Willmar tribune., 1916-05-03
EXTRACTS FROM THE AUTO
BIOGRAPHY OF
IANE GREY SWISSHELM
First Newspaper Woman Of
Minnesota.
A Remarkable Woman Of Ante
belIum Days-1915-1865
CHI AP Err XVII.
Daniel Webster.

whose eloquence had secured In name
the great Northwest to freedom, and
who had SO long been dreaded by the
slave-power, had laid his crown in the
dust; had counseled the people Of the
North to conquer their prejudices
against catching slaves, and by his
vote would open every sanctuary to
the bloodhound. The prestige of his
great name and the power of his great
intellect were turned over to slavery,
and the friends of freedom deplored
and trembled for the result.
There was some general knowledge
through the country of the immoral
ity Of Southern men in our national
capital. Serious charges had been
made by abolitionists against Henry
Clay, but Webster was supposed to be
moral as we'll as an intellectual
giant Brought up in Puritan New
England, he was accredited with all
the New England virtues; and when
Southern woman said to me, in an
swer to my structures on Southern
men:
"Oh, you need not say anything!
Look at your own Daniel Webster!"
| wondered and began to look at and
inquire about him, and soon discov-
cred that his whole panoply of moral
power was shell-that his life was
full of rottenness. Then l knew why
l had come to Washington. l gather
ed the principal facts of his life at the
Capitol, stated them to DR.. Snodgrass,
Va prominent Washington correspond
ent, whose anti-slavery paper had
| been suppressed in Baltimore by a
mob, to Joshua R. Giddings and Gam
aliel Bailey. They assured me of the
truth Of what had been told me, but
advised me to keep quiet, as other
people had done. l took the whole
question into careful consideration !;
wrote a paragraph in a letter to the
Visiter, stating the facts briefly,
strongly; and went to read it to my
friend, Mrs. George w. Julian.
l found her and her husband togeth.
er, and read the letter to them. They
sat dumb for a moment, then he ex-
claimed
"You must not publish that"
"It is true?"
"Oh, yes! 1t is true! But none
the less you must not publish it,"
"Can l prove it?"
"No one will dare deny it. We have
all known that for years, but no one
would dare to make it pubic. No good
can come of it's publication; it would
ruin you, ruin your influence, ruin
your work. You would lose your Trib-
une engagement, by which you are
now doing so much good. We all feel
the help you are to the good cause.
Do not throw away your influence!
"Does not the cause of the slave
hang on the issue in Congress?"
II thin,2 it does"
"Is not Mr.. Webster's influence all
against it?"
eyes, of course!'
"Would not that influence be very
much less if the public knew just
what he is?"
"Of course it would, but you cannot
afford to tell them. You have no idea
what his friends would say, what they
would do. They would ruin you
l thought moment and said:
81 will publish it, and let God take
care of the consequences"
"Good!" exclaimed Mrs. Julian, clap
ping her hands. 81 would If l were
in your place."
But when l went to post the letter,
I hesitated, walked back and forth on
the street, and almost concluded to
leave out that paragraph. I shudder.
ed lest Mr.. Julian's prediction should
prove true. l was gratifed by my
position on the Tribune-the social
distinction it gave me and courtesy
which had been shown me. Grave
Senators went out Of their way to be
polite, and even pro-slavery men
treated me with distinguished consid-
Grafton. My Washington life had
been eminently agreeable, and l dread
ed changing popularity for public de-
nunciation. But l remembered my
Red Sea, and my motto-"Speak unto
the children of Israel that they go for
ward" The duty of destroying that
pro-slavery influence was plain. All
the objections were for fear of the
consequences to me. l had said God
should take care of these, and mailed
the letter, but l must leave Washing
ton. Mr.. Greeley should not discharge
me. / left the capitol the day after
taking my seat in the reporters gal
lory, feeling that that door was open
to other women.
The surprise with which the Web
steT statement was received was fully
equalled by the storm of denunciation
it drew down upon me. The New
York Tribune regretted and condemn
ed. Other secular papers made dig
nified protests. The religious press
was shocked at my indelicacy, and
fellows Of the baser sort improved
their opportunity to the utmost. l
have never seen, in the history Of the
press, such widespread abuse of any
one person as that with which l was
favored; but, by a strange fatality,
the paragraph was copied and copied.
1t was so short and pointed that in
no other way could it's wickedness be
so we'll depicted as by making it a
witness against itself.
l had nothing to do but keep quiet.
The accusation was made. l knew
where to find the proof if it should be
legally called for, and until it was I
should volunteer no evidence, and my
witnesses could not be attacked or dis
credited in advance. By and by peo-
pie began to ask for the contradiction
of this 'vile SANDER" 1t was so cir
cumstantial as to call for denial. It
could not be set aside as unworthy Of
attention.
What did it mean? Mr.. Webster
was prominent candidate for Presi~
dent. Would his friends permit this
story to pass without a word of de,
nial? Mr.. Julian was right; no one
would dare deny the charge. He was,
however, wrong in saying it would