Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1858-05-27
-fGoM,,muN,rc,AlrEp.l

Mr.. EDITOR: Before proceeding to reply di-
rectly to the last communication of "Indepen-
dence," it will be well perhaps to take brief
survey of the field of our labors in order that we
may know exactly where We are, and whittier
we are drifting. More especially do deem this
plan advisablesince Independence has accused me
of abandoning issues, and of being inconsistent.
You will doubtless recollect, Mr.. Editor, that
in the opening Of the controversy between indie
pendence and myself there were but taco issues
between us; first-"the tyranny of party organ
izations second, 'sthe right of minority of
the citizens Of Charles county to memorabilia the
Legislature upon a question upon which they
are in the minority" Understanding Indepen-
dence in his first communication to assert the
affirmative of the first proposition, took issue
with him, and showed that the organization Of
political parties having their foundation in prin-
ciples dear to the heart Of the patriot and vital
to the permanency of the government, is not only
wise in principle, but recommended by the ex-
ample of the greatest statesmen and purest pa
trlots of our country from ssthe times that tried
mems souls" to the present day. And how did
Independence meet my argument? By de,,uir,a
that he did assert the tyranny of party organiza-
ton! So that there was nothing left for me to do
but to prove, as think I did in my next commu-
nication, that if his article touching that subject
meant anything at all tsmust have meant to as
sert the tyranny of party organization. At this
stage of the proceedings Independence, mot Old
Fogy,) abandoned this ISSUE and made question
with me upon the proposition I asserted, that
4sthe measures of party may be changed, but
its principles, # right,-nevern Independence
maintained that there is ne distinction between
political measures. and political principles and
therefore both can be changed at pleasure. 7
then showed by a short definition as well as by
I
ciples and measures properly understood for. I
know not any other common GcceptGtiOn of the
terms And this brings me to undergraduates
aast which: will notice by and by.
Upon the second issue Independence has these
words in his first article: Elf the people at the
ballot-box decided that no legislation should be
had on the subject (of free segroes) would it
be just or democratic for the minority to memo
rialize the Legislature to pass laws against the
will of the majority p
Gin all free governments the minority should
always respect and yield to the majority, for
without such concession our government would
DE but the thing ola moment" Upon this pro-
position also took issue with him, compromis-
ing as thought it did the sacred right of petition
Independence replied denying that he had
questioned the right of petition. Irejoined by
showing that if a minority had not the right,
nority, had not the right, and so if the language
wIndependence meant anything, it certainly
neant to deny the right of petition in the face
-ef majority. But Independence said he fdid
not deny the right to petition, he merely asked
would it be Just or democratic 2" Nowlit would
certainly be either just unjust. If it be just,
why would Independence hesitate so long
to sign the memorial If it beunjust, then the
right to make it is destroyed Which horn of
the dilemma will Independence choose? t2
AS to the question of consistency, bear in
mind that Independence says in his first COM
munication: "Ina all free governments the minor
sity should dlacays respect and yield to the ma
jority, I'm SO much that he even questions the
propriety Of the minority in memorializing the
Legislature in opposition to to the wishes of the
majority. Now put this by the side Of what he
says in his last two-columns-and-a- article:
1.-The majority rule though generally right is yet
sometimes acrong" So Independence taught on
the second day of March, 1858, that the major
ity. rule was alicays right, but on May 9th
Of the same year he taught that that same rule
was sometimes aoyong. Ishould not be surprised
if he had come to the conclusion by this time
that it is alaoays acrongl Again we find indie.
pendence in his first article declaring himself to
have been an old Democrat, who had determin-
ed at one time to support Mr.. Gardiner "on the
18th of April he is glowing in a panegyric upon
the enoble old Wing party" and soouldinq to
God that he could think its principles still in
being that he might clasp them to his bosom
&C., &C. In his last he is "glad to find Old
Fogy repentant of his sins and embracing once
more the true Democratic faith" So thus we
behold Independence since the second of March
last, a Democrat, a -party-wrong, but any
party-right man, a Wing, and then very
priest Of Democracy ready to grant remission"
TO repentant sinners. apprehend, by this
time, Mr.. Editor, your readers are beginning to
get "an mixing of who it is that is inconsistent
as well as who it is that st
rs ssWires IN and wires out, = sssz
And leaves the people still in Doubt &c.
Poor independence his un1ucky head is so
Beotically thick that he cannot yet see the dis
tinction between political principles and political
measures. He says that he admits now, (but
he isernistaken about having done so before) that
scientific principles are infexible, but he asks
with an air of triumph "what has a principle
IN science, and a measure in morals to do with
political principles and measures 2" care we
discussing scientific principles and moral med-
ssres W Now if Politics is not a science, what
isif2 Is it an art with Independence Or is
it a trade? At all events, whatever it may be,
Independence is certain that morals has nothing
1sto do with itr' Now, I have heard there
were men who hold everything to be fair in
Politics, and Independence fear belongs to that
class. expressly preteymit' any opinion on
the subject myself, but there are men high in |
the estimation of the public as heightened, hon.
erable gentlemen, good, moral citizens, and men
Of intelligence who unqualfedly declare that
man who ignores morals;in politics would not
hesitate long to ignore them altogether. Poor
felowl should it ever be his fortune to meet with
some good, Kind missionary who win open his
eyes to the fact that politics is as much SCI
ence as theology, and that the laws of morality