Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1856-10-30

| not himself expressly admitted Have we not
stated in precise forms that be voted to censure
Keitt, after the resolution was divided Have we
not given the yeas and nays, exactly as they
stand, from the pages of the Congressional Globe,
with classification showing how many Republi-
cans and Americans from the free States voted,
'o'th Mr. Dewitt, to exculpate Edmundson, the
villainous accomplice of Brooks ! Have we sta
ted or intimated that Mr.. Dewitt failed to do his
duty in voting against the chief eulprit Have
we concealed any fact in extenuation of the con-
dnct of either Edmundson OF his apologist We
assert that the Spy has given full and complete
history of the case, and Col. Dewitt has not
dared to deny one of its statements. The Trans
crlpt has lied in several particulars about the af
fair, but the Colonel does not venture to repeat
those lies in his speech
Col. Dewitt says on the question of expelling
Brooks he voted NTH the aohole band of the Friends
Of freedom but on the Edmundson case he voted
WITH A SMALL MINORITY OF THE BAND. How
did that happen? Was his judgement better
than that of Bufinton, Bmngame, Chaffee, Com
ms, Daunell Davis, Hall, Knapp and Trafton,
all of whom voted in opposit ion to Dew::t,
and TO censure Edmundson f-Were tine nine
members from Massachusetts, recreant, and the
Worcester member alone the true man? If Mr..
DeWitt's course was just what Massachusetts,
mans should have been, then the course of the
nine others was Just acbat Massachusetts, mans
should NOT haze been. The nine members agreed
with the majority of the committee who reported
that Edmundson was guilty accomplish Of
Brooks, and deserving of censure; but Dewitt
said no he does not deserve censure.
THIS question we have also discussed. Is
there any pretence that we have exhibited Ed
mundson in too unfavorable light? All the ev-
idence we have given against him, was furnished
by himself, (under oath,) before the House Com
mittee, and in his speech to the House. 1t
such evidence as would have convicted him of be-
ing an accomplce in any respectable Court in the
United States. 1t his own confession of
guilt. 1t was full of ISLANDERS and lies upon Mr..
Sumner it besides exhibited the author as dirty
villain, toward whom no courtesy should have
been extended Has Col. Dewitt any evidence
to control this confession of guilt Not a parti
Gle He does not pretend to say that Edmund
son is gutless and he admits his vote to exone.
rate him from censure. He yields up the whole
case. He makes no defense worth mentioning.
A cry against the Spy for abuse and calumny,"
is no defence. A lying and scurrilous paragraph
in the Transcript is no defence. A reference to
the votes of other men is no defence. Unless
Col Dewitt can show that Edmundson is an in
cured man; unless he can show that the Con-
gressional committee, theimajority of theRepubli-
can and American members from the North, and
uine from Massachusetts were wrong, and Col.
Dewitt was right in his estimate of Edmundson's
conduct, he makes no defence whatever, Let us
have no side issues Col. Dewitt is before the
people for reelection. He is public character,
open to conviction. We have shown that he
failed to do his duty to his constituents, by reeas-
ing slanderer and an accomplice of assassins
from censure. Unless he can say something bet
ter in his defence than he is yet reported of say
ing, he makes a poor appearance upon the stand