The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1865-09-30
Grouls from tl,e statesnnnn.

w = d1G - tii1 ~ FHf&N VI I'll ~
Mr.. i. If. Waite, the Secretary Of the
State Agricultural Society, bat the last
Statesman contains an article which
somewhat calls upon the Democratic press
Of the State for notice. IT seems that
Mr.. Waite did not send to the Statesman
a complimentary ticket for the State
Fair. Also, that he proposes to publish
an Agricultural paper, called the Plow-
man. From the Statesman Office there
will soon issue another, called the Agri-
culturist. In its attack upon Mr.. Waite,
because he did not send it a compliment
airy ticket, and because he proposes to
publish an Agricultural paper, the States
man reflects most unfairly and ungcner-
ously upon the Democratic press. 1t
says that while Mr.. Waite sends compli-
mentary tickets to the Southern breth-
rem" he strangely enough ftrgcts to
send comphmentaries to the Union pa
pers of the State" We have seen ac-
knowledgements of these tickets from the
Secretary in the Astoria Gazette, CorvaL-
lis Gazette, Albany journal, Eugene
City Journal, and jacksonville Sentinel,
and, we believe, in the Oregonian also.
Now these comprise every I" Union" (Ab-
%olition) paper in the State except the
Statesman. SO the Statesman must have
erred in this part of It's allegation against
Mr. Waite. There are but three Demo.
cratic papers in the State, and two INDIE
pendent. Whether all of them Nave re-
ceived tickets we know not. BM we
might mention here that in former years,
when Chester n. Terry was Secretary of
the Society, We never heard Of any Demo
cratic paper having received tickets, re-
ports, or any other. fayors or rights from
the Secretary. while he did extend them
to all tho Abolition papers. The Society
is not a political institution, yet Mr.. See
rotary Terry seemed so to consider it, and
dispensed his fayors accordingly. He is
one of the Company who wi the States
man, and this may account for its failure
to ccnsufe him for his partisan. biased,
ungenerousicunduct, III the matter. But
whatever blame it urges against Mr..
Waite in this particular must per consc-
queuce apply as well to Mr.. Terry.
In the next place, the Statesman seeks
to give out the impression that the Demo
cratic papers have very favorabiy noticed
the Plowman, to the exclusion or dctri-
ment of the Agriculturist. 1t says:
The Coppcrheal papers have given the
Plowman immense puffs. and it looks as IL
Mr.. Waue's paper was to be run for the
benefit of the Democracy. The A~gricuItur.
ist has received no such onc-sided attentions,
from either party, md Il triH mt rcceirf
them. L twill have no communication with
the : filthy pool of politics; and this the
people may rely on.
This is not only unjust to the Demo-
cratic press, but contemplate. We gave
the Agriculturist a good notice, and We
did no more for the Plowlnan. We adj
vertised the prospectus of the Aericul-
%turist, and VIC did not that of the Plow-
man. We certainly print n of the
Copperhead papers" Dir. Waite is of
the same party with the Statesman; he
was formerly one of the publishers of that
paper. Certainly on the score of politics,
the Democratic papers annot regard him
with more favor than they do the editor
of the Agricultnrist, for he seems also to
be the editor of the Statesman, judging
from the authoritative language in the
latter paper as regards the former. And
though the Statesman positively declares
that the Agriculturist will have nc
communication with the filthy pool Of
politics" we fear from what has been de-
veloped at this early stage, that the editor
might paddle in it somewhat, if only by
the accidental confusion incident upon
writing for two papers at the same time
in the same sanctum. We trust that he
will not, but We must now have better as.
~surance against that contingency thar
mere declarations. If either 4he Plow.
man or Agriculturist dabble in politics
we hope the farmers will repudiate both
without distinction. Mr.. Waite has tn,
same right to publish the Plowman thai
the Salem Printing Company have tc
publish the Agriculturist. They mus
both confde in the same public for sup
port. IF but one of the two can be sus
tanned, doubtless it will be that which
best represents the interests of the farm
ers; if both can probably exist, so mucl
the better for their respective praprietors
Gen. Lee is hemp-descrying traitor
Oregonian.
Gen. Robert E. Lee is a professed Chris
tan, widely esteemed a man of rectitude and
personal honor.-ENcw York Tribune.
Which is to be believed by their owl
party-the oregonian editor or Horace Gree
ley2 The orcgonian condemns us for think
ing of Gen. Lee as Greeley thinks of him
What has it to say about Horace?