Hopkinsville Kentuckian. [volume] (Hopkinsville, Ky.) 1889-1918, 1908-05-23

stephen A. Douglas, in reply to Sew.
ard, did not tower above his adversary
more giganticaily than did Stanley
over Dalzell. 1t was this part Of the
speech that showed what a genius Of
research is possessed by the gifted
orator from the Second Kentucky
District.
1t is too long to quote. One must
read it entirely to get a proper con-
ception of it. 1t is not at all re-
markable that Mr.. Dalzell was con-
tent to allow that the debate be a
closed incident. Every intelligent
onlooker in our political Vienna
should read Dalzell's speech and then
read SANKEY'S reply.
When Stanley came to discuss the
duel between Burr and Hamilton, be
PIT an entirely new phase on the con-
troversy. Hamilton was a believer
in the code. He was on the field as
Lauren's second in the duel with
Gen. Charles Lee. He sought a guar
rel with John Adams that could have
been settled, according to his ideas
of personal honor, only on the field
He challenged James Monroe, anC
would have fought him if Aaron Burr
had not lent his good offices anC
composed the diff rences without {
hostile meeting. On the geld of Wee
hawken, he delayed the giving of tbs
word" till he could wipe his glasses
to make his vision clearer, and yet
we are told that his intention was t
fire in the air. For years he had as
sailed Burr, and for years Burr helC
his peace. Hamilton's eulogists tel
us that he accepted Burr's call to the
field because the standards of those
days made it imperative that ht
should do SO. To that Stanley made
this retort:
| agree that we should not judge
the duelist of that day by the stand
ard of this. But there is no logic by
which you can pardon the acceptol
of challenge and condemn thesend
er. By that barbarous code he whC
was charged with an infamous offens'
could not clear his skirts by proving
its falsity. To prove the charge fals'
and to fail to resent it was to aggra
vate the imputation Of cowardice, il
that day more odious than vice o.
crime. The same perverted publ,
opinion which necessitated the &C
ceptance forced the sending of
challenge.
Could a retort be more conclusive
If Hamilton was a martyr of the bar
barous code when he accepted, itnec
essarily follows that Burr was alsC
a martyr when it required him tc
send the challenge.
Those fond of the brilliant, the or
nate. the exuberent, the splendid, cal
find it in these passages with which
Stanley closed his speech:
For centuries neither the telescop,
of the astronomer nor the researche
of science could solve the mystery O.
that misty night, that glimlnerinl
gossamer encircling the brow o.
night; at last the spectrum revealed
in this nebula unborn worlds, held il
a shimmering gauze; revolving mass
es Of incandescent gas, cooling
hTough passing cycles of time, grow
ing denses without shrinking within
forming smoky concentric circles, g
whirling luminous fog, congealing
into molten rings drawn by their
own gravity into rude globes, and
these spinning spheres shaped by the
plastic hand of Divinity, like clay
upon a potter's wheel, into planets
and their satellites, new solar sys-
tens, swinging for the first time in
to their orbits, in the trackless, faith
omless depths above. Thus God peo-
pies the heavens with radiant worlds
l have fancied that those daring
bands of exiles, forgotten by one
world and lost in the dark wilds Of
living and dying in ignor
ance of the mighty destiny of Their
children, conscious only
that they were free-I have fancieC
that He. with whom a Thousand
years are as a day or a watch in the
night when it is passed." saw an un
II I