The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1863-09-17
INCONSISTENT.

IF man says he is in favor of freedom
Of speech; free press and free elections. and
at the same time votes the abolition adj
ministration ticket, he either bellies him.
self or does not vote his sentiments Who
can claim that the administration tolerates
free speech! For what is c. L. Vallandie-
ham now in Punishment? For what have
men, since Lincoln's Inauguration to this
date, been arrested daily, and imprisoned
without trial or pretensc of legality, save
for expressing their honest and true con-
victions that the policy of the administers
ton is running the country? Honestly
now, have not thousands-yes, thousands
been arrested for just this otfense, This
Is, beyond discussion. true Then how can
a man endorse this administration, which
caused these arrests, and yet say he is in
favor Of free speech? Who Will deny that
it assumes to say what manner Of speech
viii be permitted thus ignoring the whole
principles
Has not the administration, now in pow
er, suppressed scores of Democratic news
papers, and incarcerated their editors in
dungeons, without even the form Of anv
law, save that Of might? The ofense of
these editors was simply an exercise of
their right and duty to criticise, point out
and oppose the errors of the party in pow
err Is it consistent with the freedom of
the press to arrest IN editor Tor opposing
the war policy Of the adminstration-and
that war policy 50 imbecile that it changes
to suit the whim of every crazy fanatic who
obtains the stupenduous ear of Chief Jest
err Why, the editors Of the radical press
control the war policy hence one class
of editors suppress and imprison the other
class. l. it consistent with the freedom Of
the press to authorize petty military Of
ficer to decide upon matter proper for pub
lication, and give such officer full power
to act upon his Informed, contracted judg-
mcnt. or to act from malice or wounded
vanity
Is that party in favor of free elections
that guards the polls with bayonets; and
allows no ticket to be voted save such as
may meet the approval of the officer com
handing the soldiers who form the guard,
or the master who commissions the officer
Was not this recently done in the loyal
State Of Neutrality-suspicious. vote of over
100000 was reduced, by this means, to
less than $4,000? Did they favor free
elections who melted soldiers to perpetrate
such outrages even at the capital Of our
State-Indiana, which stands second in her
effort to suppress the rebcllion--that the
Democratic party was forced TO withdraw
its ticket from the field at a recent munich
pal election. Does the administration toll
crate free elections which dislnisses from
the military service, in disgrace, a brave
and competent officer; for voting the Dem
ocratic ticket? Yet this was done, as an
example, in the case of Lieutenant Edger-
ly, in New Hampshire. VIII arming, from
the State Arsenal, companies of Union
Leaguers, promote and insure free cleo
tions2 This is done in our own State.
These are live issues, and stubborn facts
Though much talked of, too much cannot
lie said, for the people are asked to endorse
or condemn these usurpations, at the com
ing election. The question at issue involves
the fundamental principles of the govern
ment Are they not worthy of serious at
tentioHy