Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-10-31
sATURDAY.....ocroBER 80, 1885
SA.rnan.s INSTRUMENTATION.

in tfrglnlhs anu phibV"y "
Richmond Dispatch. We ought not to
be surprised at this utterance for Mr.
SHERMAN laid the measure OF his con-
scientiousness open before all the world
vben be declared in the United States
Senate. as he did in 1881, that any
fh;po that will beat down The Demo-
cratic party and build up the Republi-
can party is unsuitable IN morals and
in lar." OF course, therefore, Mr..
SHERMAN considers it justifiable in law
and morals not only to deny in Virginia
what be said in Ohio, but TO deceive his
Virginia hearers by making them be-
lieye that the Dispatch has misrepre-
sented him. Every intelligent reader
Of this paper knows that Mr. SHEER
MAN has thus as grossly and I'M
justifiably misrepresented us as he did
Mr.. DAVIS when he pronounced him
ga conspirator and traitor"
Considering, too, that the Dispateh
has treated Mr.. SHERMAN with marked
and upmerited courtesy, and never made
. charge against him that we did not
sustain by quoting his own words, and
that other papers have denounced him
in unmeasured terms, we surely have
good reason, If paper ever had good
reason, for departing from our accus-
toned line Of treatment and denouncing
him in harsh language. Suppose that
we, as one of our exchanges has done,
should style him ga slanderer and
scoundrel," or, as another has done,
denounced him as "liar." Then Mr..
SHERMAN might be excused for sim
Cling us out for attack. Instead OF de-
nouncing him as we might well have
done, we have allowed his utterances
to characterize him. If these do not
condemn him, the readers Of the Dis
patch will not condemn him.
We defy Mr.. SHERMAN to name one
single instance in which we have mis-
represented him. We challenge him to
lay his finger upon q single charge
brought against him in this paper not
fully sustained by his own utterances.
Mr.. SHERMAN denies that he waved
the bloody shirt in Ohio during the re-
cent campaign in that State. But that
denial we have disproyed by repro
ducing his own words, from his own
organ. The readers Of the Dispatch
we'll know that that denial is mere
subterfuge. He hides himself behind
definitions, and if put upon his oatt
would have to swear that all he mean
TO deny was that he had done what h,
was willing to acknowledges waving
of the bloody shirt" If put upon hi
oath, he would have to admit that h
did in Ohio precisely what the peopl'
Of Virginia and all the other southern
States--nsy, the Democrats of all tn
northern States as well-mean TO charg
upon him. This he did when he pro
nounced Mr.. DAVIS a conspiratOr an
q traitor.
Does Mr.. SHERMAN take the peopl
Of Virginia to be fools? Why did h
call Mr.. DAVIS "a traitor" il not 70
the purpose Of arousing sectional pre-
jrdicess Why did he say that 18th
men who led in the civil war have bee
restored topower, and hope, practically
TO reverse all the results Of the war,
II not for the purpose Of arousing wa
assionse Why did he say that in u
South "the offices are filled from ii
rebel ranks if not to excite hostilit
against the southern people? 1t mul
be Remembered that he thus objected
"rebels I" holding the Offices in the
own States This liberal JOHN SHEI
MAN, who has been misrepresented /
the Dispatch, warts our offices here
Virginia filed by men who were Uni'
men during the war; That is, he ma
tho Ohio people believe that he co
sidsred it wrong to allow the offices
the South to be filled by "rebels," b
be said Ia Petersburg that he did \
hold the opinions be expressed in Oh
Bat let us return to our catechis
why did he say in. Ohio that /"
man who acquiesces in the results
the war, who honorably demands
ballot aud fair count, can be sppoin,
70 Office in the SOUTH" il not to !
dsvilish feelings into the hearts Of
hearers and to invoke sectional ha,r,
TO aid In his return TO the United Sta
Senatef Why did he say in Ohio Il
/" the rebels"--yes the rebels" 1
the Democrats, but the rebels--are
Is absolute mastery in the South
they would have been IL the COME,
!, sacy had succeeded, and that the Il
drawn between the two parties is n,
\ - distinct as it was during the wal
II not for the purpose Of inAaming I
snimosities Of 'wMi Why did
"A threaten in Ohio to "appesl under /
fourteenth amendment to the Cons.i.
ton to al Tie sortAera States 10 sta
together to reduce the representa-
based upon the colored vote" IL not
excite . feeling Of hostility to I
South ?
Mr.. SHERMAN, you viii do yours
70 credit with any but the ignorant
attempting % deny that you waved I