Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1857-09-09
From the Charleston Standard.
THE MERCURY AND FREEDOM OF tn. PRE-

The public have some interest in the solution
of these questions. If the Press can utter what
it peases, and stiie all reply then its boasttul
freedom" is hateful tyranny. 1t gives power
to the Press, and curtails in like proportion
the liberty of the subject citizen.
The Mercury misrepresents the circumstances
of the late election. A short reply is admitted,
which is followed BY another article reterating
the misrepresentation and containing misrep-
resentator more gross, if possible, of the circum
stances of the election last fall, accompanied
with the declaration that its columns are closed
to any reioinder. This is Freedom of the Press"
according TO the ncrcRry! Does the Courier
recognize the same rules of action? If 80, the
community should know, and shall know, how the
Freedom of the Press in Charleston, affects
the freedom of the citizen.
II there be all independent Press in the city,
claim 4 place for counter statement, to be paid
tor if required, but place where the discussion
of such matters are looked for, and not among
the advertisements of dry goods and groceries.
You inserted my correction of the first state.
ment, for which thank you-curtailed, it is true
and the point somewhat blunted if not altogether
DESTROYED. But of this make no complaint. l
ask to correct the misstatement which has been
added to the original one.
The Mercury'S correspondent (endorsed edto.
raly,) says that "last fall the National Demo
Gratis put forth Mr.. Porter us their candidate for
the Senate. The State Rights Democrats sup.
ported dr. Whaley.'
How arc the facts? Mr.. porter's only party
nomination for the place of Senator, dates as lar
back as l84s, when be was "put forth" by the
.aylor Democrats" strictly sectional party
opposed to the nominee Of the National Demo.
cratic Convention, Gen. Cass whom The .Nacury
supported. In 1852, he was reelected without
!. nomination. and unopposed. In 1856, he being
the incumbent Of eight years standing, was
again q candidate, without the nomination Of any
kind. Mr.. Porter had sanctioned sending dele.
gates 10 the Cincinnati Convention. was one
who regretted this movement, but like the great
majority of the City and the State, thought it no
sufficient cause for dividing our people While
Mr.. Porter was thus 4 candidate for reelection
to tho Senate Mr.. Whaley was presented-l will
not say "put forth, or by wholn-asa candidate
for Congress Mr.. Whalry though in 1850 and
81 Wing, Union man-and supporter of the
odious Compromise Acts-was then recognized
as a Democrat, standing on the principles avowed
in his letter to Judge Magrath. This implicated
him in tho Cincinnati Convention movement
much more decidedly than Mr.. Porter Ii there
ever has been Il period (which | doubt) when
Charleston has had before her people candidate
running specially as National democrat, it was
during the short time that Mr. Whaley was in the
field with Gen. GadSden and Col. Cunningham
While things were in this condition, Judge Ma.
2rath was brought ont, moi on account of his
Cincinnati Convention views, but with at least
portion OF hiS supporters in spite Of them. Mr.
Whaley thereupon declined evidently showing
that he had expected support from the same
quarter.
Circumstances too painfulior public discussion,
but which still may have their private influence,
induced Judge Magrath to withdraw from the
canvass. The Hon. Vim. p. Miles, then and
now Mayor of the city, was nominated as Il can.
didatr, at large meeting ui the citizens, and
elected by large majority of the district. Who
were ihey who dominated aud elected Mr. Milrs?
Does not the -Eerrury know that there were in
the city, substantially the same persons and the
same. party who had made him Mayor in 1855
Does the Mercury ignore the meeting held in
Hihcrnian Hall in August, 1855? 1t is but two
years ago. If the lnucu,y had really at heart
the cause OF Southern Rights, and desired TO ad.
vance that cause, rather than its tavorites, it
would ottencr recnr to the platform then adopted,
and upon which the Southern Rights party then
re-Organized achieved so signal triumph. The
Mercury was with that party, and aided in that
triumph. These say, were "notoriously" the
men who ''put forth Mr.. Miles, Bv whom was
he opposed? Chiefly by those whom the Mercu.
RI had joined in dcnouncing in lS55-the
Know Nuthings, or those who had lately been so.
The Executive Committee appointed BY those
who nominated Mr. Miles, adopted Mr.. Porter
and placed him on the ticket with Mr.. Miles. In
this way only was he ever "put forth" by any
party. Are thcsc-the former associates and
co.adjuters Of lie !lercHry-thc National Demo
crat, now denounced? Why National Demo.
Gratis? Mr.. Miles never approved the Cinciuna-
Ii Convention movement, and no man. perhaps,
i'll the State was better eutitcd, from his autecc.
dents, to he considered thoroughly State Rights
and Southern Rights than he-unlcss his being
a Co-opcrationist in 1850 and 81 excluded him
from that category?
is that the test with the .Nycury9 Then how
COMES it that Mr.. Whalcy is such favorite, who
then was !, Cnionst, compromise man, and af.
forwards y supporter Of General Scott against
the IIacury's sole Northern exception, Gen.
Pierce. Now, if Mr.. Porter was "put forth" Mt
all, it was by the same party which "put forth
Mr.. Miles.
Is it not notorious that Miles and Porter.
in the main, ran together, and Gen. Gadsden and
Mr.. Mhalcy? Yet the Mrcury says that "thc
National Democrats put forth Mr.. Porter and
" the State Rights Democrats supported Mr.
Whaley."
The men whom the Mercury joined in dcnoun-
cing, as "cpposed, theoretically and practically
10 the principles which have hitherto character.
scd South Carolina as State, and the !Southsrn
Rights party ereryehere," and whose action had
'endcred orally aud reorganization of the
Southern Rights Party an imperative duty in
South Carolina" arc suddenly converted, in the
Eyes OF the Aercuyy, to . the States Rights Dem
,crats,' and their old associates whether they
will or not, are made those most odious of ali
hings, as it is the Mcycury'S cue nop to repre-.
ent affairs, "the National Democrats" The
anqushcd Know-Nothings, or those who were
o in 1855, and as such then, most sienally de-
eated, are now, with the Mercury, "Mc State
Rights Democracy"
"The times have been
hat when the brains were out the man would die,
md there an end; but they rise again
nd push us from our stools"
This is bad enough but that tho !Ne.cury
ur old coadjutor, which exclaimed, on that oc.
aston, "mayna pars .jui,' which really was
art and parcel Of tho conquering forces, though
OF perhaps the head and front" as it then
aimsd Is be, should aka The part Of THESE uli.