Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1859-10-01

der of that II ,publiconl party I"
We believe he was.
(2) Did he attempt anything Of the kind 2"
Most unquestionably; and his brother Charles
replied to it the next day as being a speech in de-
fence Of that party.
(31 Would any one have known he was on adj
vocate of the ballot box from that speech :"
lfho knew anything, he would,
(4 Did not Parker Pillsbury endorse it,"
His last speech, No, and that is the orly one
our editorial referred to. Instead of having a
chance to endorse it, the speaker would not even
permit him to state a point Of order in relation
thereto.
We referred to Langston as a defender Of Re-
publicanism, and our friend is inclined to join is
sue on this point. Now the fact is simply this;
Langston either is a defender of Republicanism,
or he is not. If our correspondent will assure us
that he is not, we will admit that we are greatly
mistaken, or that our correspondent is himself OF
fault.
Whether Langstou had q right to be personal
because Parker Pillsbury was; whether because
one presiding officer suffered Pillsbury to speak
out Of order-as was said-therefore another pre-.
siding officer should tolerate it in Langston; OF
whether the ground upon which the Chairman
called Langston to order was, in itself, tenable, arc
questions which might with p~ropriety have been
discussed at the meeting, had Lrngston and his
81 supporters permitted it. Bat refusing to do it
here, we do not feel disposed to enter upon them
here.
Our correspondent tells US that Largston did
recognise the Chairman's right to call him to tr-
L. o-l .uz ...al.4alu .lo. IL 1anrI -
If he did recognize the Chairs right to call him to
order, it was after the manner that our power is
recognized to
Call spirits from the vastly Deep"
and as the poet pertinently enquiries,
But will they come when you do call.fo them ?"
so it may not be amiss to ask what Langston did
after che stopped immediately" why, he as imme-
diately went on, although requested by the Chair
to desist, and continued speaking not only until,
but after the meeting was adjourned. Now We
are as much in favor OF u free platform as our
friend Gilbert can possibly be. When we go to
a meeting which Is SO free that it has no presiding
officer, and does not profess to be governed by
parliamentary rules, each individual being q Law
to himself, if we take any part in the meeting we
do not pretend to shape our course by the rules
which govern Legislative bodies, but simply by
the usuage of the meeting. If on the other hand
we go to n meeting where d Chairman has been
appointed, which appointment indicates the adop.
tim Of the usual rules Of order, if we participate
in the meeting, whether as a matter of right, OF
by invitation, we expect to submit to its rules
whether others do Or not. And if to condemn the
opposite course in John Langston be "the Secta,
rianism o: Anti-Slavery," we must say that We
think such sectarianism a very excellent thing.
1t is true, as our correspondent remarks, tha'
we failed to tell what use the Society had fol
either its tent or platform after adjournment. We
were not aware there was q necessity for giving
such nformation-w supposed the right Of prop
erty in a tent, was based on the same ground as
the right of property in a hall or a meeting house.
When persons enter the one or the other without
permission for the purpose of holding a meeting,
they would hardly stand justified upon the plea
that the owners had not told what use they had
for it. If the tent belonged to the Society, it was
theirs to use, to loan, or to rent and any one
taking possession of it upon any other terms is a
t1espasser. We trust that this proposition is self
evident.
Although Barcley Gilbert may have given mon
.ey to help buy the tent, as he has doubtless given
money to help buy the press on which the Bugle
is printed, his donations toward the latter do not
make him a part owner of the Bugle press, neither
do his contributions to the former make him a
part owner of the tent, unless he is q member of
the Western Society, in which case his right of
property extends to both. But without entering
further into the question of property-which our
friend would probably never have thought of had
he not been hard pushed for an argument in justi-
fcation of Lingston's course-we will simply say,
that whether the tent is the property Of the Soci-
ETY., or whether it was only borrowed or rented
for the occasion, is was theirs legally as we'll as
morally during tho anniversary. And if a person
takes possession of the S%oclety's platform, and ut
terly refuses to comply with the rifles of their
meeting, it shows no disregard for free speech,
m~anifests no sectarianism, gives no evidence Of the
spirit of persecution, to affirm that that person is
a trespasser; for without permission, and against
the known wishes of the Society be takes posses
sion Of it for his own purposes. And it makes nc
difference as to the complexion of the trespasser,
nor how many sustained him in the act. nor how
res pectable or anti-slavery were his endorse:s; the
the deed is unchanged. by these circumstances
Tho Finance Committee were appointed on Sat
urday, it is true, but Sunday was the day on
which it was expected they would do most. We
had supposed that on Sunday morning they did
what they could. On the afternoon of that day,
the restless and excited feeling to which wo refer
red, began to manifest itself long before Langs.
toms second speech-it showed itself so soon as
the short comings of the Republican party were
touched upon. Our friend may attribute the re-
suits Of the labors of that Committee to what he
we told what we supposed to be mainly
the cause of their doing so little. That was our
impression, and perhaps we were mistaken, it is q
matter of opinion, which cannot readily be SETTLED
by a reference to known facts, and as we appre-
bend a discussion of it in our columns would be
neither interesting nor profitable to our readers nor
%ourself, it is hardly necessary to say more about it.
GONE HENCE.