Newspaper Page Text
Ti'E ATLANTA WEEKLY SUN, FOR THE WEEK ENDING NOVEMBER 6 1872.
THE ATLANTA SUN
FROM OUR DAILY EDITION OF
Friday. I\ ov«*n»l»er 1. 1872-
•B> Juliim IlMlililgc uml hla Letter.
In another column of onr inane to-day,
trill be found a reply of Mr. Hartridge,
the Greeley elector at large in the State,
to the comments we made,upon his speech
in Savannah some weeks ago.
How far Mr. Hartridge has snceeded
by this essay,in putting himself right “on
principle” before the Democratic musses
of Georgia, or iu success/ally answering
onr allegations in relation to his positions
in his Savannah speech, our readers can
judge for themselves. We give them
both aider:. Truth is nil we aim at.
We only at>k them to bear in min- 1
what we suid, a'-d then sejn and sift tb*
eply t«» it.
What weenid was as follows:
1. Ur. HlrtrUgo distinctly announces himself as
• n advocate at the principle* ou which Hr. Greeley
la new running for President of the United States,
lie opens hi* speech by docJarina that he bad no
apoioity to offer for his support of Mr. Greeley. It
is, in other words, with him, “ no choice of evils '
as between Gen. Grant and Mr. Greeley. lie pro
claim* that he supported iDj. Greeley •• upon prin-
dp!e. M
2. What then are the avowed present principles of
Mr. Greeley nixm which he now seeks the votes of
the D-nr rrecy of the United States to place him in
the Presidency? ,
V»e ..larrn that the Platform of principles cn
which Mr. Grcelev is running, distinctly sanctions,
and forever approves all th« Radical usurpations at
tending reconstruction—so-called—inducing the
Enforcement and Ku-Kl»x Acts!
Wc furthor give it as om (/pinion that neither Mr.
Hartridge or any other intelligent supporter of Mr.
Greeley in the United Mates, having any regard for
troth, will vent n re to deny this onr affirmation?
Are there Democratic principles? Are they not
Badical—nay, Jacobinical—principles of the
•at dye?
Does my Hartridge join issue with us
upon tlia point, that the platform of
principles on which M". Greeley is run
ning, does distinctly sanction and for
ever approve, all the radical usurpations
attending reconstruction- -so-called—in
cluding the Enforcement and Ku-Kiux
Acts?
The reader will mark that he do'-s not.
It is true he does, towards the end of
his letter, deny after a fashion, that he
advocates principles of “Radicalism.”
But does he, anywhere in his labored
reply, deny that the principles of Mr.
Greeley’s Platform do cover tue whole
reconstruction policy of the authorities
at Washington ? If he does, it lias es
caped our observation in our perusal of
his letter.
If u platform which covers these mon
strous enormities does not embody “Rad
icalism,” then, pray, in what does “Rad
icalism” coneibt ?
Our readers will bear in mind, also,
fiat we said further, as follows:
Si Mr. Hartridge speaks with seeming just indlg.
nation at cur having seen men "drsgg id from their
homes cn specions pretences, by a despotic military,
and hurried, with scarcely a iorm of trial to prison 1 ”
Yes, and he might it ve added also, to distant
nri-.vis at that! To Penitentiaries in distant
States!
jt»u. who In tho name of truth and justice is more
responsible for all this than Mr. Greeley.
Nay, more: will not the same thing, not only
occur, but be Justified under tho same or 8imilar
circumstances, and that, too, by tho verdict of onr
own people, if Mr. Greeley'sprinciples are sanction
ed by them, as they are by Mr. Hartridge?
With what face could he hold up these atrocities
for condensation beforo a Savannah audience oi
any intelligent people, when he has openly es
poused and indorsed tho principles npon which
they were perpetrated?
Ars these the -‘principles of liberty," and "good
Government," and "Coustltntionulism" Georgians
are invoked to espoute and hug to their breasts?—
If so, may heaven in its mercy save them from such
infatuation and degradation! a£&a
To assert that such principles are iu any way in
accord a Ith the Democratic creed of Jefferson, or
of the Kentucky and Virginia Desolations cf 1798-
90, indorsed by our State Constitution in 1870 and
iu lSTi.'is but tittle short of offering open mockery
to the memery of tho illustrious dead! •
Has Mr. Hartridge iu his letter made
the slightest answer to this part of our
confluents. If so, it has escaped us.
The truth is Mr. Hartridge and every
intelligent man from Maine to Texas—
from the Atlantic to the Pacific—knows
that Mr. Greeley was not only an urgent
instigator of tho Enforcement and Ku-
Klux acts, and to-day stands pledged Jo
the policy of making them stronger if
they are not strong enough for the ty
rannical purposes for which they were
enacted.
Again our renders will hear in mind
that we said still further, ns follows:
Mr. Uavtidge must either perceive or not perceive
that all which Mr. Greeley says iu his exposition of
the Cincinnati Platform, about “local seif govern
ment,*' "habeas corpus," &c., is, in its immediate
connection, made "Sunsct” to the rigUUul con
trol of the Supreme Central Authority 1
It is on this view of his Platform, that all the
outrages of Reconstruction, Enforcement, and Ku-
Klux Acts, were based, and now justified by Mr.
Greeley.
This we say, Mr. Hs rtridgo either perceives or he
docs not.
If ho dees not perceive it, what m-.*t all intelli
gent men, now and hereafter, think of his capacity
to guirio the people rightly in such times as these?
If, ou tho otner baud, ho does perceive it, and
thus attempts to blind and mislead the honest
masses, wnat must be thought now and forever of
his moral ntness for tho position he hold6 ?
On this point, Mr. Hartiidge does re
ply to us, and one of the most remarka
ble facts attencing the whole discussion,
is the character of that reply. It is in
these words:
Mr. Stephens urges that theee rights of local self-
government* tho writ of habeas corpus, etc., are in
the Democratic platform adopted at Baltimore made
subject to the •'rightful control** of the general gov
ernment. This is irne, but it is nothing more thaa
Jefferson himself recognized and the Constitution
of our own State admits. No one can object to the
exercise of the "rightful control*» vested in the
Federal Government bj the Constitution.
The reader will mark that Mr. Hart
ridge does not deny, that all the rights
of local self-government offered by Mr.
Greeley, are to be “ Subject to the
rightful control of the Supreme Cen
tral Authority!” He says “this is true.
He thns fully admits that the Central
^Authority is under “a solemn Constitu-
"tional obligation to maintain the equal
rights * of all the inhabitants of the sev
eral States, in all their internal polity;
and that the Central Authority, is bound
so to maintain these rights, even though
it shall require the suspension of the writ
of Habeas Corpus, and tho entire sub
version of the State Governments, and
^ every other radical usurpation whicn has
r, . or may be resorted to for this purpose,
■hr Was not this the ground npon which
^GreeleyAnd alibis illiberal associates
ThcSteheU f veir role of despotism in ten
In Ttn»W*fl«>*
the first
we should say more
of Mr. Hartrdge’s speech or his letter ?
It is here admitted by tbis professed
leader of the crooked Democracy of
Georgia that the central authority has a
“rightful control” over all the reserved
rights of the people and of the State.
Could the principles of Centralized
Empire be set forth in fewer words?—
And yet Mr. Hartridge (under some
strange hallucination, it must be,) as
serts the t this was the doctrine of Mr.
Jefferson! If Mr. Jefferson was ever
clear and unmistakeable npon any point,
it was that this Central Authority had no
“rightful coniror in the internal polity
of the States in any matter or in any
manner whatever.
The relative rights of the citizens of
the several States, political, civil, and
social, he maintained as the true pemo-
cratic party ever has since his day, were
matters expressly reserved by the Con
stitution to the respective States, over
whicn the Federal Government had no
Constitutional or “rightful control”
whatever; and that any such interference
would be a usurpation. We again call
upon the Democracy of Georgia to pon
der and consider well whither they are
be.cg drifted under the lead of such
counsellors as Mr. Hartridge.
So much on this subject to-day. We
stiall say more to-morrow. A. H. S.
An “Old Democrat” Shows up Hon.
Julian Hartridge.
, October 30,1872.
Editor Sun: I see in this evening’s
Constitution a communication from Mr.
Jniian Hartridge — Greeley Elector —
ith the flaming heading—
JULIAN HARTRIDGE.
A Strong, Powerful and Conclnsive Re
ply to Mr. Stephens—A Masterly Ex
position o f why the Democratic Party
Supports Greeley, and what it seeks to
gain by his Election.
I have read carefully what Mr. Hart
ridge says, undei-such grandiloquent in
troduction by the Constitution; I search
in vain lor strength, power, or anything
which approximates to conclusiveness in
reply to Mr. Stephens. On the other
hand, it is, to every reasoning mind, a
masterly failure. It is a column and a
third of adroit demagogueism, bold as
sertion, and evasion of logic.
Tnere are but two points in Mr. Hart-
ridge’s article. He maintains that “the
platform adopted at Cincinnati and re
affirmed by the Democratic Convention
at Baltimore expressly recognizes the
principles of local State government and
personal liberty—principles which are
the cardinal and life-giving features of
Democratic faith, and have been so since
the time of Jefferson*”
Local State government and personal
liberty—protection under the sacred
Writ of Habeas Corpus—are cardinal
principles cf Democratic faith to-day as
much asever; but not subject to Mr. Gree
ley’s view “of our Constitutional obliga-
tio s” (under the 15th Amendment) “to
enforce the equality of the citizen”—the
<quality of tne negro with the white
tuau. But Mr. Hartridge says “no one
can object to the exercise of the
‘rightful control’ vested in the Federal
Government by the Constitution. It is
nothing more than Jefferson himself
recognized.” Mr. Hartridge must know
that the Constitution to which Mr. Jeffer
son refered was the Constitution of our
fathers, which regarded ours as a govern
ment of FederateSovcreignties-as States,
wnere the franchise of voting was regu
lated by each State, and when Congress
did not assume (under the 15th amend
ment, forced npon us by the bayonet,)
to supervise our State legislation. Mr.
Jefferson’s, and the old Democratic Con
stitution, was utterly different from
the present Radical-Greeley Consti
tution, which Mr. Greeley stands
pledged to enforce (the equality of the
negro with the white man) by “appro
pnate legislation,” by Congress, and his
execution of such laws of Congress when
he deems it necessary.
It is this wrongful “control” of the
Constitntion, or of Congress, which Mr.
Stephens and Straight-out Democrats
oppose as un-Democratic—opposed to
the principles of Jefferson, and which is
subversive of the Federative character of
our Government, and which centralizes
onr Government into an empire of Con
gress. and hold the sovereign States as
mere provinces.
Will Mr. Hartridge hold that the 15th
Amendment was adopted in a Constitu
tional way, and that the State of Georgia
is subject to it, and that it is a “rightful
control.” Such seems to be his argu
ment. If so, then he is indeed clean
gone from the faith of the Democratic
party,and JeffersoniaD.doctrine—jumped
clean over the bloody chasm, and in
dorsed the Circinnati platform, which
pledged the Baltimore Convention never
to reopen any of the questions of the
radical amendments. Bat Mr. Hart
ridge squirms under the charge of having
indorsed tho Reconstruction, Enforce
ment and Ku-Klux Acts; that tbefproposi
tion * 'is'as wanting in a basis of fact, as it is
illogical in argument.” We do not be
lieve Mr. Hartridge as a man, believes
the present Radical constitution rightful
—or entitled to a “rightful control” of
the States. For in this communication he
contends that the alliance of Democrats
and Liberal Republicans is made to bring
back the Government to the limits oi
a “rightful control,” and to drive out of
power an administration which for fonr
years has exercised and enforced
unlawful control.
WhilBt we do this justice to the
no donbt real intention and wishes
of Mr. Hartidge and other Greeley Demo
crats, they have no basis of fact for their
assertion ana are utterly i'logical in ar
gument.
Greeley and his Liberal Republicans
are the authors of Reconstruction, En
forcement, and Ku-Kiux: Acts. The 15»h
Amendment is their principal achieve
ment and glory. They pledged them
selves at Cincinnati, nevot to reopen an;
of theae amendments, butto conduct the
government npon them m s rightful
control over the 8tates. The Demo
cratic Party at Baltimore, not only de
clined to repeat opposition to them, but
actually re-affirmed the Cincinnati Re
publican platform which Mr. Greeley
said in his Pittsburg speeou, since his
nomination, was as intense and complete 1
•» wC»jfc'
Republican platform as was ever made.
Dr. Miller says it is the best platform
ever written‘by Whigs or Democrats;
and Mr. Hartridge says it contains good
Jeffersonian Democratic principles; and
the Constitntion—present Constitution
(15th Amendment in it) is entitled
to exercise “ rightful control ” over
the States and people. With Mr.
Hartridge’s good intentions—I leave him
in this logical dilemma. I do not pro
pose to elaborate—bnt merely to present
the position of onr Greeley Democrats
(who contend for Democratic principles
in the Badical Cincinnati platform) as a
redudio absurdum. There are many of
onr Greeiey Democratic friends who have
more sense, and say they don’t pretend
to subscribe to the Cincinnati platform
of Greeley principles—bnt take him
mereley as the nomineeof the party and
in the hope his election will Work a
milder enforement of Radical laws for
the South. We can understand such
en.
As to the other point of Mr. Hart
ridge, and I conclude, leaving to the
trenchaut pen of the aole statesman—
Mr. Stephens—to annihilate r. Hart-
ridge’s logic. Mr. Hartridge says: “And
I am willing to repeat the assertion, and
ask the people of Georgia whether they
do not believe with me, that if Johnston
and Gordon vote for Greeley, we can do
so without disgrace; and whether they
think such men would support a candi
date whose principles, carried into power,
will continue and perpetuate Ku-Klux
and Enforcement laws, and all the evils
now maintained oy Grant."
And is this the argument—moral or
logical—of a self-snpporticg mind ? It
indicates the resort of a weak cause to
shelter itself behind honored names.
The writer does not question the hon
esty and good intentions of Johnston,
Gordon, or any other military man or
civilian who votes for Greeley more than
he has those virtues in Mr. Hartridge,
Those gentlemen are as liable to err, iu
the field of statesmanship, as Mr. Hart
ridge. They certainly have gained honor
—which the gallant privates helped them
to achieve—in war; bnt they are un
known in tne sphere of statesmanship.
They cannot be quoted as authority upon
that subject. They can only be cited as
pure patriots and good men who
think that way. Bnt we seriously
doubt if those, or other gentlemen
referred to by Mr. Hartridge,
and so often referred to by Greeley ora
tors, believe Jeffersonian Democracy is
in the Cincinnati platform, or that Gree
ley will shape his administration (if elect
ed)upon Democratic principles. Away,
then, with such references to military
heroes! It is only the clap-trap—ad cup-
tandum resort of demagogue practice to
get votes, where facts and reason fail, on
the sympathies or admiration of people
for men whom they admire.
Tne issues are too serions for such
scrimages. They demand the coolest and
severest study and analysis. The con
test is solely to save onr Federative sys
tem of State sovereignties, and the pub
lic liberty from a centralized despotism—
whether that desootism exists as now in
the form of Congress—or that of a single
Ruler. * Old Democrat.
Letter of Hon. Jniian Hartridge in Re
ply to Hon. A. H. Stephens.
From the Savannah Advertiser, 29th Oct., 1872.
Editor Savannah Advertiser: On my
return home I have been shown an edi
torial in the Atlanta Sun, over the initials
“A. H. S.,” reviewing and criticising an
address delivered by me at Savannah on
tho political questions of the day.
am aware that Mr. Stephens, the author
of this criticism, would not have devoted
his time and the space in his paper to tnis
address, but tor the fact that I am a can
didate for Elector for the State at large,
on the Democratio ticket, and as such
an advocate of the election of Greeley
and Brown. He seizes hold of any de
claration on my part which seem objec
tionable to him, to use them as the doc
trines of the party I have the honor in
part to represent. It is for this reason I
ask space in your paper to reply to the
article of Mr. Stephens; for I am un
willing that his assertions as to what my
position is should go forth uncontradict
ed, and thus create an impression that I,
and my associates, as he styles them;
maintain any such doctrines os he at
tributes to ns.
Mr. Stephens derives his ideas of what
my speech was from the report of it in
the' Morning Hews. Speeches made with
out notes of any kind are never very ac
curately reported. But for the purposes
of this communication, I am willing to
assume that the report referred to gives
substantially my views as expressed.
The copy of The Sun which contains
the criticism of Mr. Stephens, sets forth
also the report of the speech criticised.
Conld I hope or expect that all who read
the remarks of Mr. Stephens, would also
peruse the addiess, I wonld be satisfied;
for in that case the poison wonld carry
with it its Own antidote. Bnt I am not
vain enough to suppose that all who may
be attracted by a denunciation from Mr.
Stephens will do me the jnstice to seek
the true merits of the matter attacked.
In the article of Mr. Stephens there is
a tone of bitterness, almost personal in
its character, which, under,the circum
stances, I can afford to pass unnoticed;
and I shall direct my efforts simply to an
exposure of the false premices assumed
by Mr. Stephens iu reference to my ad
dress, and the illogical conclcsions drawn
by him.
The great cause of complaint and at
tack is, that I appealed to Democrats to
vote for Greeley and Brown “ on princi
ple.” I said thpn, and I repeat now—if
I conld not appeal to my countrymen to
vote in the way I designate on principle
—if it were not for the principles in
volved, I wonld not whisper a word in
favor of the candidates. I said then,
and I repeat now, I am the advocate of
no man and no set of men; bnt seek to
show my fellow-citizens that the princi
ples of local State government and per
sonal liberty “are best to be maintained
by voting for these candidates”—Greeley
and Brown.
From these propositions, and kindred
ones, bnt all enunciating nothing more
nor less than what I have above stated*
Mr. Stephens deduces the conclusion
that I advocated all the principles of Mr.
Greeley. In order to give some show of
truth to his assertion, he is careful, skill
fully, to isolate particular expressions,
and leave them unaccompanied and un
explained by the context. This may be
a politic course for one seeking to mis
lead; bnt it is certainly open at least to
reprehension, in u statesman and public
journalist who desires to convince the
people of the propriety of bis own views,
by arguments based only on truth and
reason.
When Mr. Stephens declared in his
criticism that I advocated the election of
Greeley and Brown “on principles,” he
should have added on what principles I
did so, as set forth in the address itself.
maintained and still maintain that
under the “exigencies of tne times,” as
proclaimed in ( the platform ox the
Georgia Democracy at Atlanta, in July
last, the principles of local State-govern
ment and personal liberty can be best
sustained by voting for Greeley and
Brown. The platform adopted at Cin-
oinnatiand re-affirmed by the Democratic
Convention at Baltimore, expressly re
cognizes these two great principles;
principles which are the cardinal
and life-giving features of Democra
tic faith, and have been so sinoe
the time of Jefferson. I was
opposed -to the nomination of Gree
ley at Baltimore ; more so to the
adoption of the Cincinnati platform,
because of certain features in that plat
form repugnant to the feelings of South
ern men. Bnt when the wisest and best
men of the Democratio party, in conven
tion, nominated Greeley and adopted the
Cincinnati platform, it became proper
matter for deep and seriouB consideration
whether that platform did or did not rec
ognize the great and vital principles of
government advocated and sustained by
the Democratic party. In the present
juncture of political affairs, and indeed at
all times, the right of each State to local
self-government, and the security of the
personal liberty of the citizen, are the
two great, leading fundamental princi
ples npon which rest all our rights of
person and property; the enjoyment and
possession of the two will obtain for us
all the blessings politically we can desire.
T repeat, the Cincinnati and Baltimore
platforms and Mr. Greeley’s letter of ac
ceptance guarantee these two principles
to us. The same platform requires the
subordination of the military to the civil
power, and the preservation of the writ
of habeas corpus. Mr. Stephens urges
that these rights of local self-government,
the writ of habeas corpus, etc., are in the
Democratic platform adopted at Balti
more made subject to the “rightful con
trol” ot the general government. This
is true, bnt it is nothing more than Jef
ferson bimself recognized and tne Con
stitution of our own State admits. No
one can object to the exercise of the
“rightful control” vested iu the Federal
Government by the constitution. It is
to bring back the general government to
the limits of a “rightful control” that
the Democratic and Liberal parties are
now in alliance. It is to circumscribe
toe Federal power with the restrictions
of a “rightful control” that we seek to
drive out of power an administration
which for four years has excercised and
enforced an unlawful control.
It was in this view, and this alone,
of the principles contained in the Cin
cinnati and Baltimore platforms, that I
urged my countrymen to support
Greeley against Grant. And I challenge
any fair-minded reader, who is not so
prejudiced, either politically or person
ally, as to be incapable of arriving at an
honest conclusion, to peruse my speech
as a who'e—not isolated expressions or
distorted fragments—and say that he can
derive any other impression as to my.
meaning and object than such as I have
herein designated.
With what show of reason or sem
blance of truth, then, can Mr. Stephens
say that I, and those who think with
me, endorse the Reconstrnction, En
forcement and Ku-Klux acts ? Tne prop
osition is as wanting in a basis of fact as
it is illogical in argument. The asser
tion of it is only an effort to play upon
the feelings and prejudices of the people.
Mr. Stephens says: “Mr. Hartridge
must Know that Mr. Greeley’s platform is
in direct antagonism to tho principles of
the resolutions of 1798-99, and to the
Jeffersonian Democratic party from that
day to this.”' I have sought to show that
each is not tho case, and that the great
fundamental principles of Democratic
faith are recognised in the platform re
ferred to. In the adoption of those two
principles in their platform at Baltimore,
the representatives of Democracy there
assembled gave up no rights of the
States, or of individual citizens, but
reaffirmed the doctrines ot Jefferson.
The Liberal Republicans, in promulgat
ing these principles at Cincinnati, aban
doned the policy and course of the Radical
parly, headed by Grant, and planted
themselves on Democratic faith. The
triumph of this platform in the next
election will secure the right of self-gov
ernment to the States and thns overthrow
the power of centralization at Washing
ton, which is the eause of all our evils—
a power now represented by Grant and
his followers.
Let me quote from the language of a
distinguished Virginian—one whose De
mocracy is at least as pure as that Mr. Ste
phens—one who was born and reared
within the influence of the lives and the
graves of Jefferson and Madison. I refer
to Robert M. T. Hunter. In a speech
recently delivered in Virginia, referring
to Mr. Greeley and the combinedparties
supporting him, he uses this language:
“H we pm this leader and this party in
the rqle, does any man donbt that we
shall stay the further progress of the
concentration of all power in the hands
of the Central government, and the far
ther tendency toward imperialism in our
political institutions, if, indeed, the two
things be the same, as we have always
been taught to believe, nntil the people
can be bronght np to the rescue ? In
such a contest as this, can any Virginian
doubt as to the side he will take? Remem
ber it is a question of popnlar rights—
aye, of American liberty itself.”
Mr. StepenB says that L “with the
adroitness of an advocate whose object
is to ‘make the worse appear the better
cause,’” in my speech, brought iu the
names of Davis, Johnston, Gordon and
others, to indace the belief that in all I
said I was bnt following their lead.—
Here comes in again this nnfairness of
statement and this distortion of tacts so
common in this article of Mr. Stephens.
The simple perusal of the speech will
show that I never urged that I was bnt
following their lead in all that I said;
bnt s-mply that when we saw such men
as these taking the path cf support cf
Greeley, we sorely conld follow their
lead without dishonor. By what
process of reasoning they reached their
conclusions, I never pretended to jndge
or declare. And I am willing to repeat
the assertion, and a<-k the people of
Georgia whether they do not oeiieve with
me, that if Johnson and Gordon vote for
Greeley, we can do so likewise without
disgrace; and whether they think snoh
men would support a candidate whose
principles carried into power will con
tinue and perpetuate Ku-KJnx and en
forcement laws, and all the evils now
maintained by Grant. Not all the soph
istry and ingenuity of Mr. Stephens; not
all the influence of h!s name or the per
suasive power of his tongue, or his pen,
conld induce our people to believe that
snoh men are advocating the election of
a man, and establishment of principles
antagonistic to their rights.
Mr. Stephens says: “Whatever of
honor, or its contrary, there may be in
one calling himself a Democrat to sup
port Mr. Greeley ‘on principle,’ will be
left to Mr. Hartridge and such of his as
sociates as are ready to abjure the faith
of their fathers, and swallow Radicalism
in its most odious forms.”
I have already shown what was meant
by supporting Mr. Greeley on principle;
and how false is the assertion that by so
doing I “and my associates” advocate
the principles of Radicalism. And
I am willing to let my fellow citi
zens decide who “swallows Radical
ism in its most odious forms,” the
man who- advocates the election of a
candidate pledged to reform, and to the
maintenance of the rights of the States,
and the subordination of military to civil
power, or the man who openly defends
the financial course of Grant, and by his
writings divides the Democratic party
and secures the continuance in power
of the present Administration, thus
strengthening its hands to continue in fu
ture the same career as in the past, de
riving additional boldness from an ap
parent indorsement by the people.
Julian Hartridge.
“Straignt’cOoetft Tor the Atlanta Col
stltation Again,
The Chronicle and -enlinel and Qenei a 1
Wright Overhauled and Show
Gen. Dnliote Vindicated
The (supreme Court.
On Wednesday this court finished np the
regular Docket, and would have adjourn
ed, except that some Injunction cases
are before it—two being from this city,
both involving the liability of Foster
Blodgett's securities on his official bond.
And these cases are now before the
Court under peculiar circumstances.
Onr readers will recollect that this
matter has already been beforo the Su
preme Court, which held that Blodgett’s
securities were liable for any default of
Blodgett, and that executions have been
issued against them for the amount of
his deficit as ascertained by the Joint
Committee of the Legislature, which in
vestigated the management of the Road,
and which Committee has issued execu
tions against Blodgett and all his sure
ties for the amount.
When the case was before the Supreme
Court, Judge McCay was disqualified and
did not sit on it, because he is surety on
the official Bond of one party against
whom similar charges were preferred by
the Committee, and the opinions of the
Supreme Court were delivered by Judge
Warner and Montgomery.
A short express;on which fell from
Judge Montgomery’s lips, in delivering
his opinion, has caused the securities of
Blodgett to file a new Bill. It was injthis
wise: The Execution was issued against
the parties by the Comptroller-General,
based on the amount found against Blod
gett by the Committee; and Judge M,
remarked, in substance, that he sup
posed, and would take it for granted, the
Comptroller-General had investigated the
account on which be had issued the Exe
cution and found it correct; upon which
the attorneys for the parties praying’the
injunction took an idea, and on inquiry
found that the Comptroller-General had
not, in fact, audited the account, but had
only based his execution upon the
finding of the Committee.
The amended bill alleges that the ac
count must be carefully examined and
audited by the Comptroller himself be
fore he can issue the warrant, while the
attorneys for the State claim that the
Comptroller is fully authorized and re
quired by law to issue executions upon
the finding and return to him, of tLe
Committee.
And thus the case comes again befoie
the Supreme Court.
Upon the same ruling which disquali
fied Judge McCay when it was previous
ly before the court, he is again excluded,
and Wednesday Judge Montgomery was
objected to on the ground that he had
acted as attorney for the State in the
prosecution of some case or cases before
this Railroad Investigating Committee.
It will be remembered that the Gov
ernor, by authority conferred by the Leg
islature, employed Judge Linton Ste
phens to represent the State. Once he
was sick for some days, and while nnuble
to attend, Jndge Montgomery, as a
friendly act, at Judge Stephens’ request,
represented him in his duties before the
Committee. We believe the Georgia
National Bank case was then under con
sideration—at any rate, Judge Montgom
ery was yesterday objected to, and a cer
tificate of disqualification for two of the
Judges on the Supreme Bench was sent
to the Governor.
We believe tbis is the first time this has
occurred in Georgia. Once, a numoer of
years ago, a cate came before tue court
while it was in session at Milledgville,
in wnich two of the Jadges were dis
qualified, bnt from some cause it was
either not tried, or the trouble in some
way avoidi d, so the certificate was not
sent to the Governor.
In each case, it becomes the dnty of
the Governor to appoint two Judges of
the Superior Court to sit on the Supreme
Bench while the case is before the Su
preme Conrt. Governor Smith Las ap
pointed C. D. McCntchen and Hugh Bu
chanan, both Jndges of the Superior
Court of recent appointment—one to fill
Judge Parrott’s vacancy, and the other tc»
succeed Jndge W. F. Wright. The first
has been notified by telegraph; the latter
by soecial messenger. The cases will
come upas soon as the Judges named ar
rive.
Later.—Since writiug tu« above,
Judges McCutcheon and Buchanan have
arrived, uud were ou the bench to-day
presiding in this extraordinary case.
Editors Sun: We gave, in the preced-
ing articles, extracts from the Constitution
showing that less than two years ago
that paper believed that the 14th and
15th Amendments established pure and
unadulterated Centralism, and taught the
people of Georgia to believe so; that it
said that Mr. Hill, in advising acquies
cence in those amendments, had gone far
beyond the Republicans themselves in
his abandonment of State rights.
But the Constitution was not the only
journal in Georgia that took this view.
The following extract from the editorial
comments of the Augusta Chronicle and
Sentinel upon Mr. Hill’s famous letter
shows the position of Gen. A. R. Wright
at that time.
"Bnt we can never consent that these Amendment*
shall be admitted and held by our people as contain
in? principles in harmony with the original nroviL
ions of the Constitution. We hold tha these Amend,
merits have destroyed the character of the original com.
pact beticeen the States, that they are subversive of free
Representative Government, etc.”
Now, what are men’s words worth
pray ?
Not two years have passed since Gen.
Wright wrote these words, and now he
is one of the accepted leaders and can
didates of a party that pledges itself to
“oppose any reopening of the questions
settled by those amendments. General
Wright, by his own admission, is advo
cating doctrines that are subversive of
free Representative Government, and
that destroy the compact between tho
States.
Do men care nothing for consistency,
for principle, for honor ? Are the rights
and liberties of the ueople mere shuttle
cocks to be bandied about by politicians?
Will not the people assert their dignity
and manhood oy condemning such
leaders ?
General Wright is the candidate for
Congress in the 8th District against Gen.
D. M. DuBose, who is a consistent and
unswerving Democrat; yet the Constitu
tion, though not in the District, takes np
the cudgels for Wright, and condemns
Gen. DuBose.
Let us examine Gen. DuBose’s record
noon the questions before us. We will
find that he is the only consistent Demo
cratic member of Congress from Georgia.
On the 5th of February, 1872, in the
lower house of Congress, Mr. Peters, of
Maine, offered the following resolution:
"Resolved, That the 13th, 14lh and 16th Amend
ments to the Constitntion of tho Unitea States hav
ing been ratified by the number of State Legisla
tures necessary to make their adoption valid and
binding, as well as having been sanctioned by the
most significant popular approval, the highest pat
riotism and most enlightened public policy, demand
of all political parties and all citizens an acquies
cence in the validity of such Constitutional provis
ions. and Ruch reasonable legislation of Congress as
may be necessary to make them in their letter and
spirit most effectual.”
On the same day Mr. Brooks, of New
York, offered the following Resolution:
“ Resolved, That we recognize the Thirteenth,
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Con
stitution, as valid parts thereof.”
On the 12th day of February the vote
was taken, on suspending the rules and
passing the following Resolution offered
on the 5tb, by Mr. Stevenson:
"Resolved, That wo recognize as valid and binding
aU existing laws pasBea by Congress for the enforce
ment of the Thir'eenth Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments to the Constitntion of the United
States, and for the protection of citizens in their
rights under the Constitution as amended "
Among the nays on all the votes on
the above resolutions, we find DuBose, x
McIntyre, Price and Yonng, all the
Democratic members from Georgia.
Thus every attempt to commit the
Democratic Party of Georgia to the
indorsement of those amendments, in
every shape aDd form was stubbornly re
sisted bv our Democratic members. The
three Radical members from Georgia,
voted for the foregoing resolutions in
every instance, as did all of the Radicals
in Congress.
Every Democratic newspaper in Geor
gia applauded the course of our members,
the Constitution and Chronicle aud Senti
nel among them.
The Cincinnati-Baltimore Platform is,
in substance and almost in phraseology,
identically the same as the foregoing
resolutions; yet three out of four Demo
cratic members from Georgia who voted
against the resolut.ons, now support
Horace Greeley npon his platform. Gen.
D. M. DuBose alone stands by his prin
ciples. All the efforts of his opponents
to prove that he ever intended to sup
port Mr. Greeley have signally failed.
Let the people of the 8th District re
member that two years ago, when there
was a Radical majority of eight thousand
to overcome, Gen. DuBose was the only
man who would lead the forlorn hope of
Democracy. Without counting the odds
against him, he seized the banucr of the
party and carried it to victory—a victory
so signal that it caused a wailing and
gnashing of teeth throughout the Radi
cal camp.
Let them remember that for that vic
tory Rnfas B. Builock attempted to get
Gen. Grant to put the District under
military rule, and that he was backed up
in this attempt by Horace Gpeeley, who
denounced the President for not doing
it. This man Greeley, the latchet oi
whose shoes the proudest of Georgia.
Dmoorats consider themselves unwor
thy to unloose—this “honest old Hor
ace” raved like a madman against the
Eighth District, and refused the use of
the columns of the Tribune for their vin
dication. Simply because they had ex
ercised their rignte as freemen and had
beaten the Radical candidate, “Uncle Hor
ace”—denied Georgians a hearing in their
own defense and clamored for martial
law.
We say, lei the people of the 8th Di -
trier, remember these things, and remem
ber also that Gen. DuBose still adheres
to his faith. He Has been faithful to
you. Be faithful to him. His Congres i-
ional acts have been s^/isfactory to you.
You cannot object to a single one. Gen.
Wrigtu would not figbt your battle in
1870, when dtfeut seemed inevitable;
but now that Radicalism nas been put
under your lee r , he is quite ready to
seize tho lion’s share of the Bpoils.
Let not Democrats trust those leaders
who would take them to the Greeley ,
cauip, inane them drop the name of Dem- •
oerat, aLd hide their cloven feet un
der cloak of our grand old party. Let
them not cheat us of our birthright.
Demi-crats, forsooth I “The voice is
indeed the voice of Jacob, bnt the hand
is the hull 1 of E®un.” Straight. **
-
■ lL.