The Shasta courier., 1871-04-22
They keep shady now.

The first wife of A. d. Richardson hav-
ing died, he married Mrs. Mcfarland, who
lad been divorced from the drunken and
shiftless brute, Robert Mcfarland. When
Mcfarland found that he could not pre-
vent bis former wife from marrying again,
he sneaked up, assassin-like, and inflicted
death wound upon Richardson. Both
Richardson and Mrs. Mcfarland number
ed such men as Colfax, Greely, and Henry
Ward Beecher among their acquaintance.
A. d. Richardson and his friends be-
ing Republicans in sentiment, therefore,
when he married Mrs. Mcfarland,
the malignant Democratic press and their
echoes trumpeted throughout the country
that the marriage was free love affair,
and one of the natural consequences grow
ing out Of the political and social tenden-
cies Of Republicanism. These prints, and
the majority of their readers, justified the
assassination of Richardson, and the assas-
sin became an object of Democratic adora.
ton, overshadowing for the time being the
memory of St. John Wilkes Booth.
Change of programme! A leading DEM
ocratic politician and lawyer OF the Pacific
coast, surrounded by wife and family,
writes 18O love letters to, and keeps up an
amour with woman WHO carried her hos
tility to Republicans so far as to shoot at
one for raising the American flag in hon.
or of Union victory. Becoming jealous,
this female adulterer (also once the wife
of noted Democratic politician, shot and
killed her paramour, and is now on trial
for the deed. In the progress of this trial
it has been proved and admitted that the
wife, family, and friends of the murdered
man were fully coguizant of the shameful
amour for years! Of course the friends
and acquaintances of the adulterers were
Democrats-prominent ones, too.
Now no illegal or criminal affair was
shown to exist between Richardson and
Mrs. Mcfarland, and the killing of the
former was an unjusti6able murder; but
the Crittenden- Fair amour does show dis
regard of law, moral depravity, social de-
basement, and cannot fail to exert a terri
bly, demoralizing influence upon society
Here, indeed, is case, the history of
which is not devoid of political associations,
which may well serve as texts for moral
and social homilies from the extremely
virtuous Democratic press and model free
love opponents But do they avail them
selves of this golden opportunity? Who has
heard Democratic howl of condemnation
and denunciation of this striking example
Of the practice of free-loveism brought to
light among the members of their own
political family? If Democrats concluded
that the Richardson affair resulted from the
tendencies of Republicanism, simply be-
cause Richardson and his friends were Re-
publicans, they must certainly also con-
clude that modern Democratic tendencies
have led to the aggravated free-love example
now being ventilated in Judge Dwinelle's
court. IF such conclusion is based on cor
rect premises, the people may well feel
alarmed at the progress of free-love among
Democrats. The Crittenden- Fair case has
a thousand times more free-love in it than
the Richardson affair-and that is just the
reason why the late howlers over the Rich
ardson case are keeping so shady about
this San Francisco affair 1t makes vast
difference whose OK is gored with those
vigilant guardians of law and morality.
The Republicans throughout the State