THE DAILY EVENING TELEGRAPHPHILADELPHIA SATURDAY, MAY 21, 1870.
THE JUNE MAGAZINES.
"TJIH WAI.AXY."
The Jane nnmbu of The Galaxy has the
following table of contents: , .
Tnt yourself .in Hie Place," by Charles
Iteade, chapters xlii and'xliii (with an illus
tration); "Fra Angolico," by Margaret J.
Preston; "Tobaccophagei and Tobaooopha
gismt" by John C. Draper; "Enola," by
Howard Glyndon; "American Men and En
glishmen," by Justin McCarthy; "Keeping
the Cash," by J. T. McKay; "Ten Years in
Home Internal Economy of the Papal
States, Ecclesiastical and Civil ;" "Two
Women," by Eebecoa Harding Davis; "Ad
Astra," by H. D. Ganse; "Senator "Wilson
and Edwin M. Stanton," by J. S. Black;
"Hostages," by H. H.; "Early Incidents of
the Rebellion," a chapter from Mr. Thru-low
Weed's autobiography, by Thurlow Weed;
'The Galaxy Miseellany;" "Drift-wood," by
Thilip Quilibet; "Literature and Art;" "Me
moranda," by Mark Twain; "Nebula," by
the Editor.
As entertaining reading for the hot weather
as can be found in the magazine is the Hon.
Jeremiah S. Black's letter to Senator Wilson
in reply to his article entitled "Edwin M.
Stanton," which appeared In the February
number of The Atlantic. Judge Black opens
with a general defense ef President Bucha
nan and the members of his Cabinet, in
which, however, he advances nothing very
new or startling. The most interesting por
tion of his paper is that which refers to Mr.
Stanton and the eulogy pronounced upon
him by Senator Wilson. This we quote for
the edification and delectation of our readers:
Your attacks upon Buchanan, Touoey, and
Thompson might be safely passed in silence,
but the charaeter of Stanton must utterly
perish if it be not defended against your
praise.
; Yon give us the first information we ever
had that Mr. Stanton, though acting with the
Democratic party, was an abolitionist at heart
almost from his earliest youth. For this fact
'you vouch his declaration to Judge Chase
more than thirty years ago, at Columbus,
Ohio; and you attempt to corroborate it by
citing his association at Washington with Dr.
Bailey and other abolitionists. If yon tell
the truth, he was the most marvellous impos
tor that ever lived or died. Among us, his
Eolitical principles were thought to be as well
nown as his name and occupation. He never
allowed his fidelity to be doubted for one
moment. It was perfectly understood that
he had no affinities whatever with man
of your school in morals or politics.
His condemnation of the abolitionists was un
sparing for their hypocrisy, their corruption,
their enmity to the Constitution, and their
lawless disregard for the rights of States and
individuals. Thus he won the confidence of
Democrats. On the faith of such professions
we promoted hint in his business, and gave
him office, honor, and fortune. But, accord
ing to your account, he was all the while
waiting and hoping for the time to come
when he could betray the Constitution and its
friends into the cruel clutches of their ene
mies. For this cold-blooded and deliberate
treachery you bespeak the admiration of the
American people. You might as well pro
pose to canonize Judas Iscariot.
I maintain, on the other hand, that he was
what he seemed to be, a sound and sincere
friend, political and personal, of the men
who showered their favors on his head. He
had at least the average amount of attach
ment for "the Constitution of the United
States, and for the peace, good order, and
happiness of the same." As a necessary con
sequence, he dreaded the dishonest and de
structive rule which he foresaw that you
would be sure to establish as soon as you
could. His Democracy did not cease when
the war opened. In tho summer of 1861,
when your anti-constitutional principles began
to be practically carried out by the kidnapping
of innocent citizens, by the suppression of
free speech, and by the enslavement of tho
press, he imprecated the vengeance of God
and the law upon the guilty authors of. those
crimes with as much energy as any
Democrat in the nation. Only a short
time before his appointment as Secretary
of War his love of liberty and legal justice
impelled him to curse Mr. Lincoln himself
with bitter curses. He called him by con
temptuous names, and with simian, if not
with "swinish phrase soiled his addition." I
admit that he changed these sentiments after
wards, but I deny that he had adopted your
way of thinking while he pretended to concur
in ours. His conversion was a real one, pro
duced by what he regarded "as good and
sufficient reasons him thereunto moving,"
and it was accompanied, or immediately fol
lowed, by a corresponding change of his party
attitude. He was not what yon make him out,
a mere fawning hypocrite. i
The issue is plainly made. The friends of
Mr. Stanton .will not permit you to gibbet
him in the face of the world after death has
disarmed him of the power of self-defense.
Yon must prove the injurious allegations you
make or else aocept the just consequences.
If the Chief Justice will say that he knows
Mr. Stanton to have been "in entire agree
ment" with the abolition party thirty years
ago, his testimony may silence denial. But
- yon must not trifle with us; we will hold you
, to strict proof; hearsay evidence will not be
- received; least of all will the fact be admit
ted upon the second-hand statement of a
person who thinks, as you manifestly do
think, that deception, fraud, and false pre
tenses are an honor to the man who ' prac
tises them.
Next in chronological order is your asser
tion that Mr. Stanton, while yet a private
citizen, advised Mr. Buchanan that it was the
dnty and the right of the Federal Govern-
ment to coerce seceding States; that is to say,
make war against all the inhabitants of every
State in which an ordinance of secession had
been or should be passed. Now, mark how
. plain a tale will put you down. Mr. Stanton
i never was consulted on that subject by the
President until after he was Attorney-General;
and he never at any time gave such ad-
vice as you put into ms mouth, lie never
entertained any opinion of that kind, for he
was a lawyer of large capacity and could not
believe an absurdity, lie had too much re.
'" card for his prof esuional character to main
tain a lecal proposition which he knew to be
false. lie certainly would not have so de-
based himself in the eyes of the administra
tion with whom he was particularly desirous,
at that time, to stand well.
On this point I wish to be very distinct.
aver that Mr. Stanton thoroughly, cordially,
and constantly approved of and concurred m
ist consuiuuonai doctrines wuicu you ae
Bounce as timid and treasonable. . He en
dorsed the opinion of his predecessor with
extravagant and undeserved laudation; he
t'ave bis adhesion to the annual message in
many ways; and the special message of fcth
January, 18C1, which expressed the same
principles with added emphasis, was
carefully read over to him before it was
qent to Congress, and it received his un
qualified assent. The existing evidence of
this can be easily adduced: it is direct as well
as circumstantial, oral as well as document
ary, and some of it is in the handwriting of
Mr. Stanton himself. If yon are willing to
put the question into a proper form for judi
cial investigation, I will aid you in doing so,
and give yen an opportunity to make out
your case before an impartial tribunal.
If your statement be true that Mr. Stanton
disbelieved in the principles to which the ad
ministration was unchangeably pledged, how
did he come to take office under it ? Was he
so anxious for publie employment that he
consented to give up his own convictions and
assist in carrying out measures which his
judgment condemned as the offspring of
timidity and treason ? Or, did he accept the
confidence of the President and the Cabinet
with a predetermined intent to betray it?
Either way you make him guilty of unspeak
able baseness.
But conceding that he would accept, why
did the President, with the consent of his ad
visers, give the appointment to a man whom
they knew to be hostile to them upon points
so vital not only to the publio interests but
their own characters ? That at such a time
they would invite an undisguised enemy into
their counsels, is a tale as wildly improbable
as any that ever was swallowed by the credu
lity of the Salem witch-finders. Your own
consciousness of this compels you to explain
by attributing it to a upocial intervention of
Divine Providence. Your impious theory is
that Almighty God prooured this appointment
miraculously, in order that you, the enemies
of the American Constitution, might have n
spy in the camp of its friends. This will not
Brve your turn. Reason never refers a hu
man event to supernatural agency, unless it
be impossible to aceount for it in any other
way. The mystery of this case is easily
cleared np by the hypothesis that you have
misrepresented it from beginning to end;
which is no miracle at all, but quite in the
natural order of things.
The truth is, Mr. Stanton was in perfect
accord with the administration, before and
after he beeame a part of it, on every ques
tion of fundamental principle. He had
unlimited confidence in the men with
whom he was acting, and they confided
in him. For his chief and seme of his
colleagues he professed an attachment
literally bonndless; for all of them who
stayed during the term, and for Thomp
son, who did not stay, he was warm in his
friendship. Yon would now have us believe
that these were merely the arts of an accom
plished impostor; that while he wan, in ap
pearance, zealously co-operating with us, he
was reporting to you that "he saw treason ia
every part of the Government;" and that he
was secretly using all the means in his
power to stir up the vilest passions against us.
Some overt acts of tho treachery you
ascribe to him are curious; for instance, the
Sumner story, which you tell with singular
brevity and coolness. Mr. Sumner called on
him at his office, for what purpose you do
net disclose. Mr. Stanton did not receive
his visitor either with the politeness of a gen
tleman or the courtesy due to a Senator, much
less with the cordiality of a friend; but hus
tled him out of the building as if ashamed
to be seen with him in daylight. He
told him expressly that he did not dare to
converse with him there, but would see him
at one o'clock that night. The hour came,
and then, when the city was wrapped in
sleep, he skulked away to the meeting place,
where, under the cover of darkness, he whis
pered the tales which he did not dare to utter
in the hearing of the parties they were
intended to ruin. And those parties were
his friends and benefactors! Into what uu-
fathomed gulf of moral degradation must the
man have fallen who could be guilty of this!
But remember, this is another second-hand
story, and you are not a competent witness.
We will trouble you to call Mr. Sumner, if you
please. Let him testify what treason Stanton
disalosed, and explain, if he can, how this
midnight and secret information against men
whom he was afraid to confront is consistent
with Mr. Stanton's character as a courageous,
outspoken, and honest man.
lie said nothing whatever to us about the
treason which he saw in every part of the
Government. He made no report of his dis
coveries to the President. He maintained
unbroken his fraternal relations with his col-
eagnes. By your own account, he admitted
to Mr. Sumner that he did not dare to speak
of such a thing even in his own office, lest it
might reach the ears of his associates in the
administration. Among the members of
Congress whom you name as the recipients
of his secret communications, not one man of
moderate views is included; much less did he
speak to any friend of the parties accused.
lie cautiously selected their bitterest enemies,
and poured his venom into hearts already
festering with spite. The House raised a
committee "to investigate treasonable ma
chinations and conspiracies," upon which
there were members of both parties. Stanton
did not go before it and tell his story; nor did
he mention the subject to Cochrane, Rey
nolds, or Branch; but he "made an arrange
ment by which Messrs. Howard and Dawes
were informed" of whatever they wanted to
know. It appears, too, that a comanttee of
vigilance was organized by the more active
Republican members of Congress; in other
words, the extreme partisans of both houses
got np a secret body of their own, not to
perform any legal duty pertaining to their
offices, not to devise publio measures for
averting the ruin which threatened the coun
try, but to prowl about in the dark for some
thing to gratify personal malice or make a
little capital for their naxtv. You were
a member of that committee, as it was fit
you should be, and Mr. Stanton gave
vou warnings and suggestions now
to proeeed. ims la what vou call "risino' in
'that crisis above the claims of partisanship."
At nigai ne assisiea you to rake the sewers
in search of materials to bespatter his col
leagues, and every morning he appeared be
fore them to "renew the assurances of hia
distinguished consideration." It was thus
that, in your estimation, "he consecrated
himself to the lofty duties of an exalted
patriotism.
What cargoes of defamatory falsehood he
must have consigned to your keeping ; You
do not break the foul bulk, but you have
civen ns some saiiples which deserve exami
nation. He denounced Mr. Toucey as false
to his country, inspired Dawes' resolution
acainst him. and expressed the bolief that he
oueht to be arrested. Let us look at this
a moment.
To Mr. Toucev's face Mr. Stanton breathed
no syllable of censure upon his official con
duct as bead of the Navy Department. To
the President or Cabinet he expressed no
doubt of his wisdom, much loss of his hviesty.
He met bini every day with a face of smiling
friendship. Touoey certainly bad not the re
motest idea that Stanton was defaming him
behind bis back, or conspiring with abolition
ibts to destroy his reputation. He would
as soon have suspected him of an intent to
poison his food or stab him in his sleep. Can
it be possible that Stanton was the author ef
the Dawes resolution? !
That resolution ia found in the Congret
tional Globe, Second Session, Thirty-sixth
Congress, 1800-61, part second, pp. 1423-24.
The proceeding was begun, no doubt, in the
hope of finding something on which the
charge conld be founded ef scattering the
navy to prevent it from being nsed against
the South. But that failed miserably; and
the committee reported nothing worse
than "a grave error" of the Secretary in
accepting without delay or iaquiry the resig
nation of certain naval officers. Even this
had no foundation in law or fact. It truth
was denied and the evidence called for; none
was produced. The right to explain and
defend was demanded, but the " gag
of the previous question was applied be
fore a word could be said. The accusers
knew very well that it would not bear the
slightest investigation. Mr. Sickles said
truly (amid cries of "Order") that "censure
without evidence disgraces only those who
pronounce it." Mr. Toucey's reputation was
never injuriously affected by it in the estima
tion of any fair-minded man. But you fish it
up from the oblivion to which it has been
consigned, and try to give it decency and
dignity by saying that Stanton inspired it.
You do not appear to perceive the hideous
depth to which your assertion, if true, would
drag him down. It is not true; the whole
business bears the impress of a different
mind.
M.. Stanton also suggested that his col
league and friend Toucey ought to be ar
retted. This could not have been a proposi
tion to take him into legal custody on a
criminal charge regularly made. That would
have been utterly impossible and absurd.
The Dawes committee itself could find
nothing against him but an error of judg
ment. The suggestion must have been to
kidnap him, without an accusation or proof
of probable cause, and consign him to some
dungeon without trial or hope of other relief.
If Stanton attempted to cet this done, ho
was guilty of such perfidy as would . have
shocked the basest pander in the court of
Louis XV. But to confute your libel upon
Toucey and Stanton both, it is only necessary
to recollect the fact that kidnapping of
American citizens was at that time wholly
unknown and absolutely impossible. We
were living under a Democratio administra
tion, the country was free, and law was
supreme. Tyranny had not yet sunk its
bloody fangs into the vitals of the national
liberty. The systematic perjury which after
wards made the Constitution a' dead letter
was not then established as a rule of political
morality. ;
Your whole account of the "Cabinet
scene" at which Floyd, "raging and storming,
arraigned the President and Cabinet," and
the .President trembled and grew pale, and
ow-conspiraters with a storm of fierce and
fiery denunciation," is a pure and perfectly
Baseless fabrication, it is absurd to boot,
What was Floyd's arraignment of the Presi
dent and Cabinet for ? You say for violating
their pledges to the secessionists; and the
charge against the President and Cabinet of
violating their pledges was predicated solely
on the fact that Colonel Anderson had re
moved from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter;
and Floyd wns disappointed in Colonel Ander
son, whom he "had expected." as a Southern
man, to "carry out his purposes in the
interest of treason." This is mere drivelling
at best, anu it is completely exploded by the
record, which shows that Colonel Anderson's
transfer of his force from Fort Moultrie to
Fort Sumter was in literal obedience to orders
from the President, which Floyd himself had
drawn up, signed, and transmitted. More
over, Floyd at that time was not in a condi
tion to arraign anybody. He himself had
just before that been not only arraigned but
condemned, and the President had notified
him that he would be removed if he did not
resign. Was it this broken-down
and powerless man who made
the President tremble and grow pale
by complaining that a subordinate had unex
pectedly obeyed his own orders ? You are
not silly enough to say so. Was it Stanton's
"storm of fierce and fiery denunciation
Stanton was no stormer in the presence of
such men as he then had to deal with. His
language was habitually deferential, his whole
bearing decent, and his behavior at the coun
cil board was entirely free from the insolence
you impute to it. Your" tales do not hang to
gether. No one can give credence to your
report of bold and stormy denunciation by
btanton in the presence or his chiet and ms
colleagues, and at the same time believe what
yon say of him at another place, where you
describe him as a dastard, skulking about in
the dead of nieht to And a place of conceal
ment remote enough to make him safe, and
confessing that he did not dare to breathe his
accusation in the face of day. The crawling
sycophant the stealthy spy who bargained
so carefully for darkness and secrecy wnen ne
made hia reports, must have been wholly un
fitted to play the part of Jupiter Tonans in a
square and open conflict. It is not possible
that the fearless Stanton of your "Cabinet
scene" could be the same Stanton who, at
one o'clock in the night, was "squat like a
toad at the ear of bumner,
Essaying by tils devilish arts to reach
The organs of hia fancy.
I take it upon me to deny most em
phatically that Mr. Stanton ever "wrote a
full and detailed account of that cabinet
scene'' by which you can have the least hope
of bemc corroborated. I cannot prove a
neeative: but I can show that your assertion
is incredible. That he should have eoolly
indited a letter, even though he never sent it,
tiled with foolish braes of his own prowess,
which half a dozen men then living could
prove to be false, was not consistent either
with his prudence, veracity, or taste, uesiaes,
he often spoke with me about the events of
that period, and never in my hearing did
he manifest the slightest disposition
to misunderstand or misrepresent
them. On tha contrary, when a state
ment resembling yours about the Cabinet
Bcene was published in a London paper, I
suggested that he ought to contradict it; and
he replied, explaining how and by whom it
had iiaen fabricated, but said it was not
worth a contradiction, for every man of com
mon intelligence would know it to be a mere
tissue of lies. You cannot destroy Stanton s
character for sense and decency by citing his
o n authoritv aoainst himself. Nor can you
find anv other nroof to sustain the story. It
is the weak invention of some scurvy politi
clan, who sought to win the patronage of one
auiumuiiraiion uy maiigiuug auioiuer.
Home buev and insinuating roirue.
Koine cog King, cesentng- slave, to get some Otnoc,
Uaiu devised thla nUuilei.
Your history of his appointment to the War
Department is as erroneous as that which you
have given 01 his conduct while Attorney
General. You say that he cordially indorsed
Mr. Cameron's recommendation to arm the
negroes against the white people of the South;
that Air. .Lincoln disapproved this and re
quired it to be suppressed; that afterwards,
when Cameron "felt the pressure of the mul
tiplied labor," he proposed to resign, but
coupled his offer with a condition that "some
ne should be appointed not unfriendly to
his policy," namely the policy of arming ne
groes, to which Mr. jjinoom waa himself
opposed; that Cameron did resign upon these
terms, and nsed the privilege conceded to
him by suggesting the name of Stanton.
Everybody who knows Simon Cameron will
understand the object of dragging this thing
by the head and shoulders into your article.
In fact and in truth there was no kind of con
nection between these two men no sympathy
nor mutual respect. Cameron did not resign; he
was removed for good cause, lie had no lot
or part in naming his successor. The re
moval and the appointment were both made
before Mr. Cameron knew of either, and they
were made because the President saw the
necessity of having a man at the head of that
department who was competent and incor
ruptible. The correspondence afterwards
published under the names of Messrs. Lin
coln and uameron was fictitious, and got up
at the instance of the latter to give the affair
a false appearance. It is morally impossible
that Stanton could have given his approval
to Cameron's abortive ' report on
the negroes; for he was at that time a white
man every inch of him, proud
of the great race he sprang from, and full
vi ihiiu 111 11s capacity 10 ngut us own Dames
and govern itself. Nothing would have hu
miliated him more than to Bee the American
people relinquish their rightful place in the
front rank of the world, surrender their in
heritance of free government, and sneak
back behind the African for protection in
war or in peace. Long af tet he was Secre
tary of War he told Mr. Mallory, of Ken
tucky, that he had not only refused to sanc
tion the enlistment of a negro regiment, but
had punished an officer for merely proposing
it. I understand that you have promised to
contradict yourself on this subject, and I
hope you will keep your word.
Your aecount of his raid upon the Trea
sury, in company with Uovernor Morton,
would look very strange in a pane-
gyrio made by anybody else bnt you. I
will restate the facts yon have given, but
without the drapery by which you conceal
from yourself the view of them which must
unavoidably be taken by all men who believe
in the obligation of any law, human or
divine. In the winter of 1803, the Legisla
ture of Indiana was dissolved before the ap
propriations had been made to carry on the
State government or aid in putting troops in
the field. Of course, Congress did not, and
could not, make appropriations for carrying
on the State government or putting
troops in the field, which the State
was bound to raise at her own expense. But
the Governor determined to get what money
he wanted without authority of law, and he
looked to Washington for assistance. Presi
dent Lincoln declined to aid him, because no
money could be taken from the Treasury
without appropriation. Mr. Stanton, being
applied to, saw the critical condition of the
Governor, and, without scruple, joined him
in his financial enterprise. He drew a war
rant for a quarter of a million of dollars, and
gave it to the Uovernor to spend as he
E leased; not only without being authorized
y any appropriation for that purpose, but in
defiance of express law appropriating the
same money to another and a totally different
object. If this be true, the guilt of the par
ties can hardly be overcharged by any words
which the English language will supply. It
was cettina monev out of the publio treasurv.
not only unlawfully, but by a process as dis
honest as larceny. It involved the making
of a fraudulent warrant, of wnioh the moral
turpitude was no less than that committed by
a private individual when he fabricates and
utters a false paper. It was a gross and pal
pable violation of the oaths which the Gov
ernor and Secretary had both taken. It was.
by the statute of 184G, a felonious embezzle
ment of the money thus obtained, punishable
by fine and ten years' imprisonment in the
penitentiary. The parties, according to your
version, were both conscious of the high
crime they were perpetrating, for you make
one say to the other, "If the cause fails you
and I will be covered with proseoutions, and
probably imprisoned or driven from the
country. " You do not diminish or mitigate the
offense one whit by saying that the money was
afterwards accounted for. A felony cannot be
compounded or condoned by a simple restitu
tion of the spoils; and the law I have cited waa
made expressly to prevent officers charged
with the safe keeping, transfer, or disburse
ment of publio money from using it to accom
modate friends in a "critical condition." But
what will be said of your trustworthiness as a
contributor to history when the publio comes
to learn mac inis wuoie story is oogusr i
pronounce it untrue in the aggregate and in
the detail in the sum total and in every
item. The truth is this: In 1803 the Demo
cratio majority of the Indiana Legislature
were ready and willing to pass their proper
and usual appropriation bills, but were pre
vented '.by the Republican minority, who
"bolted'' and left the houses without a quo
rum until the constitutional limit of their
session expired. The Governor re
fused to reconvene them, and thus,
by his own fault and that of his
friends, he was without the ways and
means to pay the current expenses of the
State. He was wrong, but his error was that
of a violent partisan, not the crime of a cor
rupt magistrate. He did not come to Wash
ington with any intention to relieve his neces
sities bv plundering the Federal Treasury,
He made no proposition either to Mr. Linooln
or Mr. Stanton that they or either of them
should become his accomplices in any such
infamous crime. His purpose was to demand
payment of a debt due, and acknowledged to
be due from the United States to the State of
Indiana. The money had been appropriated
by Congress to pay it, and it was paid accord
ing to law. I know not how Mr. Morton may
like to see himself held up as a felon confess
ing his guilt, but I can say, with some confi
dence, that if Mr. Stanton were alive he
would call you to a very severe reckoning.
What must amaze the readers of your
article more than anything else is the perfeot
sincerity of the belief which you express.
directly or indirectly, in every line of it, that
the base misconduct you attribute to Mr.
Stanton ia' eminently praiseworthy. You
Eeem to be wholly unconscious of defaming
the man you meant to eulogize. But, if your
facts be accepted, the honor and honesty of
them will not be measueed by your standards.
It may be true that publio opinion has of late
been sadly debauched; but the American
people have not, permanentlychanged t eir
code of morality, uooa lauu ueiween man
and man. personal integrity, social fidelity,
observance of oaths, and obedience to the
laws which hold society together, have here
tofore been numbered among the virtues, and
they will be again. The government of God
has not been reconstructed. Fraud or force
may abolish the Constitution, but the Ten
Commandments and the golden rule are b
yond your reach; some persons have faith
enough to believe that even "the gates of
. .1 . M
ceil snail not prevail against mem.
The odious character yon have given Mr.
Stanton is not merely unjust in itself, but,
if uncontradicted, it must lead to other mis
conceptions of him. Besides the offenses
against law, justice, humanity, and truth
which you have enumerated and assigned to
him for his glorification, he has been charged
with others which, if established, must ex
pose him to universal execration. For in
stance, it is asserted that in the winter of
1861, when he was a member of tho Cabinet,
he gave to Governor Brown, of Mississippi,
the most enphatio assurance of his convic
tion that secession was right, and urged him
to "go on" with it; that in 1802, while he
was writing the most affectionate letters to
tieneral McClellan, he not only maligned him
at Washington, but maliciously plotted his
detest and the destruction of his army before
Richmond; that he refused in 1804 to receive
the Andersonville prisoners when offered
freely without ransom, exchange, or other
equivalent, though be knew that if left there
they must perish miserably for want of the
medicine and food which their captors had
not the means to give them. These accusa
tions, you are aware, have often been made,
with horrible aggravations which I need not
repeat. His friends have denied and dis
credited tnem, mainly on the ground that his
character was wnoiiy above such imputa
tions. But you have done your full best
to make this defense worthless. II he
wore the cloak of constitutional democracy
with us, and put on the livery of abolition
ism with you, why should he not assume the
garb of a secessionist with men of the South?
If he tried to get his friend Toucey kid
napped, what moral principle could hinder
him from contriving the ruin of his friend
McClellan? If he craftily exerted himself at
your end of the avenue to bring on a bloody
civil war, which according to his own declara
tions at our end was unlawful and causeless,
what crime against human life was he not
capable of committing? If he willfully left
our prisoners to certain starvation, and
then managed falsely to throw the
odium of their death upon the political
enemies of the party in power, and
thus contributed very largely to the enslave
ment of the Southern btates, was not that
an act of 'intense and abounding patriotism,"
as well worthy of your praise as some others
for which you have bestowed it ? Those who
give credit to you will find it perfectly logical
to believe the worst that has ever been said
of him.
Sejanus has passed for about the worst
specimen of ministerial depravity whom we
have any account of; but nothing is re
corded of him which might not be believed of
Stanton, if you are regarded as credible
authority; for you have made it a labor of
love to paint him as a master in the loath
some arts of treachery, dissimulation,
and falsehood unfaithful alike to private
fiiendship and to publio duty. With the
talents he possessed, and the principles
yon ascribe to him, he might have
made an invaluable Grand Vizier
to a Turkish Sultan, provided the
Sultan were in tne prime of me and nad no
powerful brother near the throne; but in a
free country such a character cannot be
thought of without disgust and abhorrence.
In your eyes the "intense and abounding
. patriotism oi btanton is sufficient to atone
not only for all the faults he had, but for all
the ofl eases against law and morals which
the utmost fertility of your imagination can
lay to his charge; and patriotism in your
vocabulary means devotion to the interests
of that political sect wfiich has you for one of
its priests, lhis will not suffice. You can
not safely blacken a man with one hand and
neutralize the effect by daubing on the white
wash of patriotism with the other. Patriot
ism, in its true sense, does indeed dignify
and adorn human nature. It is an exalted
and comprehensive species of charity, which
hides a multitude of sins. The patriotism of
Washington, which laid broad and deep the
foundation of free institutions and set the
noble example of implicit obedience to the
laws; the patriotism of John Hampden
who voluntarily devoted his fortune and his
life to the maintenance of legal justice; the
patriotism of Cato, who resisted the de
structive madness ot ms countrymen, and
greatly fell with a falling State; the patriot
ism of Daniel O'Connell, who spent his time
and talents in constant efforts to relieve his
people from the galling yoke of clerical op
pression; the patriotism of the elder Pitt,
who, speaking in the cause of universal
liberty, loudly rejoiced that America had re
sisted the exactions of a tyrannical Parlia
ment to such patriotism some errors may be
pardoned. When men like these are found
to have committed a fault, it is well that his
tory should deal with it tenderly,
"And, sad as angels for the good man's sin,
Weep to record and blush to give It In."
But the loyalty that tramples on law the
fidelity which stabs the liberties it ought to
protect the publio zeal which expends itself
in gratifying the vindictive or mercenary
passions of one party by the unjust oppres
sion of another this kind or patriotism has
lees claim to the admiration of the world. It
is a cheap thing, readily supplied to any fac
tion unprincipled enough to pay for it. It is
entirely too "intense and abounding;" and
its intensity and abundance are always
greatest in tne worst times. it does
not sanctify evil deeds. If it be not
a sin in itself, it certainly deserves to be
ranked among what Dr. Johnson calls "the
rascally virtues. '
Mr. Stanton s reputation is just now in a
critical condition. He took no care of it
while he lived, and he died, like Bacon, leav
ing a vulnerable name "to men's charitable
speeches." He needs a more discriminating
eulogist than you, and a far better defence
than I am able to make. I have not attempted
to portray his good qualites; I iatended only
to protest against your shameless parade of
vices to which he was not addicted, and crimes
which he never committed; and this I have
done, not only because it is just to him but
necessary for the vindication of others.
BOOTS AND SHOES.
BARTLETT,
No. 83 SOUTH SIXTH STREET,
Bver thankful for the patronage extended
heretofore, and desirous of lurtUer favors, begs
announce bis bPrUNU bTYLftg OF BOOTS and
MiOEt for Genu' and toy a" wear.
A large a&aortrueut of CUSTOM-MADE GOODS,
made on bU improved Lasts, which are unrivalled
for comfort and beauty, enables him to furnish a
ready fit at all times. 1 13 thntaD3l
STEAMBOAT LINES.
AND
A i : TON latvM UUKHM'Tbl KKrrWUi
tl lu A. M. nd S 50 K U. : laM WILMINGTON at I
IKK
160
A M .nil 1J fill P M hm.rm ta V 1 1 in in vln IK nunt.
KicumloB Ticket, 96 cent. GhMtar or Uook 10 oouu;
NATURE'S C I F TO,
BCIENT1TICALLT DEVELOPED.
Aa mankind, from Indlao ration OT othar eanaaa. kaa barn
oona4 to nifrar from dlaaaaa, ao alao haa raM4r fa 4ia
aaa bean proridad. Oar hula and YalJori aboaad wtth
rooti and barba, which If aciantlfloallr prepare and ooea-
pounded, will restore health and vutor to tha lnraud To
find anon a remed we ahould aeek oaa tt aaa tteoa the
taat of
HOOFLAND'S
GEKMAN BITTEKS,
Sure Cure for Liver Complaint
ffure.Cnre for Dyspepala,
Sure Cure for Debility,
Sure Cure Tor Jaundice,
Sure Cure for Marasmus,
And all affectlona arising from weakneea or want of actlee)
In tha Liver or Digeative Organa. The great remedy for
IMPUBE BLOOD.
And all diaeaeee arising from it, The great preventive A
FEVER AND AGUE.
It la an impossibility for any one to bava Fever and Ago
if they will nee a few bottlea of this remedy eecA spring
andfalL
$100
$100
$100
Will be riven for any ease of thla diaeaaa that eoenn te
any one that oses tha Bitters or Tonio aa a prevent! ve.
Those who have the fever and Ague will Had, after the
chills bave stopped, that by using a few bottlea ef the Kit
tare or Tonio, that the disease will not return.
These remedies will rebuild their Uonatitutiea fatter
than any other known remedy.
The remedies were placed Defore the publio thirty yeaajl
mo, with all tha prejadioea of so-called "patent aaedtoiae'
operating againat them, but gradually their virtaea be
came known, and now, to-day, they stand at tha head of
all preparationa of their claea, with the indorsement of
eminent judges, lawyera, clergymen, and physioiana. -
Kead the following ayavptoma, and if yon find that your
system ia affected by any ef theitt, yon may rest aasnred
that disease baa commenced its attack on the most im
portant organs of your body, and nnleaa soon checked by
the nse of powerful remedies, a miserable Ufa, eoen termf.
nating in death, will be the result.
11
Oon
atlpatien, Flatulence, In- ' ' . '
ward Piles, Folnees ef
Blood to the Head, Acidity ef
, the Stomach, Nausea, Heartburn, Die.
gust for Food, Fnlneea or Weight in the Btom
eon, Sour Eructations, Binkingor Fluttering at the
Pit of the Btomacb, Swimming of the Head,Harried Of
Difficult Breathing, Fluttering at the Heart, Choking o
an (locating sensations when in a lyingpoeture, Dimness '
Of Vision, Dots er Wabe before the Bight, Dull Pain
in the Head, Deficiency of Porpiaration, Yellow
nena of the Kkin and Eyes, Pain in the Side.
Back, Chest, Limbe, etc Budden fluahea 1
. of Heat, Burning in the F'lean. .
Constant imagining of Bvil, ,
and Great Depraseioa
. of Spirits.
All indicate disease of the Liver or Digestive Orgeat
combined with impure blood.
HOOFIAND'S
GERMAN UITXJERS
: Is entirely vegetable and contains no liquor. It is a
compound of F luid Extracts. The Roots, Herbs, and
Barka from which theae extracts are made, are gathered
in Germany; all the medicinal virtuea are extracted from
them by a aoientino chemist. These extraota are then
forwarded to this country to be used expressly for tha
manufaotnre of this Hitters. There ia no alooholio sub
stance of any kind nsed in compounding the Bitters ; benoe
it is free from all the objections incident to the ass of a
liquor preparation.
o
HOOFLAND'S
GERMAN TOISTIO
Is a combination of all tbe ingredients of the Bitters with
the purest quality of Santa Crua Bum, Orangee, etc. It
is used for the same diseasee aa the Bitten, in oases where
some pore alooholio atimulua is loqnired.
TESTIMONY
IJketh following waa never before offered In beh&H el
luajr uivuiuiu&i prcpanbiiuu: . . . t
HON. G. W. WOODWARD,
Chief, Justice of the Supreme Court of Peanulvanla.
writes:
Petlaseuru, March It, 1867.
I And "Hoofland's German Bittere" la a good Tonio, use
ful in diaeases of the digestive organs, and of great Benefit
IB
of debility and want of nervous actio In the ays tea.
Yours, truly, s
GEO. W. WOODWARD
HON. JAMES THOMPSON,
Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
PHir.ariEi.PHta. April S3, 18SC
I consider "Hoofland'e German Bittere" a valuable
medicine in ease of attacks of Indigestion er Dysplasia.
I can certify this f rom my experience of it.
Youre, with respect,
JAMES THOMPSON.
HON. GEO. SHARSWOOD,
Jnatioe of the S npreme Court of Pennsylvania. -
Philadelphia, June 1, 1KW.
I bave fonnd by experience that "Hoofland's Oemaa
Bitters la a very good tonio, relieving dyspeptio evmpteau
almost immediately. OKOHUJC BHAKtiWOOD.
HON. WMTfT ROGERS,
Mayor of the city of Buffalo, N. V.
Matob's Omci, Butvalo, June 89, MM.
I have need "Hoooand'a Uermaa Bitters and Tonio" ia
my family during the past year, and oaa recommend them
aa an excellent tonio, imparting tone and vigor to the
ayatem. Tbeir ue has been productive of decidedly
beneficial effects.. . WU. if. BOtiJL&S.
HON. JAM'eTm. WOOD,
Ex-Mayor of Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
I take great pleaaure la recommending "HoeBand's
.German Tonic" to any one who may be attlioted with dya
. . ,,3V, .
pepaia. I had the dyspepsia so badlv that it waa Impos
sible to keep any food on my atomaca, and I became a
weak aa not to be able to walk half a mile. Two bottlas
of ionio effected a perfeot eure, - JA.&. M. WOwD.
JOHN EUTEKMARKS, ESQ.,
Law Partner of Judge Maynard, Williamsport, Pa.
This is to certify that I have need "Hooiland'a Uermaa
Bittara" for dyapopaia, and fonnd it an invaluable remedy.
CAUTION
Hoofland's German Remedies are counterfeited. Be -thai
the aiguature of C, M. JACKSON ia on the wrap-
t
per of each bottle. All others ar counterfeit.
Prinoipal Office and Manufactory at the German ModV
cine btore,
NO. C31 ARCH STRUET,
Philadelphia, Pa.
CHARLES M.. EVANS, Proprietor,
FORMERLY C. M. JACKSON A CO.
XIUCES.
Hoofland's German Bitters, per bottle (1-09
Hot Hand's Herman Bitters, half dosan fix)
Hoofland's German 'iwnio, put np in quart bottles I'tO
sr bottle, or half a doaea for I k)
Do not foiget to examine well the artiole yon buy
order to get the genuine.
FOB SALK B7 ALL DRUGGISTS and Dealers ia
Kedicineesvery where. Uiwtplf
)