Year: 1860

CHdTSeu on IllnuIIldH tIc dulHoioulp VI tuc l "Viator" letter, and that the Old Line | Democrat denied the truth of our charge | and demanded the proof. The proofs were placed in the hands of the editor, and a candid honest opinion was expected of him by the public.

 The Old Line Democrat charged us with circulating islander and a calumny of the deepest dye, which, if proven, was dis graceful to Hindman. But when we placed the testimony, which was as clear as sunlight, in the hands of the editor. he becomes silent, ominously so for the charc- ter of his friend. He ,cas dumb :foundered! He was overwhelmed with the conviction that he whom he was following as the load star of honor, had authorized him, the editor, to deny the truth, had himself been guilty ofwillful falsehood, and had saborned another to commit the same grave offence.

 The public mind had, by the denial of the editor, been aroused to the position of these two journals, and awaited conclusion of the controversy. The public did expect, that if the testimony was insufficient, Mir. Peek would so demonstrate it, and confuse the authors of the calumny; or if conclusive, that he would admit it, and would with draw his support from a man whom he was satisfied was unreliable and untruthful.

 Certainly as public monitor he could not,

 within the bounds of duty, do less. With

 patience we awaited the result of his inves

 tigation, and let several papers pass, believ-

 ing that the trial being hard one, he

 would finally give his serious opinion. The mountain labored and here is the mousse and small one at that

 "The True Democrat is still devotngits columns to the discussion of the great, allimportant, and all-absorbing question, upon which it would seem that the very destines of the country depended: Who wrote the Viator letters?

 What pity that the great official organ of the State find no lofter theme upon which to employ the ntellects of it's learned editors! Would it not be well fer them to take up, in con- nection with the discussion of this great question: it's cousin german inquiry: Who struck Billy Patterson? It seems to us to be fit and oppor- tune occasion to renew the investigation of that hitherto unsolyed mystery"

 When there was room for denial and evading the charge, Mir. Peek was very serious aud complained bitterly that we were calumnating and villifying his friend.

 When there is no room left for argument or comment he tries to escape from the con

 troversy by treating the charge with con- tempt and levity. Far better for him if he would continue to regard charge involv- ing character for veracity, either in public or private life, grave and serious matter. Who made this serious? Hindman, in denying 1t and authorizing the editor of the Old Line Democrat to do so for him.

 If there is no harm in the practise of mendacity, then the editor has thrust sword into his friends reputation, for it was him who contended that this charge was intamous and disgaceful, and now re- fuses to further plead, after the truth has been made manifest to him. The editor condemns us for alluding to so trival subject! His position, we would be glad if 1t was less serious and less em barrassing. He is affecting indifference, but he feels that his path is thorny and hard to tread. He | feels and he knows that Hindman is guilty, but he cannot acknowledge it, for that would be political death and ruin to Hind man and his cause All Mr. Peek's labor in coming to this State would be lost, for he came here to aid Hindman, among other | objects, and to acknowledge the disgrace and infamy of the father of !" old line de- mocracy," would materially mar, in his opinion, "the old line cause"

 We are, to say the least, shocked that he should treat with levity charge so serious. More was expected, and we were stunned with the frivolous manner in | which MT. Peek treats charge, now an admitted fact, by his silence, of his friends | disgrace and dishonor.

 Is 1t nothing to establish the charge of falsehood upon character? Truth-honor then must be trival things and men insane who have laid down their lives to sustain them. The editor will not deny that he who is destitute of truth is equally devoid | of honor. We then submit the plain prop osition-how can he, as public journalist, for in that character alone we refer to Mir. Peek, sustain and endorse as reliable and trmhfm and Honorable, man whom he knows to wear a character blackened with falsehood. If he can be guilty of deliber- ate falsehood in one instance, 1t is not from accident, but because of depraved and abandoned nature. If he is depraved in morals, he Is untrustworthy in private life, and if in private, then in public life How then, when proven to be untrustworthy in public life, can Mir. Peek conscientiouslv recommend him to the voters of the first district as a trustworthy man? If his own and trustworthy, then they will neither have the effrontery to further push his pre- tentions, nor will the people be expected to consider them.

 Mr. Peek then stands before the con- munity in the attitude of supporting for position ofhonor man proven to be dishon- oraNe- if conviction of falsehood dishonors, and 1t will require more than mere laupb- ing at us, to extrcate h;mself from the meshes which are being woven around him. He is mistaken about this subject involving the reputation of !" Me great official orgon of the State" it is the Old Line Democrats not ours, but his own reputation.