The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1861-10-31
TFzE CHARGE. oE TREASON.

sfFk1 a s.sa ga S5& Ees-.-SST-S.
The charge Of treason which is hurled
at Democrats Unfortunately, is general
ly made by such men as Mattingly, who
have no reputation for truth TO LOSE, and no
conscience to consult. Tie last RepuLE
can contains a rehash Of his former char
ges under their head, with some remarks
urging the government to refuse mail ia
cilities to the Democrot.
His argument to Prove the Demoooat a
reasonable sheet. is the greatest novelty
in the way OF logic we have yet seen.
He thinks that because we publish Breck
enridge's speech. and the speeches of some
others who, at that time had no connec
ton with the rebel cause, so far as we
know, that the Democrat is a reasonable
sheet. Did not the n. Y. Tribune pub
lish Breckenridge ard Nallandl CHAM S
speeches in Congress? Is it more treas
enable for the Democrot to publish them
than for the Tribune? If tie speeches
were reasonable, and their authors known
to be traitors. why did The ten thousand
government officials permit Them to be dc.
livered, printed, and sent By mail, and
their authors to go unpublished? Tie
thing is so ridiculous that nobody but a
fool, or tie most down RICH. liar. like
Ma;tingly, would attempt to palm it of or
an intelligent commsnily, for argumen, or
truth. And ;len another argument which
he a1duces 10 prove that the Democrqt is
unworthy Of mail facilities. is, that We
dlanI publish some articles which he did.
Il is news to Us, and we think it is to
the people generally. that it is absolutely
necessary tor an editor to publish the
speeches cf Dickinson (about twenty five
in number, believer Holt, (about thirty
Wright (iif.e-n); also. the innrmerable
appeals" from Ills exce.lency the Gov
ernor, and others in authority. With the
same argument by which he attempts TO
prove the Democrat treasonab.e sheet,
we can prove The Republican me. We
published tie able and patriotic speech Of
JOS. f. Mcdonald, yet Mattingly failed to
find room for it, and is therefore just as
guilty Of treason for no. publishing ii,
as We are for not publishing Wright's,
DicAlnson's. or IIolt's. Maitingly thought,
doubtless. that he Il had n sure thing on it,
when lie argued that the Democrat was
'reasonab!s for what re did publish.
(Which WAS also published by many Of
the Republican iapers, against whom he
makes no charge Of treason. and for
what VIC did not publish. We printed
some Of the appeals made u the generosi
y and patriotism Of the people. Zone las,
week, and if orr community will respond
literally aud promptly and literally to
them, their resources viii probably be
sufficiently drained to need rcplenishiug
If We published nothing but what Mat
ting'y does. and permitted ourself 70 be
dictated by him in the selection Of copy
for TIE Democrat, we would not object to
having 1t suppressed by any means which
the Government might choose to adopt.
He calls US traitor abont a dozen
times in his last issue. knowing tia, a
repetition is the only way Of making any
body believe it. And yet he complains
tia, We indulge in personal abuse This
last is only intended as blind to his own
billingsgate and consummate lying.