Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1866-06-22

"H. V,N. B." the Washington cor
respondent of the Cincinnati Gazette,
having made sundry unfounded charges
against Hon. J R. HUBBELL, soon after
published q retraetion, taking back ali
be said in bis former article, and as far
ss a rstractioR could accomplish it, max
ing Tsparation for the wrong done. Not
faneying the position In which the posi-
tive charges and subsequent full reoanta-
ton placed him in the estimation of the
public, he has recently attempted justi-
fcation Of his strange conduct by per-
sonal explanation. This explanation does
not help his case in ths least, but on the
contrary must make his position before
the public more unenviable than it was
before he undertook the task of self jus
charlottesville, as regards Mr.. Hubbell,
che last publication instead of injuring
viii help him, for the character of the
article and the G1iplus displayed by the
author are Of a nature that no intelligent.
reader win be at 3 loss to appreciate and
place the proper estimate upon &c, Refer
ring to this last effort of "H. " N. b.
the B1arysVlIle IF1OUlle says:
The issue between the GGzette's cores
pOndent and Mr.. HUBBELLseems to be fair
ly made up. We think the structures of the
former are unnecessarily severe. COuld we
bs convinced that our Congressman was
''weRk-kneed" and in any way designed to
dodge ''the living issues of the day" we
confess eand3dly, he would not be the man
to represent the sth Congressional District
of Ohio in Congress; but we think H. ".
N. B. has failed 70 show this fact. The fact
that q representative fails once TO vote on a
bill is hardly of sufficient Importance to
tmpute to him weakness" in general
There are but few representative in the
House but have failed to vote upon some
measure of Importance from seemingly un-
avOidabla causes, and yet We do not re-
collect that said correspondent has called
their political integrity into question.
The case is we'll put by the Editor Of
the Tribune. The rule attempted to be
applied to Mr.. Hubbell, would il applied |
In the same manner to most other mem /
bers, make out as strong and in many /
cases much stronger case than can be 1
made against our member. but We are not
aware that this ungenerous course has /
been pursued toward any other gentle
man. By way of illustration we will re- I
fer TO two familiar cases. Hon. John a. /
Bingham, Of this State, voted and spoke |
against the Civil Rights bill, and neither
the Gazette correspondents or any other
paper or person arraignsd him as Vaoil-
lating or untrue to the Union cause. Sen
ator Sumner spoke against the COnstitu-
tional amendment as it first came from
the House, bitterly denouncing the meas
urs and those Who advocated it, voted
against It, and was mainly instrumental in
defeating it in the Senate. This measure
had been agreed upon in eaueus. was reg
ularly reported from the Reconstruction
Committee, was voted for by the Union
men of the House, and was to all intents
and purposes q party measure ard the sup
port Of it a test Of party fidelity. !
Has this conduct Of Mr.. Sumner been
denounced by this correspondent or those
who have Joined him in charging Mr.. ]
Hubbell with delinquency Of which he is
not guilty. Not bit of it. They have
no denunoiations to hurl at that gsntIs- !
man.
The truth is, these charges against Mr..
are unjust and unWarranted. BE !
has voted G6irn1ativeIy on all essential or i
lest questions that have come up in the y
House, and an accidental and uninten-
siOnal failure to vote on single bill can c
not be magnifed into justification for !
5he charge Of general delinquency.