Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1889-04-12
FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL IL, 1889.
HE GETS 4 CHANCE AT SENATOR
SHERMAN.


When Charles w. Button, of the Lynch
burg Virginian, one of the foremost
editors in Virginia, received the appoint
ment of postmaster at his city from Presi-
dent Cleveland, Senator John Sherman set
to work to defeat his confirmation on the
Senatorial courtesy ground, alleging that
Mr.. Button had written articles in his paper
abusive of Senators. Mr.. Button showed
that the paper was out of his control when
those articles appeared, but Senator Sherman
pursued him until-assisted by some ''Sen-
atorial courtesy" Democratic Senators-he
secured his defeat. When Murat Halstead's
name was before the Senate for Minister to
Germany he was charged with having, in
his paper, Extensively attacked several Sen
ators, and was rejected. But not until after
Senator Sherman had made an earnest fight
for his confirmation-a futile somersault
which makes the following open letter
quite readable:
LYNCHBURG, Va, April Cd. 1889.
Hon. John Sherman, United States Senator:
DEAR SIR:-Please accept my compliments,
with the gentle reminder that 'Curses, like
chickens, come home to roost. In view OF
the part you are alleged to have acted in in
ducfng the Senate to reject me, as unworthy OF
any position in the gift of the government, it
would seem to be in order now to remind you
of the application OF your doctrine that the
Senate has made to your friend Halstead! You
intended that rule of Senatorial Courtesy
to be applied, in your Star Chamber proceed
ings, only to your political opponents; and
not that your own political and personal
friends should be victinlized by it! 1t makes
Mr. Sherman with
people, as to whose ''0r is g0red.' Bloody
instructions return to plague the inventors,
as you see now in the application that has been
made to your own friend, OF the thumb screw
that Won invented.
But, while kindred fate overlook Hal
stead and myself, there was this difference in
the measure of our guilt, viz: that the former
was condemned for what he wrote, and l was
condemned for what l did not write, and for
which was in no degree responsible. And
there was still greater difference, it that
were possible, in your relation to the two re-
taliatOry acts here recited: You held me re-
sponsible and made me the yicaflous sufferer
for criticism of our fHouse of Lords INDUCED
in by another, while you c0ndoned the actual
0fe7ase against their High MightinesSeS perpe-
trated by your republican friend, whom you
would have invested with high representa-
tive trust at a foreign court! In this. Mr., Sher-
man, you were not only unjust to me, but,
Judged by your subsequent course, grievously
atnjWst to yourself, whereby you stand con-
yicted of moral turpitude and inconsistency to
degree that should attach to the conduct of
no public man.
lam out of politics now-as, from present
appearances, you are likely to be ere long a
self-respecting private citizen, occupying the
post of honor, the private station" caring very
little for political parties, and with no desire
OF purpose ever to be candidate for any pub
lie office; of all Of which have seen the VAN
ity.
Hoping that you may yet be happy, and as
we'll satisfied with your past record as / am
with mine, remain,
Very respectfully yours,
CHARLES W. BUTTON,
Late Postmaster.