The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-09-20
The Two Addresses.

publican Executive Committee; the other
that of the Soldiers Convention at Cleveland.
The first was evidently from the pen of Ho-
race Greeley; the second is attributed to
General Thomas Ewing, Jr., OF Kansas. We
do not appeal to partsanship in order to draw
a comparison between the two similar yet
unlike productions; but would ask any care
full reader OF ordinary literary taste and COM
mon sense, whether the Republican manifesto
is not as far superior as Horace Greeley is
When compared with General Ewing.
We frankly say that we have never read an
address which so completely covers the
ground intended, which is more in symetry,
more powerful in solid force, more earnest
from deliberatec onviction, than the Republ-
can Executive appeal to the people of the
country. When it has been read carefully
through. it leaves an impression of complete
ness. There seems as though there was
nothing omitted which should have been
mentioned, and nothing mentioned which
could have been with propriety omitted.
The World vainIy endeavors to-day to dis
cover flaw in its logic. There is whole
souled determination to do right, and a fixed
conviction that right is being done, in every
word, such as no one but an earnest believer
in the truth of what he writet could express.
It will go forth to the people a convincing
argument to the wavering, and a support and
cheering draught to those who are steadfast
in the faith.
OF its counterpart, the Cleveland Address,
we would speak with perfect fairness. 1t is a
creditable document, and most plauslbly con-
ceived. So far as literary execution is con-
cerned, it is by many degrees the interior of
the Ward Address, but its chief fault does not
lie In the absence OF neatly worded periods.
1t lacks sincerity. It would require no spe-
cial familiarity with its author to convince
the reader that he was proselyte. 1t is too
long. 1t does not fairly meet the issue, and
utterly and entirely ignores the great ques-
ton, "Why should Southern vote have
twice as much influence as Northern one?
1t exposes many vulnerable points, but we
would call attention only to two glazing
errors. The great objection to the present
proposed Constitutional amendment made by
Ewing is that it comprises various sections
utterly disconnected, and that it must all be
voted for or be all opposed. There can be no
division of the question. The report says
'The manner in which these conditions, IN the
form of an amendment to the national C0nstiti-
tuition have been presented, not only to the
people OF the South, but to the nation, Is with
out precedent. For the first time in che history
of tois Government propositions, without con-
nection have been united in one amendment,
and the peoole have been denied the opportu-
nity OF free choice concerning EACH"
We can see no difference between the alter
%o tba
presented to them when the twelve amend
ments were adopted, in the nature of bill OF
rights, Immediately after the ratification of the
original instrument. Each State Legislature
then had the privilege Of giving its assent to
such and such proposition, and of dividing the
issue for itself. In fact, as late as 1865, if we
are not mistaken, Mississippi gave but par
tial consent to the Constitutional amendment
in regard to slavery, and added clause shat
nothing shall be so construed" 10 imply assent
to certain deduction.
Not content with opposing the amendment
themselves, these soldiers of the republic
endeavor to incite opposition from the Rebels.
In regard to the section dlsfranchising Rebel
ex-United States officers, 1t atrociously says:--
oThe Southern people, after following their
nolitical leaders into the late struggle, and shar
ing the risk of their tate through four years of
terrible war are called upon TO aid the proscrip-
ton. Whatever punishment their leaders may
deserve at the hands OF the Government, 1t Is
unintelligible that statesmen should have
dreamed of asking their associates and follow
ers 10 ipfict that punishment upon them, espe-
ciellv punishment of lasting disgrace more
terrible than any which the Government itself
is authorized TO impose. II in the midst of their
errors the people of the South retain the ordi-
nary fidelity Of comrades in arms to each other
the common sentiment OF honor which rules
all companionship-Ch viii not voluntarily
desert the men whom they have voluntarily
and steadily followed amid so many perils.
They will not accept this"
II this is not melting Rebel soldiers to
stand by their leaders, who deceived them
into q dreadful war by their sophistrles, we
Ao not read English correctly.
But one word more. The address states
that while the amendment demanded by Mr..
Johnson was Just, that proposed by Congress
endangers the peace of the country. Who Is
to he 2he Judge of the propdety OF the two
omandments? If not the people, who then
And TO the people we have appealed, and will
ob;da nv their decision. In fact, the address
;s ono which gives us satisfaction. We had
Sosrad frank, manly, terse, soldier-like ap-
'~aI. xTe have verbose, fallacious, and weak
I'll Cnr aid. 1t will do us no harm, and the
o;.;e danger il will cause the Union party
",Ii ahomt equal the martial terror with which
,.aa~thor inspired their late Rebel foes, now
their political allies.
NEW YORK SOLDIERS CoEvENrIoN.-A
=. coId;ors, Convention was held at Syra