Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1861-04-03
Mr.. Branch and Mr.. Lewis..That Letter.

eo pie at Hayes and Green Level. These documents
7lil be found in our columns to-day.
One OF the important points in the letter from Mr.
Branch to Mr.. Lewis, dated Washington City, is
omitted in this publication. We cannot be mistaken
Lewis contained an endorsement of the ticket COM
posed Of Messrs. Rand, Wilder, and Lewis. Where
fore this omission? But Mr. Branch says, "ifI were
at home would advocate the election of true men
unpledged; fear that what is called the Union
party is drifting into unconditional and uncomplan-
ing submission. The columns of the Standard in
dicate such drift" Notwithstanding the omission
referred to- the foregoing extract locates Mr. Branch
unmistakably. If he had been at home he would
not have advocated or supported the Union ticket
because he says the Union party, and especially the
Standard are "drifting into unconditional and un-
complaining submission" Of course then, he would
have gone for the "true men" on the dlsunion ticket
Mr.. Branch also says, "it is more than probable
we will be compelled to withdraw from the Union"-
to 60 out. Is that the feeling of a Union man? We
think not Mr.. Branch evidently belongs to the "no
hope" or disunon party.
Mr. Branch also thought that if the people of the
State should vote against Convention 1--WE should
be ruined" This shows his respect for the people.
He was writing, not for the public, but for the eye
Of his friend, and hence he said what he really
thought-and that was, if the people should think
it inexpedient to call Convention they would be
guilty of the folly Of "ruining" themselves Now,
we voted for Convention but it never occurred to
US that if our peculiar views should not prevail the
State would be ",uined"
So much fo- Mr. Branch's Washington City let
ter. We think we have clearly shown, notwith-
standing the omission referred to- that Mr. Branch
was q disunionist on the. goth of last month"; We
have shown 1t by his own words, to say nothing of
his afiliaton with the State journal and the dis
unonists generally since the issue of Union or
Dsunion was made up What Union man will say
that during the late contest in this State Mr. Branch
uttered to him, either in writing verbally words
Of hope and encouragement? II Union man, was
the fact known? Did he write or say any thing to
lowcitizens that proof will not be offered 1t does
not exist. 1t is all the other way. Therefore we
have said, and We repeat it. we will not support Mr..
Branch for Congress We say this on principle, and
we have right to say it. We will support no man
who will not pledge himself to labor cheerfully and
hopefully topreserve the Union. We will support
man who endorses or sympathizes with dsuniorists.
Mr.. Branch seems to labor under the delusion that
ue have assailed him. The gentleman is mistaken
-he assailed US. We were before the people as
candidate, saying nothing about or against him.
when behold letter is read from him on the stump
assalng u.s. That letter was calculated, and no
doubt intended to inure u.s. to injure the Standard
and to injure the gentlemen with whom we were as
sociated. We had no agency whatever in making
it public. That was done by Mr.. Branch's partcu-
lar and very discreet friend, Mr.. Lewis. We de-
nounced the letter unnanly thrust in the dark.
We declared the charge that the Union men were
disposed to submit to unjust or undcegated power,
a calumny and a slander. We now repeat the
declaration. We now say it ,oas an unmanly thrust
in the dark. 1t proceeded from professed friend,
but real enemy. 1t was an indiscreet an indeli.
cate. an indecent interference by Mr. Branch with
matters which did not specially concern him. II
was an attempt to dictate to portion of his const
tuents. 1t was an arrogant assumption that he was
entirely right, and the Union men, including hun,
dreds of the Democratic party who had formerly
supported him, entirely wrong. 1t was a declara
ton that unless the people did as he wanted them
to do they would "ruia" themselves, and would
thereby show themselves unfit for sefgovernment
Verify, the servant is greater than the master.
| But Mr.. Branch charges US with an attempt tc
" fish out his "private correspondence" This is
dsingenuous, and Mr.. Branch knew it to be so when
he penned it. 1t is not true. The letter ,oas pri
vate but Mr.. Lewis made it public 1t was no faul
of ours that it was made public; but, haoing been
made public it was our right and our duty to cal
for it If Mr.. Branch had promptly said, "my frend
Mr.. Lewis has violated my private correspondence
and do not wish to be held responsible for the con
tents of that letter." we would have made call fo
! it. But he has done no such thing. On the con
! trary, he Mr. Lewis and assails US, the in
" nocent and injured party. He cannot do that will
impunity. He shall not charge us with oficious o.
improper conduct without being branded in return
as he deserves. We have not " fished out" his pri
. vate letters. Mr. Lewis did that. He did it a
Hayes and at Green Level He did it to advance
the dsunion cause, and to influence few votes fo
! himself We know it is fashionable to assail ant
: magn us, and, without intending to assal or ma
lign any one in return, we can proudly say there
no blot on escutcheon. Mr.. Branch will have n
occasion to take any steps, so far concern
A., ed, to "prevent" his correspondence from bein
violated for the purpose of making political capita
. against" him. No one respects private correspon
dence more than we do. The concluding paragraph
in Mr. Branch's Raleigh letter was meart for us, 5u
/ he may make himself easy on that score. We max
it point neither to talk about private correspor
dence on the streets, to it for the purpose
making capital against opponents. ...., ,. ..
But Mr.. Lewis also pays his respects to us in tha
Ciceronian style for which he is distinguished
What have We done to Mr.. Lewis? He intimate
that we are the author of the Watch and Wait
&c n,