Year: 1872

had the misfortune to have been engaged
during mort of bis active life in resisting
the agressions of relative and ne'ghbor,
who, upscrupulous, arrogant, insolent'
wealthy. and able. had devoted NEST OF his
energies TO the destruction Of bis relative
and neighbours peace, comfort, and prosper
ity. melting disorder in the homestead,
poisoning the minds of his neighbours fam
lily. and at last breaking out into violence.
seeking thereby to break up and ruin his
home. Suppose the assailed cltlzen' whose
only cause of offense was moral objection
to the perpetuation of degrading system
oil copcubinsge by his neighbor, and under
the eyes of the objectur's children. should
have borne quietly at 6rst, yielding and
compromising tor peace sake as a later date
even in part condoning his realitive's im
morality and calling it good, but that at
last driven to pay by lawsuits aud persecu-
tions. had manfully resi-: ted and handsome
ly thrashed the asgressor, at the same time
lifting the victims of the adjoining farmers
immorality into comparative Freedom trom
such degradation !?


What would be the verdict OF the world
on a man who, after being thus persecufed.
should turn around and yield the manage
ment of his affairs to the family and the
mar by whom he had been so violently aud
50 maliciously assailed? Would he net be
regarded as weak and foolish person, es-
pecialIy after having at every point defeat
ed his enemy and laid bare his AFRO
yance and crimes? Suppose he excused
himself Tor such action by the plea that his
enemy, obviously for the one purpose of OBJ
tanning control of the property and interests
of bo,h parties, had acknowledged he had
done wrong that his concubinage was an
offense that "had the primal curse upon it, y
and that as a proof of this wound up by
saying his only desire was to forgive tho>e q
who mad defeated him, and "clasp hands
across the b oody chasm' he hiuself had
been the means of digging? Would not a
sensible critic declare that the insolent hy-
pocrisy was worthy Of the preceding base
ness and treachery?


But, putting that aside, what would be a
proper judgment on NJ bers of the ag
grieved mans family-of sons who had
stood by him in resisting the spoiler aud
ma.ignant-and who now s.ood up TO de-
clare their father aud those of their breth-
rem who sustained him iu protecting them
selves against new aggressions to be tyTants
and oppressors, unworthy of the public con-
fidel CT. and only deserving of non suit
in the court of appeals hef re which a final
plea is being mnde, when their on y plea
was that the hitherto assailant. finding him.
self sure of defeat on the old arguments,
had turned around, sowed discussions. and
was seeking to use those oft other party
Every sensible person would declare such
conduct to be unwise as matter of policy ;
treacherous and dishonest as a matter OF
morality These suppositiuns fit tine posi-
tion of the Democrats and their Liberal
allies at this juucture The inpertine ce
of the latter is only equaled by che 'child-
like and bland smile" with which they seek
to cajole the country by assuring It that the
only way to secure liberty is to give power
to those who resisted it; that the only way
to obtain peace is to turn over power to
those who alone made war; that to effect
reconciliation we must condone crime aud
1T the criminals have their own way. 1t
is difficult to tell at which to be most ama-
zed-the treachery that SURF enders or the
cheek that demands the same thing of the
country.-Ex.