Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1855-06-13
THE STAUNTON SPECTATOR AND GENERAL ADVERTISER
nuxhe, and Brooks.
Archbishop Hughes has published a book

| Archbishop Hughes has published book pur
porting 10 be the controversy between himself and
Senator Brooks. growing out ftae recently en-
acted Church Property Bill. The public Will
| be surprised 10 learn that the Archbishop omits
three of the most Important letters written ny
Mr.. Brooks. This intentional omission will be
harder to defend than even the vtnparalon IN
which the Prelale has INDUCED towards his oppo-
nent. Mr. Brooks has published letter in ref
erence 10 the matter. in which he says:
As do moi mean to be my own trumpe'er, nor
To reciprocats the in1nlgrnce OF mere abuse, al
though the provocalon is greater IMAM ever 10
call lh,s basliul Prelale by his right name, l
shall let calnmny and personality remain WIN IVY
opp,nent to the end II such language rom inc
hlGhesl officer of the Rom!sh Church IN me Y
nited STATES, burn abroad. owing aliegiahce 10
f;,reirn Prince and he the Head Of me STATES u,
the Church, does not injure the Archbishop and
! his cause more than layman. Ike myself an
quite cintent To fall under all these dainhatoy i,
n,themas Of The Prea;e lie has PIled ms cur
SIS s. cpitheis mountain high, ana even ,ioiii u
ton of this bad elnnence. ] very cody ana haPP-
" survey the vantage ground have IN eoh'io,
yersy v th such bad tempered and VI mannr,eu
man His Bouk will only add to the shame OF bls
newsnaper correspondence. and when the public
understand what pains he has taken to exclude
the mas, important of My letters from that book
nopular Judgment will fall more heavily upon
him than ever.
The New York Post, which has no love for
Mr. Brooks, speaking of Archbishop Hughes
book. says:
1--WE have reviewed the correspondence. to be
sure that nothing has escaped our attention. and
we feel constrained to say that. in our Judgment.
the impulaions SO freely bestowed upon the We
racitv uf the New York Senator come with an
III orace from his reverend antagonist. Though
Mr. Rrooks did not prove all that he charged he
certainly proved what the Archbishop Is under
stood IN have denied Under such circumstances
we find it difficult to understand the Archbishop's
motive in making permanent record OF con'ro-
yersy in which he figures 10 less advantage In ev-
ery respect than in any other with which we re-
member him to have been Connected"
DEMOCRATIC PAPER on THE VIRGINIA f.
LEcrros.-Some Of the Democratic papers, al
though pleased with the defeat OF The Americans
in Virginia, do not seem to be reolced at the cleo
ti.n Of Mr. Wise The New York Evening fost
after referring to MIR. Wise's denunciAiions OF
prouiuent Democrats aud his cratic course as
politician, says:
.While. therefore. we are glad to see proof
tina, the Nalivsts are in a minority IN Virginia
we have no compliments 10 pay either to heror to
the party which could 81 far forget lseii as tn make
him lis can1ldap lie is now nonlnsliy ranked Win
The Democratic parry. il is trne. bu, We have NJ
rea,un TO believe that he consider thus as anything
more than Temporary alliance. TOR The sake OF
office. and revolving no rpcanIann of old opinions
IN one of the newspapers friendly 10 The admins
,ratn. the result II tine late election is claimed
as prn,f that the Democratic party keeps toge'h-
er in Virgins. 1t seems 10 us on the contrary.
f., he prof that the Democratic party IN that
State is using its unity and coheslon receiving
political hcretics into its communion, and thils
tncturing itself with their opnnns. II Mr. " lss
i. TO give character 10 the political association he
leads. and by which he is chosen, We tear that
we shall ere long seek vainly for the old Democra-
tic party in Virginia"