The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1878-06-19

ON the rule IaId down Dy the wise ndH
OF old, that ''the wounds Of friend are
faithful We have received in the best
feeling the remonstrance Of the Friend"
who writes from Duck Hill, and whose
communication will be found in another
column. As he is a regular reader of
The CLARION, it would have been
unnecessary to remind him that in dis
cussing political questions, this paper
Judges them upon their merits and does
not take the attitude of public men into
consideration al all If there is concur
renee of opinion between public agents
in whom the people have placed their
trust, and ourselves, we are gratitied. 1t
there is difference, we present our
opinion of the question and leave others
to exercise unquestioned. the same right,
but it no more follows that newspaper
is assaiIing public agent because it does
not concur with him, than that a public
agent is assailing a newspaper because
| he does not agree with it. Each has a
mission and should assert it without fear,
favor or affection. THE CLARION is not
large paper, but it is too large to be the
organ of any man, or of anybody 5
opinion but its own.
We are not willing to answer our
"Friend's7 argument against the silver
BILL We prefer to let it stand on its in
trinsic strength without impairing it in
the least, especially as he has shown his
own want of faith in its merits by stating
that he would have voted for it himself
if he had been in position to act on the
question.
In regard to Senator Bayard's letter,
a moments. reflection will show that it
was Legitimate subject of comment. If
not written for publication, it was written
VIGOROUSLY to influence the action of the
Mississippi Legislature upon a great
public question, and through channel
most calculated to effect that object The
injunction of privacy was not imposed,
but the reverse, though it was not com
mented upon by THE CLARION until pub
lished. If Mississippi Senator had
communicated with members of the Del
aware Legislature with like motive, no
complaint would have been made if the
press of that State had answered his ar
guments, and had even intimated that he
had taken upon him self little too much.
Our "Frjend" must have read our art-
Gle specifically or he would not have said
that we had quoted John Sherman
in favor of the doctrine of the
right of instruction. God forbid We
never dreamed of such a thing. To re-
flute Mr.. Bayard's assumption that it
would be unjust to the bondholders to
pay them in anything but gold for secur-
tiles which they bought with deprecated
greenbacks, we cited the letter of Mr.
Sherman, the ablest champion of the
bondholding interests, written in 1868, in
which he declared that the 'bondholder
violates his promise when he refuses to
take the same kind of money Green
backs he paid for the bonds" and further
that if he (the bondholder) refused to
receive currency of that description, he
himself would be "repudiator and ex
tortioner." If this remark be true, is it
not preposterous to charge that it will be
bad faith to the bondholders as Mr..
Bayard alleges, to make their dues re
ceivabIe in silver, which was a legal
tender when the debt was contracted