The Grange advance. [volume] (Red Wing, Minn.) 1873-1877, 1875-11-24
Billingsgate and SIander.
We find the following delectable
paragraphs in the last number Of the
Anti-Monopolist:

Anti-Monopolist:
He III. H. Young,) ran paper at Hen
derson in 1860 and advocated the Breckin-
ridge or copperhead ticket. He continued
that paper Henderson Democracy Till he
ran it in the ground. After this Young went
up among the Sioux Indians to- complete
his education, and no doubt he graduated
with all the honors any breechclout could
conscientiously stand. The next we hear Of
him was at Rochester. where he done what
he was able to do to beat and disgrace the
democracy of that section in regular Judas
Iscariot style. Lastly he turns up editor of
q paper called Grange Advance and pre-
sumes to dictate to grangers. He lacke tai
ent and tact is not q safe man to trust. He
loves martyrdom, aud unless the grangers
boot him out, he will have the whole party
cruciied long before November Sd. We
would as soon levy q tax on Old Cut Nose or
Red Dogs brains to give tone to party as
on Mr.. H. H. Young's.-St. Peter, Indy
Advertiser.
Think of it! The man who could
support Breckinridge against Stephen
A. Douglass in 1860, and who was so
vile an enemy to his country during the
war that he ,oos imprisoned IN one Of
the government prisons for reasonable
utteronces, now hates the democracy so
much that his pure soul recoils even
from farmer Buell., the nominee of the
Anti Monopolists His patriotic heart
now throbs in peace on the bosom of
John S. Pittsburgh!
From Breckenridge to Pillsbury -
Nothing but gold could bridge such a
chasm as that.
We will bet he will support Grant
next year. if his beggarly sheet is alive.
1t is true that we did publish a
democratic paper in Henderson in
1860, and advocate the election of
Mr.. Breckenridge, and that we
stopped the publication in 1861, be-
cause it did not pay. We did not
60 amongst the Indians, but returned
to our former home in Washington
city in 1862, and were employed
during the war, first as quartermas-
tiers clerk, and afterwards as army
correspondent for the New York
World and New York Times.
The editor of the Anti-Monopo-
aist knew all this years ago, and he
knows that the statement. that we
were s*imt~isoned in one cfMe gov-
e>mm<nt prisons for reasonable ut
terances," or for any other cause, is
a falsehood. told first against us in
1870, when we were advocating the
formation of the anti-monopoly party
in Olmsted county in this State, to
oppose the extortions of the w mona
and St. Peter railroad company,
which was then charging IS cents
per bushel for carrying wheat from
Rochester to Winona, and were, for
that reason, experiencing the bitter
est opposition from both republican
and democratic local leaders. We
say that he knew all these things,
that he was personally cognizant of
them when they were transpiring,yet
he has notably endorsed our senti-
ments, seconded our efforts, fellow
shipped with US politically, and as
ISOLATED himself with us Intimately,
continuously from 1870 until last
September, when we refused to con-
:spire with him to betray the anti
monopoly party to the corrupt lead
.ers of the old democracy.
If our record was so execrable,
why did he associate with us? We
did not seek his company, though
I'VE esteemed him highly and treated
HIM we'll, until his selhshness and folly
*disgusted US. And, again, if it were
so bad for US to be a democrat in
1860, what is to be thought OF him,
who tried to carry over to the demo-
cratic camp the entire anti-monop.
oily party in 1882 Aye, tried &c
place the destinies of the entire
people in the hands of those same
men whose lead we followed in 1860
Is he so mad at the people, whom HI
but recently denounced as ~mor'