Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

fpTE DAILY SUN. ftbUshed by the Atlanta Sun Publishing Company. Alexander II. Stcjilicns, »wlilbal«l M. Spclglits, j, Hcnly Smith. Proprietors. tlexander H. Stephens, Political Editor. u Yi. Watson, - - - - News Editor, i Henly Smith, General Editor and Busi ness Manager. Local Killtor: WILLIAM H. MOORE. Traveling Agents l , jf, W, HILL. J* W. HEARD, w«. EsTELL, Jr., News Agent, Savannah, keeps ■ -t Sus for To Tbavelehs.—Persons passing through Chat- - l0 ,,pa, will find The Sen for sale by C. H. Gledbill, jtura Agent. Agents for'l’Itc Sun, THOMAS X. Horsiss, Thomasville, Ga. KMES Aixes Smith, KnoxviUe, Tenn. Dave Bell, Athens, G*. Jons T. K03EBTS, Atlanta, Ga. j L. Wr.toHT. Woodstock, Ga. j (j, Caldwell, Thomson, Ga. U. c. Hamilton, Dalton, Ga. W. C. Davis, Jr., Eatonton, Ga. Taitas, Maw* k Co., White Plains, Green Co., Ga iiovt7 to kehit mosey. We will hs responsible for the safe arrival of all _ nneT sent us by Money Order, by Registered Let- w Express, or by Draft, but not otherwise. If money sent 1“ aa unregistered letter is lost, It must L tbc loss of the person sending it. No paper will be sent from the office till it is paid for, and names will always bo erased when the lime Mill for cxplrts. gY Persons sending money by Express must pre- jay charges. To Correspondents. Mr Stephens will remain In Crawfordville. His connection with The Son will not change his resi dence. All letters intended for him, either on pri- vite matters or connected with the Political De partment of this paper, should bo addressed to him it crawfordvillo, Georgia. ill letters on business of any kind, connected with Tak Sox, except its Political Department, should be addressed to J. Henly Smith, Manager, Atlanta, Ga. Terms of Subscription s per Annum $7 00 Six Months 4 00 Three Mouths 2 00 One Month 75 WEEKLY PER ANNUM : Single Copy Three Copies Ten “ Twenty “ Fifty ” HiHfrU Copies WEEKLY—SIX MONTHS: Single Copy, Six Months Three •• " " Ten •• " “ Twenty " “ “ Fifty •• “ “ No subscriptions, to the Weekly, received for a shorter period than six months. All subscription:' must bo paid for in advance ; and ail names will ‘.-e stricken from our hooks when the time paid for expires. 2 00 :.... 4 50 14 00 25 00 60 00 5 Cents. . 1 00 . 2 25 . 7 00 .13 00 27 50 CLUBS. Names for Clubs must all be sent at the same time and take the paper for the same length of time, and ail be at the same post office. Terms of Advertising. t^UAEES. i WEEK 2 WEEKS 3 WEEKS 1 MONTH. 1 wjunre $ a so $ 0 00 $ 7 60 $ 8 60 2 •• C 00 9 00 12 50 15 00 3 •« 7 50 12 00 1G 00 18 00 4 “ 9 00 10 GO 20 00 24 00 5 “ 11 00 18 00 22 00 27 00 6 M 12 00 20 00 26 00 30 00 7 •• 14 00 22 00 28 00 33 00 s - 10 00 24 00 31 00 36 Or IJ .. 18 00 27 00 33 00 38 00 20 •• 20 00 no 00 30 00 40 00 n 22 00 32 00 38 00 42 00 12 ” 21 00 35 00 40 00 44 00 !i Colmu 27 00 38 00 43 00 47 00 1 Coliun 40 00 55 00 G5 00 75 00 ATLAISgTA, GEORGIA, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1871. our issue of to-day, we give our | ^en Mr. Marble shall do this or even readers two editorials of the New York I attempt to do it—or when he shall allow 1) crld, making direct attacks upon the J i 11 ^ columns a discussion of these ques- For aless period than one week, $t per square (ten lines of solid NonpereU type, or occupying that much space] for the first insertion, and 50 cents for each subsequent insertion. Advertisements in the Local Column marked with an asterisk, (*> will be charged 25 conts per line each insertion. Advertisements under the Special Notice head h aded) for less timo than one week, will be charged cents per line. V f Advertisements, except for established busi ness houses, in this city, must be paid for in ad vance Norcduciion will be made on the above rates for Viartcrly, semi-annual or yearly advertisements. CONTENTS OF TUB “ATLANTA WEEKLY SUN,” FOB THE WEEK ENDING WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 30TII, 1871. i*ugc 1—The Now York World and The Atlanta sen, etc. Pag* S—The Great Georgia State Fair to be held at Macon 28d October, 1S71—Supreme Court Deck- 'is. Page 3—The Chronicle and Sentinel, of Augusts, i.a—The Tide of Popular ScnUment—The Domestic l-"e of Thomas Jefferson—The Georgia Western Ka'I-ord—Messrs. Harris and Wrenn—Mr. Wrenn :nd the State Fa ! r Money—The First Ku-Klux—We Must Support the Candidates of the NaUonal Dcrno- • -.c Convention—PoU'.'.ca in Indiana—Sun-Sl. okes, etc. Page 4—The S'-.te Road Muddle—The Rules of Western sud Atlantic Rn" oad Violated—Yellow Fever—Georgia News—S', .te Road Officials Gone Ccazv since the Lease—The Correspondence between Col. Farrow onJMaj. McCaUa—“I was very Glad of it ’ —More Arrests—Arrest of George S. Cobb—Tele grams, etc. Page 5—The State Road Books—Foster Blodg ett's say i o —Poetics in New York—Georg'a News— P'anters in Middle Gcorgin—Mr. Stephens* Pamph let on the •-Study of the J w”—Sun-Strokes—Tele- trams , etc. Page G—A Queer Social Incident—Run by Elec- ■ -icity— A Chinese WiV—A Singular Custom—Geor gia News—Politics in Kentucky—Politics in Vermont Atlanta Sen Prospectus. Page 7—Supreme Court Decisions continued—A Voice from one of the People of Maine—The State Boad Plunderings—Miscegenation Defeated Again— The Passenger Depot—Joseph Fry—Telegrams— Highly Important Arrest—The Ku-Klux in Jail—The Alexander Case—Paid into the Treasury—Sudden Affliction—Returned—Joseph Fry—Politics in Penn- ‘ylvania—Alabama and Chattanooga Railroad, etc. Page 8—Telegraph News—Hadn’t Combed hor uair—A Jolly Fel’.ew—Alexander H. Stephens as a Democrat—*‘Is it a Judicial Question?”—Sun Strokes —New Advertisements, etc. Presses for Sale. One “Henry” Power Printing Press- arranged for hand or steam power—bed •■h>X47. The Sun is now being printed on this press. It makes from 1000 to 1500 impressions; is strong and easily managed, and with steam power, is a 1 press. It is new, having been forked only G months. Price §1250. The “Acme” Press works a sheet near ly as large a3 the “Henry,” at about the same speed. Is the best country news paper press built. It is new. Both thesa Presses can be seen at work in The Sun ress Boom. Address A. M. Speights, Sun office. Political Editor of The Atlanta Sun; to which we invite the close attention of all, in connection with our comments upon the same. The first is the article of the 12th iust., which we have heretofore expressed our intention of replying to; and the other is taken from the issue of the 21st inst., of the same paper, which requires some notice from us. We therefore proceed now to submit to the Public what we have to say in reference to both. In re sponding to the request of the World of the 8th July, we had no disposition to enter into any personal controversy with Mr. Manton Marble, its Chief Editor.— We had a higher and a much more im portant object. The liberties of the country we believed, and still believe, to be in imminent danger. Our object was to give our counsel, when solicited, (and with all the earnestness and sincerity of our nature) as to the best and surest mode of providing for their present rescue, as well as their future preservation. We had no desire to bandy epithets with Mr. Marble or anybody else. In the great civic contest now waging, we rely entirely upon the intelligence, virtue and patriotism of the peopled the United States; hence, what we said in re ply to the World's inquiry was addressed to these highest attributes of human na ture. We believe the honest masses have tire intelligence to understand the truth when presented; and the virtue and pat riotism to maintain it at the polls. This is our only hope for the rescue and per petuation of Public Liberty on this Con tinent. It was with these views and objects we entered this controversy, and it is with these solely we pursue it. If the arena of argument and of sound reason, addressed t) “good sense,” he abandoned, as it has been by the World in this instance— if the ground be shifted—if pei'sonal con troversy now be resorted to for the pur pose of diverting public attention from the great vital questions involved, we shall not hesitate in the pursuit of our adversary, nor shrink from meeting him on this field of contest, whenever it shall be necessary forjthe vindication of truth and the rights and interests of the peo ple. We can give blows as well as take them, on this line; and will do it when duty requires it. We have no such sense of dignity either as a citizen, or Editor, as that which Mr. Marble affectedly assumes to feel, when questions are put to him. In times of peril in politics, as in fire or tempest, ho who stands on dignity has but small claim for tho respect of mankind. If we have displayed in our controversy with tbe World any peculiar “crotchets,” or “idiosyncracies” of a morbid intellect, or any offensive “egotism,” its Chief Edi tor has been very careful not to let his readers witness the exhibition of these infirmities, or form their own judgment on these charges against us, which are made by the World, with so much “cour tesy” in the opinion of Mr. Marble. When he asked us through the columns of his paper, to be move precise in drawing the line between “dead” and “living is sues,” and in stating tbe principle on which the line of separation should be drawn, did we not respond in most cour teous language, stating with perfect clear ness, that the true line of separation, is that, which leaves all matters pertaining to tho war against Secession—including its causes, conduct and actual results, wliether legitimate or otherwise—on the side of the dead past; and which leaves all matters relating to the neic war now waging against the Constitution, with its claimed results, on the side of the living present ? Did we not conclusively show, that every object for which the war for the preservation of the Union was waged by the Federal authorities, was completely accomplished, when this new rear against the Public Liberties of the country was commenced by a majority faction in Con gress, whose sole object is the overthrow of the entire system of free institutions in ibis country, and the erection in their stead of one centralized Empire ? Did we not show that every act of this new war, with its claimed results, rests upon nothing but bold and openly confessed usurpations ? Did we not show that the 14th and 15th Amendments—so-called— to the Constitution, are nothing but the chained residts of these usurpations, and in no sense, either legitimate or actual results of the war for the preservation of the Union ? . . Did the World venture to assail this line of separation drawn by us or to con trovert the correctness of the principle upon which it was drawn ? Did it ven ture to question a position assumed by us in any part of that response ? Has it ever furnished its readers with our reply to its inquiries ?. "Wer^ they not, as hon est Democrats, searching for truth where- ever it lay, entitled to it ? If vre are so wanting in “good sense” in that reply as to suggest and urge a policy which would be so destructive to the Democratic par ty, why did he not show wherein the ar- tions, in which his Democratic readers, as well as all the people of this country, have so deep an interest— then we shall have some grounds to believe that be is inclined to honesty of purpose, and that he is not an enemy, in disguise, to the great cause of Truth, Justice, Bight and Constitutional liberty—in the mainten ance of which the Democracy of the Union are now, enlisted. At present we cannot divest onrself of the bdief that Mr. Marble is doing infi nitely worse than barely trifling with tbe people; that while under the mask of De mocracy, he acts the part of a harlequin for the entertainment of the multitude when occasion suits his purpose, as in the two articles under consideration, he is in fact no Democrat at all, and has neither sympathy for their cause nor affinity for their principles; that if stripped of his ‘ ‘ring-trappings, ” he would be found, even in these jeers, to he nothing but a grin ning imp of exulting Radicalism, rejoic ing at the prospect of soon seeing the chains of Despotism riveted upon the country, and to s*ee it done by the hands of the Democracy themselves ! His part in effecting the destruction of the Democracy, by their own band, may not be unlike that of tbe perfidious Siuon in bringing about tbe overthrow of Troy by operating upon the over-creduli ty of the Trojans themselves. This, we say to the honest masses of the Democracy everywhere, is our pres ent belief, as to his position; and, as one among many other reasons which force this belief upon our mind, we cite his last editorial referred to, in which he attempts to act the buffoon, by bringing into de rision matters of the gravest import, which can engage a true man’s attention on public affairs. The usurpations, by which the “fraud ulent amendments” are claimed to have been carried, are such as should excite the indignation of every patriot in the land, whether there is any effectual remedy against them or not; and the greater indignation, in proportion to the degree of improbability of redress against their mischievous effects. "When we had shown conclusively, by irrefutable argu ments, that the validity of these amend ments was a judicial, as well as a political question, and might be brought before the courts, and there tested in one clearly legitimate mode of redress— to say nothing of others—and offered this as an unanswerable reason, among others, why they should not receive a formal sanction 'of the Democracy before their validity was, at least, thus tested : this, tbe harlequin of the World springs forth and jestingly cries out: Mr. Stephens is a veritable Don Quixote, mounded upon “a spavined, wall-eyed, draggle-tailed, skin- covered skeleton” Rosinante, aiming at the impracticable, visionary and ridiculous. Kidiculous, is it, to appeal to courts for a redress of wrongs ? But, says Harlequin, strutting in his ludicrous “ Spots” with his thumb upon bis nose and little finger projecting with a significant motion : It is ridiculous be cause no case can be brought before tbe Courts. Tbe idea of getting this ques tion before the Courts is as absurd as it would be to propose to saw up all tbe pine timber in New England and Canada, by a wind-mill to be erected on tbe top of Mount Washington! How are yon going to get the logs np there ? There can be no decision by tbe Courts without parties—and who is to be plaintiff and defendant in such a case ? This is the grinning imp’s wily trick to amuse and delude the people ! If he had really desired to know how a case under these amendments can he brought before the Courts, (and not how logs could be hauled to bis Quixotic ‘wind-milT’ on the top’of Mount Wash ington)—as well as who can he plaintiff, and who defendant, in such a case, he might have got the information from the pleadings in just such a case in Ibis State, which were sent to him, and which he refused to publish for the information of others, whether he read them himself or not. His reason for refusing to publish, we believe, was the unanswerable argu ment therein contained against the validi ty of those stupendous frauds. That he read the whole we have but little doubt however, and just as little that this ques tion so propounded by him now is but a mocking pretense. The actnal case referred to, it is true, was not sustained by the usurpers who instituted the prosecution; but Harlequin's question is fully answered by saying that other cases involving the validity of these Amendments, may be brought before the Courts under the Enforcement Acts of j self, upon a review of his own Congress, in the same way in which this [ leave for his serious reflection, one was. very similar opinions to those now so sinisteiiy expressed by him of the funda mental law of the Union. But, says Harlequin, with another mocking grin, a majority of the Supi’eme Court are thoroughly Radical, and will de cide in favor of the validity of the ttmend- ments, fmuds or no frauds. How does Harlequin know this? Has not a majority of that Court, Badical as they are, decided every question which has gone up before them, as yet upon the Constitutionality of the Reconstruc- tion measures, (upon which alone these amendments rest)—against tho validity of those acts ? If the foundation be inval id, can the superstructure stand? But suppose the Supreme Court, constituted as it is, should decide ia favor of these usurpations; is this any reason why the people should sanction ox approve them, even after such a decision? Is not all political power in the people still ? Can they not change their Bulers at the polls,' and change the present constituency of that Court; unless they suffer themselves to be cheated, in this instance, out of their birth right, by those who approach them with tho hands of Esau, but with the voice of Jacob?—those who come under the garb of Democracy but with the identity of Kadicals! Did not the Courts of England give their sanction to the validity of the levy of ship money by virtue of tbe Boyal Prerogative ? Did Hampden, Pym, Coke and other cham pions of Popular Bights, give up the question because of such an iniquitous decision ? Did they not agitate at the polls until the rights of the people pre vailed over the power of the throne ? Did not the Courts in this country de cide the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to be Constitutional and valid? Was not a decided majority in both Houses of Congress supporters and defenders of them ? Was not the Executive in favor of them ? Did not every State in the Union sustain their validity, except Virginia and Kentucky? Nay, more, out of the two hundred newspapers then published in the United States, did not one hundred and seventy-eight throw all their weight and power in favor of their expediency as well as va lidity ? Was the Democracy of that day rallied upon a “Dong Quixote adventure' for the rescue of tlieir liberties, even against all these odds? It is true the “Rosinatneupon which they were mounted, was the Constitution—the same winning steed upon which we would have them take stirrup now, however “spavin ed, wall-eyed and draggle-tailed" this much- abused creature may have seemed then, or may seem now, to Centralists, Imperial ists and Monarchists. It was upon this “hobby horse” or “Bo- sinante,” (if Harlequinjso pleases to style it) of the Constitution, that Mr. Jefferson was mounted, in 1800, when he carried the people of the country at the polls, against the decision of the courts—against the influence oLthe majorties in Con gress—and against the patronage and Power of the President; backed then, by the Sedition Act, as the President now is by tbe present Ku-Klux Act, which is but a metempsychosis of its original prototype. He went to the country upon the bold issue that those dangerous usurpations of Congress were “not valid laws," but were “nullities.” The honest, liberty loving masses of the people everywhere sustained him in this position. The great civic victory achieved was one of the grandest and most important in the annals of His tory. Gross usurpations with their results were brought to an end. No more pros ecutions for violations of “nullities” were instituted, and all the victims of tyranny then in jail, were released by the new Ex ecutive. The ultimate political power in this country for the rectification of all wrongs growing out of abuses of public trusts, or misjudgments in official position, is in the people. Upon the “Kosinante” of this principle every friend of free insti tutions the world over, ought to be mount ed, however “spavined and draggletailed * 1 it may seem to be to the jaundiced eyes of the enemies of popular rights, whether they be secret or open in their hostility. The reason that this principle seems to Mr. Marble to be so “wall-eyed" and other wise ridiculous, is easily accounted for. It is owing to his Radical training. “Antecedents” he speaks of !— “Mr. Stephens’ antecedents!” Better would it have been for him had he been silent on the subject of “antecedents” in this connection. Whatever may have been our political “antecedents,” none can be named for which we feel ashamed, or in any degree “mortified” in thinking of. Whether the Chief Editor of the World can, with an easy conscience, say as much for him- we will We are not surprised that the steed, upon which we are ^mounted, should “seem to him" to be “a spavined, wall eyed, dragyle-iailed, skin-covered skeleton" of a beast, for it is none other than the Constitution of the United States. He, aid those with whom he has acted the greater part of his life, have ever enter tained, and some of them openly declared, As to our Democracy, it is exhibited in the Public Records, extending through a period of over thirty years—and it is a matter of pride to us, that during that whole time we never gave a vote incon sistent with the principles of Thomas Jefferson, which constituted the Plat form of the Democratic Party in 1800, and from which the party has never “de parted,” and under which the county was more prosperous for sixty years than any other since on the earth. If Mr. Marble has ever, up to this time, given a single vote in support of these prin ciples, the proof of the fact has yet to be adduced. Hi3 present relation to tho party, aud the only one he ever bore towards it, as we understand, and believe the fact to be, was bought with a //rice. The World newspaper, which he now controls, as we understand, and believe the fact to be, was established as a Radi cal sued, and while it was under his con trol as such, lie was under the necessity of selling it for want of means to carry it on. This event in his “antecedents” is too important to be omitted. His language on the occasion, to one of his Badical patrons, as reported, is in these words: ‘‘I ma st have more money to keep my paper coiner ‘or I shall be compelled to sell out to the Demo- ‘crats. xvliick will be the most mortifying event of “my life.” In this way, as, we understand it, Mr. Marble became connected, a few years ago, with some of the leadingmen of the Democratic Party, in the city of New York. We believe the account thus given of the origin and nature of his connection with the Party to this extent, is true, from the/art, among other considerations, that this statement relating to his “ante cedents” was published in the New York Day Book, at his door, on the 12th of this month—(the date of the first of bis arti cles against us in our columns to-day) and has not been denied or controverted by him since. One reason of the delay of our notice of his attack upon us, of the 12th instant, was a desire, before re plying, to see if he had anything to say against the correctness of the statement, or whether, by his silence, we should be justified in believing it to be true—and treating it accordingly, as we have, in our reply. This is the man, then, who has the un blushing face to question our fidelity to Democratic principles, and to intimate the possibility of our being subsidized by the Radical Dynasty at Washington! No fact is more notorious than that of his abandonment of the Democratic tick et in the last Presidential election, wheth er for money, as some think, or for what ever other motive, all must decide for themselves. Our own belief then was, and now is, that it was because of the Jeffersonian principles announced in the platform. His innate Radicalism caused him to revolt at the idea of seeing these established by the election of Sejmour and Blair, the prospect of which was so promising up to the time of his open de fection. With what grace, then, can a man with these “ antecedents” say that the cause of the Democratic Party will be “handi capped” by our advocacy ? Is it not much more likely to be “ band-cuffed” if his advice he followed ? How can he as sert with any show of plausibility that our advocacy of “ State Bights” can have any “affinity to secession” as a practical question ? Have we not again and again said that all matters and questions rela ting to the late war—including its causes, conduct and actual results should be classed among the “dead issues" ? Have we not said, in express words : “ A legitimate result of the war, we believe, was “the settlement,—and settlement forever in this “country, of the policy of Secession as £ practical “mode of redress against any usurpations on the “ part of the Federal Government." Did not the World, in its article of the the 8th of July, say that “ These admirable ringing paragraphs hit tho mark “ in the bull’s eye." Did he not commend them especially because they were given over our initials, which, since, have given him so much uneasy concern! This full endorsement of our views and teachings in regard to Secession was in the same article in which we were invited to state with more precision the principle on which the line should be drawn be tween “ dead” and “living issues.” It, at least, forever estops his raising this ob jection to our advocacy of the rights of the States, or peo^e, as involved in the coming contest, unless we should change or modify our position on it;—and he has no reason to suspect even that we ever shall do any such thing; for if, when the Southern States were in their full power and glory, led by Mr. Toombs and Mr. Davis, (whom he would represent as our favorite leaders) we opposed, with all our might, the policy of secession, against their advice and utmost exertions—egged on too, os they were, by many of Mr. Marble’s then Rad ical associates, who said, “let the Union slide,” and “if the Cotton States desire to withdraw, let them depart in peace”— if, ve say, under such circumstances we opposed the policy of secession, what sane man can suppose that any teachings of ours would look to any resort of that character in this day of Southern weak ness, exhaustion and prostration? For the special information of Mr. Marble, we here say that we are governed now quite as little by the views or objects of "Mr. Toombs or Mr. Davis, in refer ence to Platforms or Candidates, whatev er they may be, as we were in reference to Secession; but one tiling may be count ed upon as certain, and that is, if these reckless usurpations which have marked the progress of the Badical Party in their war against the Constitution, since the war against Secession was terminated with its actual results, and the accomplishment of all of the avowed objects for which it was waged, shall, in an evil and fatal hour, be indorsed and sanctioned by tbe , voting masses of the Democracy of the United States, and the Federal Union be come merged into a Centralized Empire, then what ever may be said of the dis cretion or wisdom of Mr. Toombs and Mr. Davis, or others with them, on the policy of Secession in 1861, their impul- ses will be held to havo been right by the impartial judgment of mankind for all time to come. .. The Chief Editor of the Wcwld has the naidihood to assert that wo have intima ted that if the General Convention of the Democratic Party does not adopt our views that we will not support its platform or candidates. This assertion is made in the face of our positive declaration re peatedly made, that though our views, as to the proper line of policy to be pursued the canvass, should be overruled, yet we would support any candidate upon any platform which shall not violate the fundamental principles of the Demo- ocratio organization; nor embody an endorsement or approval of any of the iniquitous usurpations of the party in Power. We have no views but to adhere to Democratic principles, so far as Platform is concerned. We have said and repeat, that we are willing to |go into the can vass on the principles and advice set forth, in the late Democratic Congressional Ad dress, to which he with seeming approval calls our attention. We respectfully ask the Editor of the World, though he may think our question a “trifle impei'linent if he is willing to do the same ? We are not only candid, hut thorough ly in earnest in stating our belief to be that he is not. We do not believe that he intends to support any candidate, upon any Platform which does not in dorse and sanction, as valid, the most in famous acts of “usurpation, fraud and perfidy,” which have marked the history of the ruling Dynasty at Washington for the last five years. • It was our belief of this purpose on his part, which, prompted us to put the direct questions we did to him on that point. If our be- lief was not well founded, why did he not answer the questions ? Is there any thing “impertinent” or “irrelevant” about them ? Was it not quite as much “a trifle im pertinent" in him to put questions to us, as it was for us to put questions to him ? Did he not, on taking up our questions, say he was “quite willing to answer ?” Why, then, after reading them—like a choking witness on the stand—did he re fuse to do what he at first said he was wil ling to do ? Why did he then, all at once, throw himself upon his affected dig nity and attempt to get off by saying the questions were “a trifle impertinent?”— Nay, more, that they amounted to noth ing but asking if he would “support Alexander H. Stephens if he should bo nominated ?" Was subterfuge ever more clearly evasive or pitiable ? Why was this subterfuge resorted to in this extremity ? Was it not as a drown ing man catches at a straw ? Was it not from an unwillingness to make that dis closure which an answer would necessari ly have brought forth ? It was in this dilemma Harlequin became mum. It was in this perplexing strait “Spots” threw himself upon his dignity. He would not answer questions because they were “a trifle impertinent /” Who ever heard of “Spots,” with his grimaces, ever being caught in such a predicament before ? The solution of the extraordinary phenomenon is easy. Questions, which are quite harmless and inoffensive to the innocent and upright, are often fearful instruments of torture to the double-dealing and dishonest. They are terrible probes to a guilty conscience—like the Spear of Ithuriel— with its “celestial temper” which “no falsehood can endure the touch of;” they often make disguised men—passing for what they are not—show instantly their real character, whether they “will or no,” whether they answer or not. So much for the merits of our contro versy with the Chief Editor of the New York World in view of its personal as well as public character—np to this stage of its progress. If Mr. Marble is not a disguised ene my in the Democratic camp, let him fur nish some better evidence of his fidelity to their Cause and Candidates thrm is to be found in bis “antecedents.” If his real object is not under the name of Democracy to Radicalize the country, let him answer our questions and satis factorily explain why he did not answer at first. The dignity and a “trifle imper tinent" subterfuge will not do. A. H.S. — SOL. “This World is all a fleeting show,” and Manton Marble is content to play “the leap for life”—out of the Badical party into the Democratic. Before the World turned Demo cratic, Mr. Marble appealed to his Radi cal friends, “ Help us!—Cash us, or we sink, and sell out to the Democrats!” B@»The Courier-Journal said Rodman’s bill was sent out by mistake, and was not meant to be collected. It further said that no other similar bills were sent out. Thereupon the Ledger produces the fol lowing: Louisville, ,1S7.. Hon. Wm. Brown, Nicholasville, Ky., 1871. To the Courier-Journal Dr., May 27. Ad. Appointments 3 sq., average lid. & w. to Aug. 5 $85 00 It is encouraging to notice that it is not so high as Rodman’s was.