The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1868-09-24
Mr.. Seymour's DupIicity.

Mr. Seymour's DupIicity.
The temerity Of Mr.. SeymetF's
! friends in challenging the accuracy
of Col. Browns Frankfort speech
is fnfstle apparafat I9bF the further
glances at theSseci'atf history of the
New York Convention. The aeouf
sation was, that Mr. Seymour, after
feigned anxietyforetle, guo minatien,
of Mr.. Chase, and after. PROCESSING g
a willingness to support him on. a
platform in. harmony with >, his
well-understood .Niews,suddenly for-i
got~Ais~ promises, and became. -him=.
self candidate on platform es-.
sentially different in tone and prin7,
ciple. It is not surprising that the
World lost its temper when MOTTO
ingtheytharge, .foR in whatever as J
pect 1t be viewed, it establishes, IF
true, the unfitness of Mr.. Seymour
for the Presidency & Bat 1theAEsorld
ought to know the question raised
by Col. Brown is a question of fact,
to be disposed one way or another
by testimony, not to be stit1ed by
aspersions of. the speaker, who had
courage enough to raise it in~a spe-
cific form. ,,;i..y..,.a .ati
The effect of the Worlds vague
and insulting denial in a better from
Col Brown, in which he reaA1rrns
the truthfulness of his statements,
and gives the names of witnesses
whose cognizance Of the Chase
movement. renders them auth critics.
Messrs Cisco and j. D. Van Buren,,
of New York; Alexander Long, of
Cincinnati ! Hamilton Smith, of In
diana, and Gen. Whitney, of Bos-
ton, are entioned las persons
whose familiarity with the meye-
ment qualities them to speak. ar Col.
Brown adduces them q, some Of his
witnesses. Is, the, " orld ready, TO-
testify differently, or to break down
their testimony? Il can prove my
every statement by good Democrats
and gentlemen whose social posi-
ton is equal, if not superior, to that
of Mr.. seymourn-Mr. Brown de-
clares. Will the World dare to &C
cept the challenge invited by its
over-zeal in Mr. Seymour's behalf :?
Not satisfied with the defence of
his original position, Mr. Brown
presses the matter still more heav-
| lily against Mr. Seymour by alleg-
ing that he-the candidate of par
ty pledged to uDroot negro suffrage,i
though at the cost Of revolution =
gave his approval TO platform sub
mitted 10 Mr., Chase in which the
principle Of impartial suffrage was
distinctly enunciated. That plat
form, Mr.. Brown asserts, will be
forthcoming if called for, and Mr..
Seymour's approval of it will be
proved, if denied. Can Mr.. Sey-
mour remain silent under an accu-
sation Which not only eonvViets{ him
of treachery in regard to the Chase
movement, but which fastens on
him faithlessness to one Of the
leading issues Of the contest?
Conirmatory evidence on the
/ whole subject is furnished by CON
I tributions to the West and South, a
Cincinnati journal, which, as We UNI
derstand it, occupies a relation to
the Democratic party similar to that
I Of the Day Book, OF the Metropoli-
ton Record in this city. One of
these contributions is attributed to
Mr.. Alex. Long, who shows how
the scheme for no minating t5,Sey-
mour was concocted and managed /;
another to Mr.. Henry Reed, until
] recently the leading writer of the
Cincinnati Enqdirer. :" Mr.. Reel S
statement of the question is severe
bnt,just :.et sia3i IL .rl,tf aoii9rlzs.
s'The question, so far as Mr.. Sey-
mour stands affected, is this !; Was
he dishonest, or merely weak
Was his conduct the result of treach
i cry or imbecility That Mr. Sey-
mour was either5weak orIdishonest,
that his conduct owed it's origin
either to treachery or imbecility, is
a thing SO ,palpable as to forbid. de
NAL. His act was thatEof. "a. knave
Or of fool; and that knave or fool
whichever it may have been-of
no common magnitude. 1T is not
complimentary to Mr.. Seymour,
wheh his apologists can only main
tain his integrity at The expense 81
4 Lis understanding, and his under
standing at the expenee of. his in
tegrity. It is not fortunate for g
party to be committed to a candi-
/ date in respect to whose character
there is question which can only
be answered by anSimp eachment OF
either his enteffectuaI or his moral
fitness for the place to which it seeks
q his elevation"
Il! From one or the other of these
conclusions there is no escape. Eli
ther Mr.. Seymour, lacking nerve to
assert his convictions and fulfill his
s promises, was forced into his pres
ent position, or his,conduettoward
the progressive Democrats will
whom he had actedggin support Of
Mr.. Chase was one of base, preme
dated treachery. Both hypothesis
are dlscreditable to Mr.. Seymour
and his friends must choose between
| them.-N. y Post.
Mr.. A. T. Stewart, of New York
"bloated bondholder,'' should b.
thankful to che gentleman who fran;
ed the fourth demand in the Demo
cratic platform. His income ta2
for 1865 amounted to a trif1e more
than the total amount paid by The
= people Of ten States and four Ter
ritories. He paid $4,000 more
than was paid by all the people O
New Hampshire, $3.50 more thai
4 was paid by the people of .sMichi
: gan. Out of thirty six millions o