Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1874-11-11
Card from MIR. Mu,hbach.

Judge Sangstcr, in card in yesterday S
Gazette, states that the report Of his speech
at Odd Fellows Hall, on Monday Nov ID, Pub
l,hcd in the Gazette OF Tuesday, Nov 3. does
HIN Injustice, aud is calculated TO Convey a
wrong impression of his political position.
| made the report complained of, and while
[ do DOT answer his card for the purpose o. Gu
deavoring to prove that he iavors the Civil
Rights Bill, | do so as an act of justice to my
self, and simply Tor the purpose Of showing
| that gave substantially correct coldensa
tau OF his rem rrks, whatever his meaning or
Intention may have been.
The assurances which have bcco conveyed 10
me FROM the Judge u regard 10 a recent occur
renee, are such as would make me an agrees
sor did [ treat This matter nol0 as one luvolv-
lug Uything else hut question OF recollection.
My report, it will be understood, does not
purport to be verbatim The request had been
made 10 me TO notice ouly the sanent points OF
the speeches, and that only did [ do, leaving
out those hings which, in my Judgment, would
unnecessarily cucumber the paper
Judge SaDgster has given his recollection OF
his remarks, and DOW propose to give mine
in full, that the public may judge whether in
the condensation published Nov. 3, any lnju'-
tice was done the speaker. Certainly It was
not my Intention 10 10 SO.
He commenced thus: Fellow citizens aud
| address you as fellow citizens because the law
has made you such" This does not appear in
my report becsuse | considered 1t OF 90 lm
portance The coored people are our fellow
citZ.ns and there was nothing particularly
striking or interesting 10 his addressing them
as such. Il did not come here TO make u
speech occupy, as you know, al humble
az III. 4 tha
of this county," Neither does this appear in
nv report for the reasons above stated, and
also because his holding that office was mat
ter of public notorety. Then be continued,
and right here believe is the only material
difference between US My past course gives
the assurance, aud | call upon the Almighty to
witness Tor an Invocation somewhat slmlIarj
that | want the coored man to have, Tor, am
willing to see the colored man have, the same
rights white man has. Applause. Those,
or words to that effect, were the words that
reached my ear, and were noted at the time,
and distinctly recollcct the astoulshmeGt ex
pressed by the Conservatives around me when
they heard them. He then concluded his
speech 10 few words not materially different
from what he states iu his card.
Now take my report; say 10 1t that re
ferring to his having lately lmI annecd color
ed jury 10 his Court he said &c. Is that
unfair or incorrect? Certainly cot, for in say
ing that "hs past course gives the assurance
that he was willing" &C., he could have been
referring to nothing else but the coIored jury. as
that was the only Incident in his past course,
of which | am aware, that would give the col
ored man the assurance that the speaker want
ed to sec the same rights accorded to him that
the,white man has. | therefore condensed his re-
marks and gave him credit for referring 10 thar
to which he undoubtedly did refer, VIZ the
colored jury OF mouth or two ago
do not now believe that Judge Sangstcr.
intended to say what his words Implied, but If
he was unfortunate 10 the choice of those
words aud used such as expressed an idea diff
fereut from the one be wished, he must adj
nit that the blame is upon himself aud not
upon me.
am permitted by Messrs. Thomas Beck
ham aud R. g. Lee, both oil whom heard the
speech, to say that their recollection agrees
with mine. q. A. MUsHBAcH.
ALEXANDRIA, Va, Nov. IL, 1874.