The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1869-07-28
More Abuse but no Arguments.

ployMent OF ABUSING t"e CiANA"D' An''
abuse is intended to cover up its want OF
ability to refute our arguments and to DIS
move our statements. Tho STANDARD
stated that the WM.KEn party OF VIRGINIA
was Republican party. We produced
proof of the truth of the statement by quo
ting the declarations of the organs of the
WALKER party. The Journal could not
disprove the statement. for it knew it to he
true. Hence it replied only 10y the sheer
that nothing more was necessary but to
claim WALKER as Republican. Weimme-
diatrly did so, and produced WALKERS own
declaration that he was true Republican.
This last proof knocked the wind out OF
the journal and for some days it has re-
mained quiet Seeing that the Journal was
ho,s du combat, we turned our attention to
the old North State and Charlotte Observer,
which also wished to be informed upon
!, certain points, and who got the information
they desired While thus engaged the
Journal again comes to the rescue and
makes the astounding discovery that the
/; STANDARD has flown the track of argument.
This is cool, to say the least. The STAN
DARD had not only presented arguments,
| but had also presented such strong ones that
! the Journal was unable to disprove
| single one of them. Nor was this all.
: The STANDARD proved the truth of all it
stated by quotations from the organs of the
WALKER party, and by the words of WALKER
himself. The Journal has never answered
any of those arguments, nor attempted to
controvert the facts stated by the STANDARD
Who, then, has flown "the track of argu-
inent 2 Clearly, the Journal itself. And
still! more, in the very article in which this
charge of flying "the tract, OF argument" is
made there is not single argument, or even
an attempt at argument. 1t is simply an
abusive TRADE against the STANDARD, and
number of very unnecessary personalities
,yainst the editor. If the Journal has SO
great an admiration for argument why does
t not occasionally use IL little
There is not an argument in the article of
he Journal. 1t simply reiterates its old as
,crtions- assertions which the STANDARD
has already proceed to be false.
The Journal enaeavors to show that the
! WALKER party is not Republican party,
and the STANDARD not a Republican paper,
by asserting that the STANDARD has taken
{ different views since the time when it was
| first started. Suppose, for the sake of argu-
ment. that the STANDARD has, during the
many years of its existence, taken different
I grounds from those which it now takes.
What theI? Is the present editor respon-
sible for the views of his predecessors Dur
ing the war the STANDARD advocated the
cause Of The. Confederacy because it WAS OBJ
liged tn. The present editor of the
STANDARD was Mt that time, fighting
agaipst the rebellion Can it be said that
he is now responsible for the position
ther taken by the STANDARD,and is he
u risbel because the STANDARD was Obliged to
speak in aid of the rebellion during its
rifle? Every man of common sense will say
that lie is not Then the responsibility of
| the present STANDARD extends no further
than the time when first it came under the
,ntrol of the present editor. We make
this argument simply to show that the
position taken by the Journal is entirely
wrong.
We have however, no desire to discaim
any portion of the record of the STANDARD,
save in one instance-the article Work. y
We were not responsible for that article,
and did not see it ..efore it appeared in the
| paper. We disclaim all sympathy in con-
nection with it. We do this because we
believe that it was wrong, and we will never
give our support to anything we do not be-
lieve to be right. But the course of the
STANDARD, while edited by Gov. HOLDEN
has our unqualified approval and support
That part of the record of the STANDARD
we have no wish to disown, for it was noble
and patriotic. The STANDARD was then
the sole champion of the Union cause in
NORTH CAROLINA, and confronted the re-
bellious sheets that assaied it as the lion
faces pack of snarling ours. That portion
of the record of the STANDARD was glorious
for it was loyal Is it that portion of the
record of the STANDARD that the Journal
advises US to burn 2 Does it suggest to
the Journal too many deserved castigatons
inflicted upon it by Gov. HoLDEN2 If so,
no wonder that it wants that record burned
The journal says " the STANDARD has never
enunciated doctrine that was not decided
ly radical" Not true: the STANDARD has
never enunciaed doctrine that was not
Republican, but the most radical measures
are advocated by the Democratic press of
whom the Journal is one
The STANDARD has ever been, and will
ever be uncompromisingly Republican, for in
the success of the Republican party lies the
safety and prosperity of the nation. But
it has never been, and will never be, radical
) for that is the doctrine of the sham De
mocracy. The Republicans who have elec.
ted WALKER profess the same principles as
are now protessedby the Republican party Of
NORTH CAROLINA. The great principle Of
Universal Suffrage and General Amnesty
governs both NORTH CAROLINA and VIRGIN.
| II L. Al a.