The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-09-14
For the Statesman. /
Tnhn Hanrarlr


original and earnest advocate of sc
cession, desire a portion of you
columns in vindication of the Hon
John Hancock, the present nomine'
for congress in this congressiOna
district. That his nomination wal
not by his own procurement, or ever
desire, and was fairly made in accor'
dance with the strictest Democratic
useage admits of no question. The
absence of Mr.. Upson's friends, after
ascertaining that they were in 9
minority and would not even be able
to make q dead lock in the conven-
tion, cannot IN the least affect the
political validity of the nomination
John Hancock is the regular candi-
date for congress in this district, and
all Democrats are bound by the
strongest ties of party honor and
good faith to give him their support,
unless it can be shown that he is ex-
| ceptionally unworthy of the posi-
tion. The charges of bargain, decep-
ton and fraud, which have been
rather limited than distinctly uttered,
have not the shadow of truth in
them and may be dismissed without
further comment. That Hancock is
the choice Ofa very large majority
of the Democrats of this district at
the present time is beyond a rea-
sonable doubt. Why, then, should
not every good Democrat vote for
him? His preeminent ability is
admitted, his political record wor-
thy of all praise. SounG on all the
fundamental principles of Democra-
cy, he stands squarely and uprightly
on the latest promulgated platform
of his party, and his well known in
dependence and firmness of charac-
ter forbid the idea of change by any
amount of tampering or temp
tation. During his former SER
vice in congress no member
of any party at Washington
was more popular and influential,
and his defeat by Wash Jones, the
veriest harlequin in politics, was a
matter of deep regret to the best
men of all parties throughout the
country. What, then, can be the OBJ
lection to his election? Strange to
say, nearly twenty years after the
termination of the civil war, when
everybody running for any Office
down to constable processes devotion
to the Union, there are still in this
district voters { have met one) who
have the face to object to John Han.
cock because he was an original
Union man thus making the asser-
tion, so often reiterated by the north
ern radicals, that the old spirit of
disunion and prescription of Union
men still exists in the south strictly
true as regards these particular in
dividuals. Thank God, their num-
Der is few and does not Justify the
general charge. 1t is true that John
Hancock was an original Un-
ion man. In the midst of ex-
element, enthusiasm and danger,
he had the courage to act in accord
ance with his convictions, and, for
one, honor him for it. He did not,
like Wash Jones, profess to be a
Union man and then enter into the
service of the Confederacy, wishing
all the time for its defeat and de-
struction, but like an honest man
left its jurisdiction for the old flag
of what he deemed his country and
the common country of all, north
and south. Did he love his state
the less because he loved the Union
more? Let his conduct after the
war was over and the supremacy of
the national government established
answer the question. Had he chosen
to join the Radical party almost any,
thing within its gift might have
been his for the asking. What did
he do? He Immediately allied him
self with the people of his state and
stood up boldly in the face of bayo-
nets for their interests and rights un-
der the constitution and the laws.
1t was a noble course, showing the
true man and patriot. A Democrat
before the war, he was a Democrat
after the war, and is consistent
and answering Democrat now. AS
such and the regular nominee of his
party, he deserves and should re-
ceive the support of every true Dem
ocrat in this district. Certain it is
that he will get the vote and the
warmest wishes of
AN ORIGINAL SECEsSIoNIsT.