, 1855-08-24

out in some shape" actions speak louder
than Words But while think of it, anG
for fear a wrong Interpretation may be pla
ccd upon the remarks in my communication
of week before last, relative to the mem
bers of the last Legislature, did not mean
10 cast slur upon all the members of the
House; far from it, There were several
very good men in that body, and men that
thought capable of filling their station
with credit, but that thirteen that got into
the know nothing wigwam, and didn't get
out, were certainly doing more than their
constituents expected of then; but, to the
credit Of the democracy Of this county, l
will further state that only one of its four
representatives stopped so low and ovcr-did
his duty, aud, | believe, Mqt Ephraim is
joined TO his idols"
Now few words about perjury, OF
which am supposed TO he guilty, and OF
which there has been so much speculation
] However presume it is not necessary for
me to say much on this head, for whatever
| might say would not cause my enemies to
think or talk different TO what they think
or ray now; and as for my friends, don't
think any sensible man can say that have
/ been guilty Of Il heinous crime, or that my
word is no more to he trusted; but for the
sake OF the less interested and initiated,
hayc thought it not ont Of the way for me
to express, at least, my feelings with refer
cnce TO this accusation. In the first place,
| do not think that man can perjure him
self by the violation of anything connected
with the order Of know uothings, from the
fact there is nothing there, when view
ed in proper light, that places mnUtm,
der any legal restrictions, or even honora-
bic duty, the violation of which would be
perjury. What are their oaths and rcstric-
tons? by what authority are they minis
tered and who gives them the power to
decide what is fidelity and what is perjury
They have no authority. Suppose an oath
should he administered to an individual by
another, who had 10 authority to admins
ter oaths, and the individual sworn should
Immediately violate It; could any one bring
suit in a court Of justice, to recover dam
ages in consequence of said violation2 or
could that individual he indicted for peru-
ry? Certainly Tot. But then am met
with this argument:-- went in con-
scious Of the circumstances, and voluntari-
ly pledged myself to abide certain rules and
restrictions, the which have violated
Thcu, gentlemen, the worst that you can
say would be, that it was breach of con-
fidencc. As for perjury, you certainly can
not call it by that name There is wide
difference in the two terms. "Well now"
/ .,sn ytnlnAa L.
dcnce reposed in you in one instance, yon
will in another Now, how ore you going
to get out of that ?" Well, sir, suppose
that / should be told, in confidence, by an
individual, that he was going TO do you a
private injury, you who had favored and
befriended me, who had given Inc all that
had ever asked Of you, and even more
than could have expected; would you call
it a breach of confidence Of such charac-
ter, that should forever hold me in condem.
nation,by all honest people, for me to ap-
prise you of the danger? Most assuredly
not, and can't you draw the comparison
This is political affair, and man should
prove himself as much OF friend to his
friends politically as he would socially. A
private injury was about to be done to the
democratic party. The democratic party
had been friend to me, then where is the
crime + a2
But we will take another view Of the
case. The very nature Of the institution
contemplateS an expose. We will suppose
for instance, that the know nothings had q
majority over all other parties in this coun.
ty, before the election. They certainly
would have made their own nominations
and elected their own men, Independent ol
any other party. Then, what would have
been the consequences When the result
of the election had have become known,
we should have found entirely different men
elected to those that were openly in the
field. What would have been the conclu
sion! They would have been known to hs
know nothingS, and then the whole party
would have come out from under their Gov
er aud exposed themselves. Now, ] will
tell you the difference. came out before
the election, and if the above had have
been the case-and it has been the case il
i good many places--they would have comt
out after the election. Now, there is moi
single word in any Of their obligation,
relative to an exposure before or after al
election. Then, so far as perjury is con
cerned, ono would be just as guilty as the
other. There is no particular time set il
their oaths or regulations when man nay
and when he shall not make an expose
About all the know .noihings in the state
have exposed themselves, and they are now
and have been holding, openly, state anC
national conventions, aud presume the ob
legations that they took were equally o!
binding as the obligations that are takeI
here. When thing has exposed itself
where is the perjury in exposing it
But again. Suppose Mr., Reader, if vol
are know nothing, that should publisl
all of your names and your actions as know
nothings, what of it! Do you feel that i
is right for you to be one? do you fee
, conscientious in what you are doing p