to call "rotation in office." It meant that after one man had had a fair turn at an office, another should take his place. Some contend that it is still in
existence. If it is, it has changed its meaning. It now means that when a man has had one good office awhile, he must be rotated into another, and another; and so kept in office all his life.

To blind you, fellow-citizens, as to the danger of disregarding longer those ancient cardinal democratic principles, gentlemen are throwing the dust of the 'omnibus' into your eyes. I warn you of the danger. Because it would take eighteen years to give each county a turn in the selection of a candidate, it is said you ought not object to the selection of a Marion man and that you ought to select the best man! O modesty! After Marion has had it some fifteen out of eighteen years because it would require that to do justice to all—therefore you might as well let us have it forever.

This is the argument.

It is not only the right, but the duty of the other counties of the district to insist upon their right to present one of their own citizens, in turn, whenever they can present one of suitable qualifications. No matter how long it would require to do justice to all the counties.

As for the best men being found in Indianapolis, although they are vain enough to claim it, it is all fudge. There are as honest, able and good men in every other county.

If this practice is persevered in—the practice of forever selecting candidates for Congress from one place—and shifting them from one place to another, of honor and profit, defeat must come, and I would say, let it come.—It is better to suffer defeat than to sacrifice principle.

Finally: to the Democrats of the district I would say, I have often been called upon to serve you. I do not mean those individual services which every Democrat is bound to render his party—in which I have not been deficient—but I mean services which I have been called upon to perform. At your bidding I went to Baltimore in 1844 at my own expense. The same year I served as contingent elector, and as such, traversed at the order of your central committee, the southern part of the district. In 1848 I was selected as the candidate for elector—I bore my own expenses—gave up my practice for the whole season, and lost my employers. Many of you knowing the sacrifices I was making, volunteered to promise me a seat in Congress as a reward for the services I was rendering. How well that service was performed it does not become me to say. The result was glorious. The majority in the district was increased 555 votes above the highest majority we had ever before obtained, and our district became the banner district of the State. I have thus performed more various and unrequited services than any (I had almost said every) other man in the district. While serving you at my own expense, there was no objection and no suspicion; but when it is proposed to give me a place worth something—Oh! look out!!!

Fellow citizens—this matter is with you. If it should please you to confer upon me a place in Congress, I should consider it a welcome plaudit of well done. It would be a gratification of my highest political ambition. Above all, it would be a merited compliment to the noble Democracy of old Johnson, who have so long insisted upon my nomination, who have so nobly borne your banner aloft when it had trailed in almost every other county in the district, and which has given to every Democrat in the district, the State and nation, her three, four, five and six hundred majority.

In the name of that noble democracy—of justice and principle, I would thankfully accept a nomination if tendered to me.

Very respectfully,

Your fellow-citizen,

JAMES RITCHEY.

Noblesville, Ind., April 7, 1851.