Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-01-08

loyal) after the country had received thei1
services. This we have established from
the record, and this Mr. Sherman does moi
deny. Not until 1864 did Mr.. Sherman
progress sufficiently to repudiate this
wicked heresy. What is the fact in rela
ton to Mr.. Lincoln2 ? In the Senate de-
bate on this subject in 1864, Mr.. Wilkin-
son, of Minnesota, said:
81 remember to have heard the President
say in private eonversation-I presume it
was a year and half ago-that if any man
bore musket in the armies of the Union.
| so far as he was concerned, thatman should
never be returned to slavery again"
Does this justify.the Heralds attempt
to slander the sainted dead by charging
upon President Lincoln the antedeluvian
sentiments which actuated John Sherman
when he sought to make the Government
responsible for the crime of enslaving its
defenders2
The Herald says:
" His language in Congress is distorted
into a meaning never imagined by the
speaker"
This is precisely what the Herald was
guilty of when it declared that the bill re-
pealing the fugitive slave laws "was ia
vorably viewed by Mr.. Sherman" when
he expressed no opinion as to its merits.
We dared the Herald to publish the speech
it thus falsely interpreted, yet it has not
done so, notwithstanding it is less than
three inches in length. The Herald is the
only party to this controversy that has not
dared to quote from the record to sustain
its assertions. Since we established by
the official record every assertion wemade,
the Herald contents itself with inuendoes
and general assertions of unfairness.
The Herald says:
No ordinary effort could defeat hin, and
it is only by prejudicirg the minds of the
members of the General Assembly by mis-
representations, and influencing them with
q false appearance of popular feeling, that
there is any hope of securing his defeat"
What a high estimate is here placed
upon the intelligence and sagacity of "the
members of the General Assembly u How
fortunate that the unsophisticated mem
bers" have such sagacious friend and
protector as the editor of the Herald. The
self-constituted guardian of the unsus-
pecting legislators at Columbus seems to
take it for granted that those gentlemen,
like Senator Sherman, are influenced"
by the appearance of popular feeling"
How complimentary
The Herald says:
"a striking contrast is exhibited in the |
course of the friends of Mr. Sherman. They |
make no attack on the reputation or the |
past record of the other candidates, whoever |
they may be,-not that those candidates are |
to attack"
How consistent Make no attack
"a not that those candidates are i,iuulner-
able to attack" The Herald may regard |
such contemplate inuendoes as more hon.
orable than direct criticism of a public
mans official record if so, we would not
controvert the theory; it is simply ques-
ten of moral development.
Here is sample of the logic which tie
guardian of the Legislature would apply
to that body:
j IA ind
at Columbus in the Senatorial contest. They
are men presumed to judge for themselves
and act according 10 their honest cOnvic-
ton We believe, however, that if vote
IF the Union electors of Ohio were taken to-
iay-we know it would be so on the West
srn Reserve-there would be an overwhelm.
ing majority for the return of John Sher-
nan to the Senate"
We would not dictate" we think you
ire able to Judge" and are "honest;"
hOaOever," if you support our man you
will be on the winning side Aside from
he infamous character of this appeal, the
assertion upon which it is founded is a
mere assumption without a particle of ev-
dence to sustain it. On the contrary,
here are the best of reasons for presuming
hat the anti-slavery men of the Western
Reserve are opposed to all such time-serv-
srs as John Sherman.