Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1860-10-05
VOL. SO, 33, NO. 40.
Mr. Sehurz and his AssaiIants.


When Christian was travelling on his ven-
turesome and unpopular Journey to the great
City, he bad occasion to pass certain cave,
which was surrounded with the bones Of pill
grims slain by two old giants, Pope aud Pagan,
residing there. John Bunyan, looking after
him with some anxiety, says:
nBg this Place Christian went without much
danger, whereat | somewhat wondered; but
have learned since that Pagan had been dead
many day, and as for the other, though he
be yet alive, be is, BY reason of age, and also
of the many shrewd brushes that be met with
IN his younger days, grown 50 crazy and stiff
in hIs joints that he can now DO little more
than sit in his caves mouth, grinnlng at pill
grims a. they 60 by, aud biting : his nails be-
cause he cannot come at them.o
This deerepit and malicious old party did
his best to injure Christian, calling out to him:
ssYou will never mend till more of you be
burned" But the pilgrim wisely SHIELD bis
peace, and set good face on it; and so went
by, and catched no hurt"
Quite as malicious as old Pope, and equally
impotent, is portion Of the ant-Republican
press of the country. An illustration of this
shall be given. In the Journal of Commerce
the other day, and in several other papers MOI
we'd By the same bitterness Of spirit toward the
Republican party, the following paragraph APP
pears, purporting to be a fair quotation from
speech delivered last winter 1t Springfield,
Mass, By Carl Schurz
'sThere is your Declaration of Independence,
diplomatic dodge, adopted merely for the purpose
of excusing the reheIlious colonies in the ewes of
mankind. here is your Declaration of Indepen-
dence, no longer the sacred code of the rights of
man. but hypocritical piece of special pleading,
drawn up by batch of artful pettifoggers, who,
when speaking Of the rights of max, meant but
the privileges of set of aristocrate slayeholders,
but styled it the rights Of man, in order TO throw
dust IN the eyes of the world, and to nyeige
rohle- hearted fools into lending them aid and
sistance. These are your boasted revolutionary
sres, longer heroes and sages, but accomplished
humbuggers and hypocrites who said one thing anG
meant another who passed counterfeit sentiments
as genuine, and obtained arms and money and as
sistance and sympathy On false pretenseS! There
is your great American Revolution. ne longer tbs
great champion of universal principles but lnean
Yankee trick [bursts OF applause and laughterl--a
wooden nutmeg-the most impudent imposition
ever practced upon the whole wurld.1
Having printed this as a fair quotation, These
papers proceed to comment upon it with the
iiafsfhsss belonging to their style, visiting
with an indiscriminate lash Alr. Schurz, tie
people Of Springfield who heard him, and the
whole Republican party. ssMark, now, how
plain tale shall put you down.
Mr.. Douglas had given to the Declaration
Of Independence an Interpretation which llmi-
TED it to white meu, and had said that the
opening sentence was only meant 10 declare
that British subjects In America were az good
as British subjects in Great Britain. With
ali the force OF his eloquenee, Mr.. Sehrtz op-
posed this doctrine, aud insisted that such a
theory weuld render necessary new reading
OF hlstory. Then follows the paragraph quo
ted above, aud, joined to it in the original but
suppressed by these dishonest journals, appears
this sentence:
'sThat is the way Mr.. Douglas wants you to
read and to understand the proudest pages of
American history That is tue kind of history
with which be finds it necessary to prop his
mongrel doctrine of popular sovereignty. That
Is what he calls vin9icating the character, and
the motives, and the conduct Of the signers Of
the Declaration Of Independence.
The intelligent reader Of any party. needs
10 proof to convince him that Mr. Schurz could
never have been guilty of committing SO stupid
an atrocity as that charged upon him. The very
clearness of this truth, however, enables us to
see, beyond the possibility Of mistake, that
the misquotation referred 10 was 10 every case
uehperates pttluli coWardty lie.
Does The Journal Of Commerce object to this
language of comments In the same number
of that paper which contains the perVersicn here
alluded 10, occurred this editorial remark: ssWe
knosc of no difference, morally, betweea a direct
| falSehood and Deliberate and WatLfut misquo-
! tation for The purpose Of accomplishing the
same result" We commenced BY an allusion
to the impotent monster ImmurtaEzed by Bum
yam, bnt IN view of the wholesome asenllmentn
just cited, aud Of toe source from which it
comes, we are quite as forciblg reminded of
Joseph Surface. and the excellent apothegms
with which be always prefaeed and followed
biz meanest tricks.-.N. Y. ITib.