The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1873-07-24


I1zE WACO Examines AND 1CDGE
HtNcocH.
Tie Waco Examiner. in taking n0iice 81
our friendly defense Of the Hon. John Ham
cock against the radical Misrepresentation
Of tie San Antonio Express. shows want Of
discretion as ven as q sense Of common
justice, which We did not expect from a
journal Of its character and standing, Does
It expect 70 aid the cause Of democracy in
this State, OF the prospects Of It's favonte
candidate for Governor, by ungenerous and
uncalled for assaults upon democrats
OF high position and character, with
hosts Of democratic friends through
out the Slater Does it desire to
encourage the radicals in their low and base
attempts to asperse and iniure prominent
leading men in the democratic ranks, aud
thus destroy their influence and necessarily
weaken and injure the partyl 1t would be
well for the Examiner to reflect on these
points, before INDUCING in the thoughtless
strain, which disfgures its columns in its
issue Of the sixteenth inst. Therein we
read the following:
HoN. JoHN HANcOcK.-The Statesman
whitewashes the Hon. John Hancock We
believe all it saws Of him but this:
ssIf he continues in the future as he has
In the past, he will be deserving of any
Office, even the highest which the Democ-
racy and people of Texas have to bestow ("
His political antecedents forbid anything
of the sort. We knew him as a ranting,
shirt-tearing Known Nothing, and again as a
so-called Democrat, and then again as a
milk and cider Union man-an anti-South-
erd Rights man, and in turn Republican.
Subsequently a Liberal Republican, and
now that departure having played out,
he wants to be simon pure Democrat.
Now we have not attempted to ''white-
wash the Hon. John Hancock, for he has
no need of it, nor do we desire to blacl1wash
the Examiner-it is doing that itself; but
we have this to say, that the above extract
contains about as much cool misrepresenta-
ton as it would be possible to crowd into
the same space. We know nothing about
the charge of Know Nothingism-that was
before our adyept to Texas-he MAY have
been favorable to that movement, for aught
we know-many democrats, now good and
true, at that distant time, were for awhile
led off by that improper organization !;
but would the Examiner, on the same
ground, now denounce all the old wings
and know-nothings connected at present
With the democratic partyl Is this sound
policy, common sense or common justice2
As to the charge of being "a milk and
cider Union man, " everybody, who knows
the man, knows him to be milk and CIDER
on no subject. He was an open, bold and
Conscientious Union democrat, and the Ex-
aminer only betrays its ignorance or malice
in asserting otherwise. Within our personal
knowledge, he was never republican or
liberal republican, but has acted with the
democratic party ever since the close
of the war, and, as democrat has
been twice elected by his intelligent
constituents of the Fourth District to a
seat in the United States Congress, where
he has served them with singular faithful
ness and ability. 1t is well known to every
passingly well informed politician in the
State, except the writer in the Examiner,
that Judge Hancock opposed the Greeley
movement, as his published letters at the
time show, and preferred the nomination of
a straight out democrat, while, if our recol-
lection does not fail us, the Examiner fav-
ored the Liberal Republican and Greeley
movement, and supported the ticket, as did
Hancock, ourself and others, when we
found we could do nothing better. Why
then does the Examiner make state
ments, so loose, so reckless, and so
utterly unfounded9 We can see but
one reason. It seems to have
jumped to the conclusion that, because
in our defense of Judge Hancock Gas we
would have defended any other prominent
democrat from radical lying we ventured to
say that he was deserving of any Office,
euea the highest, which the democracy and
people of Texas had to bestow, we were
bringing him out as candidate for Gov
ernor, and therefore, as the special advocate
of the claims of Judge Coke, it was neces-
sary for the Examiner to make tremendous
assault upon him without regard to party
interests or, we may add, the true facts of
the case. We beg the Examiner not to be
alarmed. Judge Hancock is not our candi-
date for Governor, nor does he aspire to the
position. We again repeat, we have no can
didate for Governor but the nominee of the
democratic party. But we will say this, that
the friends Of Judge Coke will not advance
his prospects for the nomination by ruth
lessly assailing other democrats, as good as
he OF his indiscreet advocate in the Waco
Examiner. This course of conduct is rep
rehensible in the extreme, as calculated to
create bad feeling, and endanger the success
of the democratic party in the next election,
which is of far more consequence than the
elevation of any man, even Judge Coke, to
the Gubernatorial chair.