Waterbury evening Democrat., 1888-05-02

palgns, iie nee,t iuU 8 Jl, now to such charges. When the senator from Kansas arraigned him and reflected upon his integrity, he ex- posed his own record, his own reputation, to examination.
 Mr. Voorhees, said that, unlike the senator from Kansas, he had not been followed to the senate by an investigation committee, charged with bribery and corruption in securing his seat, and whitewashed by committee. The senator from Kansas could not afford to enter into personalities. MT. Voorhees, wanted it to be understood that he had intended to make no reference to the senator from Kansas in any other capacity than as the traducer of Hancock and Mcclellan. It was In response to his attacks upon those heroes that he had originally spoken.
 The senator from Kansas now said that he did not refer to the military records of these great generals. He now says that he meant to refer only to these men as presidential can didates. With all due respect, this was miserable afterthought. The senator's first speech bore no such interpretation. The att tack upon those heroes was the charge of trea- son to their country and betrayal of their military trust The senator from Kentucky had given the senator from Kansas ample op- portunity to qualify, to retract, to apologize He had allowed his words to stand. It was now too late to change them or deny their meaning. sN :
 The senator from Kansas was an adept in the use of language; he could not object to the most obvious rules of interpretation. His language so interpreted placed Hancock and Mcclellan on a par with Benedict Ar mold. His references to them were false from beginning to end To charge McClel- Ian with trying to make the war a failure was as utterly base falsehood as could be spoken. When the loyalty of Mcclellan in later life was questioned, the aspersion was equally groundIess. At the time of his nom- ination, his loyalty was as true and earnest as when he rode into battle at Antietam.
 In the pamphlet publication of MT. Ingalls, speech he found notifications upon which he wished to congratulate that senator. It was wise to soften some of those attacks The pamphlet substituted the word "subservient" for "degraded" in referring to the clements of the north with which the late Confederacy sought alliance. The senator from Kansas challenged the right of others to speak in military matters. He attacked and criticized the military record of other senators. MT. Voorhees, had before him a copy of the Kansas senator's autobiographical sketch. It was minute and doubtless accurate It re- corded his secretaryship of Wyandotte society and other details, but made no men tion of military record.
 MT. Voorhees, also had, he said, the auto biographical sketch of the Kansas senator, written twelve years ago, in which he claimed to have been major, 6 colonel and judge advocate of Kansas militia. Recent bio graphical sketches omitted these claims to military glory. The records of the state of Kansas did not sustain the claims. The rec ords of the adjutant general of Kansas did not record the senator as a warrior, even in the diluted and diminutive form of a judge advocate Whatever might be his own war record, he would not shrink from a compari- son with that of the senator from Kansas.
 In conclusion he would say that he spoke only for the truth of history and justice to the dead.
 Mr. Ingalls, then rose. He said that he re- gretted exceedingly that the senator from Indiana had referred to personal matters to which he had not intended to advert. He confessed that his military service was incon- spicuous and obscure. But as the senator from Indiana had spoken on these matters, he felt obligated to put on the record the fact, as to the senator from Indiana, as he had it from official and authoritative sources and such as would not be denied.
 MT. Ingalls, charged the senator from Indi- ana with having been throughout the war a malignant and determined enemy of the Union.
 MT. Voorhees rose to reply, but MT. Ingalls, asked not to be interrupted. The attack upon him by that senator had been such as to war rant and demand reply.
 MT. Ingalls, said that in the crisis of his life. when followed from Kansas by malig- nant and malicious Investigating committee, and his integrity and right to his seat had been questioned, the senator from Indiana had assured him of sympathy and confidence. When he had been vindicated he had had the Indiana senator's congratulations.
 Mr. Ingalls continued his assertion that Mr. Voorhees, had been a friend of the Confed- eracy.
 Mr. Voorhees, made a general denial of everything charged and insinuated by the senator from Kansas.
 Mr. Ingalls, protested against the interrup- tion, and offered to produce evidence of every accusation.
 MT. Voorhees, said no matter who was the witness, the charges were false.
 MT. Ingalls said court could pass upon the evidence. If this senate were police court the senator from Indiana would be sent to the rock pit for being drunk and disorderly. Mir. Ingalls submitted d letter signed by MT. Voorhees, in December, 1851, commend ing to southern authorities man who used