Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1856-04-02
LETTER FROM JOS. B. McENALLY, Eso.

Mr.. >. b. Row Il perceive in the last num-
Der of the s'Clearfeld Republican" an edito-
rial article in regard to myself, under the cap
tion of ssGood Bye, Mac.'' l wish to say a
few words in reply. In speaking of myself
and the political campaign of 1854, the editor
in that article proceeds to say,
ssThere was nothing wrong then with the Ne
GO braska bill. That measure he endorsed to
I" the fullest extent and extolled the National
&c Administration extravagantly on this very
" subject
Now, nothing could be farther from the truth
than that statement. never entertained such
an opinion. On the other hand, 1 always be-
lieved that the repeal of the Missouri Compro-
mise by the Nebraska bill was in the highest
degree unwise and improper. 1 have no recol-
lection of ever extolling the present National
Administration on any subject, and 1 am cer-
tain l never eStolled it on account of he Kan
sas Nebraska bill.
1t was not my design to take anv part in the
political campaign of 1854. But by the ear
nest request of some members OF the Demo-
cratic party, l was induced to attend few
meetings just before the election. In my
speeches at those meetings, there were at least
two subjects on which l did not speak. I did
not in any way discuss the Kansas Nebraska
bill, and did not say one word respecting
Gov. Bigler. Much was said at those meet
ings in favor of Gov. Bigler, and, 1 think, also
in favor of the Kansas Nebraska bill; but il
was by other speakers and not by myself. 1t
was not, however, generally desired by the
RsaaacEatic party in 1854 to make the policy
of passing the Kansas Nebraska bill an issue
in the State politics, and the very convention
which nominated Gov. Bigler in that year ut
terly refused to pass any resolutions on the
subject.
On the score of consistency, would not
like to make an even exchange with the edi-
tor oil the Republican. There may, however,
be some little difference in our ideas of con-
sistency. The only consistency at which aim
is to support those men and those measures
which will most promote the welfare of the
country. The EDITORS consistency seems to
consist in adhering, under all circumstances.
TO his party.
But the real question of public interest is
not, whether l or some other private citizen
has been consistent in his political course, but
whether the people ought to sustain the party
that endorses the course Of the present Ma
tioral Administration.
For my own part, feel fully convinced that
the highest interests of the country require
that the present National Administration. and
those who justify its course, should be remoy-
ed from power. Whether right or wrong, the
opinion has been deliberately formed and hon
estly entertained.
The editor of the Republican has a right to
think otherwise, and to convince his neipbbors
if he can. But of one thing he may be as
sured, that to use his columns in needless DIR
sonal assaults on private citizens is not the
way to enlighten the community on public
questions.
Public measures and public men are fair
subjects Of comment. If the editor of the
Republican will conine himself to them and
to other matters of public interest, he will find
enough to occupy his attention without assail
ing me. If, however, he cannot restrain him
self, We would ask as favor that he endeayor
to acquire the habit of telling the truth
March 81 Sc. J.B. MoEu.ux