Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

THK ATLANTA HUJN m oi'^u it iu it i-1' t'lo DAILY nnd 'iTEEKLY OwIIjr—Single Copy « Twelve Mon tun ... $10 00 | Three Month# 8 00 Six Mo;itua 6 no | Ono Month 1 00 Clnhi for D»lly-»*«r Annum » Three Oopiee 27 00 | Eight Copie* «8 Four « 86 00 Ten •• M0; lire •• 48 00 | Single paper 6 Weekly—P*r Annum « Single Copy 2 00} Ten Copies. 18 0 Three Copies .5 00 I Twenty Copies. 28 00 Ely# Copies 8 00 Titty Copies 65 00 One Hundred Copie 00 Weekly for Six Blontli* i SlnaloCopy. 1 00 I Twenty Copies. 15 iO Three Cope* 3 M YTty Copie 34 00 Eire Copies 4 00 I One Hundred Copies6o 00 Ten Copies 7 *0 | Single peper 5 cts VOL. 3, NO. 20.} ATLANTA, GA^ WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1872. WH° L |H8 WBX? ••THIS I* A MOrrrkllTINEUT asd impobtawx mQOIBT—A WOBD TO Mb. STEPHENS. Editor! Con stitution: The people of Georgia, end not the poll- tiesns. Indorsed the Cincinnati platform and made choice of Mr. Greeley as their candidate for Presi dent, ami that In oppo'ition to the teachings of Mr. "A. H. V in 1872, but In obedience to bis teachings in i860, and hi* indorsement of Graiz Brown's great speech made in Missouri last March. Has Gratz Brown changed his principles? No.— He is nobly battling for constitutionalism against centralism, side by side with Ho. acc Greeley, tne gallant Voorhoes and others, while Mr. “A. H. 8.” has deserted the platform erecteuby himself, for himself, in these words: "All who hold the senti ments of Governor Gratz Brown on the subject, and will, in good faith, assist in defeating the Radi cal attempts at Umpire and Central Despotism, we bail, not only as cordially accepted allies, but as good cnongh Democrats for us in the coming con- flict. whatever tnay have been their past party names or associations." The groat princi ples that Gratz Brown battled for then, he is battling for now ; the Grant party that Gratz Brown battled aga nst tlien, he is battling against now, ho battled for constitutionalism against ceu- tmliein then! The time Mr. A. H. 8. indorse; the principles of that groat speech, and he Is to-day battling for constitution'll rights of the citizen, pro tection to person and property and nou-interlcrence with tbs affairs of local self-government. The vital principles taught and enforced in Gratz Brown’B great speech that commanded Mr. A. H. S.’s admira tion and indorsement last March, nro tbo same prin ciples transferred to and embodied in the plattorm of the great Liberal Republican Democratic party of Georgia and the United 8tates. The Democracy of Georgia is in no danger• f be ing transferred. Who can transfer tbo Democratic people of Georgia? Who dare attempt it? The Democrats or Georgia placed themselves on fit bo great constitutional principles of the Cincinnati platform with Greeley and Brown as their leaders in the contest between constitutionalism and central ism, and they will never be so bate as to violate tbo pledge of honor given when they made choice of thoso honoat and great men as their candidates for tbo two highest offices in the United States. Evou the intimation of ro dishonorable a proposition, or "inquiry” to tho people of tho Democratic party is a rejection upon their honor; that tho Greeley and Brown eleetornl ’ ichet will stand .sit is, and be voted for in November with an honest purooto to overthrow Grant and all his friends, whether they belong to the highest or iowost order of animals. Tha reason why the "Greeley ticket is still kept up in Georgia” is becauso the people are opposed to centralism and in favor of constitutionalism; be cause they prefer tho "States shall be free from Federal dictation;” bccaaso they preier tho pjincl- pies enunciated by Gratz Brown and indorsed by Mr. A. K. 8. last March, and now taught and in- doraod by lior&co Greeley* Hall. [Atlanta Constitution, Evening Edition, 31st Octo ber, 1872.] We give Mr. “Hall” the full benefit of a submittal of his entire article to the perusal of onr readers. If trutli was his object would it not have been better for him to have quoted our “indorse ment of Gratz Brown's great speech made in Missouri last March?” Had he done so the groundlessness of what he hero asserts would have too glaringly stared him m the face for his proceed ing a step further on the line of his reckless statements about us or our position or our having ever deserted a platform erected by us. Tho truth is, we did not give any gen eral indorsement of that speech of Gov. Gratz Brown. We published copious ex tracts from it, and called the attention of onr readers to them os “passing events” of the day. To one passage in this speech we called special attention, and 6uid that if the “Liberal Kepublicau” Convention then called to meet in Oinoinnati, should adopt a platform based upon the prin ciples of that sentiment of tue speech, we would be willing cordially to oo-oper- ato with them. That sentiment was the declaration of a purpose to rally the country against “a Despotic system of Central Authority." This was our Platform in March last— ever before—ever since —and now. Our position thus clearly appears from an ex tract of an editorial at the time, in these words: What docs ilia World mean by liberal Republican? For ourselves, with a right understanding of the worue, wo s.-o no difference in principle between a liberal Republican and a true Democrat. Soiar as name is concerned, tbo Democrats are the tine Republicans of ihis country. It has only been qnito rec.-ntly in our hiBtory that the real Centralists and Imperialists assumed this Democratic and popular name (Republican) as a cloak to hide their wicked and nefarious designs against tho Constitution. These simon pare Cen tralists arc now recognized by all men tinder the seynomen of Radicals, though that of Jacobins would suit them better. - Now, whoever acted with tnem under the name of Republican—seeing these designs—and wishing to arrest them (ana there are hutidreds of thousands Of such), wo regard aa D—oewtS. W0 rare not whether they coll themselves "Liberal Republicans' or ‘•Jeffersonian Democrats." All true Democrats are 1-beral Republicans according to tho true mean ing and historical understanding of the word.— Principles are what give chatacier to parties as well as individua-s.aad not names. Let us uuderstaud, Lieu, what the New York lYuWdfmeanB by sn *-eminent Liberal Republican.'* Does il mean ono auch as wo hava described—true to constitutional liberty, or one who will regard all tho gross usurpations of the present Dynasty as "dead issues," and things of the "rfete pastI" V so, we think tha delay of tho Committee and its “masterly inactivity,” direc.ed to tamperings ot the sort, not only tin justifiable nut exceedingly censurable. It is worse than trifling with the high trusts committed to their charge. The first step for any depend reform in the Fed era. admiuis.ration in any of its departments, is to refurm the basis on which all its policies rest. All the great evils now afflicting the country everywhere and causing popular indignation throughout the land, grow out of a departure irom tbo old Repub- iican-Demoeratic-Jefl'erfouian creed in politico. The only sure hope of correcting tho eTils is in remov ing the cause. A. H. S. When have we ever “deserted” oar Platform of March last ? Did the Cin cinnati Convention announce such prin ciples as we said we would approve ? On the contrary, did it not, in effect, exrressly sanction “all the gross usurpa tion* if the present dynasty as “dead is sues' and things of the ‘effete past?’” I ^ Did they not nominate for the Presi- I aency Horace Greeley, the master spirit of the Centralists, who is now running up^| his own pronunciamento, that all the sacredly reserved rights of the peo- ; > and of the States are to be held * "subject” to wiiai ue claims .ts “a sol emn CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION” On the part of the “central authority” to inter fere whenever it may deem it necessary for the “maintenance” of what it may consider the ‘‘equal rights” of all the in- labitantsof the Slate? “Couid a more *despotic system of central authority” be tevised by the wit of mau ? And yet “Hall’’ not only has the cool presumption to charge us with “ desert ing onr Platform,” bat of proclaiming that tho “people” have adopted thin “Despotic System”by which every ves tige of their rights will be heid at the will and by the grace of the Ruling Power at Washington. But pray, Mr. “ Hall,” if Mr. Gree ley’s Platform is such an embodiment of “Constitutionalism against Centralism,” as you represent it to be, why did your Greeley Convention in July last, at At lanta, repudiate it, and “plant them selves” upon the Platform of “A. H. S. ?” If the object be not noun indirectly to transfer the honest Democratic masses from their own to this Radical Central izing Platform, why resott to auch tricks of Legerdemain? When and where have the Democracy of Georgia ever planted themselves upon the great Constitutional principles of the Cincinnati Platform? Was it in their July Convention ? No! most certainly no1 They there repudiated it Will it be next Tuesday when they vote for Greeley ? Yes. That is the trick to be played off upon them. While thousands of them will vote for Mr. Greeley as a “choice of evils,” with out any idea or intention of thereby in dorsing his platform; yet such men as Hall” will there proclaim that by so voting they will havo planted themselves upon his platform! Ho and his class will then „tell them that they “cannot be so base as to vio late the pledge of honor given when they mode choice of those honest and great men (Greeley and Brown) for the hignest two offices in the United States.” These are tne arts of political Leger demain by which the honest Demo cratic masses are to be “transferred” from the principles enunciated by A. H. S. in March last, and approved by them then, to the principles of a most des potic system of Central Authority set forth by the Radical, Cincinnati Plat form. A tew more remarks on this subject, and we will dismiss it for the present. There were hundreds of thousands of truly “Liberal Republicans,” such as we described, who were looKiBg anxiously, in March last, to the Cincinnati move ment, as it was then called—men who had acted in late years with the Radical party, but were then earnest in their wishes not only to condemn past usurpa tions and abuses of power; but desirous of co-operating witb the Democratic party in arresting the tendencies of the Government to “n system of despotic central authority. High among them was Judge Davis, of the Supreme Court of the United States. He had pronounced against the Radical usurpations in the Milligan case, and in the McCardle case. It was un derstood to bo the object of this Conven tion to put some such man in nomination for the Presidency. But this object was utterly defeated when Mr. Belmont undertook the manip nlation of that body. No such man as Judge Davis or Robert C. Winthrop was looked to or desired by those who got control of that Convention. A thorough Radical, as Mr. Fenton said, was the sort of man they mast choose. Our readers will recollect what we said about it at the time. We then gave it as our opinion that no real liberal Republi can wonld be selected. It so turned out. Mr. Fenton got his man—Mr, Greeley—the great arch chief of the Radical Party! The result was that the masses of the truly “Liberal Re publicans,” amounting to hundreds of thousands, abandoned their movement, and now, almost to a man, will vote for Gen. Grant in preference to Mr. Greeley, This is the true situation of affairs at the North. Those who are now called “Liberal Republicans” at the North, are made up almost entirely of the extremist men of the Radical Party, from Greeley, Sum ner, Dana, Tilton, Tappan, Julian Trumbull and Famesworth, down. We have lately seen it stated, and not contradicted,thut all oi the origmul sign ers o f the call of thp Cincinnati Conven tiou are now for General Grant, except one. The “illiberals” and “extremists” got Mr. Slcjibcni Uie CBainplon of Departure Candidate. Onr neighbor, Mr. Stephens, has been pleased on several occasions totann. the Coi^tituiion os a New Departurist, because it supports Mr. Greeley. He has in tnat rigorous language that characterises his political essays, spoken of the “New Departure heresy" In connection with this journal. Hi* as sault* on us on tilt* line hare beer, unremitting, and a* lively a* an Intoxicated cricket. We propose to show the glaring political in con* istADcy oi our very able neighbor. Ill the first place tho Ceiutilution has never advo cated the new departure. We defy Hr. ntephens to quote one word from Its columns in advocacy of the new departure. Our support of Mr. Greeley is based upon his representative position os the set lected leader of a Liberal Republican movement in favor of local self-government, the sanctity of the habeas corpus, national fraternization, a return to the constitutional methods of peace and civil service reform, against the despotic, centralized, sectional and dishonest polioy of Rod teal rule os symbolized by Grant's administration. The deliberate and au thoritative adoption of Mr. Greeley os such leader of such gratifying movement by the great Demo cratic party, of whicn we have been an humble, though zealous member, carried with it our cham pionship, at the cheerful sacrifice of all personal prejudice and individual sentiment. Political partv never did a sublimer act in a nobler spirit than this heroic sell-abnegation of the great constitntionsl organization of the Union. It was a grand step for popular good will, the burial of war hates, the re-union of a severed nationality, tbo re-instatement in power of a deposed and de graded Constitution, the retrogradation of the gov ernment from startling advance and onward pro gress to a destructive and demoralizing despotism, and for the purification of the nations entire range of corrupted public departments. Greeley’s personality was nothing. His cause is everything. It is the cause we support, not the man. An inanimate figurehead, a bannered rag, any selected symbol of the great idea would get our support. Distort it, falsity it. deride it, agonize it as one may; admit it an Incongruity, a paradox, even an inconsistency; so long aB Greeley stands for the great goods we have enumerated above, and Grant btands lor the opposite, it is the patriot's duty to support Greeley, and his triumph is the popular in dorsement of what the Democracy lias striven for and tho country needs for its prosperity and glory. It is a narrow, pitiful, contracted, unstateBinan- like treatment of a stupendous, trsnscendant issue to dwarf it down to any man’s personality. Frincl- ilea and results infinitely beyond all individuality However surpassing, are at suke, involving funda mental freedom and the broadest national interests. In such a juncture, to be squabbling over a per sonal record, a puny, trivial, accomplished thing oi the past, is child's play, so irrelevant and looiisli as to create amazement that thinking men should in dulge in it. Bat we have made rather a digression from the purposo of this editorial. Coming back to that, we urge that even if we had been a New Departurist, which is not the case, Mr. Stephens is utte.iy incon sistent in objecting to it. Ho to-day flies at the head o'* his columns as his candidate for Vice President, John Quincy Adams, the earliest, most zealous, most persistent and un changing New Departurist in the Union. Not one syllable of his New Departure views has Mr. Adams recanted. He stands upon them unalterably. Yet this political heretic (in Mr. Stephsna’ view) is Mr. Stephens’ po.itical leader, the representative of his policy, the type of his principles, and ths head of itis political movement for restoring constitutional ism. Mr. Stophens thunders at us for being a New De parturist, when we arn not; and submissively fol lows the champion New Dedarturist of the nation as hiB political captain. He swears at us, ana by Adams on the same ground. Ho blazes at us and swallows Adams on identical principles. Was there ever grosser political Inconsistency? We say it in all deference, in all personal respect to the venera ble Georgian, of whom we write. Rut we claim this to be a proper characterization ot Mr. Stephens' as sault on us and his following of Mr. Adams. No, the adoption of Adams as a candidate by the Straights, is a most inimitable stultification of their course, and an equally inimitable vindication of the Democratic party in supporting Greeley. They ef fectually spike their own guns. The very essence of their creed is hostility to the amendments which tneir candidate, Adame, swallowa whole, boneB and feathers. The substitution of Adams for Brown as the polit est figurehead of the straight concern is swapping the witch for a devil. And in the light of Mr. Stephens urging indorsement of Gratz Brown and his views before Greeley was nominated, his rejec tion ot Brown now and his submissive acceptance, and firey advocacy of Adams, that most double- dyed of New Departure amendment-gulping here tics, has something in it bordering on tbs farcical. Nol Adams’ candidacy means Grant and Wilson’s election. Grant treads on onr prostrate forms. Wilson says a hundred years won’t make "rebel" blood loyal and fit to take part in the freeman’s right of helping to ran their own government. Greeley and Brown’s election means overthrow to centralism and Southern oppression and peace and equality for the South. Choose ye wisely, Democrats!—Atlanta Constitu (ton, Nov. 2,1872. 1. If the Democrats act “wisely, as it is to be hoped they will, wonld they not do well to inqnire how the election of Mr. Greeley can possibly mean “the overthrow of Centralism and Southern oppression?” Have the South ern people ever suffered any oppression of which Mr. Greeley was not one oi the chief instigators and perpetrators ? Have the people of the Southern States suffered any “oppression” from “Centralism” since the war, except such as the Powers at Washington deemed necessary “ for the maintenance of the equal rights of all the inhabitants of these States, in matters pertaining to their civil and political relations ? Did not Mr. Greeley and his associates deem all those “oppressions,” of which we so justly complained, as nothing but the necessary results of a faithful dis charge on their part of a high “and sol emn constitutional obligation ? Does he not now ask the votes ot Georgia Democrats with a distinct avowal, on his-part, of the same “sol emn Constitutional obligation ’ resting on the "central authority” to renew all these oppressions in the future, and even worse, if it should be neoessary in the discharge of the same obligation ? We put these plain and direct questions, not only to the Constitution, but to all reason ing and “ wise” Democrats. If these things'be true, then we ask further, how can the election of Mr. Greeley possibly be expected to effect the overthrow of “ centralism and Southern oppression ? We address ourselves to the calm judg ment’ of reasoning as well as patriotic men. Is not the doctrine of Mr. Greeley, as announced by himself, ,t hat there is such a “constitutional obligation ’ resting upon the “central authority,” the very essence of “centralism,” in its most dan gerous and odious form ? Does not the Constitution of the United States, itself, in exp re. wciuo, forbid *»ny such inter ference the internal -flairs of the States ? > e not nil these matters per tainiu, ,~.e political and cavil rights control of the movement. Opposition to the principles of those “extremists’* was the original object of those who were truly “liberal;” and they therefore as be tween Grant and Greeley, take Grant as the lesser of the evils. This is one reason why Grant will be so largely sus tained m the Northern States. So much for Mr. “ Hall” and his tirade against us—as well as his principles of “Constitutionalism.” A. H. S. T’ue Griffin Middle Georgian says of Mr. Beck*, the newly elected Congess- man: •*My. geek is a young man of ^ fair talent and excellent character. "Without brilliancy or much originality, be, is, j of the im-atntants of the several States nevertheless, a man of respectable meut- i j e ft by the Constitution exclusively to ;.l attainments, and will do credit to the I States themselves respectively ? section of Middle j Most assuredly they S®r«B*L every" ns- best portion sumption cf por.er by the central an- asserteu "coLbtuutiouul obligation," is nothing bat a gross and palpable usur pation. He asserts that it is the consti tutional duty of the central authority to do just what the Constitution itself as serts it shall not do. Can“Centralism”j)ossi5fybe overthrown by indorsing the unconstitutional prin ciples on which it seeks to establish its permanent ascendancy ? Oh, Democrats 1 would that you were “wise” in this day of your greatest peril 1 “Principles and results, infinitely be yond all individuality, however surpass ing,” are indeed “at stake 1” Principles involving the very foundation of all our free Institutions in their fullest and broadest extent, not only for the present, but for all time to come 1 So much for the prospect of getting rid of “Centralism” and “Southern op pression” by the election of Mr. Greeley to the Presidency. Wo have had enough of his “goods” in the past. May Heav en preserve us from any more of the same sort. 2. Now, a few words in reply to the blazing” assault of the Constitution against what is termed “onr glaring po litical inconsistencies,” in supporting Mr. Adams for the Vice Presidency. On this point we have but a few words; for a few only are necessary to show the utter groundlessness of the charge. The brief, clear, full and conclusive answer is, that whatever may have been Mr. Adams’views upon tne “New De parture” Question, or on any other on which we may have differed with him, he, nevertheless, now stands squarely upon the principles set forth in the Louisville O’Conor Platform. That Plat form is a clear and explicit embodiment of the ancient Jeffersonian Creed, with out any indorsement of any sort of Departure” therefrom. It arrays itself in open antagonism to the “ New De parture ” doctrines set forth in the Cincinnati-Baltimore Platform. If then we support Mr. Adams., stand ing, as he now does, upon this platform, wherein is our inconsistency ? Have we not uniformly, ever since we took charge of the political columns of The Sun, de clared our willingness to support anj candidates who should stand upon any platform which did not “ depart” from the ancient creed of the Democratic party, and which did not “sanction" the gross usurpations of the Radical party since the war for the Union was over? While we all the time announced it as our judgment, that the best policy for success, and that line which would in sure it, was the open and bold arraign ment of these usurpations for popular condemnation. Yet we have nniformly declared, as every attentive reader of The Sun most know, that we would, for harmony’s sake, yield this view, and support any candidates running upon any platform which did not “depart” from the essentials of the old Democratic creed, and which did not sanction these late radical atrocities, and close the door against their future arraignment for popular condemnation 1 Is not this the unassailable truth of our position all tho time ? In support ing Mr. Adams now, are we not, there fore, supporting just such a man, on jnst such a Platform, as we have ever said we were willing to do, if the line of policy we thought best should not be adopted ? The Constitution, in the foregoing ed itoral, speaks of the character of the ac tions of “ an intoxicated cricket.” We have given no attention to that depart ment of Zoological Science. We know nothing of how these “httle innocents 1 behave when “in liquor.” But we respect fully submit to the intelligence of man kind, whether any one who Bees inconsist ency ou our part in this particular case, have much more of the reasoning facnl- ty about him than might be exp.ected, even of a cricket “ threo sheets in the wind!” 3. One other matter only in the fore going editorial of the Constitution (whicli is given in fall) we will briefly notice, and then will have done with it. “In tne “firstplace,” (itsays) “the Constitution “ has never advocated the New Depart- “ nre. We defy Mr. Stephens to quote “one word from its columns m advocacy “of the New Departure. What does the Constitution mean by this defiant challenge ? Let us under stand each other. What does the Consti tution mean by the New Departure ? Le us first understand each other on this point. jSjWhat we mean by the “New Depart are” was'the proposed policy of certain leaders of the Democratic party last year Constitution presume to deiy us to snow from its colnmns, its advocacy of this doctrine or policy ? If so, we have bnt to refer to what has appeared in its col umns almost daily for the last two months at least, in laudation of the principles of Mr. Greeley, whicli are therein held up as the embodiment of “Constitutional ism 1” What else does it mean in this Very editorial we are commenting upon, by whatit styles the “heroic self-i.bneg - Hon" of the Democratic party at BAh.-, more, but an indorsement of their “new departure” in this particular, from their own to a Radical platform ? Has not the Constitution so advocated the Cincinnati- Baltimore platform.? If it has not *o done, or did not so mean to do, or to he so understood, then we are in error, and do not accept the challenge. The truth and rignt are what we aim atic all things; but candor compels us to say that wa have'understood the Con stitution as maintaining that the Cincin nati-Baltimore Platform, as expounded by Mr. Greeley, is such a declaration of principles as should not only satisfy all true Democrats, but in itself embodies the essential ideas of Constitutional ism against Centralism.” Are we correct in this understanding or not? Under the belief that we are, let us turn to that embodiment of “Constitutionalism” so advocated, as we have understood, by the Constitution. The preamble of the declaration re ferred to, is in these words: We, the Liberal Republicans ot tbo United States, in National Convention asaembltd at Cincin nati, proclaim the following principles as essential to a just government.” Among other principles so announced as essential to a “just government,” the following is set forth: We plodge ourselves * * * to oppose any reopening of the questions settled by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Con stitution.” This pledge we understand as cover ing, and a3 being intended to cover, the whole of the “New Departure” doctrine and policy. It adroitly unites the *13th with the so-called 14th and 15thi Amend ments to the Constitution of the United States, when no fact is better known than that it stands entirely upon differ ent principles. But the important point in the decla ration is the “pledge” therein given “to oppose any re-opening of the questions settled” by the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments. These questions, so declared to be settled,” and not to be reopened, spring ffom principles asserted to be es sential for a “just government, though they involve all the usurpations, outrages and oppressions perpetrated by the Re construction measures. The pledge, therefore, so given is the dear expression of the substance and essence of the “ New Departure.” Now, whether the advocacy of this Platform, with tnis pledge in it, neces sarily carries with it the advocacy of the New Departure,” even without express words to that effect, we leave for the public to decide. We can only give it as our individual opinion that it does,—and venture the further opinion that such will be the sober” judgment of a majority of man kind, whatever may be the conclusion of any number of “intoxicated crickets’ upon the subject. A. H. S. Mr. Stepens. Mr. Stephens mnst really pardon our frankness, but we see notning in his article of yesterday to re quire answer. It uses no argument whatever, rnereiy indulges in assertion and denunciation, fancies up a soliloquy which it ascribes to us. Bpeaks thus of one of our articles to which it re plies: "We present it os an example of the extremities to which strong minds are sometimes driven in their attempt to sustain themseivea In their own estimation, in the most palpable errors, as well os an example of a strong mau laboring to extricate himself from a morass into which he has ventured without understanding ths grounds on which he was entering. Every effort at extrication, only plunges him in deeper. It attempts to be facetious, speaks of our "inco herent utterances," "raving,•’ “wild soiiloquys, etc. Now, we do say, in all candor and possible courte sy, that Mr. Stephens’ caus ■ must oe weak indeed when so powerful and ready a controverts t:st as himself is compelled to drop argument, and even the pretence to it and resort to such matter a forms the staple of hla article. If there is a point in it on which to hang a rejoinder, we tail to discover it. Onr article that he refors to shows, by actual comparison of its expressions, that Mr. Jefferson’ inaugural, the Baltimore platform and Mr. Greeley’ acceptance of the. nomtna.ion on it, and Mr. Ste phen’s great speech of 1866, contain the some ut terances about the Constitution and the States. In nearly a column of rejoinder, Mr. Stephens does not touch the matter. He does not show that we quoted wrong, or that our deductions were cor root. He avoids the argument and attempts a sort of Ly-play on our bewilderment. If this is the ex tremity to which this able statesman is driven, there is a signifi.-ancs ab-,u: it that it is neediest lor us to press. The "Straight" cause is indeed down when its best champion thus advocates its causa.— Atlanta ConslUutw-, November 1st, 1872. Now, is our neighbor sincere in what is said in the; foregoing editorial ? Did we not clearly show that he did not quote Mr., Greeley correctly when he represented, him as holding that the rights of the citizens of the several States were to be enjoyed under his platform, terp worse V Nay, more; was there noth itig in our denial of the correctness of his quotation from our apeecbtbefore the Georgia Legislature in 1866, which re quired & rejoinder, if only to the extent of. admitting his error in thisjparticular? That quotation was in theee’words: Hr. Stephens in his address to the Georgia Leg is. Isturein 1856, enumerated these like views: Ha ““J “protection and security to all under it* jurisdiction should be the chief end of every gov ernment; that the whole United States is now wiinoat question, our country; that its Constitution had been re-ordain&l as the organic law of the land; thj t the trial of secession had BetUed the question is to where our allegiance belonged; thai the Uni- states was our country to be cherished and de- rerdeil os such, by all our hearts and by all our arms; that the Constitution of the United States, and the treaties and laws made in pursuance there- >r, are now acknowledged to be the paramount law of ibis whole country." 9^ow, we assert that soutiuien^'are in tins quotation attributed to us, which we fit-ver uttered, either on the occasion re- ie:red to, or on any other. Disjointed expressions of that speech are here re produced in a connection which give tutm a meaning never inteuued by us, aud whiah no one would derive from them a- they stand in their proper connection, in the speech. We never on any occasion uttered the ntiment as it here stands stated, that he trial of secession had settled the •tstion as to whom our allegiance be- 1 nged.” No ! never! The great labor oi our life since the war was over, has cn to establish the truth that the great question to whom allegiance properly belongs under our system of govern ment, was not “settled” by the war l— The question was only adjourned from the arena of arms to the forum of reason and right. • A. H. S. ■»"«»■«; —. A wholesome silence on the part oi the press very often most effectually serves to prevent the extension of social evils and isms that seek promulgation from their corrupt authors, or abettors of them. But when respectable journals allow their columns to bo polluted with, frequent and pleasant mention of char* acters who are engaged in forwarding the debasing and debauching system of freeloveism, we are constrained also to make mention of them, to present them and their vicious operations intheir tra© light, and condemn them as they deserve. We have been astonished beyond ex pression at the often recuring light mention in the Constitution for months past of the names and doings of Wood- hull and Glafliu, two notorious women of New York, who in their brazen ef frontery, and licentious free love doc trines des9rve to be classed with the most degraded of fallen women. Utter ly repudiating the proprieties which characterize enlightened woman kind, they assume a part before the public, which is disgusting in the extreme to the refined sensibilities of either sex Imagine a woman, in cockade hat and military regalia, marohing at the head of a regiment of colored troops for the Colonelcy of which sne had begged and been elected! But the climax of theirjifoul charac teristics is attained in their doctrine, as set forth by Victoria C. Woodhull in the following extract from her pen, pub lished in Woodhull c£ Claflin’s Weekly: *'I am engaged In officering, and jin some sense conducting a social revoln tion on the marriage ques tion. X nave strong convictions to the effect that this institution, as a bond or promise to lo»e another to the ena ot life, and forego all other loves or pas- sionsl gratifications, has outlived its day of useful ness; that the most Intelligent and really virtuous of our citizens, especially in the large cities of Chris tendom, have outgrown it; are conBtanUy and sys tematically unfaithful to it; despise and revolt against <t, as a slavery, intheir hearts; and only submit to the semblance ot fidelity to it from ths dread of a sham publio eplnion, based on the Ideas of the post, and which no longer really represent ths convictions of anybody.” i The doctrine therein expressed re quire no comment. Itis fraught with its own condemnation, and places .its au thor out of the pale of respectability ot decency. We indulge the hope, that in future the Constitution and all other Southern journals may find other material for in teresting their readers than is furnished by so infamous a character. It is the design of the newly in stalled Conducting Editor of The Sun to make it essentially a news-paper, which, in the scope aud quality of its con tents, will not suffer by comparison with the best Dailies of the Sonth. With th8 close of the Political cam paign, the keen interest that has for a great while been felt in Politics will sub side, until the years will bring around another campaign. But tbe hosts of political and personal friends and ad mirers of our esteemed and honored Political Editor will find his pen still industrious, on political, historical and miscellaneous subjects, while our local columns will be unsurpassed for the quantity or sprightliness of its news about the city, or tho reliability of its market reports. Believing that we shall furnish a paper that trill please, we solicit the continued and yet more extended patronage ot the public, ipr; -JiA Atoi IS subject to the Constitution ? Did we tC’scase all opposition to the Radi cal or-1 not clearly show that he was in an egre- g&Mzation on account of the asurpa-' - '-rious error in representing Mr. Greeley the old (now defunct) which is perhaps the very of the State.’ ihority under Mr. Greeley’s erroneously rions attending reconstruction; and to accept their results “as finalities,” con stitutionally accomplished, never more to be inquired into, or arraigned before the public for condenuutiou. This is what we understand by the “New De parture” doctrine, or policy, so-called. With this understanding, does £the as being in favor of “ local self-govern ment, subject to Federal supervision?" Was there nothing on these points in onr article 11 on which to hang a re joinder ?” If not, what most be the conclusion ? Is it not that no rejoin^?/,' taxed upon w$ \ Hymeneal. At the residence of: Mrs. Merrell Carroiton, by Rev. G. W. Colquitt, Mr. Wax. Beall and Miss Rhoda F. Merrell, of the same place. — At the residence of Bishop Persico, jU oaV-H-al, Djr' jc’r. j. ainok, Mi. tvm. J. Kelly, of Quebec, Canada, and Mias. Mary Eden Reilly, cf Savannah. — Ag the -M :thodist church in Madi son, ou the 3utn, by Rev. W. P. Pledger, Mr. Ma rshall A. Peteet and Miss Olft ^iobertoon, of that city. — At tho residence father, in Morg