Owingsville outlook. [volume] (Owingsville, Ky.) 1879-192?, 1896-10-08
Ouch /!

OuchI
Editor of THE OUTLOOK: Sir, the
criticism editorially given i'm your
issue of Oct. LIST on the open letter of
eX-Confederates to Gen. Buckner
does not controvert the fact that Hon.
Ii. ID. Lacy and Col. j. Smith Hurt
were defeated for the Legislature
and Congress in 1860 by the Infamous
order of John NJ. Palmer enforced by
soldiers at the polls, and that hum
dreds of our best citizens were de-
prived of the right to vote or even go
near the polls under penalty of arrest
and trial by military authority, nor
any other fact set forth therein.
As all of the intellect i'm the Demo-
crat party outside of that possessed
by Cleveland and Carlisle lis mo-
nopoliZed" we feel that we should
not he harshly judged for failing to
possess that which is held and mo-
nopolized by a close corporation, and
that it might he wise to submit fur
Their attempts ON our part To YOU for
revision and correction.
However this may be it is possible
you may be mistaken in the meaning
of that which you have so generously
attempted to criticise. Our informa-
tion is that in 1892 Hamilton framed
the coinage laws which established
True Bimetallism in America, and
that Jefferson endorsed and Wash
ington approved them, and that those
laws are wholly at variance with the
views of the Palmer Mckinley Aid
Society.
We further believe that had you
read the Chicago platform your de-
nunciations of the true principles of
Democracy set forth therein might
not have been written.
Learn your books before you at
tempt TO teach school.
ONE OF THEM.
We knew the sign was up "DoN'r
PROD THE TAGGERt' but, fool like,
we couldn't resist the temptation
to "play smart" and tickle him in
friendly way in the ribs, even to
the risk of getting clayed and
chawed into mere remains
Still, dropping the metaphor)
we stick to our jocular criticism
that Hamilton was not patriarch
of the Democratic paFy. That
was all We attempted to controvert.
Our criticism was not OF correrr
but pertinent under the circum-
stances.
Generosity begets generosity.
When our good friends generous
ly" attempted to criticize one of
our National Democratic standard
bearers and their admired ex-Con-
federate comrade we thought it
would be no more than generous"
to criticise their criticism a little
bit, to show them That they perhaps
might be wrong on that patriarch
question anyhow, with an implied
hint that, judging from their opin-
ions expressed in their address,
they might not be altogether accu-
rately informed upon the political
matters in issue. As Pudd'nhead
Wilson says: Difference of opin-
ion makes horse-races" and things.
The gracious compliment in re-
gard to the monopoly of Democrat
ic-party intellect is gratefully ac-
knowledged. After your soft i'm
parchment it would be useless to
deny any longer the existence of
the Brains Trust. But, old friend,
if you will kindly mention it you
shall not any more suffer from
your own vacuity of Democratic
thought as long as we control the
"close corporation" Now, for in
stance, if you had submitted this
patriarch statement TO US we could
have shown you that We had learn
ed our books sufficiently to teach
that Hamilton was not a patriarch
of the Democratic party any more
than Beelzebub was a Bible patri-
arch.
Regarding our not having read
the Chicago platform, that was a
gratuitous and puerIle shot at ran
dom, and we were not there. Real
ly, now, wasn't that unworthy of
our kind friends naturally cour-
teous treatment of rival debater
except occasionally in politics2
In pursuance of dutiful drudgery
we have waded through untold col
umns and pages OF dismal silverite
rot that We might have avoided
had we been less DESTROYS of in
forming ourselves upon silverite
doctrines but reading, and under
standing the intents and purposes
of, that Chicago platform, and und-
erstanding the motives and actions
of the parties whose influence was
paramount IN formulating it, was
an unshirkable necessity so far as
we possessed the ability and OPP
portunity TO do so. Yes, we read
it, and if you had read the issues
Of The OUTLOOK subsequent to the
convention you would have known
that we denounced its salient fea-
lures in detail. A newspaper Of
fee gets in its various exchanges
and otherwise access to about all
the arguments on both sides of the
money issue and other political is
sues, and the conscientious, indus
trious newspaper worker certainly
takes advantage of his opportunI-
ties in that respect. In remoter
historical matters the standard
works supply sufficient material for
never-ending research. These
storehouses may or may not be
drawn upon, depending upon how
thorough and accurate the writer
or speaker wishes to be. |