OCR Interpretation


New-York daily tribune. (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, July 31, 1860, Image 4

Image and text provided by Library of Congress, Washington, DC

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030213/1860-07-31/ed-1/seq-4/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for 4

Bne?neee Notice?.
?lX DMMM i? the MMMMM? of
Inpihit:bi in thb Blood,
lad kg o-c ?M ti." itipviUie? must betaken from the Wool, or
toe ?r.?iiUiIti < of it? cOiieUtueut? mutt be corrected. Simple
a* tbm ?*>tii th?-- are f<-w of the doctor? of any ?? hool who
compren >? it- n ? ?? ir* ["bo?* who do ?hould be \ery thank
f_: for that umier.UndiL?: by whirb th^ir ow? health and that of
their patients!? m>-e?'.uabiy in their power. I have faithfully
????I '.vji-J top-rVrn. ioj duty ia announcing the Im t th?t
All ?) ?v.4*r H NrvMi Binon,
a J ttat h? cure mu?; he by tho?e remedie?, which correct the
irre?u!*rvUr? of it? con position, and carry out of the body iU
lmp-ritie? !>y the orja- lo'tl-e ?toma.h and bowel?. The Bkan
M ? 1 R?arABLi OaiTBMAIj Pill?, and the Lira AnoiTiow,
either of whloh uaed in accordance with nature'? requirement?.
** i ac oniplUh the., indication?, cure dUeate, Mid prolon; life.
1 pr?tent the following letter? for pubic con?ideratlon:
THK MHMMi or * gVAKTKK or A CKSTCKY.
No Ma 3th-av.. New-York, July U, 1H60.
I B. latMIIVlBaVlw It i? ?bout twenty-five year?
?i ? 1 fir?'. communicated to you the beuetit which I derived
froui a fre-* aud continuous u?e of your pilla. I stated at that
tim? tl -it I 1: id for several year? previous been affected with
liver oomplaint. dypepata. biliou? colic and chronic couatipa
tton. ?11 of which Were In active operation, and threatened my
?pe-??y dtvoiutlon tie entire failure of the varlou? niedliitie?
recommended and the impotcLcy of ?orne of the bett phyaicuuia
Of thi? city, to afford merel'ef When I hrat commenced tak?
ing your pill?, I took ail. adding o? e pill every day u|> to four
tee-. ; tlier rcduci:.* one every day down to aU, and ?o on, con
t IV at leaat Jour months, when 1 not only found myaelf
?e '., bot ?vreaeeJ In weight o\ or thirty poundt, and, aa I con?
ceived, partly mije over agaiii. When I have been taken with
?were or excrt-ciating pala I have taken a? high a? thirty tliree
jpiiia tt a time, alway? with ?peedy relief and permanent re
?ult? From th.- y. ?r I3SS until the preaent time (1360). 1 have
continued th? Uke of y ocr \ iluable pill? whenever occasion re?
quired Whenever 1 luve traveled in till? State, also Kaxt and
Booth I hav- recommend a liberal um of your pill? to hundred?
t>< pertoa? in varlou. .tig? ? of different iii?e?-es, and in every in
* where the patient pern>ered in a liberal u?e of the pill?,
h" w?? cur'd. Now aft.-r twenty-rive year? of experience and
t>b?>rvation. I feel.m ?tit? d in ??aerting that your pill?, for kpe-inl
Dae perte t ?afety, and positive mece??, ?re the beat and most
I ? ni." of ?ny purgative medicine i know,
Youri, with MBf*> t.
J. WlLL?LA'.BB
K.K1-IPICI.A? CtKKO.
No. .W?Okisksv.:! h ?t. New-?ork. July?l, I860.
Da B. Brandrpth?BM? tk For three year? I was af
fl.e ?j with r.:y?i|>e??>?. -o that 1 was ?JaMSI cra/y with the
?ilu. ?id-na:.:e'. i Jo anything whatever. Vou can Imagine
tiiy cou'liti >? v. h >? I ?ay that 1 hid ?ixty two running ?ore? at
?-. ? time Being tired of feeing the doctora and ta?in.' their
?trug?, I happily all'-d ?t your office and a<xed your advice.
Fifteoa aaMMS of your V?JfBtaMs ('nivcraal fills, and eight boxe?
Of yout ?*i\ e. uaed a- y >u ?M t< d, m?de uie ? ac uud and healthy
man II .-??> '.Li'i tlir-- month?.
Your?, truly. J. 8. Pac?:.
(? i at Priu ip?! MM, No. "?"H Canal ? ; No. 4 luion
?--liare, No 2* Bowery-, Campbell, corner ath-av. and 2?th
at , aid iy ?w dealei? Prie* 2> .euta per box.
?t Bombt Rait aV Co.'h.
No ?l Broadway,
Corner of Warren ?t , N. Y.
A. ? :. ?? < vitrJ ka 'h.-ir larg? stock of
? p ar.d 8:i.v>k Watchr?,
By ?he fo^owing i e:ebr?ted maker?.
bttrjkM
i c^Kk"I>?ha?, Jamk. St'.odabt,
T P CO !'"K ?f"H> I KA'.?..
l(?V.'?TiVi'R t HA? TAAI.?H,aV SO!??,
t i Bhairhihk ' i( i, I- ?. Ai>am> fc Sk.m,
t I) Joi^aj.n, I ?BUI Rait 4 Co.
brocvooi
M I T IBtAl R i (i B?B-I.?T,
H it RoaasLi. immn MVaUX,
I'IMU
Pa-tss naurl k Co , J C. ItHWI
- AVDBr'.KH?, l aciirko.n 4i C?MtTATI?T,
.'?A Na1(1>:n I. V ?t l)t i HIM,
Ji LK- Jik-B.N.S.n. Copent]?gr:..
W hi^h "bay off-r it ? holtta'e and retail at 1"W price?.
At BmMT KaitaV Ci?, h,
N-) 2>>l Broadway corner ?! \\'arr.-n-?t , N. Y.,
N otltred at ? licl??? e asd retail a very large and complete ?a
tjf.-nfA o?
0 ?! P and Sin EK W'ati hc,
Bii' -. ? ? -b-i'-J n jKeraof
L ? 'JjD.
L'.verpjj'.
ail
i.nieva.
a K-j -i ; _
THJJ SltKr.U>iOPK LV.'ORIIM,
1'. Antuom-, No 901 Broadway.
C*',*.igj??? ?ent on retelpt of ?tamp. Photographic material?
for ematarir? and thi- tiade.
Batchelor's Hmr D\"t. Wix and Toupe?
FactOfT No. lb Bond-at Private enUsoce for ladlea. The Uye
?ppltea tat th? sky -light room?.
8p.u,dlng's Prlparej Glik.
" EvwryHody should have a bottie "?('?Mbune.
?*K SALB i'TKKYWHllKB.
aV??iafa.-tur?d by H. C. Spaidi?t? k Co.. No. 48 Cedw-st.
NaB >* ? add.-?,??. Box No. <f,0?0
?RVVEK A LiAKlAiS CK..KBKATEU
N\ :jBi.B-a Sawi.N'.-MufiiN??.
The Beat in Cm for KamiJy ???-i ig.
No. 495 Broadway, New-York.
_No. mFulton-?L, Brooklyn.
IfMaUaM Si Vi'lLUQS'S Su'VlNG-MACHINES.
? Wepisfer them (</: family use.*'?(Tribune.
' Th') a; the favorite? for lauiilie? "??Time?.
Uit..r Mo. U>5 Broadway, New-York.
11 u- itAsE a M\( mini;??? l'aj foe it as youcurn
I' ' - The !? KBKA ce'ebroted Srwim, Ma'Hiva-, foi the next
??'da-'? o^ly, ca:. be purchaaed payable in weekly amount?,
lift ?He a?a Bioidway Agent??ant-d
GAS FlXTCBES.
Ball, Hun V. Co.,
No? 5?'> ard 5*jT Broad? aj-,
( omer of Prlnc---?. .
1 i ildr: m It th^ir large ?to.? of rich (?.K.n?, otter for salo a
lU'.'ea*' .. i' CBAJTPBLIBaw ud In- KiXTl KB- ol .wiy
t? ? rlptloo, :'-id o' tli- newnt ?tyie? both ?or^lgn and douniti*
ILioU!? HI i
Purge th^ Sy^tviii. Purity tke Bkaoi, and avuid
6-jiuec C'iaplB?iU and Kevtr?aid SickneM. by u?ing
TUB UaUBflNHBUb \ ?OtTABLJt P'll.L?.
Price ?i ceLt? .i ?ox.
So i ?'. lie OR?BPB>HfAKi, Mbimi al iMTIKTMgf,
No I B">?> ?i Nr*ViKK,
By all ?r.g?uU, a- a Bt No l? l'tus rM. N> w York.
?Le .riiu^g l'i>?ioi?n? aud froleaaor? of Medical College?
a-aV- .hi; th ?- Pl.- potae?? medical prnpertu-? superior to auy
oUi?:? _
FiNKLE &. Lif?N ?Si:?IN(.-Ma( MINE Co.?All
Bii.tiUi"? uarra?Wd to give better ?itiaituti^n than auv other? in
Xuarke' >T UiOJt-y le.'unilbd Ag?i.t? wanted fcJ?braid? ay .N.Y
Laui?. Webstek A. Co. s Improveo Tn.in
?Hitch Skwiv, M m ?jujm at Ne. Ml Broadway.
IiAKR\ 8 Ikk 'OPMEKOl'M is the bcr-t and clieapest
?xrti Is fir DreaoUix, lieai.tifying, I'leannin^. ('uriiim, Pre?rrviLg
a i J Restoring th" ItA-.r Ltidiea. trj' aV Said by Uruggist?.
PcnoM ?rubjecl t.i Kili.ii.s disorders \\\II dt-rive
f-itt>rnetit by t--i. ?? HoiXOWAT*? Pill? the moat effectual
j,-j.tdy for ailaifejti" ?o? abi'.iou? teud-ncy,?? they cleatiaettie
bod . ? iii-r. aud regulate the bowela.
Dr. Marsh continuegto apply hi? Kam* ai. Cm
T< t* with BatSMSaaj Ui e?ectiug cure? o! Hen.ia or KuptnTe.
EaiMr* waited upoi. :-y ? f?i..il- in private room?. Bathing
T-l??^?. Hoppert'-r? Shoulder-Brace?, Su?p?n?ory Bandage?,
b J? Eiajtlc Stocking?. Knee Capa, uud ail ?urgi.a? npplm. ?<??. Oy
K>un t Co No i v >ny at, N. i. .opposite .St. Paul'? Church.
Catarrh.?I >r. C. H. Marsh ai. i. never fails in
( u u?g Catakiiu. and it? LuLc-ron.btned disease? of every kind.
j\. M Ni boa? Hotel N Y., ? lew day? more. Room .MW.
Hour? 9 toi. ran?It fr?a Or M. cure-equally well by letter.
'J HE (?REATE.si He.MEDi ill tin- WOBI.Uior Sum
(j a?? vinplai 'tiu I'r TofMAI I Vbnbtio.n I.immb.vt. Diarrhea
* J ?} ?? ktetj sre lm:i ediat?-!y cured oy it. Nc p?T if it f?tl?.
V. arr?nt*d per'-ctl) tsBMOeol |o take li.ierually. Only ?5 cuenta.
b i ? ill .be i?iugsiit?. Dayal No M I I rt.ai.dt at.
????????????????? ??"??????????????
wiawAM dedica nos.
i i i; i .Mkh? AaeXKiatio? of the Ninth \\ ard of
]? .?vD.oavirg erected a neat and < onjiiu'diouB Wig
wj:ji oil tie ctirnerot Fulton and Badford avinuee,
heia tjeir tiret uiei-i.Uaf last ?veuiiiy lor the jjurj>08eof
i ?-^Lgtue tiuildiLg to the bervice <>f Liaioln und
H a? lin and the t'iriherance of true Itepuhlicaiiisui.
KaVrly iii th- evening, the voter? of that outermost
\ . auie tlcckiug to the WkfWMa, and in souie
I briaatj Dg tbe:r wwet aud little ones, till not MiV
?wo-:iie r'-i-oi well tilled, hut MO n'mihi-r? were MM
i . ai the door, and at the window?.
Mr ItoBEKi 1>. BcaaOsV r, President of the Asso
i . culltd the meeting to order. He aaid th<-v Imd
tnet lo or?en and dedicate tlie Wigwam tor the coming
Iglt. It '.* elected on the a-iiut epot whi< h they occu
j. 1 h '.he (oiiUrBt of l<j*'<. and on which tliey now
jii- in U earn the i <>utest to n succenful i?nue.
?Vi:. JoaVCPH A. C'" ? H ol the ito ky Mouuiaiu C'luh
aVk fdl t:ie uieeliig. He .ket< f.e?l briellv t'n-uutc
Cft l'b ajj the various candidates tor the l'n*aidency,
uro ^aowed ilearly the ditlereuce Let ween tbc princj
? ? 4 the Kepul'lican |mriy, ol tree speccli and (rat
^ ifid the ao-cwllfcd lieinocratit jmrty, utnl closed
DUiid loud at'p'uuse.
Mr. H. L. WoOOrOaUl was ne.\t iutnsluced; he
lade a ?j'irited a'ldrea?. cerieuring severely the Ma>
ruptiooa of the {.resent Administration; charging the
repeal of the Mieeonri Coiuproniiee, aud the renewal of
fotavery agitai<ou, u|?on htephcu A. Douglas. He
; 1 with Mr. Douglas, that the Slavery agitation
fthouid ia**; ha' no |laM cf moral right cau l>e
gaettieo by the eaUI'ii-limi-nt ot a morad wrong.
At this point the Lincoln Hattuliou ot the Rocky
gM p' iitain t'luh made their apj^earana?, pn-redtd by
ta baud of Djuaic. With thair torches, and large hanner,
zzd BOUiing Wd?-Awake uniforms, they made u flue
??how. By thi* time the crowd was H large that the
ineayiiig ?raa oblig? d to adjourn to out ol doors, as hy
?bo rxiaaibie amount ot compreatioD could they he parked
into the >rV;gwaai. After eix rousing cheer? from the
Wid'^-Awake boye Mr. VVoodford tinished hi? re
jBJBJka. and. wita' renewed cheera. the meetinif was
aioaad Th* ifir?. U wthnwai, ?rhkh !? aJ-. to vic
TUE8DAY, JITLY 31. ?S*?-_
TO CORRS8FOSDi:ST8.
No notice on be taken of Anonymou? Communication?. What?
ever U tPt.-i.di-d for Insertion mint be authentirait-d by the
name and addr.-?. of the writer?not neoeourii j for p?l>Uce
tion, but M * guaranty for hU food faith.
We . annot undiTtaki- to return rejected Communication?
Burine? letter? ibould In all owe? be ?ddrrned to Thi
Niw-Yor? annt_
T? Aflrrrtiai-r?.
Owing to the recent great increase in the circulation
of Tat Paii.t Taiarita, and the neoe??lty of putting the fint
form of tbe paper to pr?ta at aa early hour, we are rompt-lied
to rive notice to our friend? that hen after all adenrtieameoU
nuit be banded In before 8 o'clock in th? ereuing, with the ?In?
gle exception of thoae InUnded for Inaertion among the Builneat
Notice? on the fourth page of tbe paper. That cla*? of adrer
tUetnenU will be n ceived until a late hour, but no other? cau be
taken after B o'clock.
The Iloii. Anson Bururgame will be one of
the Speaker? at the LincolB und Hamlin State
Convention of New-Jersey, to be held ut Trenton
on the Hth prox. (Wednesday of next week).
Daniel 1'm.mans is also expected. We reckon
the boys will be there.
The steamship Bohemian, with European dates
of the l!*th inst., arrived at Quebec yesterday.
Though her dates are no later than those by the
City of Washington, yet our dispatches are much
mere full. The Saxonia, with the mails of the
l-th inst., at rived at this port yesterday. San?
guinary combats between the Neapolitans and the
advanced guard of the Sicilian army are reportel.
Garibaldi had expelled Farina ar,d two others from
Sicily for conspiring against order. The expulsion
of Farina led to the resignation of the Ministry.
Signor Interdonato Argi, the historian, and Signor
Emeranti are among the new Miuietry. Lagothe,
Laporta, and Orsini continue in the Cabinet. The
maisacre at Damascus by the Druses is confirmed,
and the most sickening details of the barbarities
inflicted Iff n all ages and sexes are given. It is
believed that 7,(MK) or 8,000 Christians have been
murdered in cold blood since the outbreak of the
revolt. Russia has expressed a desire to act in
concert with France and England in putting a
stop to these massacres. Russia reiterates the
opinion th?t the events now transpiring in the
East hold in supense the peace of the world, and
that the existence of Turkey is at stake. The
Paris Pays intimates that more massacres are in
contemplation, and that there is a prospect of a
formidable rising of the Ottoman population against
the Christians, led on by fanatical conspirators.
REPLY TO AN EX-FRIEND.
To the Hon. WasamftftM Im
Sir: I have your letter of the '25th, and cheer?
fully print it on the preceding page. I do believe
in free discussion, and your infidelity to that great
principle shall not cause me to swerve from my
faith. I bid you welcome to the columns of Tin:
Tniiil'NE, even though you ufe them t? pettifog the
case of those Southern defenders of " the rights of
" property" who take The Tkiihne from the
post-offices and burn it before the eyes of those
who have paid for and want to read it. They do
this w ittout reading or looking at the paper to see
whether it does or ?oes not contain anything ob?
jectionable; they do it sometimes in defiance of all
law, somotimes under the sanction of such acts of
infernal tyranny as that of Texas, which your
" Union" friend, Sam Houston, approved as Gov?
ernor last Winter?an act which far outstrips and
dwarfs anything ever done in that line by the most
benighted and arbitrary despot of Naples or Spain.
But, never mind, Governor I free discussion is
right, even though it require* Republicans to sur
I render their columns to opponent? who never re?
ciprocate, but who use those columns to bolster up
the cause of all this iniquity. I would like to dif
fuse your letter with my answer throughout the
South; but your friends there will not permit me.
Tbey think it safer and more advantageous to
them to burn both without reading; and perhaps
they are right. "He that doeth evil hateth the
" light, neither eometh to the light, lest his deed*
"be reproved.'' They cannot have both Slave y
and Freedom of the Press; if they in//maintain
and perpetuate the former, they must put down
the latter.
A? to all that is personal in your letter, I shall
say very little. I fully realize that, in comparison
with the great publie Jmw whereon we differ, you
and I are of very little conscquenee. Suffice it
that, for the first twelve years of its existence,
The hmil did what it could to support aid
commend you as a political aspirant: and you then
thought its editor candid, truthful, and patriotic.
Since then, it has opposed and still opposes von.
and jou now think that editor " inc ipablc of lair
" ness and candor," prone to " in "ecatims and
" invectives," accuse me of clothing myself ?? with
" curses as with a garment," of pouring forth "a
" turbid stream of hatred, malice. a.,d all unchar
" itableness," and of exhausting on my opponents
my " artillery of vulgar reproaches''?and so on.
1 take all this as a matterot course, merely ob?
serving that, as it is obvious that either you or I
have changed decidedly since the old days, I pro
pose to submit the cafe to your neighbors and
fellow-citizens of Niagara County, among whom
you have lived for the last thirty years, and
to most of whom you ate familiarly known, while
I am personally a stranger to the great majority of
them, and let them decide whether it is you or I
who have essentially altered. I will test the mat
ters in difference between them by a comparison
of their votes when we agreed with those they
have cast since; or I will take their sense this. Fall
in any mam er which shall seem practicable. Of
the Tweity Thousand Whigs in this City and Two
Hundred Thousand in the State who supported you
for Governor against both the " Democratic" and
the " I uiou-Stving" nominations, I am sure that
fully nine tenths condemn your present attitude
and deprecate your efforts; while the great body
of those who then oppoted you, especially those
who did so as Union-Savers, are delighted w ith
your present course. Whether you are indeed
Giles Scroggins or not, these facts must go far to
determine.
?You are quite right in saying that we were
both?from the time you left the Democratic party
in lK}^-40_decided aid zealous Whigs?support?
ers ofllarrisf.n and of Clay. Vou might have said
a little more clearly than you did that we were
Anti-Slavery Whigs, and together supported the
caus* of Free Labor and Free Soil in all the
" sectional" struggles of those days. You not
merely voted uniformly in Congress, throughout
your six years of service, iu favor of the express
aid peremptory exclusion of Slavery from every
'territory organ zed or seeking to be during the?)
years?you voted repeatedly for resolves looking to
the abolition of the District Slave-trade, with pre?
ambles affirming tbe essential inhumanity and ini?
quity of Slavery in terms very oflcrniv.? to "oir
" Southern brethren"?terms which inevitab
confined their support to Northern men exelusiyel
Whether such vote? ai you gave tended to "e
" gender sectional jealousies," or to "endang
" the peace of the Union," I do not decide: suffi
it that they affirmed important truth, and I show
have voted with you on those questions, as I on
did. D is Slavery?its arrogance, its rapacity, I
intolerance?that endangers tbe Union; and
Northern men censed to pander to its insatiaf
appetites, I believe there would be no danger
Disunion.
As to the Compromise of ISM, everything d
pends on its interpretation. Mr. Clay intr
duced that Compromise by a series of resolve
one of which drnied to Slarery any legal ?tatui
foothold in the Temtoriti then just rtdal by Meric
On that basis, I was willing to forego, in favor
the limitation given to Texas northward, and H
admission *f California as a Free State, anexpre
prohibition of Slavery in those Territ-ries. I nev
desired agitation, but sought to close the contr
verty so so m as might be on just and reasonah
terms. While you and I were in Congress,
labored incessantly to bring about mch an adju?
ment, though I am not aware that any efforts we
made by you looking to such a result. I should I
w illing to-day to close the controversy on the tern
proposed by Mr. Clay?namely, an agreement th?
Sinn ry ha? no legal eiistenre in any Territory uni
tutablnhid there by ?ome ralidenartmnit by a romp
tent legiilatire body, and that, on that understant
itg, no Congressional interdict should be enactei
That was, in my view, the fundamental bas
of Mr. Clay's plan of compromise; and for that!
was instantly attacked by Mason of Vn., Downs i
La., I'oote and Jeff. Davis of Miss., as concedirj
to> much, if not everything, to the Nortl
You know how utterly that basis has been d<
stroyed by the Dred Scott decision, and by th
supjKTt pledged thereto by the South and th
D? mocratic party. Do you wish me to quote Mi
Hell's substantial affirmation of the new Souther
in opposition to Mr. Clay's doctrine 1 In view <
this new and formidable danger, I see no hope ft
Free Territories but in the most decisive and dt
tennii ed action on the part of the Free States,
do personally know that Slavery ex: its this day i
the vast regions designated Kansas and Utah;
know that the Federal Goven ors of Kansas an
Nebraska have vetoed acts of their respective Leg
islatures designed to abolish Slavery therein;
know that Ntw-Mex:co has a most inhuman am
piratical Slave-Code just imposed upon her b;
Fedtral contractors and off!?holders, by virtue |
which every colored person who strays int
that vast region is certain to be enslaved
though he be an undoubted citizen and vote
of this or any Eastern State; and I know tha
Slavery, having thus fortified itself in all our pr?s
ent Territores but Washington, is inceisantl;
plotting to acquire Cuba (in which project it ha
the express approval of both the new Democrats
parties and platfoims) and to wrest new province
front Mexico, each of which, according ti tin
ruling of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scot
case, will become Slave Territory by the men
fact of Buch acquisition. Dow ahy man can stam
up in the face of these facts and say that " thi
"Territorial question Itsettltd," unless he meani
that it is settled as the Slavery Propaganda wouk
have it, I cannot imagine. We shall save and se
cure Kansas and Nebraska to Free Labor, simply
by virtie of the effort?, the sacrifices, the stimu
lated emigration from and the heavy contribution;
in the Free States to secure that end. We shal
save it because the Republican party is a great
fact: had there been no such party?had we, old
Whigs, gone w ith you, Gov. Hunt ! in If, and
been beaten as we were in T>'i and would have been
againonthe same platform?I feel sure that Kansas
would have been this day just such another State
as Texas or Arkansas, and with like hospitality
for the friends of Free Labor and like prospects
for the future. Disband the Republican party
to-morrow, and Slawry would strengthen itself m
the Fnion, and extend itself bey or d mir present
National boundaries; while such politicians as Mr.
Fverett and you would look on affecting to con?
demn the successive tteps in this drama, but con?
doning them so soon as committed in windy
appeals to Nationality and senseless denunciations
of " rectionalism," until we should ?tand forth in
the eyes of shocked Christendom as the great
Slavery extending, as we are today the great
slave trading i ation of the world. Such are my
intense convictions: if Gov. Se? ward ever sanl that
" the ijue-tion is settled," I presume he meant
that Ihe triumph of the Republic m party is
assured. To attempt to resist the onward march
of Slavery in the abseuce of that party were
as absurd as te> think of dispelling the rigors of a
Polar Winter in the absence of the rays of the
sun.
?You say, Governor, that you were nominated
in I860 by "both sections of the Whig party."
Certainly ycu were?as you were again in 1869?
but oh I y on i rot aj fir yon. There were individual
exceptions: but the influence of what then called
itself Conservati-m and row masquerades as
Dl ion is in went dead against you, running a
" Coion Safety" ticket mainly for your destruc?
tion. Even you admit that your stunning defeat
in '.VJ was dHe to this " Conservative " section,
whereof you are now an admired member. Gen
Scott was the Whig candidate for President, as
you were fer Governor: your platform was Con
ser\ative; you were Conservative: yet because I,
who heartily supported you both, protested against
the platform, your Conservative brethren con
rpired against and beat you both ' Are they not
nice people for you to cotton to ' A dog treated
as you were by them would have had sufficient
self-respect to pr?ter other company thereafter.
My sometime friend ' I think those self-styled Con
servatives knew you better, and judged better as
to the treatment necessary to secure your good
will, than I did.
Well: 1861 was ended, the Compromise of I860
emphatically affirmed, and the Whig party crushed
out. D was plain to all but the willfully blind that
it could never right another National battle. Km
might be induced to trust and work for those who
had thus stabbed you and swamped us all: / n?vcr
could: and most of the Whigs felt as I did. It
was clear that the Conservatives would never v< te
for one of us who refused to bow the knee to
slavery ; how could we, without intense baseness,
goon voting for them ' The thing was impossible.
Then came UsVi, and brought the repudiation of
the Missouri Compact?that is, of so much of it as
inured to the benefit of Free Labor at.d of the
Ni rib. The South had secured her consideration;
we stretched out our hands for ours, and it was
snatched away from us. The first man to propose
this flagrant outrage was Archibald Dixon, a Whig
who occupied I cot tilled i the seat of Henry ('lay:
but the man wh? :ido? ted ar.d put it through was
>tephe:i A. Diug'as | N'oith-Tii Democrat. Aiie\
though every Whig from the Free States oppos
a majority of those from the Slave States auppor
this ii.fimou8 deed.
You, Mr. Hunt ' profess to condemn this fl
tious perfidy. You know that the perpetual
sortions of Douglas that the compromise of 1
emboelied or involved an obliteration of tie a
souri line, is sogrostly untruetbatno one less au
cious than Douglas would venture to assert it. !
know that, during the three months' discussion
the cempromise? of 18.'?0, no supporter, no adt
stiiy. of that adjustment ever claimed as a mi
or stated as an objection that its adoption wo
rep?al the Missouri restriction. You know th
to adopt Mr. Douglas's interpretation ofthat c<
premise of t?, is to assert that the North then
surrendered every single principle and point
which it had so long and earnestly contended, t
did not even stipulate for any return whatev
You know how baselees this is. Y'ou know t!
Stephen A. Douglas primarily, and the Dernoera
party secondarily, and those Southern Whigs w
coopemted with them thirdly, are r<?s|ionsible
reopening this Slavery agitation?reopening it wi
torily, recklessly, wickedly?and yet you are doi
tour utmost to gt\e the vote of this State to l?oi
las and thus secure a triumph to all threse who <
this great w roi g which you profess to condemu a
deprecate ' Can you wonder that your prese
eeiurse amazes ai,d alienates your e>ld friends I
You tell me, Governor, that I and others in IE
" proposed to disband the Whig party." Can y
suppose any one ignorant that you and your n<
Conservative friends had already deserted it ' 1
not all know that, while we supported in go
faith the Whig candidates in 1064 you and ft
present friends secretly went against them, voti
tbe " American" ticket ' I know that you ha
tiied to count yourself out ofthat category: I ca
not say that your rote may not have been gi\en
the Whig candidate; but it is clear that yo
in?mnrr went against them. The vote of tw
thirds of the former Whigs of your election Oistri
went for the "American" candidates. I do n
ceroplain of this: y em vote as yoti see tit: but wh
yeiu accuse me and those who act with me
breaking np the Whig party, you are wide of t
fact. They who stabbed it to the heart in '52 toi
the lead in deserting it in T>4.
You accuse me of uniting with "radical Dm
" ecrats" to form the Republican party. Well:
did?just as you united with them to pass tl
Wilmot Proviso, to organize the new Territories
the interest of Free Labor, and to denounce tl
District Slave Trade as a ste-nch in the nostrils
Christendom. Your votes on these ??tiestitins wei
more- strictly " geographical" than the Republic!
party is or ever has been. The repudiation I
'54 if the Missouri Compact if a comb nation <
Democratic and Southern Whig votes, with tt
MMMMftfl expulsion from Congress e?f Cullou
Etheridge, T. G. Hunt, and almost every Souther
Whig who reeisted that monstrous wrong, left i
no alternative. The South had all but obliterate1
old party line s in her eagerness for Slavery Ex'ei
sion; suppose we Northern Free-Soil Whigs ha
unde-rtaken to stared alone against the I'ro-Slavei
combination, should we not have been fisMMMM
to defeat and overthrow ? Should we not hav
been as helpless as even you could wish I (iovei
nor ! there was just one chance ftjf us?to do a
you did in Congress when you stood by Wilmot
Preston King and Hamlin in supporting the Wil
mot Prouso and kindred measures. Let commo
sense determine. Oily let it be unelerstood tha
you had practically, if Ml formally, abandon?
the Whig for an adverse organization bifore th
formal absorption of what was left of the forme
inte? the Republican party in 1066) and no mor
nee-d be- said.
The Whig party dissolved, and you went wher
you che>se, nobody objecting. From that time, yoi
have been a most industrious and disparaging ad
versary of the great bulk of those who had pre
viously been your friends and supporters. So far
well. Put it di,i s -cen? hard to me that you shouh
?o pereistet tly traduce us as "sectional" an?
"agitators," because we have followed the shinini
path which y ou opened for us diring your se-rvice
in Congress. If our resistance to Slavery Exten
sion is " sectional" and "ge? graphical," so wai
yours. If it brings us into communion and co
ojeratun with "the nmst radical l?emocrats," s<
did yours. Wilmot, Hamlin, Preston King, &c.
are the same men now, and maintain the satin
principles respecting Slavery that thej did wher
yeiu M often and so steadily voted with them, a>
you toted the same way with me at a later day. I
e-trtainly tmant what those vote's imply; I deemed
the? question they concerned erne of the very gre?at
est moment; and my present position seems to me
an inex itable sequence of those votes. If the Slav?
ery question as it exists is of sufficient consequence
to send you over to Douglas, and Csgg*?r, and
Cassidy, I see ne?t why it should not justify my
association with King, and Wilmot. and Hamlin.
You tell me that I " must hnoic' that your hos?
tility to the Republicans has not MM impelled by
ambitious or selfish considerations. I beg leave to
assure you that I kneiw nothing of the sort. I ?f
your motives and impulses, I know nothing what?
ever. I bflim that you felt fe?r some years before
the Whig party broke up, that ytui were ne>t esti?
mated in it at your full worth?that you ought to
have MM made more of than you wen?. I believe
that you thought the Republican party would be
short lhed and powerle-ss, and that yeiu could do
better outside than in it. This is what I belitre;
but 1 do not pretend to Amor. Yenir industry and
zeal in eippeising it so far e-xee-e-d any previously
evinced in yeutr political conduct, that I cannot
but feel that resentment and disappeiinted ambition
bine? had much to do with placing you in the posi?
tion you now occupy. But I judge for myself oul\
?others will form their own conclusions from the
transparent facts.
You proceed to " stigmatize" my " assertions"
that you "proposeso sell and transfer votes, as
" grorsly untrue." To " stigmatize" in that way
is very easy, and you ure wele-eime to whatever
you can make by it. Rut you MMM "stigma
" tize" out of existence these facts: That, while?
you profess to support Hell and Fverett, y em do not
e\en propose to elect them by the? peipular vote,
and you eliscourage even the runni ig of an Electo?
ral ticket in their favor. You make a coalition
with the Douglas men, suppirt their Electors, and
propose thereby to get the Flection into the House,
wherein Pell has but Ml State?, while? Lincoln has
filtern; and you affect to believe that in that
Utilise, Lincoln's fifteen States, alter the course
Hell's friends w ill have taken in leaguing with your
and eiur adtersaries to defeat us. will go over tet
lie?Il and elect bim. Gov. Hunt' you are not a
deep man, but you must know better than this!
I till y ?m they never will do it?never ' never!
If, with the largest Popular, Electoral, and Con?
gressional \ ote. Mr. Lincoln sheiuld nevertheless
be behteu, it will not be by the Votes of Linctln
men. We ?hall god. wr if at all, with oar fia
flying; and if you make .Jo. Lane onr Presiden
Jo. Lane let it be '
You profess to be for Bell and Kferett, ye
admitting that you cannot elect them by goin
manfully for them, yon propose to promote the
success by puisu'ng a dark and crooked polic;
You seek a coalition of " National men of ivei
' '? shade"?that is, ol n!l opposed to the Free-Si
principle? which in Congei" you ao steadil
upheld. Tilts coaliti ?n, even if successful, won!
give Bell and Fverott no vr.t- a, or next to not
from our State; but it might carry the electio
into the Hi ?MC. where Arkansas, Tex? a, Deli
ware aid Florida overbear New York, Peonsy
vania aod Ohio; und there you think somebody at
verse to Lincoln would he elected. I do not b<
lieve any election would be made there: but if an
thing can ever rend this I'nion, sending a Pre?
d.ntial e'ection into I House mahle t) elect wi
do it. I rejoice in the faith that your power is ut
equal to)our malice.
You assert that the electi.>f Lineolu by Fre
Slates only would be " unconstitutional in spirit,
because ?? made If the stronger geographical net
" tion combined against the weaker, on |MMM
?' pertaiying chiefly to the domestic policy of th
M weaker States." Hut, Governor ! such are im
tte facts, b the tirst place, the Republican ?tart
is not confined to the Free State?; if it MM
Frank Blair would not have been reputedly chose
to Congress from Missouri, and uow again a can
didate, with a lair prospecto!' success. If it were
it would not be necessary to pass such abominable
caricatures of law as that just framed in Texas
under which the Postmasters of that State, ii
strict accordance with the spirit of Douglas's Se
dition Law speech, are now stealing and burniiu
The Thibi ni:. If it were, it would not be OOOOI
han to raise mobs and break the peace to cu
dow n Lincoln poles in Old Yirginia. No, Gov
ernor! the Republican party is stifled in mos
Slave States, but it is strong in many, and liai
hearty sympathizers in all. Give us Free Speed
and Freedom of Political Aetiou for White men
and we will organize it in every one of them, ant
secure its speedy triumph in all. How do yoi
think your name will sound in History beside tha
of Cassius M. Clay ?
You say that the pending controversy relatei
mainly to the ilomestic policy of the Slave States
No, Governor : you are wrorg ! it relates to theii
foreign policy. It is the diffusion of Slavery ?
whether in our present Territories or through th?
conquest or pinchase of Cuba, Mexico, A.c.?tha
the Republicans are organized to prevent. Yoi
know this?why do you find it necessary to mis
lepresent us ,' Could ? good cause require sue!
perveisiots ?
Your proph?tie! as to the result may pass. Yoi
have the same right to predict that I have; and
when you conclude that eitter Lincoln, Bell, 01
Fverett will be our next President, I consider yon
i|tite safe. Had you omitted the two latter names,
your prophecy would have been shorter, and just
as eure. Nor do 1 object to the seveial coalitions
you annDiicce, though thty seem to me somewhat
incongruous. In the South, you say. tte friends
of Bell will coalesce with those of Douglas, to re?
buke Secession and Disunion in the person of Mr.
Breckinridge. In the North, you intimate, your
" Union" party is anxious to coalesce also with the
supporters of the same "Disunion" candidate, to
heat the Republicans: Go ahead, Sir' and help
us to convince the blind and heedless that there is
really but one ijuestion now dividing the American
People, and that concerns the predominance of
S!a\cry in our Fedeial system, aud its diffusion by
Federal power.
You say that I have "more) than once"
otlertd to suppoit Mr. Bell for President as
the candidate of the united Opposition. Yes,
Sir! hut only on condition tlmt resistance to Slav?
ery K'tension should be one of thi declared prin
?t pit s of that Opposition. On that ground, 1
earnestly suppoited Mr. Bates; on that grouutl. I
would have supported Mr. Bell or Mr. Mutts. You
OOftI misunderstood, though it now serves your
turn to m ?-state my position.
You say that I advised the Republicans of Illinois
to unite in return in*; Mr. Douglas t?> the Senate in
'?-. I am not aware of giving the advice, but it
was certainly my opinion that they would best
serve the Republican cause by taking that course.
I am not adverse to foiming coalitions; I do not
object to voting for Democrats, when " the rights
" of Human Nature"?for which our forefathers
declared that tley made their Revolutionary strug?
gle?are thereby to he achieved or advanced: you
aie intcLt on coalitions only to prostrate or sup?
press thtin. It is the end, not the means, that to
my mind stamps your pfMMl efforts with iufauiy.
You say j ou differ with me as to the fact us
seited by me that the South is still intent on the
diffusion of Slavery over the Territories. Then
why was Dot your win? of the Opposition wilbng
to unite with us on the basis of reviving and maiu
tainirg the policy of.Itffcrson and Washington on
that subject? I stand ready to take Mr. Jeffer?
son's Ordinance as he dratted it as the hatis of
our fnture National policy with regard to the Ter?
ritories; tie Republicans ask no more than that.
Tie Sot.th agreed to it in 1787, and the tirst Fed?
eral Corgressconfi med it. Wa>Lington approving
as President. It was not then "sectional" nor
" ne fflffckoJ ' to prohibit,?ven by Congressional
enactment, the spread of Slavery; why is it uow ?
We Republicans have our feet firmly planted in
the tracks of the Revolutionary sages and patriots,
and you will not be able to efface them nor dis?
lodge us.
The present disruption of the Democratic party
?the intense hatted of the Republicans evinced at
the South?your own readiness to seek any alli?
ai ces for their overthrow?prove the question of
Slavery F.xtension Of Restriction the all-absoibing
one. None other could have broke? up the serried
ranks and thorough discipline of the National De?
mocracy. " If Mai Rights in the Territories" ?
that is, the right of any single slaveholder to es'ab
lish Slavery practically in any Territory, no matter
though the ten thousand other settlers unanimously
protest against it?is the cardinal principle of the
Breckinridge Democracy, with whom you are anx?
ious to coalesce, in order to defeat your old Whig
friei.d Lincoln. Of course, you are williug to give
Breckinridge a fair chance of election. The
Breckinridge Democracy, in iuy-judgment, will be
about the only ?tarty left, b?>ide the Kepuhucan,
alter the NovemUr election. It does not MMbV
ble nor shuffle; it asserts that Slavery ig mnc legal
ized in every Territory, aud that any single slave?
holder may establish it taere actually. How you
can pretend, in view of their attitude, that there
is no dan.er of Slavery Kxtenaivii, 1 cannot im?
agine.
Tot ask me if I think Slavery will be perma?
nently established in New Mexico or rtah. 1 an
I ?wer, Certainly not; Wtmm I UKm the ilepulU
earn pe?'t|f tri//fre if rtmg m?*f * (oprevent U. ?leretB
is my only hope.
You ?ay th*t "the claim of right by the Southern
" ol'raisU is ?n abstraction." Is the lust for Cab?
an abstraction ' Is Oen. Wra, Walker an abstne
tion ! Is Gen. George Bickley a? abstraction * If
set, tten Texas is an abstraction, the inhuman Slave
law? of New-Mexico is an abstraction, the graves of
tie? murdered vie f.u s of J'e.rderKiftanisro in Kan
?a? aie abstractions. If you believe them so,
tf ere a?e not many who agre? with yen.
You ask if any guaranty would indue? rae t.,
ab?ndern my " ?y stem of Slavery agitatioo." Your
phraseedogy is vag??., but my answer shall be frank
and full. Relieving Slnvery to be a flagrant viola?
tion of the inalienable Rights of Man, a burning re?
proach to ewr cenintry, an enemy to her prosperity
and progress in art, intelligence and civilization, I
mean to labor for its eradication from our owa and
all either countries so long as I live. But, recog.
r.izing tbe right of each State to regulate it? own
(lernestit- concerns, I stand ready to forego and de?
sist from all politirol actiem respecting Slavery
from the moment the Slave States shall disclaim
ull intention, forego all effort, to extend their
" peculiar institution" beyond their' own limit?.
Thenceforward, I will oppose Slavery in Virginia
or elsewhere exactly as I oppose Intemp?rant;? or
Gamblir g there?not eetberwise. Are you an
wt red I
Thus, Gov. Hunt' having given place to your
lemg, captious, and not very cotirte-oui letter, in
full tiew of the fact that none eif your sympathizers
would have accorde?d Itke hospitality to me, I have
replied to it point by point, as fully as space would
allow. A million Republicans will thus see what
you have to say for yourself and against me; few
or none of your compatriots will e?er have like
opportunity to hear my side of the question. No
matter: I feailet-sly commend the truth, for which
I stand, to the discernment and sena? of ji.stice of
the American People.
Yours, regretfully,
HoRACr. GRF.EI.r.Y.
Am? 1'.**, July I?. fW"i.
Among the journals advocating what are calM
ceiservative notions in this country, the ablest
and the most scholarly is, without dispote, The
Boston Courier. Its editors are Mr. George Lunt
and Mr. (?eorge S. Hillard, both men of compre?
hensive culture and a large experience in political
affairs. In their public speeches and writings, the
sin. if a sin can be foutd, is not on the side of re?
ticence or ambiguity in the expression of their
opinion*. Now, apart from w bat they have writ?
ten en tbe subject anonymously in their journal,
both of these dist ngaished gentlemen have recently
addressed the public concerning the present Presi?
dential cntivurr; Mr. Lunt in a clear and manly
letter to a Pell meeting in Paltimore, Mr. Hillard
in a brief but eloquent speech to a Re?U meeting in
Roxbury. Neither in tbe letter nor in the spoecli
was there a word of sympathy or approbation for
that new method of supporting Pell and Everett
by tot ng aoninst them, inaugurated in New-York
by Messrs. Hunt, Breioks. and Duer; not a phrases
that could be tortured inte? tolerance ofthat system
of Commercial Politics, which consists in selling
out to its deadly fees the remaics of what was once
a great and powerful party. And yet we find in
The Courier the following piece of exub?rant per?
sonality:
' TL. cdi'i.r ol Ties N Y. ThiHrNK li a . oaiw maa; and we
?:<-}? ilii? of Um, at the ri>k of another Keeper. Tin- lanfi.ase he
employ? wben ?p.aju'ug af the I'nioubt? of tbe Ea.pixe *4tat>-.
I? low. indeceLt blackguard. Mr. \\ a*hiuntou Hint, Judge
D?l. ISa Ml ?MS Hrook?, ex Prenldmt Fillmore. an-treated 1.7
1'na Tkihi Mr. u itli tin utiuoit di?r??pe?-t, and tula, too, for n?
otiiei reatou than <hat thete gentleuieu aie oppo?ed to the r^ec
tlr-n of Abral.am Lincoln. It Thb Inner:?* m?an? to befoul
hu? ?sta?il ?n irhs is ssalait the KaU >plitt*r. we tii.uk It
willh??.e to mliMt- the pre?-?! ataff of ro"|h-?rriter?."
We make no complaint eif the style of language*
here employed, so foreign tei the usual courtesy
and moderation of speech which prevail in The
Coiirnr. YYe will neit complain eif the injustice, nor
even of the untruth, of this paragraph. But w.?
will a^k the responsible conductors of Thi Courier
if the y approve ed' the sale of their party to the
author of the n-peal of the Missouri Compromis?*.
Do the?y think it is fidelity to one? Ott of principle's
to veite for the repnseiitative of principle*? wholly
opposite ' Is it consistent w ith deceut respect for
Col. Peil and Mr. Lverett to use them merely as
counters in a game of chance played with Imstile
candidates? Is it consistent with the dignity of
sincere political ceinvietions to bargain away your
suffrage to the uncompromising adversaries of
those eipinions I If Mr. Lunt and Mr. Hillard are
in favor of Commercial Polities, of triple iiirng>?e,
and of Pargain and Sale generally, very well.
All that we ask is a clear understanding on the
subject.
Most of the Joint Comni ttee of Nice on tho
Japanese Reception disclaim all kaow ledge eif the
items of that tremendoun bill, although they pro?
fess to believe that the total amount is very
moderate tor the occasion, especially considering
that they migit, if they hid been beut on swind?
ling, have made the bill five hundred th usand
dollars, instead of a liuinl.ed and five. These
viituous gentlemen say that the Auditing Sub
Conmittee, Messrs. Aid. Cornell and Councilman
Shaw, have all the bills, an 1 that they intend to
keep the m sei long as they eheiose. the pieea to the
contrary notwithstanding. The Lelands also re?
fuse to give any information, be?youd the fact that
their bill is made emt in detail, and contains no
metre than a re-asemable charge for the excuse*
incurred and articles furnished. The habitu?s o?
the City Hall say that " | 10."i,imh? is too big a thing
" to he let slip up. It may take a little ti ne* and
" uioiey to case it em its way. luit it is bound to go
"through." We shall see. I he Aldermen meet
tei-u'ght. Let Heury Smith, or some other b >nest
man, if theie is one in the Lioard, iu.?ve fe>r a eoiu
inittee to inquire into this ?*ind'e, and call for the
leas and Nays, We shall then see just who i?
" in the peieil," and it shall not be our fault if the
people are not tnaefe ae?e|tiainte>d with the fac?.
Mr. Lui S. Chattield appears ?m plaintiff m a"
injunction suit commenced fir the purpose of pr**
?eutiig the payment of the biU of #106,000 for
the expeuees of the Japanese receptum. In his com?
plaint, he alleges that he is a tax-payer, and for
this reason claims a standu g lu Court.
As this plaintiff is hiinsell a lawyer, he knows,
or eiuglit to know, that he has no metre standing ???
Ceiurt than if M bad merely alleged ttvat he wa*
once King of th* Cauuibal Islands. The caaes ot
BlOMMsl agt. Draper, and Doolittleagi.Thc Super
visors id lirevwne County, lately decided at Gen?
eral Term and m the Court of Appeals, justify the
comparison- They hold ?istimuly that a general
tax-payer has nti tight to claim (he iuterierenoe ot
? Court of Kquity, a? Mr. Chattield attempts
to do.
The question therefore at ouce present* itself?
Why has Mr. Chattield ce.mmenced the suit in
question ' Does he desire to prevent investigation
b? covering t>" ?ubjevt it ith the tog ?f ??wf'4

xml | txt