Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-11-23
From the Marion Mirror.r
SenatOrship.
MARIoN- n Nov 10 1897.

Mr.. EDITOR There is an old and trite
saying, that guilty conscience needs no
accuser. Should any person doubt this
let him read the article in the
OHIO STATESMAN of November 1S, in reply
to my article of-November 13, on Senator
ship" The editor of that paper, Mr.. e. B.
Eshelman, in an article of about two col
umns in length, undertakes to vindicate
his impartiality on the Senatorial question,
and, also to defend man whom no one, to
my knowledge, has assailed since the elec-
ton. The only reference to the STATESMAN
occurs in the sentence: "Do the Democ-
racy of Ohio not know whom they wish.
without being told by the Enquirer, STATES
MAN, or some other paper?"
Mr.. E. B. E. will take notice that the
name of Judge Thurman is not mentioned
in my article, nor of any other gentleman.
except Vallandigham. Will Mr.. E. b. E.
inform the undersigned how Mr.. Van
Fleets article 'carries with it the implica-
tion that the Democracy of Judge Thurman
is sham, a cheat, a juggle," when that
gentleman is not named or referred to, di-
rectly or indirectly? Are Judge Thurman
and Vallandigham the only candidates for
Senator in Ohio? Or is Thurman the only
man named or supported by the Statesman,
Enquirer, or some other paper" that E. B.
E. should rush to the defense of his Democ-
racy, before it is assailed?
ga hit bird f1uttersr'
Mr.. E. B. E., the fact of your partiality
for Judge Thurman is so notorious that you
felt that the article in question, although
general in its terms, applied especially to
you and the conduct of your paper. II
there was any doubt of your partiality,
your reply to my article would set that
doubt at rest.
l think the readers of the STATESMAN will
not deny the charge which now make
no Of fhof moi II ia oatiuo1U Qn
gagged in the support of Judge Thurman
for Senator as against all other candidate,
notwithstanding it is the central organ OF the
Democracy of Ohio, and its editor, Mr.. E.
B. Eshelman, one of the "Democratic State
Executive Committee" and should be i'm
partial. I mention this fact because Mr..
E. B. E. has noticed the fact of my being
one of the State Central Committee.
In conclusion, allow me to say that no
man in Ohio has a higher regard for Hon.
Allen G. Thurman than myself, and no
one appreciates more than do the patriot
ism and unfliuching devotion to principle
and Democracy of those editors in Aboli-
ton counties who have stood firm in their
adherence to our cause through the troub-
lous times of thejlast six years; but sup
posed Thurman was running for Cover
nor, and Vallandigham Tin our county, at
least SO understood, and issue taken thereon
with the Abolitionists) for Senator; hence
my support of the latter for Senator and
the former for Governor.
1 never should have put my humble
name to card in support of Mr.. Vallandig-
ham, had there not been, in my opinion, an
unaoarra'ted and disgdeeful uatenpt to
overslaugh him, by editorials and private
correspondence some of aoltich has fallen un-
der my observation, and from men whose Of
ficiai position should have made them neu-
tral, at least in action. if not in feeling. l
desired so to be, but their conduct excused
me, and hence the card which has had the
effect of drawing the fire of the opponents
of Vallandigham, whether to his mortifi-
cation or not do not know; If it troubles
him as much as certain gentleman at Co
lumbus, who signs himself "E. B. E >"
shall be very sorry, indeed.
Editor STATESMAN please copy, and oblige,
Respectfully yours.
ii. T. VAN FLEET.
No. Mr.. VAN FLEET, you did not in your
former card mention "the name of Judge
THURMAN;" but you we'll knew that the
editors for whose " benefit p" you alleged
you were prompted to write, had spoken
in favor of the election of Judge THURMAN
to the United States Senate. Those editors
you accused of "trying to forestal public
sentiment and the action of the Legisla-
ture" on the Senatorial question. You ques-
toned their right to speak. You accused
them of "accursed pollifoxing," of "blatine
about policy and the wishes of the Abo-
litionists, and few honorable men who
left the Radical camp and voted with US at
the late election" Whether you intended
it or not, this accusation of yours carried
"with it the implication that the Democra-
cy of Judge THURMAN is sham, q
cheat. a juggle." If it is Motif,
as you now say, Judge THURMAN
has your high regard, and that you have
also a very high appreciation of 'the pat
riotism and devotion to principle and DEM
ocracy of those editors in Abolition coun-
ties who have stood firm in their adherence
to our cause through the troublous times of
the last six years'-why did you think it
necessary to accuse the editors who had
spoken in behalf of Judge THURMAN or
any other man excepting Mr.. VALLANDIG-
HAM with therein having been guilty of
'accursed pollifoXing," and with "blating
about policy and the wishes of the Abo.i-
tionists?" IT they thought proper to ad-
tOCdOC UuO C1CCblOA w q Llou W GuC OulUcu
States Senate whose patriotism and ''devo-
tion to principle and Dem ocracy" you pro-
fess to have a "regard" for that is second to
none cherished by any other man in the
State, reflection will convince you that you
were not choice in the language you used
toward them in your former card. They
were exceedingly courteous to all other
parties in their ad ocacy of Judge THUR
MAN. They did not sreak unkindly or dis
paragingly of any man, and yet you now
say you would not have given to the pub
lie your former card, had not the editors
who thus declared their preference been
guilty Of tan unwarranted and disgraceful
attempt to overslaugh" the man you desire
elected. Their 'unwarranted and disgrace
full attempt to overslaugh" consists, we
must be permitted to believe, in urging
the election of man who is not your fa-
vorite. 1t may be good policy to charac-
terize twenty-eight editors who did zeal
Gus and efficient labor in the recent cam
paign with being guilty of an 'unwarrant-
ed and disgraceful attempt" in this matter !;
and then, perhaps, it may not be. 1t may
be wisdom to repay them for their services
with the sneering insinuation that they
are without influence and are set of
mere mercenaries; and then it may not.
If our publication, without any comment
whatever, of all the expressions of the press
on the Senatorial question-whether they
favored Mr.. VALLANDIGHAM or Judge
THURMAN, or anybody else e-constitutes the
STATESMAN an active supporter "of Judge
THURMAN for Senator against all other
then is your charge with ref
erence to ourself correct. Otherwise not.
Mr.. VAN FLEET, we should like to have you