IIE IS A FREEMAN WHOM THE TRUTH, MAKES FREE, AND ALL ARE SLAVES BESIDE. Terms, $2 per year In advance OLUME 4. EBENSBURG, PA., THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1870. NUMBER 24. Dl A 1H TIHXG, 10 lll j a GOOD THING in tBhNSbUKU. "oYALTY SUPERCEDED I "Utilise of Tudor" Surrendered TO THE SMALL FRY r . f STORE! SEW GOODS! 14 Sew lnaucemenis i Street! lcw Prices ! A. Gr. ,.Ua ro'pession of the rooms on High .,rt (three uoors iroiu v-mc '.ffrotW oarupied by R. H. Tudor, ' into birh lie has just introduced i mammoth assort mnt of to & DRESS GOODS, ; of erervtliiiig nnd much more than ..i-i. in tl.'m "neck of timber" lias vet weteuded to teep, and every r i- r t.:K -ill . arunc ui un.n n VERY CHEAP FOK CASH! .iijnaiAXCE for coiNtar fEorpce. nr.Trn KF.EPS KETTER OOODSI lipKALER KEF.PS MORE GOODS ! S0rEAl.FR SELLS CHKAt'KK! 50 DEALEU StLLS MUKL : FRF.' TRY FRY!! TRY FRY!!! ny frvm Fry! tiny from fry ! ! I :fuy if you w.int to buY Lt Dre?s Goods at the fairest prices. I' FRY IF YOU W.iXTTK) HUY n, CliWkj, (Jiiinhams, Tiokinps, "Shirt :;. Ionian, Pull-, Jeans, Cloths, Caa- mnrt, Salinett. Delaines, Lwns, rr.nii, sc.. Ac, ami wish to get . s tliluii w.rinoi jour money. FRY IF YOU YW1NT TO BUY SW for Men', Ladies' and Chil- c'Tr,'ttinXcelitil in quality and notttwre auiero!d in price. . FRY IF YOU W.INT TO BUY re, Qviwiifwire, (ilneswnre. Cat pets, UiKWM.sc., ol the rmiidBomeBt stves at tlie lowest figures. -Fin' IF YOU WANT TO BUY ,fi.:ei.S!umlilers. Mess fork. Fish. Salt, rl, Ui:t:er. Ksjl's. Ctrece. CotVee. Su- Sir, Teaa, Suiipa, Curidl-es, Spices, ur anything else iu that line. (EY IF YOU WANT TO BUY find everything worth .buying, and be iittt alJ times vou "nill be supplied LOWEST CASH RATES. Ok my ! ruv eye ! it is no lie i- if.be fry Good Store and Grocery Jest opened bv A. O Frv, -- "aftntrcet culled High, More for your nioncv vou can buy fsjom aty one else, fur or nigh. 53l Je,iVn to k"r a full line of l -' 'vi'u v kliy UiVk f 1 ib determined to sell an CHEAP A3 i u I respectfully solicit a call il the ladies, and especially from those iuwua ti,e lmbitot viuiting other f tlieir pnrrhiaes. ; 'Whatever " tobuj.btiure first to trt tho store L. A. G. FRY. MORRELi; & CO,. vashisgton street, ' ' A?;. Depot, Johnstown, Pa.', 'We and RetcU Dealers in ' " ' mm ILLIXEHV GOODS, ' ' -Xap.p .. WTS AKD SHOES. -HATS AND CAPS lNivn IRON AND NAILS.. irSLLOW WARE. "" Jur.x ivn ivrrTnnr ttt i rn !Sand FEED, ALL KINDS, n FlnrnmJ.nRerof Westrn Produce, SOJo 1 1 V "?LO. fiSH, SALT, smut. ., . " reuui eroers aoucuea iWaii' " I 0n the ehorteat notice and J8' April 28, IHG9..1y. C'KZAIIM ......... J AS. B. ZAHM. WHM & SON, BB.ERS IK S, GROCERIES. QUEENSWARE. lt8Caps,Boots.Shofis. OTHER ARTICLES J '1,Kfpt ! a Country Store LAXI) COUNTRY PRODUCE lH EXcaANOE FOR GOODS ! 0RON MAIN STREET, Door to the Post Ofifce;- gggBBURQ. PA. K.L?TPRM- PhacixcaiSor N.iir"woa. Pa. rv, l'Polon.leR0. (my .5.) Ml HID HOMES! . h ' r, . iCflOD HON. J, S. BLACK'S LETTER. HISTOnV AS WRITTEN BY Bl'CUAX. AJi'S ATTORNEY GRAL. A MOST CAUSTIC ARTICLE. Senator Wilson and E. M. Stanton. . - . From the Gabucj-for June-l To the Hokobable IIenbv Wilson, Sen ator frim Massachusetts : In tbe February Dumber of tbe Atlantic Monthly appeared au article oF yours, entitled "Edwin M Stau ton.' It coutaiu8 some statements which are very wooderful, if true and if false they ought to be corrected. I ask you to review thia production in tbe light of certain facts which I shall now take the liberty to men tion. My principal object is to satisfy you that you have wholly misunderstood the charac ter of Mr. Stanton and grossly injured him by what you supposed to be panegyric. But. before I Leftiu, suffer me to correct some of your errors about other persons. In your vituperative description of the Buchanan administration, you allege that 'the President and bis Attorney General surrendered the Government's right of self preservation" and "pronounced against its power to coerce a seceding State." You re fer, manifestly, to the opinion of the Attor ney General, dated the 20th of November. 1SC0. deduing the duties au-i poweis of the President, and to the public acts of the Pres ident, which show that be took the advice of tke Law Department and squared his conduct accordingly. Upon this ground mainly, if not entirely, you denounce that administration as not only weak and unpa triotic, but willfully wicked and treasonable. I propose to khoxv that you have committed ft cardinal crior, if not something wo-se. The coarse way in which you charge the dead as tvell to tbe living with tbe highest crimes, would justify a reply in language much plainer then I intend to u?e, Yi ur modes of thinking and speaking on subjects of this kind are so loose and inaccu rate that it is tucessary to furnish yen with an idea of certain elementary principles, which, toTWOst V.bercien, are too familiar to talk about. 1. The Government of the United States is tbe Constitution and law. 2. The preservation of the Government consists in maintaining the supremacy of tho Constitution and laws. 8. For this purpose certain coercive pow ers are delegated to the executive, which he may use to defend the laws when tLey aie resisted. 4. But iu this country, as in every other, except where the Government is au absolute despotism, the authority of the chief magis trate is limited, and his hand." are tied up by lecal restrictions, to prcveut him from using physical force against the life, liberty and property f his fel'ow-citizeus, unle&s in cer tain prescribed ways and on proper occasions. 6. lie is bound bv bis inaugural oath to keep within those limits ; if he breaks the aws be destroys the Government : be cannot stab the Constitution in the back because he is afraid that somebody else v. ill strike it in the face. H. The CovernWeut xf the United States, within its proper eph re, is a sovereign, ,as much as tho States are sovereign within their sphere. It acts immediately upon the people atid claims their direct obedience to to its laws. As a State rannot make war on citv, county or town, and put all its inhab itants to the sword, because some of them iave acted or threatened to act illegally, so the general Government is also restrained i from exterminating the whole population of a' State for the offences, actual or intended, of some who live among them. , 7. The so-called ordinances of seceFston m 1800-61 were the declarations of certain per- soub who ciado thera, thai they iutended to disobey the laws of the United States. It was tbe duty ot tjongreos ana me .rresiceiu to see that forcible resistance to the laws, when actually made, should be met by a counterforce sufficient to put it down but neither Congress nor the President had au thority to declare war and begin hostilities. bv anticipation, against au tue people ai ouce, and put litem an in iue uue oi public enemies, without regard to tneir per sonal guilt or innocence. The ..opinion ot tne Attorney-uenerai, which you have garbled, and the messages of President Buchanan, assert these princi pies in plain English words. We held that the whole coercive powers of the United States, delegated by tbe Constitution to every branch of the Uovernment, mciuamg i:s run-, itary and naval force, might and ought, in the appointed way, to ne usea o maintain the supremacy of tbe laws against all oppo fcera. to hold or retake the public property, and to collect tbe revenue, uai we asserted, also, that powers not given ought not to be usurped, and that war upon a State, In the circumstances of the country, would be, riot onlv nsumation.but destruction of tbe Union. Of .course you cannot De bo ignorant oi me J - r - .... tal law as not to know that our exposition of It was perfectly sound and cor- . j i : . v. rect.'. ion never preieoueu uu mou wnu unsi enouah to know his right hand from bin left ever will pretend that the President had constitutional or legal authority to make an aggressive war against the States by nis o-vn act, nor bad uongress any such power. But you think I ought not to have answered the President's questions truly, and that be nnoht not to have been influenced by consti tutional scruples. That was the rub. There ;Q iinntci never was and never can be abont the law ; but Ht. Buchanan's wick edness and treason consisted in obeying it whn vnu think he ought to have broken it, For this cause you try to excite against his mAmnrv those bad rartv passions by which v, hnnnded and nersecuted during all .iu iV.b last vears of bis life. I will make no effort to convince you that Mr. Buchanan was right in standing by the Constitution which he had sworn to preserve. defend. That. I know, would U altogether noDeless. Tbe declared admirer r Jnn Rrnwn. the nolitical ally of Jim Lane, tbe partisan of Baker, the advocate of gen eral kidnapping and special murder by mil iulnm. the oDen supporter o$ measure which abolish tbe right of trial by inrv and bnild un an Asiatic despotism on the ruins of a free government such a man ur.-mld ' entirel-v minnnderBtand the reason "simple as it is) upon which I put the justi ficatWD of dead President for refusing to perjure himself. But, if I cannot justify, perhaps I can excuse him. I will offer some apologies which tnay possibly disarm your censure, or at least mitigate the severity of your righteous indignation. In the first place, then, Mr. Buchanan was born of Christian parents and educated in a Christian community. All his lifetime, and at the moment of his death, he felt that fear of God which a respectable authority has declared to be not weakness, but the "begin ning of wisdom" and the dblv source of true greatness. The corruptions fntroduced into the church by the political preachers of New England never reached him. He was sim ply a Christian man and a firm believer in the morality taught by the New Testament. Now, you know, (at all events you must have beard.) that persons who adhere to that kibd of religion always contract a habit of regardiug the violation of an oath with inex pressible horror; whether it be committed by an officer or a witness ; whether the ob ject of It be to destroy the character of a po litical opponent, to promote the interests of a party, or to enslave aState. All kinds of false swearing are alike to them. They stubbornly reject the reasoning which seeks to convince them that the observance of oaths by magistrates and legislators is a mere ques tion of expediency and self interest, varying jWith circumstances. Mr. Buchanan being a man of this class. I submit the question, whether his prejudices against perjury (un reasonable as you may think them) are not entitled to some little respect. Apart from the religious obligation of his oath, he loved the constitution of his country on its own account, as the best government the world ever saw. I do not expect you to sympathize with this feeling ; your affections are otherwise engaged. But can you not make some allowance for his attachment to that great compact which was framed by our forefathers to secure union, justice, peace, state independence, and individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity ? Another thiug : All his predecessors gov erned their couduct by sinailar notions of fidelity to the constitution. In peace and war, in prosperity'and disaster, through all changes, in spite of all threats and provoca tions, they bad kept their oaths and assumed no ungrauted power. It was the most nat ural thing in the world for Mr. Buchanan to follow the example of such men as Wash ington, Madison and Jackson, rather than the precepts of those small but ferocious pol iticians who thought their own passions and interestis aT,higher law" thau the law of the country. Again ; All his advisers not I alone, but cell ol them--cx pressed the ch ar and unhesi tating opiuioti that his View of the law ou the subject of coercing States was riyht. His legal duty being settled, not one anions them ever breathed a suggestion that he ought to violate it. Besides, there was a question of natural justice as well as legal propriety involved iu making war upon the Stales at that time. Nine-tenths of the Southern people were thoroughly devoted to the Union and had committed no sin against it, even in thought. Would it have bee a well to bring the visit ation of fire, sword and famine upon whole communities of innocent persons ? You will probably answer this in the affirmative. Vou think that no opportunity to shed the blood and plunder the property of men, women and children who live beyond the Potomac ought ever to be lost. Mr. Buchan an might have seized that occasion to imi tate John Brown on a large scale, and thus made an ''heroic character" in your eyes. But you must be aware that he would have beeu regarded by the mass of men as a moral monster, and the admiration of yourself and your party in Massachusetts would have been but a poor compensation lor the eternal weight of infamy with which the rest of the world would have loaded his memory. Further still : You know that the general in chief of the army had reported five com panies as the whole available force in the South, and you never proposed to increase It. Yet you wanted war. V by I lou must have desirad the Union cause to be disgraced and defeated, for nothing else coull have re suited from such a war as you now abuse Mr. Buchanan for not making. You and your party iu Congress were strictly non committal. You did not recommend peace, nor offer your support to war. You would take neither the olive branch nor tbe sworu. Y'ou refused to settle, and you made no pre paration for a contest. But you reveal uow what was then tbe secret desire.of your heart that the administration, in defiance of law, and without means, would declare war on its own responsibility. ,This would have becu au expulsion ot the ooutnern Mates from the Union, for it would have placed their people beyond the protection of Fed eral law : they would necessarily rise in self- defenco : our little army of five hundred men would perish in a fortnight ; .before the fourth of March the independence ot the South would be a settled fact. Moreover, as you and your party friends in Congress did not call for a war, the Pres ident had a right (had he not?) to suppose that vou approved of ris determination to keep the peace 1 Perhaps your approval of bis conduct is not very powerful evidence of its justice or legality. But here Is the point Hn run vou nave tne tace to denounce a man as a criminal, after be is dead, for pub lie act which' you consented to by your silence at the time they were done 7 But this is not all. You give your, un Qualified approbation of Mr. Lincoln's ad ministration. I do not av vou were true to it ffor I believe the evidence is extant which proves that you were not.) but you have lauded it as strong and. faithful. Mr. Lin coln adopted precisely the same legal prin rinlpa with regard to the coercion of the States that Mr. Buchanan had acted upon and carried the policy of reconciliation far hevond him. He avowed his intention not to make war or provoke it, as plainly as his predecessor bad ever done. Neither he nor his Attorney-General asserted their constitu tional authority to commence aggressive and general hostilities for any cause then exist, ing. lie received Commissioners from the Southern States. ' Be pledged himself not to retake the forts, arsenals, dock-yards, custom-houses, etc., then in the bands of the secessionists. Be promised to continue the mail service in the seceded States if they wnnld nermit him. He went further still. and publicly assured the Southern people tbat he would XWt iiritatv ttem by attempt, ing to execute the Federal laws at any place where it wouTd be 'specially offensive to them. All these were concessions to the South which Mr, Buchanan bad steadily re fused to make, and if he had made them, you would bo doubt have pronounced them treasonable. But the Lincoln administration did not stop there. That cabinet voted six to one infator of surrendering Fort Sump ter Mr. Blair being the only dissentient. Tbe President, if be did not yield to the ma jority, must have wavered a considerable; time The Secretary of State was so sure of him that he caused the South Caroliua authorities to be informed that the fort would be given up. Yoa will not deny these facts, but will continue, as heretofore, to say that the Buchanan administration weakly and wickedly favored secession, while that of Lincoln was firmly and faithfully opposed. The man who involves himself in such incon sistencies, whether from want of information, want of judgment, or want of veracity, is not qualified to write on an historical subject. I have given more time and space thaa I intended to this part of your paper, but I am addressing a man of peculiar character. To a person whose moral perceptions are healthy and natural, I could make my de fence in a breath ; but being required to apologize for not violating a sworn duty, some circumlocutiou is necessary. Your mere railing accusations against Mr. Buchanan are hardly worth a reply. The place he is destined to occupy in history does not depend on anything you can ay or for bear to say. You have no knowledge, what ever, of his character. Morally, iutellectU' ally and politically, be was altogether too much of a man for you to comprehend. The world will look for its information coucern ing him to the acts of his life, and to the testimony of men who knew him and had minds large enough to take in his dimen sions. I would not offtr yon the word of a Democrat; but among those who were with him continually during the last weeks of his administration, are some who have since supported ltadical measures with zeal warm enough to make them good witnesses. Let General Dix speak his knowledge and say whether he saw anything of the treason, the weakness, or the wickedness which you impute so boldly and so recklessly. Mr. King, the Post Master General, cannot be ignorant of any important fact which bears on this question. Mr. Holt has already, on seveial occasions, delivered his testimony. It is a fervent tribute to the "wise statesman ship and unsullied patriotism" of Mr. Bn chauan, as well as to "the firm and generous support" which he constantly gave to men and measures approved by his conscience. The proofs of his great ability and his emi nent public servie-es ae found on every page ot his country's history, from 1820 to 1SG1. During all that long period Le steadily, faithfully aud powerfully sustained the prin ciples of free constitutional government. This nation never had a truer friend, nor its laws a defender, who would more cheerfully have given his life to save them from viola tion. No man was ever slandered bo brutal ly. His life'ij life was literally lied away. In the last months of his administration he devoted all the energies of his mind and body to the great duty of saving the Union, if possible, from dissolution and civil war. lie knew all the dangers to which it was exposed, and it would, therefore, be vaiu to say that he was not alarmed for his country; but he showed no st;n id unmanly fear on his own account. He met all his vast re sponsibilities as fairly as any Chief Magis trate we ever bad. in no case did he shrink from or attempt to evade- them. The accu sation of , timidity and indecision is most preposterous. His faults were all of another kind : his resolutions, once formed, were gen erally immovable to a degree that bordered on obstinacy. On every matter of great Im portance he deliberated cautiously, and sometimes tried the patience of his friends by refusing to act until he had made up an opinion which he could live and die by. These characteristics explain the act that his whole political life, from the time he en tered Congress until be retired from the Presidency all his acts, speeches and papers have a consistency v Inch belongs to those of no other American statesman. Ho never found it necessary to cross his own path or go back upon his pledges. His judgment was of course not infallible; and in 18G1 hs announced a determination with reference to the South Carolina Commissioners which I and others thought erroneous but unchange able. Most unexpectedly, aud altogether contrary to his usual habit of steadfast self- reliance, he consented to reconsider and materiallj alter his decision. This change, and all the circumstances which brought it about, were alike honorable to his under standing and his heart. I admit that you were not the first- inventor of these slanders ; but you ought to know that it does not be come a man in your station to take up an evil report and repeat It, like a parrot, without stopping to consider whether it has any foundation or not. You are not content with traducing Mr. Buchanan himself; you take up the heads of the departments who served under him, and deal out your denunciations upon near ly all In succession. The Secretary of the Treasury, you say, was deranging the finances and sinking the national credit. Upon whom does this fair? Was it Cobb, or Thomas, or Dix that com mitted that crime? The charge is equally untrue, whether made against one or anoth er. You never saw a scintilla of evidence to justify it. . You tell your readers that the Secretary of War scattered the army and sent guns and munitions to tbe secessionists. Whatever Mr. Floyd may have done in his lifetime; it is well established that he never did this. Numerous charges have - been, and others might be, made against that officer with some show of truth. It is curious that your ap petite for scandal could be satisfied only by selecting one which is well kcown to be un founded. ' You inform the country that the Secreta ry of the Navy rendered that arm 2owerless . This is not a new charge. It has been made several times before, and solemnly investiga ted more than once. ' Not only bas it never been supported, but it has uniformly been met by such evidence cf Mr. Toucey's per fect integrity that every respectable man among his political enemies must acquit htm without hesitation. In ypur present reiter- ation of it, you are simply bearing fal&e wit ness against your neighbor, in flat violation of the ninth commandment. But perhaps the most extraordinary of all your averments is, that the Secretary of the Interior perfnilt&d the rubbery of trust funds. You did not mean it to be understood that a robbery occurred which he knew nothing about, and of which he. was. therefore, as innocent as any other man. You intended to make the impression that he wilfully gave his permission to the ciiminal asporta tion of the funds in question, made himself an accessory to the felony before the fact, and was asuilty as if he had done it with his own hands. , You could not possibly have believed this, unless you perversely closed your eyes against the ght if plain truth. All the circumstances of the transaction to which you refer are as well understood as anything in the history of the country. A committee of Congress, consisting of mem bers opposed to the Secretary, examined the evidence when it was fresh, and reported upon it. The correctness of their judgment has uever been impugned. In the face of these recorded and well known facts, you de liberately sit down and write out, or get somebody to write and publish to the world on your authority, the accusation that Mr. Thompson has committed an offense which should make him infamous forever. The force of mendacity can go no further. I ad mit that you are a loyal man, in the modern sense of tbe word, and a Senator in Congress from a most loyal State ; and it is equally true that Mr. Thompson was a rebel ; that he was for years an exile from his borne and country, pursued wherever he went by au Executive proclamation which' put a price on his head. This gives you an immenee advantage over him. But the fact is still true that no department of this government was ever managed more ably or more faith fully than the Interior while ht was at the head of it. You may have all the benefit of loyalty, and you may weigh him down with tho huge burden uf the rebellion ; neverthe less, his mental ability, good sense and com mou honesty put him so immeasurably far above you, that you will never in this life be able to get a horizontal view of his character. I come now to the more important part of your article, which Uirectly concerns Mr. Stanton. Your attacks upon Buchanan, Toticey and Thompson might be safely pass ed in silence, but tho character of Stauton must utterly perish if it be not de-fended against your praise. You 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 de-claratiou to Judge Chaeo more than thirty years ago, at Cul umbns, Ohio; and you attempt to corrobo rate it by citing his association at Washing ton with Dr. Bailey aud other abohaoLists. If you tell the truth, he was the most mar velous imposter that ever lived or died. Among Us. his political principles were thought to be as well known as his name and occupation. He never allowed his fi delity to be doubted for one moment. It was perfectly understood that he hail no affinities whatever with men of your school iu morals or politics. His condemnation of the abolitionists was Unsparing for their hy pocrisy, their corruption, their enmity to the Constitution, and their lawless disregard for the rights of States and individuals. Thus he won the corjfiJeuce of Democrats. On the faith of such professions we promoted him in his business, and gave him office, honor and fortune. But; according 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 iuto the cruel clutches of their enemies For this cold-blooded and deliberate treachery you bespeak the admiration of the American people. You might as well propose to can onize Judas Iscariot. I maintain, on the other hand, that he was what ho seemed to be, a souud and siu cere friend, political and personal, of: the J men who showered their favors on his head. He had, at least, the average amount of at. tachment for "the Constitution of the Uni- J ted Scates, and for the peace, good order and happiness of the 6ame." As a necessary i consequence, hs dreaded tbe dishonest and destructive rule which he foresaw that you would be sure. to establish as soon as you could. His Democracy did not cease when the wnr opened. In the summer of 1861, when your anti-coiistittitieinal principles be gan to be practically carried out by the kid napping of inuocent citizens, by thesuppres tlon of free speech, and by the enslavement of the press, he imprecated the vengeance of God and the law upon the guilty authors of those crimes with as much euergy as any Democrat in the nation. Only a short time before his appointment as Secretary cf War his love of liberty and legal justice impelled him to curse Mr. Lincoln himself with bitter curses. He called him by contemptuous names, aud with simian, if not with "swi nish phrase soiled his addition." I admit that he changed these sentiments afterwards, but I deny that he had adopted your way of thinking while he pretended to concur ia ours. His conversion was a real one, pro- uicea oy wba: ne regarded as "good and sufficient reasons him thereunto moving" and it was accompanied, 'or "immediately followed, by a corresponding change of his party attitude. He was not what you make him out, a mere fawning hypocrite. The issue ib plainly made. Tho friends 6f Mr. Stanton will not permit you" to gibbet him in the face of tbe world, after death has disarmed him of the power of self-defense. You must - prove tho injurious " allegations you make, or else accept the just consequen ces. J f the Chief Justice will say that he knows Mr. Stan ten to have been "in entire agreement" with the abolition party thirty years ago, his testimony may silence denial. But you 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 admitted upon tbe second-hand statement of a person who thinks, as you manifestly do think, that deception, fraud and false pre tences are an honor to the man who practiced them. - ' Next in chronological order is your assertion that Mr. Stanton, while yet a private citizen advised Mr. Buchanan tli it it was the duty and right of the Federal Government to coerce seceding States; that is to say, to make war against all the inhabitants of everv State in .which an ordinance of secession had been or should be naesed. Now. maik how nlain ) tale will put yoo, dwo, lit, waW was consulted on that sulject until after he was Attorney General; and he rever at any time gave such advice as you put into his mouth. He liefer entertained any opinion of that kind, for he was a lawyer of large capacity mid could not. believe an . absurdity . He had too much regard for bis professional character to maintain a legal proposition- which . he knew to be false. He certainly would not have so debnsed him self in the eyes of the ndmiuistntion with whom he was particularly desirous, at that time, to etuiid well. On this point I wish to be Very distinct. I aver that Stun ton, thoroughly, cordially and constantly approved of and concurred iu the constitutional doctrines which you denounce as timid and treasonable. He iudcred the opiu ion of his predecessor with eX'tavagant and Undeserved laudation; he gave his adhesion to the annual message in inanv ways ; aud the special message of 8eh January, lb61, which expressed the same opinion with added empha sis, was carefully read over to him before it was sent to Congress, and received bis unqualified asseut. The existing evidence of this cau be easily adduced; it Is dlroct, as well as ciicum stautial, oral as well as documentary, and eou:e of it in the haudwriting of Mr. Stauton him 6elfv If you are willing to put the question into a proper foim for judicial investigation, 1 will aid you in doing So, aud give you an op portunity to make out your case before an im partial tribunal. If your statement be ttue that Mr. Stanton disbelieved iu the principles to which the ad ministration was unchangably pledged, bow did he come to take office uudcr it? Was he so -anxious fur public employment that be con sented to give up his on firm convictions and assist in carrying out measures which h'14 judgment condemned aa the offspring of timid ity and treason? Or, did he accept the confi dence of the Pirsident and the Cabinet with a predetermined intent to betrav it Either way you make him guilty of Unspeakable meanness. But conceding that he would accept, why did the President, with the consent ot his ad visers, gi ve the appointment to a man whom they knew to behoa ile to them upon points so Vital not only to the public 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 awal'owed by the credu'itjf the Salem witch finders. Your own consciousness of this compels you to explain' by attribulii.g it to a special intervention of Divine Provi dence. Your impious theory is that Almighty (jod procured this appointment miraculously, in order that rou, the enemies of the American Constitution, iniht have a py in the camp ot its friends. This will not serve your turn Reason never refers a hum-ui event to super natural agency, unless it be impossible to ac count lor it in any other way. The mystery of this case is easily cleared up by the hypothesis that vou have mi;i cpresented it from beginning to end; which is no miracle at aH, but quite in the natural order of things. The truth is, Mr. Stanton was In perfect ac cord with the adni!iiis!ration, before and after he became a part of it. ou every question oJ fundamental principle. He hud unlimited con fidence in the men with whom he was actinir. and they confided in him. For his chief and some of his colleagues he professed au attach ment literally boutiiih s ; tor all of them who stayed during the term, and for Thompson, who did not stay, r.e was warm 111 ins inenu.-iiip. You would now have us belie-ve that these were merely the arts of an accomplished iuiposicr; that while he was, in appearance, zealouslv co- aperating with us, he was reporting to you that he saw treason v.i every part ot the Uovern ment; and that he as secre.iy using all the means in his power to stir up the vilest passions au.st us." - Some overt acta of the treachery yr.u ascribe to him aie curious; lor instance, tue Sumner story, which you tell with singular Brevity ana coolness. Sir. Sumner caUed on him at his oflice, for what purpose you do not disclose. Mr. fftanton did not receive his visitor cither with th po!iiene33 of a gcntltmaD or the cour tesy due to a senator, much less with the cor dia'.itv of a friend, but h istled 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 couveree with him thiro, but would see him at one o'clock that u'.ghti The hour came, and then, when tho city was wrapped in leen, he skulked av. ay to the. meeting place, where, under the cover of darkness, he whis pered the tales which he musur uabc to UTTtu a tbe hearing ot the parties tney were mteii'ietf to ruin. Ami those parties were uis menus and benefactors! Into w hat unfathomed gulfs of moral degradation must the mau have fallen who could be guilty or this! 15ut remember, this ia anothe-r secoud-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 Stauton disclosed, and ex plain, if he can, how this, midnight aud secret information ugainst men. whom he was airaia to confront is consistent with Mr. Stanton's character as a courageous, outspoken and hou est nun. lie said nothitiR Whatever to us about the treason which he saw in every part of the Gov ernment. He made no report ot his discover ies to the President. He maintained unbroken his fraternal lelations with his colleagues. By vour own account, he ad nutted to lr. bumner that he did not dark to speak of such a thing. cVtu hi his 'own office, lest it mvght reach the ears'of his associates iu the administration. Among the members of Cangrcss whom you name as the recipients of his secret commuui cations, not cue of moderate views ia included; much less did he speak lo any tnend ot the parties accused. He cautiously selected their bitterest enemies and poured his venom into hearts already festering with spite. The House raised a committee to "investigate treasonable machinations 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, Reynolds or Branch, but he "xnaue an arrangement by ; which Messrs. Howard, aud Dawes were in formed" of whatever they wanted to know. It appears, too, that a committee of vigilance was organized by the more active Republican members of Congress; iu other words, tbe ex treme partisans of both houses got up a secret body of their own; not to perform any legal duty pertaining to their offices, not to devise public measures for averting the ruin which threatened the country, but to prowl about in the dark for something to gratify personal malice or make a little capital for their partv. You were a member of that party, as it was fit that you should be, and Mr. Stanton gaVe you "warnings and suggestions" how to pro ceed. This -is-what you call "rising in that -crisis above tbe claim") of partisanship.'' Ati night he assisted you to rke the sewers in search of materials to bespatter his colleagues, end every morning he appeared before them to "renew'the assurances of his distinguished con sideration." It was thus that, iu your estima tion', "he consecrated himself to the loFTT duties of an exalted patriotism." v What, cargoes of defamatory falsehood he must have consigned to your keeping! r Tou lo not break the foul bulk, but you have given us some samples which deserve examiuattuihr He denounced Mr Toucey a false to the cuun: try, iuj-pired Dawes" resolution against him, 'and expressed the belief that he ought to e arrssted. Let ub look'at this a moment. To' Mr Toucfcy'B face MrStartfon breathed ' no syllable of censure Upon Jiis. ollial couduct as head cf the Navy Depat tnicut. To the President or Cabinet he expissed o doubt of ' his houesty. He met him eitry liey with a face of smiling lriendship. Toucey certainly . had not the leuiotcst i:ea that Stanton was defaming him behind his balk, or eonpiring with abolitionists to destroy his -pub.t:ou. He would as soou .have suspected Lim of an . intent to poisuti his lood or stab him iu his sleep. Can it be po.-siblc tli.it Stan'.on was the author of the DaWes resolution t . . ' ; That resolution is found iu tho "Cougres? ional tilobe," se-cond session, Thii tv-sixth, Cuucre.-s, I t-CO" Ct , part secohd, rr." i42-'i-2J - j .The proceeding 'was begun, no doubt, in the nope ot Dueling something 011 whn'h the. charge could be founded of scattering the navy to pre vent it from beiug xsed against the South.; But that failed miserably; and the committee ' reported nothing worse than "a grave error'' ot" the Secretary in accepting, without delay or inquiry, the resignation of Certain naval oflicers. Even this had do fOurdatiou iu law or fct. .Its truth was denied and the evidence called for; none was Lroduved The right to explain and defend was demanded, but the gag of the previous question Was applied before a word could tie said. The accusers knew very well that it would not bear the slightest inv es timation. Mr. Sickles said truly amid cries of order) that "ceusure without evidence dis graces only those who pronounce !t." Mr. Toucey's reputation was never injunoislv af fected by it in the estimation of any fair-minded man. But you fish it up fiom the oblivion to which it haa been cousignvd, nnd try to give it decency and diguity by saying that3tantoa inspired it. You do not appear to perceive the hideous depth to which your assertion, it true would drag him dwu. It is nut true; the whole business bears the impress ofu citTerent mind. " Mr. Stauton alsi suggested that his Colleague and lrie-nd, Toucey, oigut to be akkistko This cuu!d uot have been a piopoaitfon to take him iuto legal custody on a criminal charge regularly made. That would have been utterlv impossible aud absurd. The Da wea Committee itself could find nothing against hi sit but aa error of judgment. The suggestion must have been to kidnap him, without an accusation or proof of probable cause, and consign, .him to some dungeon w itliout trial or hope of relief. If Stantou attempted to get this done he was guilty of such perfidy as would have shocked the basest pandcrer iu the court of- Louis XW But to confute your libel upon Toucey and btacton both, it is only necessary to recollect the fact that kidnapping of Ameticau 1 Hirers was at that titr.e wholly uiiknowu ahd abso lutvly impossible. We were theu living uner a Democratic administration-Mlie country wag' free and law wns supreme. Tyianny had net yet sunk its bloody lans into the vitals of ihd national liberty. The r-ysteuiatic perjury which afterwards made the Constitution a dead letter was not theu established a3 a rule ot political morality. Your whole account of the "Cabinet scene" at which Floyd, "raging and storming, ur raigned the President ant Cabinet," and "the President tiembled nnd grew "pale," aud "Stauton met the baffled traitor and h's fellow couspirators with a storm of fierce and ncrv denunciation," is a pure and perfectlv baseless fabrication. It is absurd to boot Wlist was Flod's arraignment of the President aid Cab, inet tor? You s-iy for violating their pledge to the secessionists; and the charge against - he President and Cabinet of Violating nui a pledg es was predicted solely on the fact that Colonel Anderson had removed from Port Moultrie to Port Sumpter; ai.d Fm td was disai-foi.nTHJ in Colon tL ANDtns-jN, whom he "had expect ed," as a Southern man, to "carry out his pur poses in the interest of treason." This is mere driveling at best, and it is completely exploded by the record, which shows that Colonel An derson's transfer of his force from Fort Moul trie to Fort Sumpter was iu literal obedience to orders from the President, which Floyd himself had drawn up, siced and tratismiued. Moreover, Floyd at that time was not in con ditiou to arraign anybody. He, himself h--:d just belwre that been uot only arraigned but condemned, nnd the President had noiified him that he wouid be removed if he-did not resign , Was it this broken down alid powerless man who made the President tremble and groW pale by complaining that a subordinate had unexpectedly obeyed his own order? Vou are not silly enough to ay so. Was it Stan ton's ''storm ot fieice and fiery denunciation?" Stauton was no storm hk' in the presence of such men as he then h id to deal wi h. His language was habitually deferential, his who'e beariug decent, aud his behavior at the cout. cil board was entirely free from the insolence you impute to it. Your tales do not hold to gether. No oue cau give credence to your , repoit of bold aud. stormy denunciation by Stun ton in the preset ce of his chief and his colleagues, and at the same time believe what ' you say of him at another place, where you dese-ribe him as a dastard, skulking about in tbe dead of night to fiud a place of conceal -incut 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 ftealthy - spy who bargained so carefully for darkpess and secrecy w her he made his reports, must have been wholly un fitted to play the pirt of Jupiter Tonans in & equare and open confliet. It is not possible that the fearless Stauton of your "Cabinet scene" could be the same Stanton who, at one o'clock at night, was .'.squat like a toad' at the ear of Sumner, Essayiug- by his devilish..arts to teach Tbu organs of bis fuuey. I take it upon me to emphatically deny that Mr. St.mtou ever, "wrote a full and detailed accouut of the Cabinet scene," by which you can have tho least hope of being corroborated. I cannot prove a negative, but 1 can show thrtt vour assertion is incredible. That'he should have coolly Indited a letter even though he never sent it,, filled with loolish brags of his own prowess, which half a dozen men mn-g could prove to be false, was Hot consistent ei ther with nis prudence, veracity or tante. ie sides, he often 6poke,wii,ri meabouLthe events , of that peru-d, and never, in my hearing, d'd he manifest the slightest disposition tat misun derstand .or misrepresent them.: On' the CJ-t trary, when, a -statement resernblibg yours about tho Cabinet scene was puhlUhed In a London paper, 1 -euggested-that' be ought "to contradict it ; and he replied enpluluttig how and by. whom U had been fabricate.!, but said . it was" 110 1 worth a contradiction, for every ' man of common intelIigehccwuTd know it to be a tissue of lies. You canuot destroy Sum- . ton's character for sense and deccney by citing his own authority against himself. Nor call you find any other proof to sustaiu the story. It is the weak Invention of some turvy politi cian who sought to win the patronage of oue administration Jjy maligiiing-auothcr. - ' fomc busy and lniiiiiit Ititr roru. : - " ' Some octroi nar, cozen uij? slav, toiret eonv' ofiice5. ilutb devised this slander. ' - "3. - Your.btstery of his appolntneat to th War Department U aa erroneous aa that which you -have given of .his conduct while Attorney Gen eral.". Yu.' Bay that h cord.iallv in)or-f d.Mr" Caoierdn's recommendation to am the'' against the white people of the --.r ; Mr. Lincoln disapproved this aud req .11 u U w tcoici.crEi oy tqvxzb tigs '!
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers