Southern telegraph., 1837-05-09
JEFFERSON County, MAyG, !


To tho Editor Of the Telegraph.
SIR: Two or three weeks ago, sent
communication to the editor of the Natchcz
Courier, detailing as far as had then learn
ed, the result of the late election in this
county, and at the same time took occusion
to express my opinions upon that result, and
the causes which had contributed to pro-
dDco it. also commented in what re-
gorded respectful manner, upon the P0lit-
icaj character and standing cf some Of the
candidates. Harmless and uaexcepiiona-
bic, as Ishould suppose this course would
be docmedby every reasonable Jaon, it has
brought forth rather sounding, elaborate,
and acrimonious reply from Nj. Thomas
J. Jouy5ToT, one the defeated candidates,
whose political history had lightly touch
ed upon in the course ofmy remarks. From
theoher defeated candidates, have as YET
hcard nothing. If Mr., FARIsH and DR..
PuLLIHG, who were t,ea!edsaa excep-
tionably as Mr.. Johnston, sli0sid cxpend
the same quantity of ink and paper n ihoir
"Tindication,' l may as weil make up my
mind to look quietly on, and Soc all the
beauties Of my banling melt away, one by
one, in the acidity of criticism, like pearls
in the cup of the Egyptian Queen. TRUST,
however, thatas sensible and prudent mon,
they will writhe with less violence under
dofcat and prac'icemore phlssophyihan
their equally unsuccessful competitor has
done.
| charged Mr.. Johnston with having un-
dergone political transigaratiJn-wih
having deserted party and rep1diatcd
principles which he at one time prof5s3el to
cherish & which he vocileously advocated ;
in short, that he had been Wing, but had
apostatized, and was now found on tho other
side of the Tweed This charge he denies.
But how is that denialsupportod? By pi.ti-
ful cayil upon terms, by erroneous state
ments and false deductions. He osays he ne
yer has been aWhig-'hat he was a National
Republican,! / leave him to his choice 0!
terms. All that | intended 70 intimate was.
that he had, until recently, been an oppo.
nent-an ayowod and jealous opponent
Of the Administration; that he had profess.
ed to condemn the policy of that Admins.
tration, and the leading principles upon
which its measures were ayowedIy baseI
All this, in substance, he admits-aye, he
knows these allegations to be too true tc
admito Of denial. Here, then, we arc not al
issue.
But Mr. Johnston claims that all this i.
perfectly consistent with his present admit
ted Van Rlronism. Does he not know
as man Of common intelligence is he no
bound to know--that Mr.. Van Buren, boast
ed of his determination to pursue the same
course which had marked his prcdece sr'.
career, and to be governed by the same
principles by which that policy was dictat
ed?--that he would "carry out and perfec
the great work which had been so glorious
ly begun by his ilIustrious Predecessor
And does he not know that this determna
tion was ostontatiously paraded before tht
American people, at the commencement o.
the canvass which resulted in Mr.. Van Ba
ren's election? How, then, can Mr. John
ston contend, that be can support Mr. v B
consistently with his former professions anl
principles?
Bat MI. J. contends that tho samo qlos.
tions upon which the Presidential canvass
turned in 1892, were not agiated in 1895
thatthe Bank Of the United States had been
destroyed past redemption-that the Indian
policy ofthe late reign had been confirmed
--that "internal improvements had been
thrown back upon the shoulders Of State
governmcnts"-agd that oihe vexed ques.
ton Of the tariff had been settled By ihc
memorable compromise" Now, Mr.. Eli-
tor, whero is The man in this community
that believes these were all tho material
grounds Of opposition to the last administra.
lion, orihatthey aloncwerc the main spring
III Mf. Jobnston's hostility othe aGoycFn