F 153 
 .fl21 
 Copy 1 
 
ii®IDIElS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 i3l 
 
 "loEMOCRATIC YOUNG MEN '"^7 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CITY AND COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, 
 
 TO THEIR. 
 
 msiwimwAir Fim^^w mwrn 
 
 THROUGHOUT THE 
 
 STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 PHILADEJ.PHIA'^\Z2^. 
 
I- 1 s 
 
 c % 
 

 
 ADDRESS. 
 
 AT a very numerous meeting of the Democratic Young Men of 
 the City and County of Philadelphia, held on the 22d July, 1823, we 
 were appointed to prepare and publish an address to our republican 
 fellow citizens throughout the Commonwealth, in relation to the ap- 
 proaching election for Governor. 
 
 While discharging the duty thus imposed, we cannot but be deeply 
 sensible of the dignity of the subject. A great slate, deriving its 
 jKJwer as well from the intelligence of its people, as from the pro- 
 perties of its soil, is called upon to choose, freely and deliberately, 
 its chief executive magistrate. 
 
 Two candidates are before us; and we respectfully ask your at- 
 tention while we plainly present some of the inducements, which, 
 with a force that we think cannot be resisted, urge the republicans of 
 Pennsylvania, to support the election of John Andrew Shulze. 
 
 In ihe^rst place, it is highly important at this time, that the su- 
 premacy of sound political principles should be secured by the tri- 
 umph of the Democratic party. It is exceedingly convenient for 
 those who oppose us on this question, to cant about the propriety of 
 sinking into oblivion, the old party distinctions; to boast of the ap- 
 proach of an epoch from which may be dated the diffusion of more 
 liberal principles; and to urge the election of their candidate upon 
 the plausible ground, that the only questions to be considered in his 
 administration, are those which can be determined by a simple re- 
 ference to the general welfare. For our parts, we confess that we 
 not only distrust, but that we utterly disbelieve such professions. We 
 appeal from the empty declamations of political partisans, to the so- 
 ber experience of our country. The Federal party, mistakhig vio- 
 lence for strength, and the efforts of imbecility for the results of a 
 prudent foresight, were deservedly prostrated before the indignant 
 majesty of the people. The direct path to power being thus irre- 
 vocably barred, more secret, and of course more dangerous expe- 
 dients are necessarily employed. The pure current of political opi- 
 nion which swept away the bulwarks of their party, cannot be rolled 
 back by open resistance — b»it the tide may be diverted from its na- 
 
/ C 4 ; 
 
 lural direction, and made to waste its energy in a thousand useless 
 rivulets. Hence the policy of federalism is to weaken and divide — - 
 to foment tiie jealousy of the discontented and lull the vigilence of 
 the wary — for they wisely calculate that as victory was only achieved 
 l)y a vigorous and unanimous effort, it can only be maintained by 
 corresponding activity. Wherever success has partially attended 
 them, they have demonstrated the hoUowness of their professions 
 and the illiberality of their principles. If they obtained the control 
 of a state, they thwarted and opposed^ both in Peace and in War, the 
 wise and patriotic exertions of the general government. If they pro- 
 cured the management of a still smaller political body, they exhi- 
 bited a narrow spirit, unworthy of an enlightened people, and pur- 
 sued a proscriptive system, disgraceful in a liberal age. We can no 
 more give faith to the declarations of the Federal party as to their 
 future conduct, than we can admire their past career. And while 
 wc deny \.hc feasibility as well as the sincerity of their proposals, we 
 call upon the republicans of this great republican state, to do their 
 duty to themselves, to their party, and to their country. 
 
 But do you inquire whether the stability of the democratic party 
 is really at stake in the ensuing contest. We answer, not only its 
 stability, but its very existence is in jeopardy. Is it not the public 
 boast of many of the federal leaders that if they succeed in this elec- 
 tion the democracy of the state will, in the loss of its preponderance, 
 receive its death blow ? The point of time Iwis arrived at which the 
 struggle must be finally determined. Do you ask us whether the 
 triumph of republican principles is identified with the success ol 
 Mr. Shulze? Ask yourselves who are his supporters. Are they not 
 your political friends ? And who are his opposers ? Do you not no- 
 tice the federalists gathering around their party banner and combat- 
 ting against him with all the keenest vixapons of political strife? 
 Look to that great engine of power, a fret press, and observe whence 
 it receives its momentum, anci how it again acts upon the commu- 
 nity. Do not all the presses which are patronized by republicans, 
 and which you acknowledge to be the supporters of republican prin- 
 ciples, vigorously support his election ? And do not all those which 
 owe their existence to federal patronage, and have acquired the fede- 
 ral character, bitterly abuse him ? Notwithstanding the unmanly ef- 
 fott of his opposers to assume a new parly name, the distinction is 
 drawn too clearly for equivocation itself to deny. The supporters of 
 Mr. Shul?L' constitute the republican fannily of the state, and his op- 
 poscrs arc the trained and organized federal parly. 
 
 From this view ofthe subject it would seen), iiiat whatever might 
 have been the original nomination of Mr. Shulze, lie has been so 
 completely adopted by the democratic party us their candidate, that 
 it is new the duty of every man, who does not wisii for the triumph 
 of federalisui, to give him his decided support. But an investigation 
 of that point will result in the conviction that he was, in the first in- 
 stance, fairly, freely, and regularly nominated. Tlie convention 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 which met at Harrisburg, was the most numerous that ever assem- 
 bled for a similar purpose. It contained many of the most venerable 
 and enlightened men of the state, who had been chosen by their re- 
 publican fellow citizens, in their respective counties, after full pub- 
 lic notice, and for the express purpose of choosing a candidate. This 
 convention selected Mr. Shulze, and unanimously recommended him 
 to the republicans of the commonwealth. It was to be expected 
 that the federal party would impeach the motives and misrepresent 
 the conduct of this respectable body. That expectation has been 
 fulfilled; but the cordiality with which the republicans greeted the 
 nomination, and the efficient support whicli they continue to extend 
 to it, demonstrate their belief in the purity of the views, and the up- 
 rightness of the proceedings of the convention of the 4th 6f March. 
 
 In the second place, we urge you to the support of Mr. Shulze, on 
 account of his own fitness for the office of Governor. The strong 
 good sense, and the plain republican habits of the people of Penn- 
 sylvania, lead them to look for a man who unites in Ivimself, in a high 
 degree, the characteristics by which they are themselves distin- 
 guished. 
 
 They wish for a man of a clear intellect, useful education, sound 
 principles, and an accurate knowledge of the true policy of the state; 
 and when they have found such a man, possessing too, a practical 
 experience in public business, they are not to be diverted by party 
 manoeuvres, from designating him as the man of their choice. That 
 Mr. Shulze is such a man. Ave have the strongest reason to believe. 
 We have the testimony of the convention which nominated him. We 
 have the experience of his whole life, passed before his fellow citi- 
 zens, the history of which has been open to the severe scrutiny of a 
 censorship, so rigid that the slightest blemish would not have es- 
 caped its observation. His private career has been so dignified and 
 moral, that all the bitterness of opposition has not ventured to assail 
 it. His public conduct has been so upright, so intelligent, and so 
 patriotic, that notwithstanding the ardor, the ingenuity, and the ef- 
 frontery with which it has been attacked, it stands before his coun- 
 try identified with the principles of the republican party, and defensi- 
 ble upon the strictest grounds of the constitution and the laws. 
 
 What then, it may be asked, are the objections to his election I 
 It is our duty to notice the most prominent of these, and we enter 
 upon the task with the full confidence, that when fairly stated and 
 distinctly understood, they will be pronounced by all who arc not 
 blinded by prejudice, utterly groundless. 
 
 In relation to one event, misrepresentation allempted to taint the 
 purity of his character. We allude to the circumstance of his having, 
 in earl^' life, left the sacred desk, for which he had been classically 
 educated, and which he honorably filled to mingle with the world. 
 Believing as we do, in the general integrity of his life, we care not 
 to inquire into the reasons by which he was governed. We notice 
 the topic, only because we consider the charge founded upon it, to 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 be the dictate of an unusual profligacy in politics, and because a 
 simple assertion of the fact, which is loo well known to be now 
 even denied, that a severe bodilyjaffliction compelled Mr. Shulzeto 
 change his occupation, is amply sufficient to refute and to repel the 
 unmanly imputation. 
 
 But the objections to Mr. Shulze's conduct as a legislator are 
 urged with more plausibility. The amount of them is, that he is an 
 enemy to the Constitution. Upon this point, we plainly and broadly 
 deny the allegation, and are ready to m^eet the proofs. 
 
 There are three questions upon which, it is alleged, he has by his 
 votes, violated sound constitutional principles. We refer, in the 
 first place, to the bill which was made a law, last winter, directing 
 the payment of certain debts to certain banks ; in the second place, 
 to the bill, entitled, " A bill further to restrain aldermen and justices 
 of the peace from taking cognizance of suits against military offi- 
 cers ;" and in the third place, to the bill in relation to St. Mary's 
 Church. 
 
 It would occupy too much lime to enter into a full and detailed 
 argument upon each of the points suggested, but we propose to 
 make some remarks which we think will aid you in arriving at a 
 just conclusion. 
 
 It costs nothing, to talk about attacks upon the constitution, and 
 infringements of chartered rights. Misrepresentation has only to be 
 supported by a hgcdless effrontery, in order to mislead the opinions 
 of those, who readily listen to what is loudly proclaimed, and arc 
 content to believe what is frequently repeated. But it belongs to 
 the character of those who delight in truth, to examine and under- 
 stand the groundwork of accusation, before they yield their assent 
 to the confidence of broad assertion, or surrender their judgments 
 to the unblushing boldness of empty declamation. 
 
 First, then, as to the STATE DEBTS. What is the brief history 
 of the case ? Under an act of assembly, monies were borrowed upon 
 the condition of their being reimbursed within four years, and the 
 faith of the Commonwealth was pledged by that lato, for the per- 
 formance of the condition. The constitution requires the governor 
 to *' take care that the lanos be faithfully executed." Hence it was 
 thought to be the duty, as it had been in like cases, the practice of 
 the Governor, to direct the State Treasurer to reimburse such mo- 
 nies within the time specified. It so happened that the Governor 
 did not give such direction in the present case, and the faith of the 
 Commonwealth stood unredeemed. A bill was passed, which, after 
 briefly setting out the facts, directed the Governor to draw warrants 
 on tiie Treasurer for the sums of money thus owing and unpaid. 
 The bill was returned by the Governor with his objections. It was 
 reconsidered, and then passed by the constitutional majority of t<w» 
 thirds in each house, and thus became a law. Such are the facts. 
 It was objected, that the preamble of the bill recognized a construc- 
 •ion of the law authorising the loan, not warranted by that part of the 
 
C 7 ) 
 
 constitution, which declares that " no money shall be drawn from 
 tlie Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'' 
 It had been considered by former governors and former legislatures, 
 and it is considered by the present legislature, that the very law 
 contracting to pay the debt within a limited period, and pledging 
 the faith of the Commonwealth therefor, contained the appropria- 
 tion required by the constitiftion, and that it remained with the exe- 
 cutive " to take care that the law was faithfully executed." There 
 is certainly nothing alarming in this opinion. Mr. Shulze voted for 
 the bill in question, and if he erred at all in his views, he erred with 
 many of the most enlightened men of the state. In opposing him 
 on this ground, you censure a long established practice of your re- 
 publican administration, and condemn the conduct of successive re- 
 publican legislatures. The ground of objection then, utterly fails*. 
 In thenexf place, as to the MILITIA QUESTION. Misunder- 
 standing upon this subject has been industriously excited, and widely 
 extended. We will endeavour to exhibit tlie rrurA. The right of ma/ 
 by jury is secured by the constitution. Various laws have been from 
 time to time enacted, enlarging the jurisdiction with justices of the 
 peace exercised at the date of the constitution. It has been ques- 
 tioned, whether these laws did not encroach upon the right of the 
 trial by jury, and they have been acquiesced in, only because by 
 means of an appeal, a party to a suit before a justice is enabled to 
 obtain such a trial. But it never was honestly contended, that a law 
 which directs a party, complaining of an injury, to apply for redress, 
 immediately to a jury of the land, is in violation of any constitutional 
 provision. By the 69th section of the militia law of April, 2d, 1822, 
 it is declared that no court, or Alderman, or Justice of the Peace, 
 within the Commonwealth, shall take cognizance of afipeals that 
 may be offered or attempted from any sentence or decree of a court 
 of appeal or court martial, held under the laws of this state, or of 
 the United States, /iroi/irferf, that nothing in said act shall impair the 
 provisions of the act for the better securing personal liberty and pre- 
 venting wrongful imprisonments, passed in 1785, and known by the 
 name of the habeas corpus act. The same section declares, that 
 all euita that may be brought against any person or persons for any 
 thing done in pursuance of the act, shall be commenced and tried in 
 the county where the cause of action shall have arisen^ and not else- 
 inhere. By the 8 1 st section of the act, the former laws on this point 
 were repealed. And here an opportunity offers for explaining from 
 what circumstances the public mind has been agitated and confused 
 on this subject. The general militia law of 1814, contained provi- 
 sions similar to those we have just quoted. But by a supplement 
 passed on the 19ih of March, 1816, it was declared " that no action 
 of trespass shall be sustained in any court of record within this Com- 
 monwealth, in consequence of any proceedings had by any courts 
 martial or courts of appeal." This highly obnoxious, absurd, anc| 
 unjust provision, was, with the whole supplement containing it, re: 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 pealed by the 60th section of the militia law of April 2, 182 1 ; and so 
 careful have the legislature been never to re-enact it, even by impli- 
 cation, that when they repealed, by the act of 1822, the law of 1821, 
 they expressly provided, tbatnotkinff therevi contained should be con- 
 strued to revive any former law or laws which by the said act of 
 1821 had been repealed. 
 
 Thus stood the law last winter. The bill in favour of which Mr. 
 Shulze voted, and which passed the Senate, but was not acted upon 
 in the House of Representatives, simply declared that no alderman 
 or justice of the peace should take cognizance of any civil suit 
 against any constable, collector, or any other person, concerned in 
 the execution of the militia laws for any thing done by him under 
 or in pursuance of said laws.— And how did it leave the ques- 
 tion ? The party seeking redress was permitted to apply as before 
 to the court of the county where the cause of action arose-, and con- 
 sidering the nature of the case, the courts are certainly the appro- 
 propriate tribunals. The avenues to the temple of justice were con- 
 tinued wide open to him, and ijury of his fieers was to sit in just 
 judgment on his case. IT IS NOT TRUE as has been ignorantly 
 asserted, that this bill would have placed the military above the 
 civil power, and that a citizen suffering under the oppression of a 
 collector of fines, was to be deprived of all redress. 
 
 The law had before given a remedy, either before a court of com- 
 mon law, or a justice of the peace. The bill in question went very 
 judiciously to take away the jurisdiction of the justice, and to leave 
 so serious a business to the constitutional trial by jury. Under the 
 law as now settled by acts of Assembly and judicial decisions, it is 
 believed that no possible difficulty could arise from the cause of ac- 
 tions not exceeding one hundred dollars — and even if any were sug- 
 gested, the party might lay his damages at what sum he pleased, 
 and tiius bring his suit. Thus it is, that though Mr. Shuiz voted as 
 sound policy dictated, and the constitution allowed, and as the ma- 
 jority of his colleagues had done, a violent clamour is raised against 
 him, and amidst the confusion, the people are to be tricked into the 
 sacritice of both candour and trutii. 
 
 In the third place — as to the CATHOLIC bill. No pains have 
 been spared to impress a belief that, on this subject, the conduct of 
 Mr. Shulze has been inconsistent with the character of the represen- 
 tative of a free people : and yet upon no question of legislative con- 
 cern, can purity of motive and uprightness of action be more satis- 
 factorily demonstrated. The original charter of "the members of 
 ihe religious society of Roman Catholics belonging to the congre- 
 gation of St. Mary's," granted in 1788, had provided that the trus- 
 tees of the corporation should consist of the pastors of the church, 
 duly appointed, not exceeding three in "number, and of eight lay 
 members of the congregation, and that the eldest pastor present at 
 any meeting, should be president of the board. 
 
 The bill which was reported to the Senate by a committee, on the 
 2ath January last, provided in its first section, that the corporation 
 
( ^ ) 
 
 should thereafter consist of eleven members of the congregatiort, and 
 that the trustees should choose their own president. It was this 
 section onJy, which excited extreme bitterness of feeling, and which 
 was considered in the first instance by eitlier of the parties to the 
 church dispute, as in any manner striking at the full and free ex- 
 ercise of the right to worship Almighty God, according to the dic- 
 tates of conscience. The great innovation proposed to be made upon 
 the charter was, that none of the trustees 7ieed be pastors, and it was 
 objected that the peculiar faith and discipline of the Roman Catholic 
 church would be violated by such an innovation. Whatever may 
 be the opinions of men up6n this disputed point, the belief has been 
 industriously circulated that Mr. Shulze voted in favour of the inno- 
 vation. We will not enter into the question whether even if Mr. 
 Shulze had thus voted, that is to say, had acted with those who con- 
 tend that the Legislature have the power to pass the section refei'- 
 red to, and that the " peace, safety and happiness" of the people re- 
 quire its exercise, his conduct could in that case be defended. But 
 we appeal to the record which conclusively evinces, that Mr, Shulze 
 is charged with having done one thing, when he did directly the re- 
 verse, and which demonstrates beyond the reach of cavilling, that 
 he voted with the majority of the Senate, against the very law, out 
 of which it was alleged the violation of chartered rights would 
 spring. The Journal of the Senate is the record we refer to, audit 
 shows (page 481) that upon the question "Will the Senate agree to 
 the said first section ?" the votes were, yeas 7 — nays 21 : and that 
 Mr. Shulze voted in the negative. But it is said that Mr. Shulze 
 was one of the committee who first considered the subject, and that 
 in the committee, he voted to report the whole bill. Whether he 
 did or not we pretend not certainly to know, but we assert without 
 the fear of contradiction, that a vote in committee on the question of 
 reporting or not reporting a bill, is never considered in legislative- 
 usage as affording any evidence of opinion on the bill itself. It is in 
 fact considered illiberal to strangle a contested bill in committee, 
 and thus prevent its having a chance with the house. If Mr. Shulze 
 then, did vote as suggested, he only acted with his accstomed fair- 
 ness. Now we have to ask, that irutfi shall be allowed its proper 
 influence ; and we feel persuaded that every man, even the most 
 rigid catholic, who has been led into error, by bold assertions, will 
 candidly and honourably acknowledge his mistake. 
 
 We have thus accomplished the review of the objections to Mr. 
 Shulze's legislative career; and we leave it to the honest judgment 
 of his republican fellow citizens to decide, whether instead of de- 
 serving reprehension, he is not entitled to their cordial applause. 
 
 It remains for us to say something of the candidate by whona he 
 is opposed ; and here we protest against that mode of political dis»- 
 cussion, which has for its basis only personal invective, and gross 
 misrepresentation. We will treat Mr. Gregg with the respect due 
 to his years. We shall not charge him with being either * a traitor 
 
 B 
 
C 10 ) 
 
 to his God' — or his country, — Such epithets bespeak the vulgarity, 
 while they demonstrate the political despair of those who employ 
 them. Bui the objections to Mr. Gregg's being placed in the exe- 
 cutive chair, are numerous and to us conclusive. 
 
 Ar-.d here we recur to our preceding remarks touching the views 
 of the federal parly. The same reasons which induce us to support 
 the election of Mr. Shulze as necessary to the triumph and secu- 
 rity of bound political principles, lead us to oppose any man who is 
 brought into view in opposition to him. This argument would not 
 be impaired in its force, even by the fact that the man opposing him, 
 could be himself called a republican. The mere fact of a conti- 
 nued and open opposition to the ascertained views and wishes of the 
 democratic parly, so far places the individual out of the pale of that 
 party, that, for all the purposes of the question in dispute, he is not 
 to be considered as belonging to them. Whether Mr. Gregg then 
 be entitled to the mere name of a democrat or not, cannot effect the 
 case. He is content to aim at overthrowing the settled plans of the 
 republican party, and he must be content to meet the whole power 
 by which they can resist him. 
 
 But if these_ objections were not sufficient, we could find others 
 in the conduct which Mr. Gregg has for many years pursued. If 
 he had acted upon sound political principles, the party which has 
 uniformly maintained sucii principles would certainly have adhered 
 to him. But the truth is, that party has " weighed him in the ba- 
 lance and found him wanting." They discarded him, and he then 
 openly combatted against them. The federal party adopted and sup- 
 ported him, and the republicans were arrayed against him, and 
 sometimes defeated him. Do you ask for the proof of all this — 
 What was his conduct concerning Jay's treaty ? By his influence 
 and vote as a member of Congress, he aided the views and measures 
 of the leading federalists, in defiance of the well settled and under- 
 stood judgment of the sages of democracy. If at a subsequent pe- 
 riod, he was trusted by the republicans of his district, it- only served 
 to give him additional opportunities of demonstrating that he was 
 unworthy of the honours they conferred, and in 1806 we find that he 
 had been utterly and finally excluded from their trusts. At the con- 
 gressional election of that year» in the counties of Northumberland, 
 Centre, Clearfield and Lycoming, he was supported by the federal- 
 ists in opposition to Daniel Montgomery, jun. the democratic can- 
 didate, and defeated by the republican votes. From that time to the 
 present day, he has had none of the confidence, and been permitted 
 to take no part in the deliberations of the republican party. The 
 justice of this treatment, was confirmed by his subsequent con- 
 duct as a public officer. Amid the divisions which unhappily pa- 
 ralyzed the republican party in 1807, he was elected to a seat in the 
 Senate of the United States, in opposition to the regular republican 
 candidate, and by the aid of the whole body of the federalists in the 
 legislature. Nor did he fail to give new evidence of the infection 
 
( H ) 
 
 naturally to be expected from an association with federalists. Upon 
 the great war question, which afforded ilie touchstone of party feel- 
 ing in 1812, and upon which the republicans acted with one heart 
 and one mind, he exerted tiie influence which his station command- 
 ed, in thwarting and countcractins? the wise, spirited and patriotic 
 views of the general government. Yet, although openly discontented 
 with the proceedings of the executive, he had not the firmness to 
 resist them by his vote, but with a moral cowardice that must evei* 
 be despised in a public functionary, he shrunk from the responsi- 
 bility of opinions which he wished others to adopt, and finally voted 
 contrary to that judgment which he professed to have conscien- 
 tiously formed. ^^ Let no such man be trusted." If he had been de- 
 ceived in his views of public adyaniage, and had fearlessly acted in 
 pursuance of those views, we should lament the darkness which 
 clouded his judgment, but must yield him the praise of consistency 
 and firmness. But when we see him vacillating between his duty 
 as a representative, and a slavish desire of personal popularity, be- 
 tween the calls of conscience and the suggestions of interest, and 
 finally assisting by his vote a measure which he believed to be wrong, 
 merely because it promised to favour his individual advantage, we 
 are compelled to pronounce him unwortiiy of our confidence, and to 
 pray that the destinies of the stale may never be entrusted to so un- 
 steady a hand. 
 
 Let us hear no more about Mr. Gregg's uniform democracy. We 
 may well reject that democracy which has only federalism for its 
 advocate, and we are not to be swerved by the abuse of a name. 
 
 There is one other view of this subject which we wish to impress 
 strongly upon your minds. In case of Mr. Gregg's election, the sub- 
 stantial and enlightened republicans of the state will be excluded 
 from all influence in her administration, and the seats of the cabinet, 
 and the offices of the counties will be necessarily occupied by high 
 toned federalists in whom you have never reposed your faith, and 
 whom you are not disposed to see exalted. That such must be the 
 consequence of his election, no man can honestly deny, who is ac- 
 quainted with the workings of the human mind. That Mr. Gregg 
 should advance those who raised him to power, and pass by those 
 who opposed his elevation, is too much in accordance with all hu- 
 man experience to be now disputed. 
 
 In conclusion, we would appeal to the patriotism and virtue of our 
 democratic youth. If those who surpass us in years and experi- 
 ence, who having completed their measure of public usefulness, 
 must soon be removed from the political arena, are deeply impres- 
 sed with the importance of the crisis, and resolved to devote their 
 best energies to the republican cause ; — how much more deeply 
 should it be felt by us, who may yet look forward to a length of 
 days, depending entirely for their comfort and respectability on the 
 safety and purity of our free institutions. With how much eager- 
 ness should we grasp at the means of advancing our country in her 
 
{ 
 
 12 
 
 ) 
 
 rice of glory ; with how much indignation should we repel the first 
 blow, that is aimed at her prosperity. The bounty of Heaven and 
 the wisdom of man, have singularly conspired to bless and adorn her 
 -—but both will have been exerted in vain, if we forget to cherish the 
 maxims and preserve the practice of genuine republicanism. The 
 moment we depart from the path they prescribe, we commence a 
 pilgrimage of danger and tlifficulty. We scatter the rich blessings, 
 ■which our fathers accumulated, and leave desolate the temple they 
 erected to liberty. 
 
 We observe that the late signal victory which the republicans 
 have gained in the state of Massachusetts, is chiefly ascribed to the 
 patriotic exertions of the rising generation. If example were neces- 
 sary to stimulate your efforts, we would point you to this, as worthy 
 of imitation, in the full confidence that Pennsylvania may preserve 
 her rank among her sister states, by a similar display of youthful 
 energy. But the simple fact, is amply sufficient, that the state in 
 which we reside, can never discharge her duty to herself and to the 
 union, unless her administration be decidedly republican — and that 
 the existence of such an administration can only be secured by the 
 election of Mr. Shulze. 
 
 S. RUSH, 
 GEO. W. RITER, 
 ROBERT COOPER, 
 T. M. PETTIT, 
 JOHN THOMPSON,jun. 
 HENRY S COXE, 
 KENDERTON SMITH, 
 GEO. W JONES, 
 JOHN D. GOODWIN, 
 I. P. KENNEDY. 
 
 Philadelfihiai July 31, 1823. 
 
 LBFe'iO 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 312 392 3(