Newspaper Page Text
THE ATLANTA SUN
THE ATLANTA WEEKLY SUN, FOR THE WEEK ENDING NOVEMBER 6 1872.
FROM OCR DAILY EDITION OF
Sunday, October 2^ 1872.
‘■Let Truth ever l»e tby Ain.”
Ia the isene of our neighbor, the Con
stitution of tho 27th instant, we see a
communication from some contributor
to that journal, who signs himself
“Hall.” In this most extraordinary
production we find, among other most
extraordinary assertions, the following:
The people here been unrelentingly end vindlc-
tlvelv etnited lor placing Mr. Greeley In thepoei-
Uon he now occupies before the country. It le a
stubborn end truthful fact that the people chose Mr.
Greeley aa their csndldste for tho Presidency. It Is
ajiio a '.ruthfti factth»tthe politician* labored severe-
1- to prevent the selection of Mr. Greeley as a candi
date of tho Liberal Republican and Democratic par
ties of the United States for President. The people
knew who Mr. Greeley was, what ho had been, and
what ho now is.
Now, every attack made upon Mr. Greeley Is an
attack made npon the people. AU the abuse heaped
upon Mr. Greeley is abuse heaped upon the people,for
he is their own free choice for tho Presidency, and
being their Independent choice, abuse cf him Is
abuse of the people. The peoplo were not deceived
Into the selection of Mr. Greeley. Bis acts and
principles were as familiar with the people as their
daily business in iite. The peoplo put him up as a can
didate for Presiaent in spite of the opposiUon of the
politicians.
Were there ever ia tho history of this
ooautry, greater or more flagraut un-
fcraths proclaimed through the professed
orgau of any party ia the United States
than are hero set forth by the correspon
dent of onr neighbor, the Constitution?
Is i'j not an insnlt to the intelligence
of the honest masses of Georgia Demo
crats, to say to them that Mr. Greeley
IS TUEIR OWN FREE CHOICE FOR THE
PRESIDENCY, and that anything said
ugainst Mr. Greeley is nothing but abuse
if them? v,
How long! oh, now long, we repeat,
will the people of Georgia permit them
selves thus to be led by each leaders—
men who tell them to-day that Mr. Gree
ley is “their own free choice for Presi
dent,” when they know that it is not
true?
Don’t they perceive that these same
men, after the masses vote for him re
lnctantly, os many of them will do us a
“choice of evils,” will, with even more
insolence, proclaim that by so voting for
him, they hnvo indorsed his principles ?
Read and ponder whnt this Writer says
fnrtner on :
“If Mr. Greeley ia » Radical on a Radical Platform
the people put him on tn/it Platform; therefore,they
are all Radicals with Greeley and the Platform. If I
support and defend a murdi rcr.arn I not as guilty of
the murder as he who did tho killing? If Mr. Greeley
be a Radical, the people who support and vote for
him, can bo no leas Radical than he Is.”
Ponder this well, ye Democrats of
Georgia 1 Recollect what you are now
gravely told before you vote for Mr.
Greeley. It is in plain English, that by
voting for him yon adopt him and his
Platform.
It is true,in this article, “Hall” says it
is an insnlt to you to say that Mr. Greeley
is a Radical/ Bat is not this bald asser
tion of his as great an insnlt as conld be
offered to an enlightened popular under
standing? Does not any intelligent man
in the country know that Mr. Greeley is
a Radical, and running on a Radical
Platform? The denial of this by “Hall”
is nothing short of a most insolent insnlt
to the intelligence of the country.
Tho conclnding port of this communi
cation of “Hall” is no less striking than
the other portion wo have alluded to.
“The proplo," says ho—(and by the people he
•• meana thoeo who support Mr. Greeley,) “neither
" regarded the ravings of political Atheists nor tho
** rage cf Delstioal folmlnatora 1*'
In this is contained an unmistakable
charge that we and-those who will not take
Mr. Greeley even os a “choice of evils,
Ore nothing bet political Atheists or
Deists who renounce the true faith. We
are here given clearly to understand that
Mr. Greeley’s creed hereafter is to be
erected as the orthodox doctrine of the
Democracy of this State.
Shades of Crawford, Troup, Clayton
Gilmer and Cobh, shall such apostaey
over be chronicled in the hfstory of
Georgia! A. H. S.
knowledge or usefulness. He) was not
only a success! ol lawyer, bat an able
Legislator, He was, moreover, an ac
complished scholar and a vigorous wri
ter. In all the elements constituting true
statesmanship, he took rank among the
first men of the country.
High among his most prominent char
acteristics was his unswerving fidelity to
principle. In politics as in everything
else with him, “honesty was the beet
policy.”
In private life he was social, genial and
companionable. In all the domestic re
lations as son, brother, husband, father
and master, he was not only a model of
a Christian boy in his yonth, bnt of a
Christian gentleman in his manhood.
With a reputation spotless and stainless,
“ his deeds will live after him.”
In can bnt be condoling to his numer
ous friends in this State to know how he
was appreciated by his new acquaintan
ces in the West. This they will see from
the urticle to which we call the attention
of onr readers, and which is the occasion
of this brief notice of the death of one
who stood so high in onr estimation
He has gone to his long rest, “The
places that once knew him, will know
him no more;” bnt the endearing appel
lation of “ Alick Pope” will not be for
gotten in Georgia daring the present
generation. A. H. S.
Latter from General DbBmi.
Onr Neighbor, the Const Itntion, in Ut
ter Bewilderment.
In Memory ofthe bate Alexander Pope,
of Texas.
In another colnmn will be found a just
tribute to the character and worth of
him whose name heads this article, and
whom in life we recognized as one of our
earliest os well as most valued friends.
Our intimacy commenced in school
boy days, in the Academy at Washing
ton, Wilkes county, Georgia, then under
the charge of the Rev. Alexander H
Webster, one of tho most distinguished
teachers of his day in the Southern States.
This was in 1827.
The intimacy and friendship formed
at that school between yonng Pope and
the writer of this, remained unbroken
So long as he lived.
He was some six years our junior; but
this was no barrier to a cordial sympathy
between ns, even in the earliest stages
of our acquaintance; and it was with no
less gratification on our part that we
witnessed his rise to distinction in riper
years, than he, by the most unmistakable
evidences, exhibited on his part real
pleasure at everything in our pathway
betokening successor well-being. "We
were indeed devoted friends, personally
and politically, ever after our first ac
qnaintancc.
It was with deep regret we parted with
him, perhaps, as we both thought, for
tho last time, in 1858, when he left his
native State and cast his fortunes for the
remainder of his life with the people of
Texas.
That, however, was not our last meet
ing. A visit ho'made ns a little over a
year ago, will ever be held as one of the
most cherished treasures of our memory.
Ho t was, as onr extemporary of Louisiana,
(from whoso columns we take tho tribute
referred to), jnstly and most truly says;
“a man of ability far above the average.”
His natural qualities fitte V him for
iuccess in almost every department of
Ever since onr neighbor was seized
with the “ New Departure” epidemic, he
seems to have been more or less out of
mental gear. The farther he has gone
from the l’glits of the principles of the
true faith, the more striking have become
tbe embarrassments of his situation.
Questions pi ess npon him which he
finds it impossible to solve in justification
of bis conrse npon any rules of reason or
of logic. Still, however, instead of “re
tracing his steps,” he persists in his
wanderings until at lost he is “in endless
mazes lost.”
He now ceases to hold converse upon
the subject, bat brooding over his dis
mal sarroandings, spends a good portion
of his time in a sort of talking co him
self.
Three specimens of this kind of solil
oquy have appeared lately in his col
umns over the heading of “subject to
our constitutional obligations.” Two
of these we have heretofore given to our,
readers. The last, we give them to-day,
in another column.
We present it as an example of the
extremities to which strong minds are
sometimes driven in their attempts to
snstain themselves in their own estima
tion, in the most palpable errors, os well
as an example of a strong man laboring
to extricate himself from a morass into
which he has ventured without nnder
standing the gronnds on which he was
entering. Every effort at extrication,
only plunges him in deeper.
Mr. Greeley’s announcement that the
rights of “ local self-government” “with
the right of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus,” and several other essen
tial principles of the Democratic creed,
were, according to his platform, to be
held and enjoyed by the people of the
several States “ subject to our” (that is,
the central authority) “ solemn consti
tutional obligations to maintain the
equal rights of all,” seem not only to
hannt his imagination, bnt to disturb the
equilibrium of his thoughts.
It was on this doctrine the whole re
construction measures were based, and
he knows it. In thinking and pondering
over it, therefore, and talking to himself
as one in a sleep, he seems to ramble
along after this fashion:
No I it cannot be 1 Mr. Greeley does not say it He
docs not say tbe -writ ol Habeas Corpus is “ Subject”
to be suspended by tbe Central Authority if it shall
deem such suspension necessary to compel tbe
States to award what it may deem the equal rights
of all their citizens 1 Tbiscannotbel ThU is mon
strous! This is the qnintcscenco of Radicalism!
This is just what the extiemlst of the Radicals said
when they upset the Government of ten States, and
put them under bayonet Rule I Greeley did not
say it! Wnat he said was “subject to oub cok-
btiiutiosal obligatioss.” This is what Jefferson
said. This is wbat Stephens said. Greeley, Jeffer
son and Stephens aU stand on the same platform.
It must be so, and it is so.
So onr neighbor, ia effect, argues and
soliloquizes with himself.
“ Mr. Greeley,” says be, “is for main-
“ taining the equal rights of the citizens.
“ Mr. Jefferson is for restraining them
“ from injuring one another; is for se-
“ caring eqnal and exact justice to all
“ men. Mr. Greeley is for local self-
“ government not subject to Federal su-
[Froa tbs August*. G*.. Constitutionalist, Mth
Ostober 1873.
Washington, Ga., Oct. 25, 1872.
Mr. Editor: There have been many un
just letters published against me recently
which I do not propose to notice; bnt
when a correspondent like Dr. W. D.
Walton—sub-elector for tbe county of
Wilkes on the Greeley ticket-—comes out
over his own signature and makes such
charges as he did in his letter to the
Cronide and /Sentinel of the 24th insk,
and Washington Gazette of the 25th
instant, I deem his nominally official
position, which he has brought so
prominently before the public in his
letters referred to, entitles him to a
reply. The Hon. H. T. Slaton’s letter
to me of this date, (a copy of which
I send you and request you to publish it
in connection with mine) is a sufficient
answer to Dr. W. D. Walton’s without a
single word from me. Dr. W. D. Wal
ton knew before he left tbe town of
Washington that I did not expect to be
a candidate before the Convention that
nominated General A. R. Wright. I so
stated to him, and told him he need not
attend the Convention on fmy account.
This statement of mine onght to have
been considered by him or any other
man who claims to have common sense,
as a release from all of the “urgent solic
itations” I may have used, or promisee
on his part to go to that Convention in
my interert.
Dr. W. D. Walton also states that he
“never heard” cf my Jeffersonian De
mocracy until Mr. Slaton read my letter
in the Convention. This is a most re
markable statement when taken in con
nection with the fact that I read that let
ter to Dr. Walton, in my room at the
Central Hotel, in the city ot Augusta,the
day the Convention assembled and pre
vious to its meeting. How conld he have
forgotten it ?
Now, Mr. Editoi, if Dr. W. D. Walton
went to that Convention at my “urgent
solicitation," to advocate my claims, and
was ignorant of the fact that I would not
be a candidate before it, and ignorant of
the contents of my letter, why did he
place in nomination before that Conven
tion tho name of Gov. H. V. Johnson,
previous to the reading of my letter by
Mr. Slaton? If Dr. Walton was induced
by my urgent solicitations to attend that
Convention,and went there as my special
supporter, how does it happen that the
proceedings of the Convention foil to
show that he ever mentioned my name
in the Convention?
Dr. Walton advocated the nomination
of Gov. H. V. Johnson. Did he then,
or does he now, know that gentl .man’s
views noon the political issuer' of the
day? Does he know whether or not
Gov. Johnson intends to vote for Mr.
Greeley ?
I never supposed for a moment that
Dr. Walton was nnder any mistake as to
my position. I may have stated to him
iu private conversation, as I have to oth
ers, that if I was forced to make a choice
between Grant and Greeley, I would vote
for Mr. Greeley. Such a contingency
has not arisen, nor can I see how it can
possibTyarise.
Dr. Walton having chosen the newspa
pers as the medinm through which to
make his complaints against me, I have
to reply through the same channel, and
will there leave him.
Very respectfully, &c.,
D. M. DuBose.
Washington, Ga., Oct. 25, 1872.
General D. Jb. /DuBose:
Dear Sm—I have read in the Chroni
cle and Sentinel, of the 24th inst., and in
the Washington Gazette, of this date, a
card from Dr. W. D. Walton, in which
he states that at your argent solicitation,
he consented to go to the Convention,
held in Augusta, Ga., for the purpose of
nominating a candidate for Congress, and
that he never heard of yonr Jeffersonian
Democracy until I read your letter in the
Convention,
At your request, I will state what I
know in regard to these statements made
in his card.
On the morning previous to the meet
ing of the Convention, yon stated to Dr.
W. D. Walton and myself, in the town
of Washington, Ga., that you would not
be a candidate for nomination, and that
we need not go to tbe Convention on
your account.
In regard to Dr. Walton’s statement
that he never heard of yotfr Jeffersonian
Democracy until i read your letter in the
Convention, I will state that on tte
morning of the 12lh of September, the
day on which the Convention assembled,
but previous to its meeting, Dr. W. D.
Walton came to your room at the Cen
tral Hotel, in the city of Augusta, and
that you there read to him, iu my
presence, your letter to me, de
clining to have your name placed
Defore the Convention as a candi
date; which letter you were transcribing
when he come in. After reading the let
ter to him, yon remarked, in substance,
tbat you did not des're to use any lan
guage that migbt be construed as harsh
or offensive to the delegates to the Con
vention, and after discussiug the phrase
ology of the letter and its proper con
struction, he remarked, that with yonr
explanation, he thought it would do,
After Dr. Walton left the room to go
to the Convention, you finished trans
cribing tbe letter and handed it to me
and requested that I ask that it be read
TUe L*u Colonel Alexander Pope.
In the latter part of July Colonel Al
exander Pope of Harrison county, Texas,
expired at his residence near Marshall,
of inflammation of the Btomach and
bowels, in the fifty-fourth year of his
age. Daring the last few years, this
gentleman’s health had been precarious,
bnt notwithstanding much intense suf
fering, he preserved, until the day of his
death, that cheerfulness of disposition
and equanimity of temper which had
characterized him through life, and sur
rounded by the sorrowing members of
his family, he passed calmly from tbe
tneater of this world in which he
had to well and nobly played his
part. Having occupied a distin
guished position at the bar of Texas,
trom winch he had retired; possessing
a numorous acquaintance throughout
Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana and
Texas, the friend of the poor; thei atron
of every deserving young man in his cir
cle of influence; generous to a fault; chi
valrous as a knight of romance—a cheva
lier Bayard in character—withont stain
and withhot reproach, few men have
been so universally lamented as tbe sub
ject of this sketch, and when it was an
nounced that Col. Pope was dead, the
orphan and the widow felt that they had
lost a friend, and there were many among
the scarred veterans of the war who shed
tears over the memoiy of the man who
had bountifully provided for tueir suffer
ing or destitute families. while they fol
lowed over distant fields the ill-starred
banner of the South.
Col. Pope was born on the 20 th of Oc
tober, 1818, iu Washington, Wilkes
county, Ga. His education was princi
pally received at the Academy of his na
tive town, though he also attended the
University of Virginia and the Manuel
Labor School at Athens, but ill health
prevented him from completing his
course in either. In the leisure hours
of an active country life, the young Geor
gian applied himself to the study of law,
and on arriving at the proper ago, was
admitted to the bar, shortly after which
event he was elected Solicitor General
for the Judicial District in which here
sided. In-this office he served two terms
with credit and won the confidence and
respect of his fellow citizens by his de
votion to duty. Col. Pope practiced at
the bar of Georgia with Hon. Alexander
H. Stephens, Judge Linton Stephens,
brother of Alexander H., Hon. Robert
Toombs and Thos. R. R. Cobb, and in
competition and association with these
eminent men acquired a very high
reputation as a practitioner and particu
larly as a criminal lawyer. Iu 1840 he
was married to Miss Sarah Willie, an
elegant and accomplished lady. At the
age of 35 he was elected to the State Sen
ate of Georgia, serving two terms, at the
expiration of which, in 1858, he removed
to Texas and settled in Marshall, where
he resided until his death. He was a dis
tinguished momber of the secession con
vention, which declared the dismember
ment of Texas from the Federal Union,
and was an earnest advocate of the estab
lishment of the Southern Republic,
rendering efficient aid to the Southern
cause, and remaining faithful to it to the
end. A few years before bis death,
Colonel Pope married a second time, and
a widow and seven children, all the lat
ter, the fruits of his first marriage, sur
vive him.
Colonel Pope was a man of ability far
above the average, and his intellectual
powers were thoroughly cultivated and
trained. A fine judge of law; a fluent
and impressive speaker; courteous in de
bate, be enjoyed a lucrative practice and
might have amassed a large fortune, bnt
for bis unbounded liberality and bis
large charities. Of a manner polished
and dignified; with fine conversational
powers, and a genial temper, he was the
idol of his hosts of friends, the light of
his home, and the model of a gentleman.
In his political views he was liberal but
decided; he loved the political theories
of the South, its social institutions and
customs, and deeply regretted the old re
gime of Southern chivalry which he saw
passing away before the advance of the
mercenary theories of the new order.
The friend of Stephens and Toombs, he
cherished the grand old doctrines of the
pure Democracy, but questioned the wis
dom of the position assumed by the com
panions of his youth and former profes
sional life. We know not how better or
more truthfully to conclnde this brief bi
ography of onr departed friend than by
applying to him what Edmund Burke
said of Sir Joshua Reynolds, “ He had
too much merit not to excite jealousy
too much goodness to provoke any en
mity.”
“Oh! Consistency, Thou |Art n Jewel.’
More. Old Documents.
In our article of yesterday we showed
that the AtlantaCbn£ltluljon,in supporting
Horace Gieeley is to-day indorsing and
upholding Centralism, and advocating
the precise position that it so bitterly
complained of Mr. Hill for doing in
1870. In its issue of 16th December,
1870, the Constitution said:
An-ock the objectionable features of Mr. HQl’e
letter ia the recommendation to acquiesce in the per
manent establishment of theories admitted to be wrong.
He counsels abandonment of aU opposition alike to the
wrong innovations forced upon us, and the improper
manner of those changes as a precedent for future legis
lation. We cannot agree with him in this most remark
able statement." (ttaiioa ours.)
Thus the Constitution could not in
dorse Mr. Hill’s advice to the people of
Georgia to acquiesce in the odious
amendments. Will it tell us what its
position is now? Does it recommend
acquiescence now? If it does it indorses
and approves what it denounced as Cen
tralism and what it held to be “the holy
duty of all patriots to oppose,” in 1870.
Let it come out squarely and say whether
it advises the people' of Georgia now to
acquiesce in those amendments “as the
adopted theory of Government for this
country.” No dodging; no quibbling;
no attempted justification on tne score
of expediency, will satisfy us. We want
plain unequivocal answer to this ques
tion.
Does the Constitution now advise ac-
quiesence in the 14th and 14th Amend
ments ? If it does, it is hoisted on its
own petard, and stands a Centralist con
fessed. If it doe3 not advise it, how can
it applaud Benning, Hartridge and Col
quitt for saying that they support Mr.
Greeley upon his principles, and not as a
choice of evils ? Mr. Greeley certainly
is in favor of acquiescing and is running
upon a platform that pledges eternal ac
quiescence.
■ Bat again: In this issue of December
25tb, 1870, still commenting on Mr. Hill,
the Gonstilution said:
■ A close examination of the letter impresses one
,t Mr. Hill has Indeed made a prodigious leap.
He bounds far beyond the Republicans in his zeal.
It leaves the Democracy nothing to fight for.
Not even Mr. Sumner goes as far as Mr. Hill
in his abandonment of State Rights and his claim of
Central Rower."
Merciful heavens 1 Hear it, ye Demo
crats of Georgia who support Horace
Greeley! Your own organ tells you that
Charles Sumner, the synonym of Rad-
H. T. Slaton.
This is a fair specimen of tbe incobe- the Convention. You are at liberty to
ret the last eoli.otpy ol >"» this *£ -*3®
our neighbor on this subject: “Mr. Gree- ” ~
“ley is for local self-government, not
“ subject to Federal suoervisioti ,, f
Who conld thus rave but a man in his
sleep, or one in that state of mind in
which Lady McBeth found herself when
she exclaimed: “Out dam tied spot! out!
I say I”
The wildest, however, of all the utter
ances of our neighbor iu this last of his
soliloquies, is his pretended quotation
from our address before tbe Georgia
Legislature in 1866.
. Oa this point we will now barely
remark tbat onr neighbor is quite as far
from quoting us correctly as he is in
quoting Mr. Greeley correctly, when he
says Mr. Gieeley is for local self-govern
ment, not subject to Federal supervis
ion. His great error in this, we have
heretofore exposed; and it also appears
from what is said in this article.
All this only shows how utterly be
wildered and losV cur neighbor is in his
“new depnrture” wanderings.
A. EL S.
Another Letter from Gea. CuBoje.
fFrcm tie Augusta, Ga , Constitutionalist, 23th Oct.,
1872,1 ■. I •
Messrs. Editors: In the Chronicle and
Sentinel, of the 25th inst., I nnd a com
munication signed “Another Richmond;’
which I notice on account of one charge
it contains against me, to-wit: that I did
not cast nty vote at the late Gubernatori
al election for Gov. James M. Smith.
This charge I prononce to be false. This
-correspondent’s charge, tbat I took an
oath to support tbe 13th, 14th and 15th
amendments, shows his ignorance of the
oath a Southern member of Congress
has to take, and is more the. argument
of a Radical than a Democrat.
D. 1L DuBose.
Washington, Ga., Oct. 2Stb, 1S72,
GERMAN NATIONAL CONVEY
TION.
Curl Schnrz Pronounced m Traitor.
The German National Convention
held nnder the auspices of the German-
American Progressive and the German-
Americar United Associations, met in
New York, October 24th. Twenty-fonr
States were represented, with from 25 to
6 delegates each.
After, some prelimihary business, Mr.
M. Mandl, President of the German
American U. S. Association, was called
upon to address the meeting. The New
York Herald says:
This gentleman is a scholar and a finished orator.
He gave a brilliant and succinct account of how the
Germans had always come to the tront iu great
strangles on rrformatory movements ever since the
days of Luther. When their leaders, however, had
so far torgot their honor and dignity as to conspire
with the enemy they had always been speedily re
pudiated. The Germans in this country, contin
ued the speaker, do not believe in tbe infallibility
either of the Pope or of any statesman, however po
tential and learned he might be.
EEXATOB CAM. ECHCEZ
THK ATLANTA CONSTITUTION.
os the Constitution, whose advice we have
taken? How much suffering, loss of
property, and humiliation we might
have escaped if we hud submitted to
Radicalism seven years ago ! Men who
gave such bad advice then, onght not to
be trusted as leaders now.
Democrats of Georgia, quit yonr
Greeleyism. Touch not, handle not*
the unclean thing. Come back nnder
the good old Democratic roof-tree of onr
fathers, that has sheltered ns from bo
many political storms.
We mean to preserve our principles^
and “if Rome mast fall, witness, yo
Gods, that we are innocent.”
Straight.
icalism, is a better States’ Rights man
than yon are, and guards more jealously
the limitations of Federal power. It
tells you that you are to-day Radicals,
and better Radicals, than those who sup
port General Grant.
We “Straights” have thought this all
the time; bnt we did not wish to hurt
your feelings by telling you so.
Democrats of Georgia, will you lend
your aid and countenance to such au ut
ter abandonment ot principle and honor
as the action of the Baltimore Conven
tion requires?
Charles Sumner, Theodore. Tilton,
Wendell Pnillips, Ben Butler, Horace
Greeley, et id omne genus, better States’
Rights men than Georgia Democrats 1
Well may it be said that nothing
is left for Democracy to fight for, when
it has been carried over, body and soul,
to Radical principles, as was done at
Baltimore.
Don’s tell us Strights about helping
Grant, Mr. Constitution, because we per
sist iu clinging to principles tbat yon
and Ben Hill helped to instill into us.
You have abandoned them. We will
not follow you. If this makes us for
Grant, we are, even then, in better com
pany than you are, by yonr own show
ing.
Again: On the 26th of December,
1870, still commenting on his letter, the
Constitution says:
'Mr. Hill has indeed made a very remarkable politi
cal somersault. We know of nothing to equal it, let
alone surpass it."
Now we admit that Ben. is hard to
beat at taming political somersaults.
Ho wears the champion belt of Georgia
Bnt let him look to his laurels. There
is a goodly number of promising young
acrobats just entering the political
arena. Gordon, Colquitt, Young, Wof
ford, Hartridge, Hardeman, Avery and
Rouse Wright will all put Ben. to his
on a laanAr” Burl “rp.-
mettle as a “prodigious leaper”and “re
markable somersanlter.”
Ye Gods! What -a chance for John
Robinson to secure a select company of
champion double-twisted, ground and
lofty tumblers! We expect that old
John has an eye to business in traveling
through Georgia juBt at this time; and
we would not be surprised if he secured
t.hiw entire troop of star artists, especial
ly as their present engagement will ter
minate on the 5th of November.
Ah! bnt say some of these gentlemen
“we repudiate the Cincinnati-Baltimore,
Our Georgia delegates did not vote for
it, and the party in Georgia is not bound
by it, We stand upon the platform
adopted by our State Convention on
26th of June."
Now, one man or set of men have as
mnch right to boit the nominee as they
have the platform of a Convention, and
as much right to bolt both as one. With
what show of decency can tluse men call
“Straights” bolters, and apply the party
lash, when they can only screen them
selves from the odium of the Cincinnati
platform by declaring that they are bolt
ers?
But give them the foil benefit of the
Georgia platform of 26th of June, and
how is it with them?
That platform is as follows:
Resolved, That the Democratic party of Georgia
stand upon the principles of the Democratic party of
the Union, bringing into special prominence, as ap
plicable to the present ex’raordinary condition
tho country, the unchangeable doctrine that this
From the Atlanta Constitution, Oct. 27, 1372.
“ Subject to Oar Solemn Constitutional
Obligations.”
We have taken the trouble to compare
the Baltimore platform and Mr. Gree
ley’s letter of acceptance with Mr. Jef
ferson’s inangural, which well puts the
Democratic tueory. They accord fully.
The fourth article iu the Liberal plat
form “demand for the states seli-gov-
ernment, and ior the nation a return to
the methods of peace and the constitu
tional limitations of power.”
Mr. Greeley, in giving his cordial en
dorsement to the platform embracing
this article, held that subject to our so
lemn constitutional obligations to main
tain tho equal rights of the citizens, we
should aim at local self-government, not
subject to Federal interference. Mr.
Greeley, during his late Western tour, on
several occasions, declared that tho pow
ers of the National Government were
limited by the Constitution.
These views of Mr. Greeley as a candi
date for the Presidency of the nation
and those of Mr. Jefferson as President
of the nation, are precisely alike in every
particular, meaning one and the same
thing.
Mr. Jefferson, in his inaugural, look
ing to his duties as President of the na
tion, said: “One thing more, fellow-
citizens, a wise and frngal government
which shall restrain men from injuring
one another, leaving them otherwise frew
to regulate theiriown pursuits of industry
and improvement.”
Mr. Jefferson continnes giving his
views as to the essential principles of
government as follows: “Equal and ex
act justice to all men of whatever Stata
or persuasion, and the support of ths
Statu governments in all their rights as
the most competent administration of
domestic affairs.”
Mr. Greeley is for maintaining thn
qual rights of the citizens.
Mr. Jefferson is for restraining men
from injuring one another; is for secur
ing eqnal and exact jnstice to all men.
Mr. Greeley is for local self-govern
ment not subject to Federal supervis
ion.
Mr. Jefferson urges tbe support of
State governments as the most compe
tent administrations for domestio con
cerns, looking, however, to the “general
government in its whole constitutional
vigor as the sheet anchor of our peace at
home, and safety abroad.”
Mr. Greeley recognises the limitations
of the general government, and onr obli
gations to the extent of its power, to
maintain the equal rights of the citizens.
Mr. Jefferson recognises the govern
ment as the sheet anctior of our peace at-
home. -
Both Mr. Greeley and Mr. Jefferson
recognise local self-government as tha
most competent administration for onr
domestio concerns.
These views are also advocated by Mr 1 !
Stephens, thus placing him with Mr
Greeley.
Mr. Stephens in his address to tho
Georgia Legislature in 1856, enumerated
these like views. He said that “protec
tion and security to all under its juris
diction should bo the chief end of every
government; that the whole United
States is now without question our coun
try; that its Constitution had been re
ordained as the organio law of the land;
that the trial of secession had settled tho
question as to where onr allegiance be
longed; that the United State was onr
country to be cherished and defended as
such by all our hearts and by all our
arms; that the Constitution of the Uni
ted States, and the treaties and laws
made in pursuance thereof, are now ac
knowledged to be the paramount law of
this whole country.
Yet no well informed man believes that
it was the intention, either of Mr. Ste
phens, Mr. Greeley, or Mr. Jefferson, in
the enunciation of their views on onr
Federal relations, to encourage a disre
gard for the reserved rights of the peo
ple ofjthe States to govern themselves in
local affairs.
To secure and maintain the equal rights
of the people, to prevent men from in
juring one-another, and to protect the
right of life, liberty and property, being
the chief end in view, Mr. Stephens^
Mr. Greeley and Mr. Jefferson, encour
aged local self-government, not subject
to Federal supervision, but in harmony
with tho Constitution.
had coolly, but rashly, undertaken to quietly annex a Union of Sfctea; and that the Indiatructibility
the whole German TOte, and carry it into the camp g»* States, of their rights and of their equality wi
of the enemy. But, ala* for him, he discovered other, ia an Indispensable part of our political
■when too late for retrogression that those who had g j S tem
formerly hailed Limns their chief were neither I nrinciDles of the D?mn-
knaves nor idiots, but men who haa the good sense | JN ? W » J ne A^emo
and honesty to remain where they had always found ! Cm tlC party Of tll0 Union evidently T6
safety and protection, wisdom and righteousness—
within the ranks of the Republican party. (Tumul
tuous cheering.)
The meeting was, of coarse, in the in
terest of Gen. Giant.
South Carolina.
fer to the Platform of 1868, which de
dared the Reconstruction Acts (and con
sequently the 14th and 15th Amend
ments) to be “usurpations” and “uncon
stitutional,revolutionary, null and void.”
Therefore, you are *?Straights,” gen
tlemen, and it is, as we say, your “holy
duty” as patriots, to oppose Greeleyi^ui
A Peach. Stone Spring.
The Amherst (Ya.) Enterprise tells this
story:
On the land of Thomas Hughes ie a
bold spring of cold water, which contin
ually throws out peach stones in a per
fect state of preservation. Bushels of
stones have been cleared away, and still
they come. We have no doubt that
many years ago, before the memory of
our people, there was a distillery at this
spring, and that it now bursts through
the mass of stones below tho surface*
and throws them out.
We know of a first rate large peach
orchard in this county which grew iu
the following singular manner: Mr.
Stenuett cleared the land, put in tobac
co, and tho third year in wheat, and an
orchard of peaches came up on the land
and is now crowing and bearing. It was
ascertained that some forty or more years
a"o the laud was cultivated, and an
orchard on the place, and it had grown
up, and when cleared by Mr. Stennett
tiie land was in second growth timber.
The following is the O’Conor and I duty" as patriots, to oppose. GreeieyiMu ; ^ fl
. , t-i . fa« , . - o ri ~ 1 and to defend your principles, your in- learns from Col. Lotton,
Adams Electoral Ticket in South Caro- te . rity> und J0 £ r ll01 f 01 , prisoners lately arreste
> lina:
The Macon Telegraph says there was a 1
fight in Milledgeville Tuesday between ,
ex-Sen&tor Wallace, of Bibb, colored,
and Obadiah Arnold, the Radical Sher
iff of Baldwin county—neither badly
hart.
FOR STATE AT LARGE.
Wm. H. Stack,
J. D. McCarley,
Wm. T. Wilkins.
First Disk—T. D. Napper.
Second Disk—J. R. Lambson.
Third Disk—J. W. Covar.
Fourth Disk—A. J. Yandcgrift,
principles, and every man in Georgia a h a: _
ought to be on it to-day. | ably, will be found, while lie i?
Now if, after all oiu trouble with Rad-1 0 f a verdict of acquittal it
icalism for the last seven years, we are !
told that its prinejj/ . • f«v>,qund; that
we have beep f
what, iv
raph oi tbe‘30th
counsel for the
sted in Wiikiuson
_ prisoners
The Georgia Plattoim is a good j colin{T and carr ied to Savann
Straight-out enunciation of Democratic l - .
- ~ - - - r. r- i o.’iimst many of them, no true t