The Georgetown news., 1855-10-11
0, yes, and soundless too;
For Won have stolen their buzzing Antony
And very wisely, threat before you sting


of his intention to answer a short editorial
in this paper, at length in the fulness of
time he devotes fully column and half of
that paper to a reply. And to whom and
to what? To one whose views he declares
to be "supremely ridiculous" and ''refresh-
ingIy stupid" and as to the views he oppo-
ses, they are not to be found in any part of
the few lines by which we noticed his first
editorial, suggesting to Americans whom
they should select for important Offices
Whether thsinconsistency in the editor of
our cotemporary is "refreshingly stupid,
or whether that editor has thus rendered
himself "supremely ridiculous" we do not
propose now to discuss. 1t is enough
that whatever may be his intellectual quail
tiles, or his claims to be considered a gen
tleman, that his words are printed in pa
which is known as the organ Of its party in
the Empire county, otherwise the article in
the last week issue would receive no notice
from US. Not that we would avoid dis
cussion with our cotemporary on any polit
ical subject, but a proper selfrespect would
forbid the idea Of entering into warfare,
which if conducted by such language as is
used in the last article in the Democrat,
would be disreputable to the parties con-
cerned, and consequently, in some degree,
= - ool,ou E I I1
this apology for replying to such an article
as that alluded to, we reply; of course only
to the ideas expressed in the long editorial
Of our neighbor our space to reply in being
less than can be spared by the Democrat.
He says that our editorial showed
more zeal than good taste or judg-
ment." Whether Mr.. Gelwicks has shown
good taste or Judgment by the first lines of
his last leader, quoted above, is entirely
matter Of TASTE" which, like all matters of
the kind, the reader alone is entitled to de-
eide. He says we "came down on him ra
ther sayagely.' Certainly this is the first
time that our article has been so regarded.
| Then what follows iD favor of the gentlemen
whom it recommends, we do not now, nor
never have publicly or privately denied. But
our cotemporay says: The Neaos. however,
is not disposed to regard their claims favor
ably" Indeed! This is news to our read
ers-none Of whom, we presume, ever i'm
agined for moment that We were opposed
to the personal friends Of our cotemporary.
There was nothing in our article that was
so intended, or that did express an unlavor-
able opinion; but on the contrary, we espoke
Of the gentlemen favorably, as "worthy"
and meritorious. We only objected that
our neighbeg, to use his own language about
the matter, 'vainly supposed every member
of the successful party would endors5" his
views. We did not regard the gentlemen
suspiciously, but the recommendations which
came from such source. Certainly we
believe that neither Mr.. NEWELL or DR..
TAYLOR ever expected or solicited the Dem
| ocrat'S services in their behalf On the con-
gentlemen have any aspirations, they would
regard the course Of the Democrat as highly
prejudicial to their claims; because that pa
per assumes that members elected from
their own county" are opposed to their
election. AS a mere statement this would
have more weight against candidates than
all that the Democrat could say for them
And this idea originated entirely with
himself. AS no opposition, to our know
ledge, has been expressed towards his ''per-
sonal friends" And full column Of his
last issue is in answer to what he calls our
opposition.
So it appears that his own error was the
foundation for this long threatened and Ia
boriou5 article brought forth last Saturday.
Again we are compelled TO quote our IA
vorite author as applicable to this fatal er-
ror:
0. hateful error, melancholys child,
Why dost thou show to the apt thoughts of men.
The things that are not
And again our author says that error
never comes unto happy birth, but kills
the parent that engendered it."
Our neighbor has been very melancholy
since the election; his error was the child OF
that melancholy; aud it is said that this
child kills the parent that engenders it. So
we may expect in the present case; for
Shakespeare was a philosopher.
Now, as stated in our first article on this
subject, we still hope that our neighbor is
honest in recommending gentlemen whose
own merits entitle them to the highest con-
sideration of the party, as we have hereto
fore stated Rnt II does seem sfranore that