Newspaper Page Text
This is the friendly course. Let us jdo
what will unite the party and reconcile
its dissensions.
THE ATLANTA WEEKLY SUN, FOR THE WEEK ENirTNTft APRIL 24, 1872.
From the Atlanta 8an, 27th September, 1871.
A LITTLE PLAIN TALK AND FAIR DEALING.
We publish, to-day, an article from a
late issue of our neighbor, the Constitu
tion, headed “ Stop It,” upon which we
submit, for the consideration, of our
readers, the following comments:
\Ve certainly have taken as active and
earnest a part in the “Southern discus
sion” of the “New Departure” move
ment, as any participant in it that can be
named, and if we have exhibited any
“bigotry” in our views, or resorted to any
“misrepresentation” of our opponents,
we should like to have them set forth in
specifications, and not covered by a gene
ral charge, which admits of no issuable
point in answer..
Onr purpose, in all that we have said,
and shall say, in this discussion, is. to
arrive at practical truths, and not to cs.
tablish any mere abstract dogmas.
If, then, we have wandered from this
purpose, cither from the heat of debate
or any other cause, let the specifications
be made, . •
A great aud vital question is before the
country—before the whole country—and
not, as our neighbor argues, barely before
the Democracy of the Northern States,
in their local elections.
This “ New Departure ” movement, it
is well known, was introduced in Penn
sylvania with the avowed object of mak
ing the principles and policy set forth in
it, the creed of the Democracy of the
whole Union,at its next General Conven
tion.
It is well known that the 9 th Resoln
tion of the Pennsylvania Convention, in
which were embodied the principles and
purposes of the movement, has been ac
cepted by all the open Southern, as well
as Northern, “New Departure” papers, as
the creed of the Party, to be proclaimed
at the next General Conventibn. It is,
therefore, not a local question, but one that
addresses itself to Democrats everywhere,
who feel any interest in the principles
and policy on which the Party is to be
rallied in the contest of 1872.
Is it not, therefore, a question upon
which every Democrat, who wishes well
for his country, and also for his Partv,
should make known his sentiments ? We
so consider it, aud, therefore, have made
known ours, with a distinctness and earn
estness commensurate with what we
deem the magnitude of the issues in
volved. Wo only speak for ourselves, in
our own jurisdiction.
If our neighbors of the Constitution
think proper to keep silent on the sub
ject, and keep their sentiments in regard
to it a *secret locked up in their own breasts,’
as Lord Mansfield did his on a memora
ble occasion in the British Parliament,
(when the House of Commons had com
mitted the unprecedented usurpation of
fixing a qualification of membership in
thatJUody unknown to the Constitution)he
Uso. Wo make no arraignment of them
before the public for thus withholding
their sentiments upon this, or any other
question; but we do protest against their
arraignment of us, either by name, or in
a class, for raising our voice in arousing
the people to the imminent danger to
their liberties, covered up in this “ New
Movement.”
While Mansfield, their prototype, kept
his own sentiments to himself, on the
subject of the usurpations of the House
of Commons, he did not assume to ar
raign Chatham before the Pablic, on his
open denunciation of the outrage, when
he proclaimed—
- ‘'A breach has been made in the Constitution; the
battiemeuts are dismantled; the citadel is open to
the first invader; the trails totter 1 What remains,
then, but for us to. stand foremost in the breach,
to repair it, or perish in it?”
To say nothing of other outrages, has
not a most ruinous breach been made in
our Constitution, by the grossest usuipa-
potions of Congress, in attempting, by
the 14th Amendment, to fix qualifica
tions, not only on members of Congress,
but upon all holders of office in all the
States of the Union? Is not this, with
their other like usurpations, utterly sub
versive of all Free Institutions? Is it
not the avowed object of the “New De
parture” not only to accept, but “build,
upon these monstrous usurpations? Is
this a “puppet” we have set up to knock
down? Is it not undeniably true? Are
we “pitching” into the “Northern De
mocracy” in denouncing the proposed
movement? Far from it. We are only
“pitching” into those tricksters, whose
policy will lead the Democracy to ruin
everywhere.
If this agitation has been untimely or
damaging, who introduced it? Who
brought forward the disturbing question?
Was it those who started the “New De
parture,” or those who oppose it?
When a proposition was made for an
open “departure” from the creed of th6
Democracy of the Union could it have
been expected to be - accepted without
discussion ? If damage has resulted,
who is responsible? In this connection
we cannot forbear the repetition of w^at
we have often said before: that in our
opposition to this movement, we are not
assailing the Democracy, Sither North or
South; we are assailing those only who
wish, temptingly, to lead the Democrat
ic Party in a “ Departure ” from
their time-honored principles ! We
assa 1 those only, whose objects and pol
icy are to persuade the Democracy every
where, not to “rush to the breaches in the
Constitution,” made by Radical usurpa
tions, and “to repair or perish” in them ;
but to accept them, indorse them and
sanction them, as “verities” and “finali
ties”
These are the men—no friends of ours
or friends to Constitutional Liberty—that
we war against; nor shall we “stop” our
fire upon them until they “stop” their
movement. «' A.H.S
From the Atlanta (Ga.J ConstitnUon. 27th Septem
tember, 1871.
MR. STETHESS AND THE CONSTITUTION.
That the Constitution, in its effort to
stop party wrangling and secure party
unity, should draw the fire of tbe dispu
tants sooner or later, was natural. We
have taken broad high grounds for
party peace with tho purpose of securing
party success. Looking at the great con
test from tho wide stand-point of friend
ship to all men opposed to Radicalism,
its political heresies and deadly rule, our
aim has been to reconcile all differences
between its opponents, and bring about
their fusion in one harmonious aud suc
cessful whole. Believing in uncompro
mising adhesion to principle, yet also be
lieving that the time for attack on strong
positions of the enemy should be selected
with judgment, we have urged a course
for tho party that we thought united the
two things wisely. Utterly opposed to
fatal concessions of right, we yet have
been equally opposed to battles where
defeat must inevitably follow assault.— ]
Knowing the absolute necessity of har
mony and concert, we have fought ve
hemently all interference with our allies
in the great cause.
Believing that the time for action
should be chosen only after agreement
between the great wings of the Demo-
very threshold. If our neighbors think I
differently, as we have said before, we do
not arraign them for their course, but we
shall ever defend the wisdom of our own
against all lecturing if not hectoring
remonstrances” to “stop it,” with unsup- j
ported charges against us, either directly .
or indirectly, of “bigotry” and “misrep
resentation” in the discharge of what we
cratic army and under intelligent and conceived to be a high public dutv
tinifnnn ..I 1 TIT- • 1_ -• . . r . . J
uniform plan of battle, we have sought
steadily to work a cessation of intestine
difficulties and a united co-operation of
movement.
Seeing the Northern Democracy en- j
gaged in a terrible straggle for local su
premacy, as a ventage ground in the mo
mentous canvass of 1872, we were une
quivocally in favor of the Southern De
mocracy holding aloof from tho con-1
test, in which it conld only interfere to
We wish our neighbors clearly to un
derstand that we do not recognize tlie
Concodors of this proposition for the
Democracy of the Union to “Depart”
from those principles, on an “uncompro
mising adherence” to which we intend to
stand, as any it allies” of ours; nor do we
recognize any of that corrupt ring of po
litical tricksters from whom it emanated,
as “allies” of the true Democracy. They
are not of them, or with them, upon any
hurt its^. friends and injure its own j programme which looks to the rescue of
* —i--i_ the liberties of this country from the
Radical policy of Imperializing tbe Gov
ernment.
Centralization and public plunder are
their twin objects—centralization being
cause. ‘ This was particularly necessary
in the light of Southern divisions of sen
timent on the programme of the Northern
Democracy.
As early as June, when the local cam
paigns were inaugurated North, we took
ground as follow^:
Wo of the South have had no hand in it If the
Northern Democracy choose in their coming State
elections to experiment, it is their local right, and
none of our-business. Should the faU elections show
an ignominious defeat on the new alignment, we will
have something to profit by it"
This has been our position ever since,
and is now. We then saw what has since
happened, that Any other course would
result in party dissensions and party de
feat. We have been amply confirmed in
the propriety of our course. We have
never had more positive convictions that
we were right upon any public question
upon which we have taken sides,
theatlanta sun.
from the daily edition of
Thursday, April 18th 1872.
NOT SATISFIED WITH THE “WAGON’*
jTHE LOUISVILLE COURIER-JOURNAL.
For a long time this distinguished
“New Departure” journal has been earn
est in its appeals to the Democratic
Press everywhere not to be restless under
the inactive policy of Mr. Belmont. Its
advice has been to be still, to be quiet,
to be passive, ‘£ro wait for the wagon.”
We thought that mischief and treachery
to the cause of Constitutional Govern
ment was brewing by certain “trusted
leaders” of the Party, and so proclaimed
onr belief.
We were strong in our convictions that
it was not the object of Mr. Belmont nor
of the New York World, and their coad-
0
the chief of these, as that will best .ena- juting manipulators of the Cincinnati
ble them to revel in the other Convention, to offer for Democratic sup-
In onr deliberate judgment the leading . , . , _
and controling object had in view by P or “ an y candidate for the Presidency
them in this guilefid movement, was the who was not in perfect unison with the
defeat of Democratic opposition to cen-1 present Radical Dynasty in all their chief
tredizatwn. _ These men to whom we al- usurpations and outrages upon the Con-
lude specially—the Concodors of this ... 7. . - ° . , .. . ,
“New Departure”—belong to that class stitution since 1865. This belief we also
who never were Democrats, except by proclaimed through onr columns. We
“necessity.” They belong to the same I had no disposition at all to wail for Mr.
class, at thehead of which stands the Belmont's 'fwagon” before declaring what
New York TFoi'to, which deserted the De- , ... .. ,
mocracy in 1868. They knew that I thou S hfc ought to be the policy and
unity on the part of the Democracy in course of all true friends of Constitution-
We see to-day a great party wrangling 187 . 2 ’ in open assault upon Radical usur- alism against Centralism, which consti-
itself to JJecies, .furiously MM t and 1 in the comln e *“»
rushing right straight to inevitable de
feat, if the present state of things con
tinues. We see tbe Democracy of • the
Northern States by sweeping party ma
jorities, adopting a programme to bury
war issues and redeem themselves from
Radical rule. We see our Southern De
mocracy divided into hot antagonism on
the question of' that programme, and a
portion doing their level best to kill the
programme, which effort, if successful,
must defeat our friends.
What though we of the South think
•our friends of the North wrong, each
must
itself,
ciple and right. Onr interference has
been as uncalled for and wr#ng, as it has
been damaging. It is no answer to say
to the Ku-Klux acts passed to carry them
out—would result in a brilliant civic
victoiy.
This all the signs of the times clearly
portended. They saw these signs, and
understood them; hence came their “De
parture” from Democratic principles;
hence their attempt to defeat this result
by introducing this “apple of discord”
in the Democratic party, with the tempt
ingly persuasive argument that it was the
very fruit of the “tree of knowledge,”
and that if they would but eat of it, their | vent.
idential contest.
As the readers of The Sun have been
advised, the long looked for Celmont
Cariole was mounted on its wheels and
put in motion on the 12th inst., in the
City of New York. With the character
and structure of this vehicle the Courier-
Journal now seems not to be at all
pleased, though he has been so long pa
tiently and hopefully looking for its ad
; run its own household as pleases I e J es w ° uld be opened, and success to Su-
, This is a sacred DesaocrstSprin-
and this Ring, never intended to support
any platform against the Centralizing
JhaT “ omboaie4i “
experiment with a view of making it
national in 1872. This could not warrant
onr interference to their defeat. We
wanted to see the experiment tried, aloof
from all Southern influence. If it failed
under such circumstances, there would
be a poor showing for its adoption as a
nrtional policy. If successful, it indi
cates the drift to success, and with such
modification as might be necessary in the
crucible of positive principle, it would
fomioh the basis of a' National Demo
cratic triumpliin 1S72.
But no; with a sort of Massachusetts
pertinacty and meddling, our Southern
folks have had to interfere and force
their views injuriously into these North
ern local fights, until such a Radical tri
umph and Radical exultation was never
before seen.
When the hour of battle comes, the Consti
tution will be noinadive spectator. It will
strike, and strikg boldly for the right. ' But
we shall endeavor to use discretion so as
not to cripple onr. friends in the local
skirmishes preliminary to the grand con
flict. Our allies may not fight exactly in
the way that we would have them, but
the “fraudulent amendments;” and for
this reason, we say, we have not, and do
not, recognize them as any “allies” of
ours, or of the Democracy of the Union,
In the issue of this journal of the 15th
instant is a most remarkable editorial.
It is too long for insertion entirely. We
give only its heading, and so much of its
body as very clearly indicate the aversion
with which our able “New Departure’
j cotemporary now looks upon the first
fruits in the approaching campaign of the
For the same reason, we thought, and policy he has been so long advocating:
still think, the best time to fire upon
them as enemies, was upon their first ap
proach, with this insidious and most ru
inous temptation for a “Departure” from
Democratic principles. Then was the
time, as we thought, and still think, for
all who were opposed to it, to “strike,
and strike boldly for the right.”
In conclusion, we repeat that we have
“traitors.”
Put thy heart in thy work.’ ’
In some remarks which we made the other day
upon the Liberal movement we spoke, and that re
gretfully, of the lack of sympathy manifested for tho
people of the South by the independent Republicans.
We referred to the leading figure which sentimental
ism always cuts in the play of-political affairs, and
we showed that, though the Southern. States have
—— _ been pillaged both in their property and their liber-
mcTilVT™o ™nnn rtnVnoiniiL~ I ties, the hand of protection has not stretched itselt
made no attach, upon OUl neiglluois out in answer to the generous and congenial impulse
none whatever. Their course of silence of a fellow-feeling sense of our outraged justice, law
upon this question is known. We have b „ eea thora , ther "withheld un-
e . ,i - .. -nr . til danger, drawing nearer home, has compelled the
not assailed them for It. \Y 6 nave only honest supporters of free government at t;ie North
" ’' 1 to bestir themselves and look to their rulers.
We gave this as a reason why the people of the
South do not turn to the Liberals with spontaneous
enthusiasm. It is also the ground of a fear, -which
we have entertained- from the first, that the Liberal
movement wants a broad, noble, far-seeing, all-em
bracing spirit of national union and peace, essential
defended our own course from assaults
upon it, and upon our mode of pursuing
In answer to ,the inquiry made of us at ]
the close of our neighbor’s article, we d
have Only v briefly to say—and to say it I to the work of thorough restoration and reform
most distinctly and emphatodiy-that
we have been fighting this “Departure” and fear. It is in the main a strong speech. But,
eral Government; and the only sure hope
for the country is a speedy return to
them; or, as the great authority referred
to, expressed it: “Should we wander
from them in moments of error or alarm,
let us hasten to retrace our steps and to re
gain the road which alone leads to peace,
liberty and safdy.”
If Judge Trumbull, or other Republi
cans—so-called—find that they “ in mo
ments of error or alarm” “have wan
dered” from these.“old school Republi
can principles”—in their subversion of
ten States—their suppression of the Free
dom of the Press, and the freedom of
person, and the denial of the writ of
Habeas Corpus to at least nine millions of
people—let them so say, and “hasten to
rdrace their steps.”
If they will do this, the Democracy
will most cordially hail their return, and
most patriotically co-operate with them
in the rescue and preservation of their
common liberties. A. H. S.
ANSWER TO CORRESPONDENTS. .
THE LIBER AL REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT.
We are in receipt of a great many let
ters from all parts of the country, asking
our opinion and views upon what is
called the “ Liberal Republican Move
ment.”
We suppose that no reader of The Sun,
since we took control of its political col
umns, could be in want of information
as to our position on this subject, or any
other of a kindred character. We are
Bourbon” enough to be governed by
principles which never die, and from
which we never depart. The mainten
ance of truth and right in politics, as in
all things else, we believe is the best
policy.
But' as great 'numbers who have not
been readers of The Sun from tbe time
of our connection with it, wish a more
definite expression of our views upon what
is now the absorbing topic, we take occa
sion to repeat the general outlines of
what we have often said before; and this
we do in answer to three of the numerous
letters referred to, and which have been
recently received. These three are fair
samples of many others.
I. First: We have a letter from a highly
respectable source in Ohio, which we take
the liberty of presenting to our headers
in full, omitting the name and everything
about it that would in any way Comoro-
mit tbe writer:
kill the movement,'
when their safety is at stake in their tight ?^. es nFi°T? W ^'i C ^i
believing that the pri
it is based (as set for
from Democratic principles in order “to I on P articu ^ ar point, it is either cold or unex-
- - - - -- - - > preserve, warmod by nothing that appeals to our.
higher and purer nature, and falling upon the times
Orth I like a green grocer’s dun upon suffering indigence
that is at once helpless, sensitive, honeBt and unable
to pay.
It goes to the head, not the heart, of the country,
and whilst its logical directness and force are by no
means to be undervalued, one still feels the need of
something additional, of something to satisfy the
popular craving of the old, free-born love of liberty,
which, more than Statistics, brought the original
provinces, the primitive States, and the sections
in tbe 9th Resolution of the Pennsylva
nia Harrisburg Convention) if carried
out, will prove fatal to the liberties of
this country.
We must beg to remind our neighbors
that we do not admit that this movement,
( . , * , ,« -r-» I piUIIUtiCD, blAO piliUlll> O OUUCBj ttUtl UU) HCCUUIit
conceded and earned through the Peun- I themselves into an active, symmetrical and sent!-
places, we certainly shall neither quar
rel with them for their method of ex
trication nor embarrass their efforts for
success.
We have through this whole unfortu
nate agitation worked for party harmony.
We have done so courteously, conscien-1 gyjyania packed convention'by a corrupt I mental communion, at once'irresistible and poetic,
tiously, deferentially to all; we have pur- jf 0 i Uica i Bing; or, in modified forms of praoti )f andpassi “ ate ‘ * * * *
posely avoided all personal references
and deplored party antagonism.
It is with regret, therefore, that we
find.thatour advocacy of this most needed | ^ re than it te&uth.
matter of party harmony lias evoked at
tack, and from a very high source. Our
purpose is to avoid controversy with our
friends, and to conduct it with our ene
mies. Not satisfied with battling those
who are championing the new movement,
it seems that not even a conciliatory re
monstrance against party division can be
made without incurring assault.
.Onr distinguished contemporary, Mr.
Stephens, has taken isshe with us on our
entreaty for the Southern agitation over
•the Northern movement of burying war
issues to stop,
We have heard many explanations of
the purposes of those who are agitating
this matter. We trust that it niay not
be deemed out of place for us, as neces-
It is here that Judge Trumbull disappoints us.
Speaking of the adventurers who have plundered
expression in other conventions, is ap
proved or sanctioned by one in ten of the
4 , e , ■« -p, “ nr .7 J cpcaaiuy oi 1110 auvcuvurciH wnu xiavo piuuuureu
honest VlClSSeS Of til Democracy JSOVtilj any j the Southern States'by comparison with the Southern
■ ‘ ~ men of character and responsibility who are disabled
under the Fourteenth amendment, he says of the
Hence) we protest against its being latter that, “though traitors during the war, they
Called the “New Departure Of the Jyoi'ta- are not vagabonds and thieves/'
ern Democracy;” as we also protest against 1J^ge Trnm-
, . , —’ * , r ~ • ■ bull s standing to tell us that the native public men
onr being charged with warring against of no country are, as a class, “vagabonds and
tbe “Northern Democracy” for fighting | thieves.” But we are1 surprised th»t a man of his
what the masses of the party there ap- threshold
prove no more than we do. A. H. S.
Hon. Alex. H. Stephens: ■
Deaii Sir—Knowing that jou have been promi
nently connected witn passing events for more than
a quarter of a century, and that you are no idle ob
server of events at present, I take the liberty of ad.
dressing you on the subject of the next Presidency-
It is settled, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Gen.
Grant will be re-nominated, and it is also equally
certain that his re-election is, to say the least, prob
able.
The Democratic Party upon a square issue, and
candidates of undoubted Democracy cannot carry
the election, for reasons obvious to all. Several mis
takes have been made, and it seems to me that all—
North and South—ought now to bo willing to conquer
their prejudices, so far as to make success at least
DrObable, if not positively certain. If this is done,
;henwho can be nominated that will carry votes
enough to secure his election ?
€t seems to me that the public mind of the North
3 settling down upon three men—Charles F. Adams,
Lyman Trumbull and Salmon P. Chase—one of
whom will, in all probability, be nominated.
If Chase’s health was firm, he would be tbe can
didate for President with John Q. Adams for Vice
President. Should his health be too infirm, then C.
F. Adams for President and W. S. Groesbeck for Vice
President, would most likely be the ticket.
There is, however, also a considerable number in
favor of Trumbull for President and J. Q. Adams or
Gov. Parker for Vice President.
Now, from your knowledge of the South and her
people, who, in your judgment, would be most'like
ly to command the largest electoral vote in the
South? And can you rally the South on a moderate
ticket, Buch as I have named?
The truth is, the Democratic psrty North is pre
pared to support anybody who will beat Grant and
favor universal amnesty and honesty In the admin
istration of the Federal Government.
If your time and health permit, T would be
pleased to know your opinion of the situation.
Very respectfully,
and enlightenment should, on tho
of an effort at national
revival, apply so rash an epithet
traitor” to those from whom he must expect to de
rive substantial support. It is a hard word; it is an
off-shoot of partisan gabble and malice; it implies
a want not only of sympathy, which is always con
siderate, but of consideration itself; and, what is
more, it is a falsehood accepted nowhere in all the
thrown out of the historic vocabulary which aims to
do justice to onr age, its ideas and its leaders.
Why, we would respectfully ask of our
| cotemporary, is he surprised at such ut-
j terances of Judge Trumbull? Could he
Something About Gas Companies.
The New York TVorld makes some es
timates as to the profits of gas compa- I world of to-day outside of the United States, where
. , . ,, , it is made to serve as an incendiary, and sure to be
mes, and arrives at these conclusions ■*
among others: The Manhattan Company
of New York never paid but twenty-five
dollars per share On their capital, the
resp^tfullv^sk h^^tephens 1 wlie^her j val^eof 1 th^st^k^i^to^^iiL^us^ejb I have reasonably expected any other?
u R no ? u een fiehtinc the New De- resen ting an accumulation of profits of Was he not one of the most active and
he has not been_fightmg_the New De-1 ^besidesregularsemi-annua zealoug supportersof those revo lationary
dividends. In Cincinnati the profits of 1
the Cincinnati Gas Company pay about
twenty per cent, per annum on a capital
of $2,850,000, which capital, has been
largely accumulated out of profits, and
the whole profits, including what goes
into capital stock eadh year, are probably
parture of the Northern Democracy in
order to kill the movement, believing
that the success of the Democracy upon
it would be fatal, and knowing that South
ern opposition to it would of necessity
kill it?
[From the Atlanta Sun, SOth Sept., 1871.
MR. STEPHENS AND THE CONSTITUTION.
We give our readers, to-day, an edito
rial from our neighbor, the Constitution,
of the 27th instant, under the above
caption.
In reply, we say that we did not con
sider the “remonstrance against party
division” reierred to, which charged
“bigotry” and “misrepresentation” on a
class that indnded The Sun, as very
“conciliatory.” We looked upon it, not
only as a direct arraignment of the course
of The Sun, and other Democratic pa
pers, for an untimely opposition to the
“New. Departure” movement, but
charging injustice in their course towards
the advocates of the new movement
The article, if not a direct “assault
upon The Sun, and other Democratic
journals, was certainly not very concilia
tory towards them. All the conciliation
in it,* as we understand it was on the
side of the “New Departurists,” whom
our neighbors claim as their allies.
Of this, however, our readers can judge
for themselves. We gave them the
article in full, on which we commented—
as we do the one now before, us. Fair
dealing, with no “misrepresentation,” is
our object. -If we have discussed the
“New Departure”' with earnestness,
think we have done it upon its merits—
not only with candor, bat without any
“bigotry.”
“Believing” (as our neighbors say they
do,) “in uncompromising adherence to
principle,” we thought, and still tliinK,
the proper time to attack the open and
avowed “Departure” from it, was at the
twice as much. The net monthly profit
of the People’s Gas Company, of Chica
go, is now about $31,000; or ten per
cent, a year on a principal of over $3,-
700,000; and the net monthly profits of
the Chicago Gaslight Coke Company is
about $35,000, or ten per cent, per an-
num on a principal of about $4,200,000,
Good.
We learn that an Irishman who had
been employed at the cemetery some
time since went to Washington to draw
his pay. After receiving the amount,
as | the paymaster, discovering a sabre cut
on his face, remarked: “You were in the
army daring the war ?” “Yes,” said he.
“What command were you in?” “In
General Fitzhugh Lee’s command,” said
lie. “Did you have the audacity to apply
at a Federal Cemetery for work when you
were in the Rebel army ?” .“Yes,” replied
the Irishman, “I helped to kill them, and
I thought I had a right to help bury
them.”—Culpeppei' Observer,
Negro ScHool Festival.
The negroes in the vicinity of Marietta
had a school festival Monday night, at
" e which only one was killed. Charles
Hudson stabbed and killed Henry Wood.
The Journal says:
Strange to relate, the next morning
the murderer gave himself up to the
civil officers—something unusual for a
negro to do. He went through a pre
liminary trial, and is now in jail.
measures which, after)' the war for the
Union was over, put ten of its co-equal
States under the heel of Military Despot
ism?
How could it be expected that a man
with such a record -could feel or utter
any sentiment in sympathy with the
throbbing of the hearts of the honest
masses every where in their “craving for
the old freeborn love of liberty,” which
characterized their ancestors ?
The Courier-Journal and other “policy
leaders” will yet see the day when they
will realize the fact that the only hope
for the salvation of the liberties of this
country lies in a bold maintenance of the
doctrines of Thomas Jefferson—the chief
of which were “the rights of the Slates
under the Constitution, freedom of religion
“In \ freedom of the Press, freedom of person
under the protedion of the Habeas Corpus
and trial by Juries impartially selected.”
“These principles” (said the great
Apostle of Liberty on this continent,)
“form the bright constellation which has
gone before us, and guided our steps through
the age of revolution and reformation
“They” (said he) “should be the creed of
our political faith—the text of civil instruc
tion—the touchstoneby which to try the ser
vices of those we trust.
These are tbe principles of the Demo
cratic creed which can never die. Most
of the present evils now afflicting the
In answer to this letter, we have only
to say, as we have often said before, that
the great mistakes which the Democracy
have heretofore' - made, have been in
following the counsels of timid or unsafe
leaders in their “departure” from the
ever-living principles of their creed, as
announced by Jefferson, and which we
have repeatedly reproduced in the
columns of The Sun.
All the heavy afflictions now pressing
so direfuLly upon the country, are owing
to a departure from these principles, by
the Federal Administration; and the
great mistake of the Democratic Leaders
referred to, has been in following the
anthors of*this mischief, by sandioning
the policy from which have sprung the
grievous evils now so sorely felt and so
generally complained of—and which
they seem vainly endeavoring to remedy.
This is a case in which we have said-be
fore, “the hair of the dog will not cure the
bite.”
We think our.correspondent is himself
committing a great mistake in supposing
or assuming that the Democratic Party
cannot carry the next Presidential elec
tion upon a square issue of Jeffersonian
principles and under an unlowered ban
ner, in the hands of an undaunted cham
pion of the cause. Our opiniou is, as we
have often expressed it, that in a contest
so waged, upon the issue so squately
made and met, between Constitutionalism
and Centralism,the Democracy would not
only “carry the election,” but -that the
banner so raised would be ‘ 'least tattered
wherever it was borne the highest and bold
est in the conflid.”
To suppose otherwise amounts to an
admission that the people of the United
States are in favor of Centralism, Im
perialism and Despotism.
the love of liberty is as strong as it was
with their ancestors.
. Now, a word to our correspondent as-
to the three candidates he names—Mr.
Charles Francis Adams and Judgea
Trumbull and Cbase.
As to Judge L»nase, wo have nothing,
to say at this time, os our correspondent
seems to leave him out of the category
on account of his health; bnt in relation
to Mr. Adams and Judge Trumbull, we
have a great deal to say in reply, so far
as concerns our opinions in relation to
them—a gTeafc deal more than wo can
say in this articly
How can either of these highly distin
guished personages be considered such a
“moderate Republican” as that the Dem
ocratic Party North or South could be
rationally expected to rally in the support'
of, even to beat Grant ?
Were they not both active supporters^
of the greatest outrages which have ever
been committed upon the Constitution ?
Was not Judge Trumbull one of the au
thors of one of those most iniquitous meas
ures, by which at least nine millions of
people were subjected to absolute military
rule, and denied the great writ of Lib
erty—the Habeas Corpus—and that too-
in profound peace ? Has even Grant 1
done anything worse than rigidly to up
hold tho usurpations and carry out the
policy instituted by Judge Trumbull and
his associates ?
Tho idea that the masses of tho peo
ple, either North or South, could be ral
lied to his support, is, in our judgment,
one of the most delusive notions that'
ever entered the brain of sensible men..
The same, in the main, is true of Mr.
Adams. Though he was not in the Sen
ate, and not an active participator in the
passage of the infamous revolutionary
reconstruction measures, as Judge Trum
bull was, yet, as wo understand his posi
tion, he was a decided and warm sup- -
porter of them with all their iniquities..
But we can say no more how in reply:
to the Ohio letter.
H. We come, secondly, to a letter
just received from Waco, Texas, in.
which tho writer calls our attention-
to an article in a Texas paper stat
ing that we had “come squarely out
in.favor of the Liberal Republican move
ment,” &c., and asks if it is true. In.
reply to this, we can only briefly say to
our correspondent, that it is not true, as
all readers of The Sun- very well-
know. We have “come out square
ly ” for one movement only, and
that is a union of all true friends of
Constitutional Liberty, everywhere, in
all the States, by whatever name, whe
ther Democrat or Liberal Republican, in
the great, real, living issue now present- •
ed to the people between Constitutionalism
and Centralism.
We have said and repeat, that we think--
this union can be most efficiently effected,
by the Democracy presenting a candi
date of their own, upon their “old time-
honored creed”—th9 platform of Jefferson
in 1800, when the same' issue was pre
sented-, but that we would yield ohr own
views so far as to give our cc^dial sup
port to any “Liberal Republican,” so-
called, who is thoroughly with the De- -
mocracy in the.great pending living issue:
If the Cincinnati Convention shall* 1
present such a one, and the Democratic.
Convention shall think best, as a Party,,.,
to support the previous nomination so
made, we shall throw no obstacle in the
way of success on their line of policy,
though we do not think it the best or -
surest for the obtainment of their object.
But at present, as is well known to the
readers of The Sun, it is our opinion.* ;
that the New York Democratic manipu- ■
lators of the Cincinnati Convention are* -
not aiming at the nomination of any.
such man as we have referred to. They
are looking out for “an out and out”
Radical Republican—one “trained” in.’
Radical “ideas’’ and policies—such aa
Judge Trumbull and Hon. Charles Fran
cis Adams. To the support of such a
nominee we have been, are, and shall be,.,
“squarely” and utterly opposed—upon
principle.
ITT. The third and last letter referred l
to, is from a valued friend in Richmond,
Virginia. We have not space now to •
say more in answer to his kind favor *
than to refer him to the foregoing pari
of this article, for a very full exposition
of our views upon the points set forth in. ■
his communication.
In conclusion for to-day, we say to one
and all every where, that we are for the -
defeat of General Grant, because of the-
principles and policies he is carrying
out; and we firmly believe that an over
whelming majority of the voters of the
United States are in favor of hie v
defeat for the same reason; bnt -
in our opinion this majority can »
never be rallied for this purpose in the •
support of any one “trained” in the same
“ideas” and policies which he is carrying
out. It is not with the man the country is -
dissatisfied; it is with the Radical “ideas”
and tho Imperial “policies” which mark,
his administration. A. H. S.
Fire—Two Negro Children Burned.
The Athens Watchman ol the 17th has
the subjoined item f
Mr. David Willoughby, living in the
lower part of this county, had the mis
fortune to have two of his negro houses
burned, - and the entire contents, on
Wednesday evening last, and we regret
to learn that two negro children, four
and six years old, perished in the flames.
Mr. Willoughby himself, who is veryoM,
also got badly burned. There was no
body at home but the old gentlemen,and
he did not know* the- children were up
stairs until too late to save them.
Important Decision.
the
de-
at
urns we are
TTfq Honor, Judge Davis, say3
Athens Watchman of Wednesday,
livered a very important opinion
Franklin Court last week—important to
Sheriffs and newspaper publishers. He
a...... ~ decided in substance, that, when not
far from believing. While there are j otherwise: stipulated in the cmatmciwith
, . . „ . , the printer, the Sherill is personally
many aiming at this result, and while ]j 0uac ; .- or a ]j advertising fees, no matter
many have been so aiming and plotting | what plea of homestead exemption, bank-
ever since the separation of the States ruptey, insolvency, &c., may bo inter-
. 1.1-0 -lj - a a 1 ' nosed—that he lanes the office with the
from the Bnbsn crown was effected, yet i £“ e ^ led of thc fact that the law holds
esponsible for these fees, and ho
>t after wards avoid this rospoasi*
country have arisen, as we have all along j we believe the number at this time does 1
maintained, from a “departure” from i not exceed three-tenths of the entire popn- caanc
them, bv those at the head of the h’cd- lation. With the honest, toiling millions | biliry ■