Year: 1870

As speclmen of the manner in which
Radical orators cling to the discussion OF
dead issues, we present the following ex-
tract from recent speech OF Hon. MIR.
Shellabarger, of Ohio:


Again, the leaders of the Democratic
party make their appeal to US to say no
thing about their past-''tO let bygones be
bygonesn-to pass away from dead is
sues"-in short, and in Scripture phrase,
to '1et the dead bury the dead. "


Now, may trust may illustrate the
reasonableness of this present appeal to
the country that it shall forget the history
of this party now demanding the rule OF
the republic. In these illustrations do
not design to Iiken the past of the Amsri-
can Democracy, or the past of any mem
Der of that party, to the characters OF any
to whom refer for illustration only.


Let me then first of all suggest that
there is rather familiar look about this
application to the people to have the
history and especially the recent history,
of Democracy forgotten. One familiar
example of this longing for oblivion is
found in the same book where they get
their exhortatiOn about the "dead burylng
the dead The example is that where
the sKings of the earth and the great men
hid themselves in the dens and IN the
rocks of the mountains, and said to the
rocks and mountains fall on Cs and hide
u.s."


Another suggestive example OF this dis
position to have the people and their gov,
ernments say nothing about 'the dead
past" is found in the desire OF Guy
Fawkes and of his party to make arrange
ments with the Government of England
to let hat gunpowder enterprise OF bis be
a by-gone, and to have nothing said
about it.


Indeed, such amiable dispositions to ar
range about by-gones are not at all rare
in history nor at the criminal sides Oh our
courts.


The most suggestive examples OF this
are in our own history. Benedict Arnold
had both a party and 'past record
Sc had Burr. So had they who met at
Hartford, and they who built fires in that
day upon the American coast. And these
men and their parties exhibited equal zeal
in their efforts to have their country for
get their past, and to '1et the dead oury
the dead" But they did it with this dlf-
ference: that, at least in the case OF Ar
mold and Burr, they aided their country
in the work of forgetting their past by
hiding in exile their future from the coun-
try's sight; whilst we are embarrassed IN
the work of forgetting the past of Amer
ican Democracy by their demand tnat
their future shall be in the rule OF the
country.


But how manifestly absurd this demand
is, that the lives of men or parties shall be
ignored when we are determining whether
they are fit to be our rulers. Who com
mits such madness, and in what thing
Who peIsuades you, in selecting the keep
er of your jewels, to forget that IN his
past he was thief2 Who that the guar
dian of your children was an assassin
Who that the commander OF your
armies was a traitorl How should that sa-
gacity strike you that would recommend
TO William of Orange that he should let
the s'bloody assizesn be "bygOne, and
their author, Jeffries, made Lord Chancel
lor of England, and Kirke be made Keep
er of the Great Seal2 Who thinks that
Wash ngton erred IN emitting to let the
affair of Arnold al West Point, In l7SO,
become, in 1889, ga bygone, and IN not
calling Arnod to the head of the war
Department instead of Jeffersona Why
did Washington not, by clemency so
grand as this, indicate to all coming ad-
ministrators and ages how wise it is to
forget the lives of men, and how wise to
commit the destinies of republics to men
whose lives have beed spent in the busi-
ness of either betraying the republic to
its enemies or of waging war for its over