The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1874-02-20
Jhe 99ailg Atsns.
Independent IN Eoerythtng.
IRONY.

The finest piece of irony we have read
for some time is an editorial in the Geneseo i
Republic this week, in regard to the pre- {
tended speech of W. W. Warner in the
legislature. We don't believe Warner
Fleharty, Haverstick Il Co. will publish
any more imaginary speeches The Re
pa,blics article is as follows
"a Speech That Never Was Made"
Under this head the daily Rock ISLAND
ARGUS of Saturday last contains a long ar
ticle respecting speech recently deferred
| nv the Hon. W. W. Warner, representa-
tive from this county, IN the legislature, on
| the ouestion OF adjournment, in which |
speech Mr.. Warner colleague was the re-
cinient of some pungent thrusts. Though |
the speech was published in one of the |
most candid, honest and high toned jour
nails in the country, namely, the Rock Isl
and Union, The ARGUS, with its usual OBJ
stinacy. denies that Mr.. Warner ever made
liz and even goes so far as to assert that
the production was cooked up by our mem
her and the editor of the Union while the
former was at home on visit, week or
two since.
| THE ARGUS, as matter of course, offers
no evidence of the truth Of its slanderous
allegations, for the very good reason that
liz is not in its power to do so, and notwith-
standing its huge pen and ink fabric is ut
terlv without foundation, it asks the public
to visit maladictions on the head OF MIR.
Warner for the preparation OF fraud OF
which he is guiltess. The evidence Of
THE ARGUS partakes strongly of the char
acter of that on which the Indiana jury
ACQUITTED man for murder only one
person saw the murder committed, whereas
h the defense introduced forty people who
u didn't witness the sanguinary deed, and
, the Jury discharged the culprit. Though
/ the whole legislature listened to MIR. ar
| ner's able speech, and were highly enter
| tanned by it, THE ARGUS did not hear it
therefore it was not delivered as published
in the Union,
Now, what have we to offset against thi
purely imaginary tale published by III
ARGUS? First, the publication OF tn
- speech by the Union, heightened publ
journal, as transferred from the publishe
{ Legislative debates. Second, the exalte
" private and public character OF Mr.; War;
err The religious, moral and social stan(
ing of that individual is full and con
plete refutation of the base SANDER puI
ado lished by THE ARGUS, and will be so take
10y every one who knows him. He is
md man of unquestioned piety, Of emine1
By- moral worth, of high social position, al
lort great purity in private life. Would he
o,r guilty of causing the publication OF spec
las, in hightoned journal that he never d
,degT ivered? Never
enr Thirdly, Mr. Warmers official charact
fully disproves the allegations of The A
and GUS. He is one of the few leaders of
\. the majority in the House. \ man
. marked legislative ability and great $
gless of aim--pure, strong and JUS
looked up to and respected as one OF
~ most influential nlembers-is it to be
q Iieved for moment that Mr.. Wal1
v would be guilty Of palming off on
v credulous public speech that he ne
delivered? No one acquainted with
faithful, efficient and very able represel
sew tive can be made 10 believe that he wo
S sgIed be guilty of such baseness.
DAD The TACT is, The ARGUS has tounC
!, de- mares nest" 1t has got itself on to
wrong track. 1t loves to traduce the Ct
70 anter Vt such pure, chaste, wise and N
men as Mr. Warner-men held il exa
DEN e,,ue.n as citizens, christians and sta
'H0hc men. and believing it had found its OPP
Mt tunitv to besmear such CHI 'ctel
most excel ent man and BILE legislator
sa, down and wrote the untruthiul al
" per here noticed