Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1860-10-03
The Contest in the second District.

The Contest In the Second District.
When Mr.. Alexander Long announced, in
the convention that nominated him for Con-
gress, that he should use no money in the
canvass, he exercised an undoubted right
A bad custom has grown up in both parties,
which has made the ordinary political ex-
penses heavy to the candidates for lucrative
Offices. II has ruined some good Democrats,
pecuniarily. AS the chances Of r.Long, ina
contest with the present popular incumbent,
are not such as any prudent man would risk
large sum on it was prudent in him to
refuse to invest any valuable consideration
in them. Mr. Long might even make vir-
tue of this refusal to make hopeless invest
ment, and assume that it was entirely owing
to his conscientious scruples, although there
is some doubt whether this virtue would be
very highly appreciated in his own party.
But this impecunious virtue gives Mr..
Long no right to attack the integrity of
gentlemen who, with more flattering pros
pects-or, perhaps, on whom the party have
claims, growing out of the possession of
office--have responded to the usual assess
ments on them for campaign expenses. Mr..
Long has a right to be virtuous, but not to
say that 'there shall be no more cakes and
ale" He has a right to be stingy, but not to
make the ordinary contribution crime, nor
to attempt TO exaggerate it into bribery. Mr..
Gurley does not need to bribe Republicans
to vote for him; and it is a reflection on the
Democrats for Mr.. Long to give out that they
can be bribed. Whatever opinion Mr.. Long
may haye of his party, we, as an organ of
the people, feel it our duty to fling back this
imputation on the integrity of Democrats.
Mr.. Long has denied that he said, in a
speech at Springdale, that Mr.. Gurley, as
Chairman of the Committee on Public Print
ing, had received large sum of public
money, which he was using to effect his re-
election. He accompanies this denial with q
declaration that he does not believe Mr..
Gurley's statement that he had received a
letter so informing him. This was quite
gratuitous on the part of Mr.. Long. Mr..
Gurley made public statement. He is O
responsible and reliable man. Mr.. Long re-
plies by charging Mr.. Gurley with falsehood.
This was, at least, vulgar and ill-bred. To
charge man, in a responsible position, with
falsehood, without grounds, is dishonest. 1t
shows just that disposition to destroy private
character which would instigate Mr.. Long
to make the statement at Springdale. 1t,
alone, makes a strong probability that Mr..
Long did make such a statement. Besides,
we have seen aletter from Springdale affirm
ing it.
As an independent journal, we bear in
mind the consideration due to Mr.. Longs S
peculiar circumstances. In a close District,
and with a competitor who has been fifth
ful, successful and useful member-a thing
not by any means frequent from the Hamil-
ton County Districts-and who has the con-
fidence of the people, Mr.. Long is running
on nothing but mere partisan claim, and
that based on a party which is rent asunder.
The case is desperate, and it is not strange
that Mr.. Long should resort to the most des-
perate means. But when party ties are so
relaxed as now, and party discipline utterly
. broken, it is too much to ask of the people
of Hamilton County, to abandon Represent
atiVo who hoO distinguished himself by his
successful zeal for the interests of his con-
stituents, merely to put partisan of the
lower strata ofa disrupted party in his place.