Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1866-02-08
THE WILMINGTON JOURNAL.
WILMINGTON, N. c., FEBRUARY 8, 1866
The Standard and the Deserter.

Standard of the 31st January. 1t is long groWl
at the House of Commons and through it at the
entire South her people and her institutions
The pretext is the rejection from the proposed list
of Justices of the Peace of the name of John g.
Hill of Randolph county. In this article IS com
pounded very large amount Of that peculiar SEN
timent and ambition for which the editor OF that
paper has had credit among the intelligent people
Of North Carolina.
It IS not an easy thing for ore who has been ed
ucated under, and governed by, the laws of JUS
tice, truth and humanity, to read this editorial
without feelings Of contempt for the heart that
could prompt such sentiments How long .,
how long in this true, and loyal, and peaceloving
State are the laws of honor and truth-of justice
and humanity-of patriotism and State ride-to
be set at defiance and be treated as thing Of
naught.
How great the mistake men ofttimes make, who,
while they secretly and truly worship, in their
souls, the Prince of Darkness, yet ostensibly be-
fore the world labor to obtain the credit that the
heart is in devout alteration of the Angel Of Light
A Judas did this the great love of money and the
applause of the world seduced Simon Magus into
this faith and action Mankind viii derive but
little wisdom from the teachings of the past, i'll
they do not profit by such blatant lessons
But what is the offence over which this State
hating, South-contemning editor grows so wrath
and fumes
Like old into tempest tost
TO wait feather, to drown fyf
The House Of Commons has dared to refuse to
appoint John c. Hill, of Randolph, Justice
Of the Peace. Why did it refuse? Because
says the editor, it was alleged he was deserter
from the ConfedeI ate army. Does he. convict the
uounse Of Commons of q breach Of duty, or Of bad
faith in so doing? Who believes if Mr.. Hill had
been a deserter from the Federal TO the Confeder-
ate army that the action Of the House would have
been different? Who does not see in this instance
a great principle Of action just and wise, govern
ing and controlling the motives of men? Is there
any man of honor patriotism, who loves his
country and its institutions, that finds in his heart
the least valid reason motive for Directing to
this action of the Commons? The Standard indeed
gives none; it is charitable thefore, to suppose 1t
has none.
But one object seems to have prompted this ar
ticle-it is ainless in every other respect. An
opportunity presented itself and the editor seized
it-an opportunity enjoyed equally and oftimes by
a Sumner, q Stevens and GreeIy-of raising his
bristles and showing his teeth at helpless, sub
missiye, and ruined people. The attack the
Commons is but pretext His hatred is not spe-
cially against that body alone, except for his pur-
poses and rs q text for sermon to the Radicals
and Jacobins that he might, in his own language,
tell members Of Congress, and tell the North
that this fact the refusal to allow deserter to
be appointed Justice of the Peace) 'solves the
whole riddle Of Southern politics." except for this
purpose the action of the Commons, is to him unim-
portnnt and insignificant. But with it as decoy
the whole South-at her entire people--the father
the son, the husband, the noble-hearted women,
the young and rising generation, whose fathers
laid down their lives on q bloody field in defence
of what they honestly believed to be the cause of
honor, liberty and patrotsn1-at her institutions,
literary, religious, social and domestic--all, all
share alike his enmity-his secret covert, dis
guised hatred. He means nothing less in his at
tack. No other construction can be placed upon it.
The writer desired to push home a fatal thrust
ut the South, but his arm is nerveless, while the
daylight is his motives-and he shrinks back
ostensibly behind a ftful, malicious deceptious
blow at the House of Commons. He means more
than be says; he says not precisely what he means
hot all he purposes.
There is with the Standard intelligence enough
to know that the man who deserts his flag and his
him to liberty and glory is presumptively unfit,
because unreliable in any position Of Importance
and responsibility. This is not unknown or with
out acknowledgment by the editor His own lam
guage is forcible and emphatic. eve have no
sympathy with any class of soldiers, whether
Unionists or Confederates home guards or desert
ers, cutters or what not, who wantc1ly end cru.
ely plundered and scourged the inhabitants OF
this State And we further hold, that man ,cho
Uosmteers enksts should keep his pEigkted faith,
though he should die for it What if he does not
keep his "phghted faith" The Standard admits
he deserves to suffer all the penalties along the
path Of life, even up to death he merits all OF
these-scorn and contempt disgrace, infamy.-
Yes the offence of desertion is heinous enough to
merit all these. Yet it is wrong, very wrong, not
to appoint him Justice of the Peace. His breach
of faith deserteris great that he is not wor.
thy to lve-death is his due-life is too good fol-
him. Yet he is fit to be Magistrate.
The editor is not only personal to this paper
and the Dispatch but he is intensely so to Mr.
Davis and Gen Lee and to Gov. Vance. His tom
ahawk is freely used upon his quondans favorite.
Let us urge the readers of the Standard in days
that past. to mark the language urged against
Mr.. Davis, while parallel is run according to the
language he applies to him. -.A,'F-. b..
The writer says he (1Ir Davis) had plight
ed his faith :" did not Mr.. Holden '.Yet he
(Mr. D. had neither the courage to fight" did
Mr. Holden ''Nor the shrewdness to run at the