Sauk Rapids frontierman. [volume] (Sauk Rapids, M.T. [i.e. Minn.]) 1855-1860, 1858-04-29
= @
4 OUTRAGE AT ST. LOUD J,

All p 49, y 4 4 = 4 LOUD
Nh, E n i; Inag iaation i sine
thing, i ysry fine thing i. raisss 4.
above the sober realities sof everyday
life !; 4 paints very dull pathway With
very lively coiors, and tints over with
gorgeous hucs al crimson and pearl''
very muddy, dirty lacts.
am more impressed with the truth
Of the above BY nearly whole Column
under the above head. III In ST. Paul
Weekly FINES Of The 9th inst. Logi-
cal, truthful, eloquent. grand what 4
shame il is Tint il rests upon no facts to
sustain j.. One whole column, almost,
Of rolling, double adjectives, italicised
nouns and prononns, and wonder-striking
exclamation points. How i grieves
those ofus who know all the facts about
the Outrage at 81. Cloud. z that 50
much "good material should have been
wasted.
One Of two things IS true The Edi-
tor Of the St. Paul Tim 3 has been most
shamefnlly deceived in this matter, or
he ,eanionly peryerts truth to help on the
cause Of Freedom, BY making political
capital out Of encourage which had its
L 4
origin in no poliiical motire whatever
l prefer to believe the former. That
the editor agrees with me in tho belief
that cause SO holy as the emancipation
of a portion Of the human race from the
chains of Slavery needs no f;llsehood or.
perverted facts to roll it forward-,hat
" truth is mighty and will prevail until
one universal anthem Of Freedom sha:..
roll its jubi!ant sound over our American.
land.
Viewing it thus, know the Editor of
the Times will not receive it unkindlv to
be undeceiyed ; and l. send sthissfo you,
Mr.. Editor, knowing that you are sac-
quainted with the facts that yon con-
denim the outrage on The. office Of the
Issater, as do that you freely offered
the use Of your press to the Ediiress 10
get out the Visaer after the T;saer Office
had been destroyed, and that at the same
time you condemn the. wanton attack
of the Visiie, on the holy sanc,ity Of
private life, which provoked this outrage.
/ say then, in answer to the first Of the
queries of the 1imes-n What was the
offence Of Mrs. Swisshelm had she
sought the injury Of St. Cloud or any of
its citizens ~ She had
1t will not surely be denied that Mr..
Shepley had a right, in a pnblicLecture
on Woman, in a suitable way to express
his views Of Woman's rights women,
neither Wilt be urged that in the discus
sion Of this subject. he went oui Of h,s
way to express those views. lfwoman's
rights women choose to take this as a
personal insult, no one will deny their
right to abuse Mr.. Shepley.to the full
extent Of their powers. But in the
words Of the Times, the offence called
out an act which no circumstances car,
Justify" BY what right does .male
Editor, any more than male Editor,
dare, for the offence Of husband, to
outrage his family in a public nespaper,
and hid them up to The, world as cor
rup,, vicious sor !. degraa4d, Npeciztsy
when The, have never Injured her, and
when all their private lives have been
pure, modest and beyond reproacf, Ii
will NOT do ia say II this case that It was
a mere picture, not intended 70 fit any
body IN particular for by the introduce
tion Of certain facts, which oftiemseIves
should have shielded the innocent VIC
Tins from 50 base an outrage, the picture
was placed where all in this vicinity
knew il was ii~tsaded to be placed, and
with scarce dissenting voice II was
characterized as an attack so. wanton
and unprovoked as to have no precedent
in respectable newspaper history and
i was this attack of4thc T,isifer on his
~
family, which Mr.. shepiey, il = letter %
the Pioneer and Democrui. avows was
the sole cause Of his attack on the Vi,iier
Office and Isubmit to the Saint Paul
Times IN all candor, i il is quite fair
and honorable u turn ,his matter into
political question? The only salvation