Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1875-09-16

=
ton from all ground of charge, and so
refuting the charges of Allen Thurman
falsely and impudently preferred
against the Republican administration.
No better evidence of the badness of
Mr.. Thurman's cause, and of his hu-
initiating consciousness Of that fact,
than the character of his Cleveland
speech. Else why did he fail to tell
the people of Ohio of one single in
stance of culpable failure on the part of
Republican officials of the State of Ohio?
Not one case during fifteen years
like Don Piatt's Catholic bill; not one
like the Geghan law: not one like the
investigation of the Wood County bri-
berries. Let him look over the files
not of Republican journals, but of
Democratic papers of Ohio in their re-
views of the proceedings Of the late
Ohio Democratic Legislature, and he
will find his whole speech about Re-
publican misrule as plea for Demo
cratic rule, stands condemned as libel
unworthy of even ordinary dema-
gogueS. The organs and representa-
tiveS of his own party cOnfute his
charges and show him to be truck
ling partizan without principle. His
charges against National Republicans,
are charges which have been refuted
a thousand times, charges in which
Democrats in greater proportion were
more deeply involved, are just as silly
and unjust. Take the universal hobby
Of all small Democratic decIaimers, the
salary: grab, for an illustration of the
character of the entire speech. a mi
nority of Republicans and a majority of
Democrats voted for the grab; yet that
grab has long been the standing argu-
ment with Dem mOcrats. So Mr.. Thur
man grabs up from the voca bulary of
professional political pettifoggers, COM
bines and weaves repulsive epithets
into charges and hurls them at random
against Republicans, without evidence,
reason or facts. lastead, he prates about
KnowNot hingism, Defalcatiun, &C.,
as if Know-Nothings were not promi-
nent leaders in the Democratic party,
(not one here about st. ClairsvilIe y
and defalcation unknown among these
officials. This is question of figures
and facts in which this speech deals
sparingly.
THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.
Mr.. Thurman charges that, "In or
der to divert from charges against Re-
publican writers, they, without cause,
have started the cry that our schools
are in danger; that there is a combina-
tion to divide the school fund; or to
abolish the system; or exempt Catholic
from taxation" Now, in regard to
these allegations, Mr.. Thurman says: ::
ga more unfounded pretense, more
false, hollow and hypocritical assertion
was never uttered by mortal man."
ure adopted or advocated by the Dem
ocratic party that gave to the Catholics
or any other church any preference"
Can it be possible that when Mr..
Thurman uttered these words be did
not know them to be evasions of truth,
if not palpable falsehoods? Did he
know nothing of the special favors to
the Catholics by the Democracy of New
York? In the years lS69-70-71, the
Democratic officials paid over illegally
to Catholic Converts, Churcnes, Ca
thedrals, Schools, and Asylums, the
sum of 81 ,396,3SS 81, beside real estate
handed over in the city to the value of
50, 500, ,000-S4, ,S96, 1888. 81. Nearly five
millions. These are only specimen
facts and figures in regard to one city
only. They show the tendency, as well
as the first time of this Catholic ALI
ance whose end will be, if not checked,
the ruin of our common school system
and the civil establishment of the
Catholic church in this land.
Has Mr.. Thurman forgotten the bill
of Don Piatt, Catholic, in 1S66-67,
which would have opened the way for
the division of the school fund, had it
passed? 1t may be said, Piatt was
then Republican,; o5tensibly he was,
then, like some other war Democrats,
but he loved Catholic-Democracy bet
ter. So, now he is identified with
kindred spirits. Did he overlook the
late Geghan law? The Senator, in his
speech, must have merged into the
lawyer, forgetting all these things as
he forgot the small matter of the cur
rency "unpleasantness." But it is
Democratic to evade facts to secure
votes.
There is scarcely so glaring an in
stance of moral obliquity to be found
in campaign speeches, and even in this
Senatorial exhibition, as in the follow
ing insinuation in regard to the present
Constitution of Ohio, which he says
was framed by Democratic Conven-
ton. After referring to tue school Sec
ton, he says
"And this Constitution was adopted
by the Democratic electors of the State
against the opposition of the great
mass of the Whig electors, who opposed
and voted againstit.''
To meet this insinuation which in
wolves the moral Obliquity of falsehood,
uu uWOiluS tilS pOSilIOl vi an Oilo CSu'
atOr, and instructor of the people, we
ask attention to these facts: First: The
Wings voted against the Consultation
as a whole, not against the adoption OF
the common school system, as in the
Constitution. Second: The y higs were
generally the warrnest friends of our
school system, and labored by argu-
ments and votes to have the system
perfected and adopted. Third: And
particularly, many Of the leading Dem
ocrats voted against the school section.
Yes, says Thurman, that able and intiu-
ential member, Rufus P. Ranney,
voted for it-that is, really, for the
Constitution as whole, by insinuation
affirming falsehood, that he voted for
the school section. In volume of the
Reports of the Convention and page
III. we find the name of Rufus p. Ran.