The Hartford herald. [volume] (Hartford, Ky.) 1875-1926, 1900-10-03
A VICTIM or the GODS.

WV kpuN "p"iu w
stroy, they first make mad. Why this
vicious attack upon THE HERALD and
why is its editor described as 'no part
of gentleman" Was it because we
said mean things about the Republic
an Oh, no. Did THE HERALD abuse
its Fox alley contemporary to call
forth this insulting language? No, in
deed. What then was THE HERALD's
offcnSe? Listen. 1t was because
we published an article taken from
the Congressional Record, giving a list
of the many Democrats who have been
unscatcd by the Republicans in Con-
grcSs, and called the attention of the
RepUJ'icdH to these things as a COM
parisOn to its cry of "civil liberty" in
Kentucky. We gave an account OF
Scroatcn different cases where a
Democrat had been unscatcd and a
Republican who had not been elected
put in his place. THE HERALD did
not make these assertions on its own ac-
count. The citations are taken from
the Congressional Record. non-parti-
san periodical that simply chronicles
the transactions Of Congress.
THE HERALD invited its neIghbor
to disprove these records, and the
above is the reply it gets. This is a
specimen Of the political argument in
which the Hartford Republican in
dulges. AS TO whether the Fox alley
twins consider The HERALD's editor or
its "assumed editor"-who are one and
the same-"any part of gentleman"
has nothing to do with the case. The
HERALD's scribe feels sure he can es-
tablish quite as good character AS
his defamers down the alley and
not half try. If he couldn't, he would
be in deplorablc condition, indeed.
But the public is not interested in
these things. Bllingsgate is not
and is not considered such
by well balanced persons. 1t is the
weapon of the bully and the thug. 1t
may please and crafty those of de-
PRAYED intellect and rutfian DISPOSE
tion, but it is never employed nor ap-
plauded by anybody having any con-
ception or possession Of honor and in
tegrity, (Are the hpuJlicdn'S editors
for fall footwear? And how
is this shoe for size?)
Suppose the editors of the Republic
an do not consider THE HERAD scribe
"any part of gentleman" Does this
prove that Mr.. Aldrich, Of Alabama.
should have been given seat in Con-
greSS upon three successive occasions
in place of his opponent, who had re-
ceived a majority OF from | 200 to B.
900 votes? Does it prove that the ne
gro George Washington Murray should
have been seated in place of his white
William Elliott, who had
received majority of l,737 votes:
Does it Justify any one Of that list of
seventeen congressional Outrages?
This is public matter that affects
the welfare Of many people, and
the personality Of eitherOf the editors
Of the Hartford papers is small pota-
toes compared with it.
But the people are seldom surprised
1t anything that comes from the
Hartford RepuJlicm. Its abuse and
Misrepresentation of everything a nd
everybody Including the ladies' whose
political bearing does not agree with
It's own, has got so common as to be
1t says the ladies of Beaver
Dam and vicinity went to see the
Democratic flag-raising ''purely
through curiosity" How does it know?
Who delegated to it the jObOf express
ing the sentiment of the ladies Of Ohio
county? 1t describes the many thous-
indS Of honorable men who voted for
Mr.. Goebel last year, and who conse-
Iuently will vote for Mr.. Beckham
his year, as follows:
"what lisa GOEBELCRAT? In the
strictest sense of the English language
1t IL A THING OF IGNORANCE-igno-
rance In its RUDEST FORM-en-
dorsing THIEvERY and ROBBERY;
an ANIMAL that II not SUSCEPTIBLE
of EDUCATION; CREATURE that
KNOWS NOTHING; AN INSECT In
dorsing fraud, force and treachery; "a
CREATURE preferring IMMORALI-
TY to morality; MOST ANY OLD
THING But AN HONEST MAN"
This insulting and abusive language
5 used to describe men whose only Of
ense has been to use the right guar
Intecd them by the Constitution and
'Ote their political sentiments. OF
curse the RcpuJIicm considers every
nan who does not vote the Republic
IN ticket as "a thing Of ignorance"
md "no part of gentleman This |
5 its most resourceful argument. But !
loes this prove that the Republicans
n Congress have not been stealing the T,
seats of Democrats? !
Does it sound like the language of
entlemdm for the RepuLlicm to say-as
{ does in its last issue-that a man
Who endorses the acts Of IA Lcgisla-
ure in destroying free government
or office" presumably our last Leg
Slaturcl is Il "thieving scOundrcl?"
Does this prove anything? Does it
Justify Republican thievery in Con.
ress or political assassination in Ken
lucky? 1.-THE HERALD 'has falsifed
he facts, why does it not bring forth
he proof? FIVE have misquoted it,
Why does it not produce the proof
lsOy 1t offers not single rebutting
act.
Whether man does or does not en-
Orse the acts OF a Legislature, does
his make him scOundrel or Il thief
-Or both: Does the simple act of Il
nan voting for Mr. Gopbpl nr Mr.