The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1867-04-30

nile tney npOSeQ the fuC
ton policy of Congress, they took
particular care not to favor the my
policy" OF the President. Taking the
positions assumed by both his oppon-
ents. and he had great respect
for them as men Of sound judy
ment and sagacity, he submitted
that he was the only candidate who
stood any chance of a seat in Con
gress. Mr.. Ritter gave it as his opin-
ion, and the opinion of other well in
formed politicians, that Mr.. Brown
would not be permitted to take his
seat in ease he was elected. On the
other hand, Mr.. Brown was positive
that Mr.. Ritter did not stand a ghost
of a chance TO be elected by the
people. 1t seemed, therefore, that he
(Smith) might come in as a compro-
mise, being, on the one hand, accept
ables7o. Congress, and, on the other,
likefy to get more votes than Ritter,
This sally seemed to make favorable
impression on the audience, who lis
tened to him afterwards with marked
interest. 90 . 1a~OIIA
Mr.. Smith then proceeded to notice
Mr. Brown 8 reply to the charge that
he (Brown) was the candidate of the
Rebel Democracy. Mr.. Brown de-
nounces the accusation as a SANDER
upon the party Of which Jefferson
was the founder. and Monroe and
Madison were great leaders. W.
have not before US to-day, said the
speaker, the parties of the past. Once
we had a Democratic party-pure and
honored. We had, also, the old
Wing party, differing from the other
In policy, but both alike true to the
Government. Then, again, there was
the Know Nothing party, and the
Republican party, neither of whom
were reasonable, in intention or
act. He then called attention
to the condition of affairs, politi-
cally, In 1860, and traced the results
following the election of Abraham
Lincoln. He said he referred to these
facts of the past for the purpose of
.ascertaining the origin of the parties
secession of eleven States destroyed
old party lines. Six months after the
secession of the Southern States. mono
of the old parties were In existence in
New parties took their
place, entitled the Union and Disunion
parties, and each was composed of ele-
ments formerly connected with all the
old political organizations. He asked,
now, who composed the Disunion
party ? 1t was made up of
those who advocated the right
of secession. In 1861 and 1862,
it was composed of those who
took up arms in behalf of the
rebel cause, others who gave rebels
aid and comfort, and still others who
sympathized with them, rejoiced over
their victories and mourned over their
defeats. Now, look at the party rep
resented by his opponent, Mr.. Brown.
1T not the same party that threw all
of its influence in favor of the Rebel
ion in 1861 and '62? Look no fur
then your own city and among
your own neighbors for the truth of
what [ say. Point me to a man that
served in the rebel army, and I will
show you a member of the Democrat
party. Point me to one who wish
the rebellion success, and / will
most assuredly show you one
who is enthusiastic for my
opponent, John Young Brown. But,
says my. Competitor, the wal is ended,
Why call up these things now? Why
1ot lei by-gones be by cones? / an
'wer: The aus for which these men
was rightor wrong. If wrong,
the Government be placed in
he hands of those who sought to de-
it? Mr.. Brown admits that all
he rebels are for him, and will sup
port him at the polls. Why, then,
loes he object to his party being call
ID the Rebel Democracy? Why does
he denounce as a calumny a fact that
lie has no hesitation in admitting?
For my part, continued the speaker,
am content, let the result be as it
nay. IF Mr.. Brown is elected, and
8 rejected by Congress, l am content.
am satisfied In any contingency.
The speaker next proceeded to no.
ice Mr.. Browns defense of his cele-
rated letter, to which attention had
'een directed. He (Brown) claims
hat his letter was In harmony with
he views of the Union party of Ken
ucky at that time; and he gives
of prominent men who talked
s he did. The speaker called atten-
ion to the fact that a majority of
hese gentlemen were not Union men
her or to-day. Some of them had
hanged their views materially Stree
len. Had Mr.. Browns views under
one a similar change? Does my
ompetitor look at these questions
iferently now? l ask him to-day:
lid you not always rejoice over rebel
ictories and mourn rebel defeats? .
f he will answer these questions I
q the negative, / will concede
nat he may have repented sincerely.
my opponent has much to say
bout masters and slaves. He says,