The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1858-12-16

&c, land the iiend (or spirit) of slav
cry will be destroyed--wil destroy it
SELF A friend has furnished us ex-
tracts from Shakespeare, Milton, Beau
mont and Fletcher, Thomson, Young.
Blair. and others, containing similar ex-
pressions, as proof of our position but
as they would take up more room than we
care about devoting to the subject, and
as there is nobody but the hydrophobic
writer in the Civilian to dispute our po-
si;ion, we withhold them.
This Falstaffian critic, this lusty knight
of the quill, this Boosting egotist, is not
satisfied with thus making mince meat
Of our diminu!ive editorial reputation,
but having, in his desperate efforts to get
hold of the +" big words" made himself
ridiculous by using words that no lexi
cographer ever heard of, attempts to rid
himself of the ridicule by attacking our
personal character. The force of the
definition respecting the " anologicaliz-
ing" of $40 rod whiskey," will be APP
parent, when we assert, what is the truth,
tnat to our recollection, we never drank
a drop of whiskey in our life /; that we
never but once, previous to last winter,
drank glass Of alcoholic liquor as a
beverage that we never drank pint OF
ardent spirits in our life, and that since
the first day of last March we have not
touched, tasted, or handled" one drop
of malt, fermented, or spurious liquor.
We say, in view of this, the definition is
about as truthful as the term itself was
expressive. The other definitions are
precisely upon a par with this-only, if
possible, possessing less of truth. We
insist upon it, that the editor of the Cir
alan shall state explicitly, when, and of
whom, we bought oysters that we never
paid for; when and where we took sup
per at popular hotels, to which we were
not invited, and did not pay for. These
scurrllous charges are as baseless as the
assertions of the editors of the Civilian
generally are. We ask--nay, we demand,
that the junior editor of the Civilian,
who prompted, if he did not write, these
personal attacks, shall produce the proofs
to sustain them. If he can prove us
guilty Of one single mean, dishonest, or
dishonorable act, throughout the whole
course of our life, we will let him off
clear-we promise not to recriminate
these personalities. II he does not, we
shall show him up in his true character
we shall show who is the drunkard-
who the villain. We have heard, we'll
authenticated, a certain little episode of
Michigan life, which he might consider
disagreeably personal, if seen in the pub
lie prints. If he will prove his charges
against us, we promise to refrain from
publishing anything personal against him.
If he does not, we most assuredly shall
show him up.
We are devoting good deal more
space to this subject, than we desired, or
expected. There are one or two more
things, however, in last weeks Civilian,
which we wish to notice. We stated.
first, that the Junior editor of that sheet
came to this village Republican, but
has since done nothing but libel the
principles he protested. In answer to
this, he says:
=" Lie No. J. Doctor. We came to this village
firm believer in the principles of the Kansas
Nebraska bill. We espoused the non-interven-
ton policy when that act came up before Con-
gross, and have ever since held to and advocated
that policy; W. defy, we dare you to prove the
contrary. We brand you as a liar, sir; we hurl
the falsehood back into your teeth-rid yourself
Of it if you can"
Now this is very unpooty" language,
when applied TO us, for we don't think
we deserve it, AS the editor has kiadly
invited us, however, to clear ourself of
his imputation, we propose to take ad
vantage Of that invitation. Probably we
might have done so without being asked
as it seems, according to the Civilian,
that we have a procliyity that way. We
shall rid ourself of the cpithet, sir; and
we want you to understand that we can
and will do so, whenever we think it nee
essary.
The "junior" says he came to this
village a firm believer in the principles
of the Kansas Nebraska bill. Now ey-
cry man knows that the principles of that
bill were in issue in the presidential can
vass Of 1856-that the Democratic par
ty, with BUCHANAN at its head, favored
them, and that the Republican party,
with Fremont at its head, opposed them.
Now, reader, from the above assertion Of
the JUNIOR, with which party would you
naturally conclude Ee acted 2 And for