Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1851-06-26
The MetrOpOlitan-The Ban
ner-The True Democracy.

which opens as follows:
"Will the Glasgow Times have the good
ness to specify wherein we differ from the
Howard democracy on the slavery question?
Some OF our political friends in that county,
and among them the editor Of the Banner
believe that the Allen and Brosdhead letters
Of Mr.. Geyer conflict in principle. We
have ventured, without the vanity OF assum
ing 10 ourselves The province OF shapeiog the
course and conduct Of those intelligent friends,
to express different opinion on that patIi'
cular point, and have therefore said, that we
were unwilling 10 charge Inconsistency where,
according to our humble conceptions, there
was none. This is the sum and substance
OF the difference between The Banner and
this paper, and about which the Times gives
itself SO much pious concern"
Certainly, we will. The democracy
of Howard, in the last canvass, assum.
ed the position that no man could be
Democrat and admit the power Of Con.
gress 10 Legislate on Slavery in the
Territories ofthe United States. They
made a denial of the power, test of
democratic orthodoxy. This you do
not do-and herein there is a material
difference. The Wings of This county.
and the State, occupied the same posi-.
ton the Metropolitan does, and because
Of their position, were denounced by
the democrats, as being Free Sellers
and Abolitionists. If their denuncia.
tions were true, then the metropolitan
is a free soil sheet--for the Times is
still called free soil paper because ii
opposes the question on The power of
Congress over slavery in the Terrific.
ries, as test of political orthodoxy.
On the Geyer letters, there was as
wide difference between the Banner,
the democracy Of Howard, and the
views of the Metropolitan, as could ex.
ist on a subject. This arose from the
views of the parties on the other ques.
lion. The democracy Of Howard were
committed 10 the teSt-and when Gey.
er denounced it as foolish, they could
not do otherwise than denounce him
The present editor Of the Metropolitan
however, was too smart to place hi.
reputation as a politician on a zone
idea PLATFORM" or expect any other
sensible person 10 do SO, and hence he
could not condemn Mr.. Geyer. Fol
occupying the Identical ground The
Metropolitan does, we and our friend
have been denounced by the democra
cy Of Howard-and we had enough
pious concern on the subject. to enquire
of the organ of the Howard democra
cy, if those denuncia,ions extended /,
the organ of the Stale Democracy -
The Howard organ has not YET faced tn
music, but now that the metropolitan
has come 10 our aid, we think we shaI
be able to learn "Under which king" h
serves. Besides, local circumstance
are assisting US; the democracy of How
ard are not content with their position
Grumblings and curses, deep and Ter
Tible, occasionally rise TO the surfac G
and we look for an advertisement err
long.
The second paragraph of the Metro
politan's article is as follows
As there is no principle involved, and a
the difference Of opinion relates to no i'm
portanl practical issue, the peculiar notion
of the Banner and OF other friends in How
ard on the point referred 10, do not in III
slightes! degree, impair our confidence il
their sound political orthodoxy. We ar
quite sure that they, in turn, are as little a
iected by our notions on the same subject. =
The Times will therefore fail in its unworth
purpose, which is too Palpabls to need
palmer development
How very delicate the compliment
How coaxing the hope that il will b,
reciprocated! mo important p, acticQ
issue, ""on The point referred to-" snc
has nothing to do with Sound poliiica
orthodoxy The very arguments tina
were used last summer, and whicl
were secuted by the democracy
Nothing short of a denial ION The poin
referred TO-" was democratic, and j
presented one of the most "importan
practical issues" ever presented 10 th'
people for their delibsraiiop. Tn,