Georgia weekly telegraph, journal & messenger. (Macon, Ga.) 1880-188?, June 09, 1882, Image 6

Georgia Historic Newspapers

Georgia weekly telegraph, journal & messenger., June 09, 1882, Image 6

About Georgia weekly telegraph, journal & messenger. (Macon, Ga.) 1880-188? | View Entire Issue (June 9, 1882)

Page of 8

Prev Issue Next Issue

Text PDF JP2 (3.4 MB) Clip/Print Image

Page of 8

Prev Issue Next Issue

Return to Top

Newspaper Page TextA WORD nmt A BLACKGUARD. We print in Another column a letter from I.mory Bpcer. We made the nunc tnlaUke In aaklnc him to explain la oor columns bU con* nectlon with this telegram that anjr gentleman la liable to makn when he Invitee a man into his house, ami Mila out aa noon as he has open* ed th.e door tliatTils guest U a blackguard. And we shall deal with Mr. Opecr Just as any gentle* man would be forced to do when he nas been deceived In that war. It would.have been more in accordance with the rules usual among gentlemen If Mr. Sneer had first written hla ex* {•lunation, If he ha«l one. and then if the Cm- stitmioa 11nd failed to do him Justice, to have denounced it if ho chose to do so. But the cour». of a gentleman would make Mr. Speer he*! tat a any time, and lie baa shown himself In his conduct In this matter aa uufamlllai with the conduct of a gentleman as he is with the truth. We admit that It would bo cowardly In ua to ask a man to explain In our columns and then deny him the but when a man comet on the Invitation we give and acts the ruffian, the bully and the braggart, we will treat him as hla couduct deserves, even while we give publicity to his willful and malicious fa&chuUs con cerning our course to him. Now, Mr. Speer, we have listened to yon, and heard what you have to nay. We have nothing but your statement, and even you admit that what you did was without Mr. Stephens’ an* ».SSI phena given you any room to think he would reject a noml atlon fromjrour friends f Your deceived Mr. liili r-essarfsgis^ fuse to believe yourstateoM made yon have no one to 1 If a majority of the people want you aa their reprerat objection. We have mid iz. repreren. You took occaaloa with this Insulting letter, when Min Mr. Stephens tor governor because he Isphysf. rally unabte to discharge the duties of the of* flee, and because bis elerttou would conlbet wjth the beat interests of our State and people. Andwetokethisposition la all kindMaaand respect to Mr. Stephens. W s regret that he baa allowed his over reaching ambition to place Wm In a goclUon that would call forth a crlti* cl * E » of hU infirmities. Ilia own common was not the man for the position. Valdosta Timm. ••What Mr. Speer telegraphed Dr. strictly true, though not by author There Is no issue between me amt 1 __ . "AutXAXbza IL 8 That settles *u Mr. Stephens would accept the nomination from . uuv - P^odents, bpt he did not "authorial Mr b» But about a week ago Mr. Mo* phens denied the whole .thing. Ah, Mr. fits* pbeha t you an certainly In your second child hood. That Is the moat charitable view. 5ps uSSlffipraggijffi r to delivered by canton in the eit> free U cubserfber* at fl p*> •1M fet (km ueatha, ti far tij - ocHfiyatr. xt is mailed to subscribers. pvstagt * * year ami f! for glx months, -srtmemenu will be taken at otu ■guars of tan Unte or 1cm for th« , and fifty recta for each seW * "rand rates to eoutracuirs i advertissmsuU uaatef itended for publication ' by the wntor’s nam« publiaailon, but as as ■pastes] by the not for * ’• sefftadfahh. a commas tea‘J r.i will not be returned • containing Important ■16EI TELKfUPH 1ND KSS5S5B rr.IDAT, JUNK 0. 1882. Thomasvilie Times evidently im- s that it has hnd new light on tho reli- f of the Democracy of Mr. Stephen*. 1Uyaa4 Weakly. ±rn a*» Miawcn is publish* . sxmpt Mouday, and weekly evtr. tieoe. fo tPitf ©saKxjm UtaSUn attfc Smmt&l & Trrx files of the Cheon icle and Cowtitu- altit for 1878 would famish interesting ad instructive reading abont now. In Is interest of Democratic courage and utoitteuoy, we should like to see tho MrowJe’* opinion of that day placed kngftide of its opinion of to-day. “Surety In Tala the Met la fpread” la the Sight of Any Bird. With a conviction that is arrived at after turc and deliberate analysis and consideration, with every advantage pro and eon, we have decided that tho legitimate conclusion t drawn from the utterances of the Bourbon press Is that It is not safe in any sense, person ally or pecuniarily, for any man to como to this city, or to the Stato of 0oorg»a, from tho North or from elsewhere. If be adheres to the right which tho constitution of the Unltod States guarantees to every' man. and pursues lino of policy in politics dlftt-rout from that dictated to him by those In power in this State. This Is not the first tlmo this conviction has been forced on ns. If any man, native or other wise, dares to differ with tho Bourbon clan that controls Georgia, ho does so at the riak of im pairing his business and also subjecting him self Individually to the vulgar epithets and grossly slanderous lies of a venal, poverty* stricken set of blackguarding, would-be news paper editors, who have not as much brain as money, and none of either.—Post-Appeal. The above, from the rost-Appeal of Saturday last, develops the disappointment that Thornton experiences, because in the conduct of his pspor he has not been able to deceive anyone but himself. The plans and purposes of all the elements behind him aim either at Africanizing the South absolutely, or at ^ettlrAoutrol of public hflairs through tho Mfro vote. This has been painfully apparent to the people In every movement for the past seventeen yearsj having for its object tho division of the white vote. Tn Atlanta Constitution seems anxious to know that Iho editor-in-chief of this pa- V»r will support its gubernatorial candi date, although it is ou record aa charging 1 void aapport always defeats the cau.to Mwa* Jwigued to further. This is queer; & IHa, you know, the Constitution is a wr institution. M*. Stephen* fa reported, by theWash- fegton correspondent of the Savannah Sean, an being determined to stomp tho Bfcaia wnen Congress adjourns. As the oenvention will ptobsbly meet, ucminate •moo one else, and adjourn boforo Con- trace d< es, in whose iutcrest does ho pro- BH to canvass tho State? Tn Cincinnati Enquirer says: “Tho Moo. John G. Thorap -ou makes the official SKsoanoomtn: that Senator Pendleton is >o longer to be oonsidored a Presidential •wfldote for 18*4. Tho Senator, it seems, «mpiy wants to wear oat the seat cf nn- other pair of trouser* in the Sennto.” Lawr summer we argued that the South ern labor question rronld find its solution ‘ In improved machinery. This whs before tttouie of auoh hnd become general. To- «*r tho prophecy fa being verified; mowers, xtapets, throthers, separators and binders *» doing Coffee's wore ail over tho State, and doing it better and quicker thr.n Caffto svi; dreamed of. Jar is of the utmost importance," says the OkvwaiWr, “that Georgia should send a •D&d delegation 11 Washington next fall.” Ha suppose the Chronicle moans a solid JMmocratic'delegnlion. Now wo wish to iBow, of the Chronicle, how this Is to be BKomplished by Democratic indorsement fet governor of n candidate who has no taseewith the independents. i’s organ backs up “Bunny” Chat ■tors against the Bourbons. It says; “Tho Krshwt political circus of the season will Okalmcra-Manning duplex arrange- it In Iho second Mississippi district every blow tbnt Mr. Chalmers may do- r on the brazen front of Bottrbonhm— be knows how to hit effectually—he have the thanks of Republicans.” Tub New Orleans editors actually put In their pistols when they fight duols. *» is more dangerous, os well as more msire, than the Virginia method. •e ths “eleven able” of tho Constitution tba or e unable of tho Post-Appeal to I to the Virginia method, as the ark of rlufoty <or words to that effect), when »J Bpeer and Gantt, Tam statement that “nearly all the Geor- ‘lpapers favor the nomination of Mr. i,” is not b'.rno out by the facta In toast. The defeat of that gentleman e the convention i*% foregone oonclo- Mis defeat is necessary to the defeat lion, 8p&«r and Hook, and the organ* 1 Democrat*, in convention assembled, t hesitate to nsojxupliah it. •f Felton, i x of the (taper* object to Colonel Lamar, ion TELcaiuru and Mcmcsucr, aim- e *»c has a mind of his own. This la -Darien Gantts, s does not seem to stand in awe of t new coalition ring. He will probably •ught to Uw for admitting the right i Txlbobapb abo M*»arsons to op- u tlie Atlanta bosses. Bat, then, Grubb ■ his best shooting from ta#. Twa Constitution says: “Tho harmony of ^ ** Jcratic party it tho main thing to lered just uow.” Even so; and s fact ooostitatc* an unanswerable ar- nt against the nomination of Mr. by the July convention. It is sltrle to harmonize the party by at- iiig to force it to swallow Stephens 3 hb record. That would put it in the "* *■ of having “to itsus” with Emory* k Washington correspondent of the i Xncs lias taken tho eontntot of ring that the relations between Mr. • aud Dr. Fslton are not very inti- HtiU, tie doe«n’t explain how it bap- 3 that Mr. Stephens wrotn the statts- a cl Hungry Hcllow, just aftor tho ad- t of tbt coalition circus: e aa to thank you for It (Felton's letter) ay that I think you mana*cd matter* In t U»t Moti<iay a.’-uilrably—looking, a* I 1, to the beat interest* of the State.” nt c jrrt'pondent aud the wild. this wake. bresbes on to the and Pat Walsh, oat ou the pablie road to ea was that a dost would be 1 folks would think that “all the t filing by. io the great com- The ruse was not a» when employ, t to fool tho Yankees. JSrnn t to gallop muoh, and stragglsd while Pit’s b-a«h Sim at the first l of it was, the grand b was to cheer upthhigt Small had pan chid •e and let all • TiKunroK cut off i from his exchange e stated it, “a gentleman be- teheet,” and Gantt repli. t in the some strain went for Speer. 4 with a threat to It matters not under what name the apostles of all the gospels looking to this end hare come—whether Republican, Radical, Liberal, Independent or Coali tionist—the element on which they have mainly rolled for tho success of each has been the negro vote. Take this away at any time and it lias always been, and Is yet, a plain case that none of them have, or ever had, a single chanee for suc cess. Whatever may havo been hopes or plans of tho striksrs In all these mongrel combinations, the head- devils have realized till* fact, and consequently on every occasion the do- velopmont of their policy has quickly brought It to the surface. The present Instance is no exception to tho rule. The Vost-Appeal, as the organ of the party that seeks the destruction o4* tho white i’s power and control in Georgia, may uot purpose the accomplishment of this end, but, wittingly or uot, It is assisting with whatever resources it can command to bring it about. The temper displayed iu the pgragraph we have quoted makes it evident IhatJDoi. Thornton begins to realize at last what tho people of Georgia have understood from the first, that ho has not the ability to deceive them. His little game was for u time, no dcubt, satisfactory to himself— if, indeed, he understood it, which we doubt—but at last it beglus to dawn upon his mind that the people do not take to it. His visions of political power login to fade and iu a moment of rage he at tempts to stab tho reputation of the State, as all hts disappointed prototypes hereto fore have done, because, forsooth, the peo ple will not be taken iu the net he has spread for them. Wo take this occasion to say that the people of Georgia have never been classed as a set of fools. They have had to deal with men of equal cunulng and ability with Col. Thornton iu many instances, and It has not often been the case that they havo been so completely duped, as would have been the case had bU plans succeeded. They understand the fact that at present the only State or national issue !n politics Is the Africanization of the South. Col. Thornton has not told them so, however. They know that the Federal administration is working to secure this result In Georgia. The same effort was made, and success fully, in Virginia.. The same agencies that are at work in Georgia, under what ever name, led by the Post-Appeal, were employed in Virginia. On these alone President Arthur must rely. He under stands this. Tho people ef Georgia un derstand It, and they are uot to blamo if Col. Thornton cannot understand it also. It may be a little rough on the Ooiuncl that average voters know more than ho does, but it Is but Just to them to say that they are not to blame fur It, for they cannot help It. The talk about liberal and advanced Ideas, so freely indulged by every political bummer aud dead-beat who seeks office at expense of the good name of the good people of the South, has ceased to make any favorable Impressiou. We understand that changes, more than have yet been .wrought, are necessary in our social and Industrial sys tems. We havo accomplished (much. We would have accomplished taore If It had been possible to have safely left the vital question of local coutrol of affairs long enough to have Intelligently discussed economic ques tions. It were folly for the Southern peo ple to anticipate any Improvement, any permanent pnxperity, or even pecuniary existence shouid our governments, city county and State, pass Into the bands of ignorance and vice. We have tried them and kuow what they mean. The day* of carpet-baggers sud scalawags left an impression on each and every Southern State that this generation can never for get. We havo seen no evidence that the characters of these bars changed. They are the same yesterday, to-day and for ever. They know no god bnt power, no duty bat corruption; no ambition outside ot public plunder. They can assume ao dlsguLe that will hide the treachery of their pretenses, no claim of “woodshock 1 * that V11 deodorize the smell of skunk. They deeelvo themselves only when they count that their promises will mislead the people of Georgia. having seen the telegram, or having given authority for sending it. This was fol lowed by the Stephens’ letter to S jritl), which was published In these columns. Upon these developments, the Constitu tion brought the charges against Mr. Speer, who having kept tho original of the telegram, produced it, aud with Mr. Ste phens signed the statement that it had beon written in Mr. Stephens’ room, upon blanks turnised by bis private secretary, was revised by him (Mr. S.) and sent with bis knowledge. The statement far ther recited that there was no issue be tween Mr. Speer and Mr. Stephens. We have no desire to comment upon tho issue as between Mr. Speer and tho Constitution, It is evident that there can be no further public correspondence be tween the two parties. Mr. Speer has charged, in severe terms, that the C’onsff tutlon has concealed tho trutli concerning him, iu order to deceivo; the Constitu- tiqji lias replied, brauding him as a black- gum and liar, and has used, in the treat ment oi him, language more bitter than we have ever before seen in the columns of a Georgia Journal. That issue is closed up except as between tho two parties, and they must bo left to settle It la another way. There can be no interference be tween them except by invitation. There Is oue feature of the affair, how ever, toward which we desire to call contemporary’s attention; a question of logie, and we feel free to discuss it, hav ing far more than two weeks previous been engaged upon that line of thought and inference. Mr. Stephens is the Con stitution's candidate for governor; the telegram from Mr. Speer to the coalition in Atlanta was written in Mr. Stephens’ room, upon blanks furnished by him; it was revised by him and sent with bis full knowledge. Had Mr. Stephens the desire he could havo inserted into that tele gram the announcement to tie coalition that lie would not run for governor exception the Democratic nomination. Ho certainly had the oppo tunity. He did not use it, and tho coalitionists had every reason to construe the elegram lit erally. It was the Joint act of two per sons, both familiar with all lira circum stances precedent and dcsiious of the eauee result. It was in fact literally a Joint production; one wrote it, the other revised it; oue sent It, and both have signed a statement, not only to tho effect that it was a Joint production, but that there is now no issue between the authors of it. These are tacts that cannot bo ques tioned. Therefore, tho following conclu sion is logical aud invincible ; the act cf two parties, both in possession of the satno facta, both lookiua toward the same re sult, both of spuud mind, entahs equal responsibility. If Mr. Speer “knew when ho sent tho telegram that Mr. btepheus would not be a candidate unless nomina ted by the Democratic convention; that he believed in correcting error* of the party inside rather than outside the par ty,” Mr. Stephens himself must have kuown it. “If it was insidious’ Mr. Speer “to conceal fact,” it was Insidious in Mr. Stephens. Did Mr. Speer know that fact? Wo cannot say; but certainly Mr. Stephens did, and Mr. Stephens says Iho telegiam was revised by him after having been written in hi* room. He further *ajt that there is no issue between Mr. Speer aud himself. How, then, could Mr. Speer “know posi tively that .ie (Mr. Stephens) would not reject tho recommendation” of tho Inde pendents, and there to no Issue between two, If i*. were not true that he did know it positively? And bow could he know positively except from Mr. Ste phens ? The Constitution has charged upon Mr. Speer “Insidious” conduct as to the send ing or tlio telegram. We cannot as stated discuss the issue between the Constitution and Mr. Speer. But how can our con temporary separate Mr. Speer and Mr. Stepheus? Uow can It make one less guilty than theotbei? It is the opinion of the Constitution that Mr. Speer lias deceived Mr. Stephens and the coalition ists; it cannot be proved without estab lishing also the fact that Mr. Stephens has deceived Mr. Speer, and purposoly permitted him to deceivo the coalition in his name. Wbere la Its OspralU—T Some days siuce we published extracU from the Atlanta Constitution and com pared them with later utterances of that Journal to show the utter inconsistency of Us course toward Mr. Stephens. Iu the last Issue we find what purports to be au explanation, based upon the fol’iwing paragraph: We stated further that if he sought the Dem ocratic nomination on au eqalvoutl jdatforui- 1! he came to Uie convention bearing the coa lition atandard-lf he aonght the aupport of tlio party after bo had compromised with Its. tnle*. we ihould oppose hi* nomination. We reassert now what waa aald then. Ybo “Coastliallow’* »u4 nr Spear. Elsewhere In this issue will be found a spirited controversy embraced in a letter to tne Atlanta Constitution, from Emory Speer, and au editorial reply from that Journal. Doubtless by this time the pub lic is familiar with the dreumstanres which have developed the novel situatloa presented iu the violent conflict of words between two ardent supporters of the same gubernatorial candidate over his caudidacy. Anything, therefore, more than a brief resume of the main points will be unnecessary. The circumstances are as follows: On the 14th ult., Emory Speer telegraphed from Washington City to the coalitionists, then In session in At lanta, to recommend Mr. Stephens for governor, stating that he knew positively that Mr. Stephen* would not reject the recommendation, and if elected would be governor of tbe whole people without regard to party. This remarkable telegram drew the fir* oi prominent State papers, tbe Constitution included, S..-1 its Washington correspond- E sdlatel, interviewed Mr. Ste- ►n tbe subject, who denied ever Mr. Stephens has none all or these things, and yet we find no trace of oppo sition to him in the columns of our con temporary. We say first that he has sought the Democratic nomination upon au equivocal platform. In bis letter to Mr. C. S. Smith announdng his candi dacy, he qualifies his whole statement by the clause In which he expressly says that he will uot be a partisan governor, a danse which is but a repetition of the Idea so carefully inserted la Mr. Speer’s telegram to Dr. Felton, when he declared that be knew positively Mr. Stephens would not reject tho nomination of the coalitionists, aud if elected would be governor of the whole people without regard to party. Under such a qualification, Mr. Stephens, If the seatot Mr. Hill in tbe United States Senate became vaesnt before tbe present term expired, could, wllb perfect consis tency, fill it by the appointment of W. H. Felton. Not only could he bestow the patronage of the governorship upon his friends, irrespective of party, but by the very pledge he has given, be would be bound to do so. A platform which leaves a man open and pledged to each action, Is from a Democratic standpoint, “equivo cal.” But, continues tbe Constitution, we “should oppose b<* nominal Lou if be came to the convention bearing tbe coalition standard.” The. coalition leaders met In Atlanta and, having on account of the small-pox abandoned their previous In tention of holding a couvention, nomi nated (by recommendation) Mr. Stephens for governor, under cover of a telegram written in Mr. Stephens’ room—and re vised by him—pledging him not to njort •aid recommendation, and to govern with out regard to party if siacted. Thai tbe action of the leaders was the action ol tbe party, Is conclusively proved by the fact that not oone has the voice of an In dependent been raised against It. Mr Stepheus has received in effect the ooall. tion nomination, and has not rejected it. Mr. Stephens has “sought the support of the party after he bad compromised with its enemies,” and yet, as before remarked, we do not see any signs of opposition In our contemporary’s columns. A Word Wllb Organised Democrats The Banner- If’ofchman is not satisfied with the present attitude of Mr. Stephens. After quoting from Richard-, son’s Interview of tiiat gentleman, in which interview he denied all knowledge of, aud responsibility for, Emory 8peer’s dispatch to the second coalition caucus, the Banner-Watchman gives a folnt statement of Stephens and Speer, in which tbe latter reiterates the points con tained in his dispatch to Felton, and claims that the dispatch was submitted to Mr. Stephens and was altered, at his sug gestion, in two particulars before it was sent. Tbe Banner- Watchman then goes on to say: Until Mr. Stephens can reconcile the abovo tnAM of Incongruities to the satisfaction of the organized Democracy, we must decline to longer champion hla course. Ho standi con victed cither of a most treacherou* memory, verging on to second childhood, or he 1> at tempting to play a double game, and !• fall sympathy with lnde{>cndentl«m and coalition- fam. If there la no luuo between Mr. Stephens and Mr. 8pccr, he Is not the man foi the organized Democracy of the ninth district to support. It would seem that the. points made In this paragraph, taken lu connection with what bos preceded, are unanswerable. It must bo true, inevitably, eitber that Mr. Stephens is not of souud memory and dis cretion, or elso he has tried to deceivo both the Democrats and independents, There is no way to avoid this conclusion. One or tbe other of these convictions is necessarily true; aud in either event it is plain that Mr. Stephens should not re ceive tho Democratic nouiiuation. Tbe letter which he wrote to Dr. Felton alter the coalition caucus had met, read Speer’s dispatch, iudorsed him aud dispersed, shows that ho commended the movement, aud that bis indorsement of it was a mat ter of deliberate purpose. He has not deuied that,he wroto Dr. Felton as fol- lowsr “Allow roe to thank you for It (Felton’s let ter), and to My that I think you managed mat- ten In Atlanta last Monday admirably—look iug, as I conceived, to tho beat interests of tho State ” What were the matters that Dr. Felton was managing in Atlanta on tho Monday in question? Aud how was it that that gentleman was proposing to subserve “tho best interests of tlio State?” Mo man, who Is posted on the objects for which the coalition was formed, needs to be told that tho question thero had undor consid eration was how the Democratic party, m the State, could be the moat surely over thrown. K/ery step taken at that meet ing looked to that end, and Mr. Stephens declared that those stops, ii his Judgment, looked to “the best interest* of the State.” Tne Smith letter reads like it was writ ten by different man. It cen»!oly In dorsed views diametrically opposito to those expressed in the letter to Felton. Not a paper In tho State has essayed to reconcile these conflicting letters. Mr. Stephens has not felt called upon to at tempt an explanation of these two con- fl'eting documents. It would he as easy to reconcile good and evil. The history of the Speer telegram has been referred to already. Mr. Stephens had this telegram corrected to suit him before it was tent, and he knew when, wbere, to whom, and for what purpose, It would be seut. After its publication he denied ever having seen It. Being ap proached by Speer, he recanted his deni al, confessed that It was submitted to him and altered at his suggestion, sud that thero la no issue between him aud Speer. Now, as the conclusion from this strange train of facts and circumstances, the Bannsr- Watchman says: “If there be no issue between Mr. Stephens and Mr. Sneer he la not the man for the organized Democracy of the Ninth district to sup port.” We wish still further to enforce this conclusion. While the Absence of an issue between an Independent leader aud a pro posed Democratic leader la r- matter which concerns all the Democrats In the State, It la oue which, in a special sense, directs Itself to tho consideration of our party in tbe Seventh and Ninth districts. The ab sence of an lasue between politicians necessarily implies a community of feel ings and Interests between them. Now Speer indorses Stephsns, and Stephens In dorses Speer. In case, then, the Demo cratic party Indorses the one, on what ground will It oppotfi the other? If tbe Democrats Indorse Mr. Stephens for gov ernor, and there Is no Issue between him and Mr. Speer and the latter pleads the fact on tbe hustings, how will the Democratic opponent of Speer avoid the force of the point? We confess we see no way of ee- caping the conclusion that the nomination of Mr. Stephens surrenders the Coagree- slooal field In the Ninth district. Tbe same line of remark is applicable, with scarcely leu force, to tbe Seventh. This is a view ot the question that la worthy of the consideration of Democrats In these districts. We cannot soe bow they can deliberately invite defeat by favoringjthe nomination of a candidate who la not at tuue with either Felton or Speer. Every Democrat In tbe Stato who feels an Inter est In sending a solid, delegation to tbe Forty-Eighth Ccngreu has, in this Inter est a motive strong enough to Induce him to oppose the nomination of Mr. Stephens. Editor Gantt has penetration enough to see that tbe nomination, by tbe Demo cratic convention, of a man whose record and preeent sym pathies commit him against opposition to tbe Independent candidacy of Speer, Felton and Hook would be an Irreparable party blunder. Tbe same light has begun to dawn upon tbe mlnda of thousands of Democrats In north Georgia who were temporarily carried away with tbe sentimental whoop and hurrah for tbe old commoner; aud they will unite with tbe advocates of a straight- out Democratic nomination, In other pore lions of tbe State, to save tbe party f*om the fatal step of giving an organized In dorsement of IndependentLm and its can didate*. If there be no Issue between Mr. Stephens and Mr. Speer, there should be an Issue between tbe Democratic party and Mr. Stephens. He should not receive Its nomination in July, onleas It Intends to take Speer, Felton and Hook along with him, and go regularly Into tbe Inde pendent business. A Bule’ii Tell. The gander Is not a pretty bird, neither bas he a graceful carriage or a melodious voice, but since that iiule adventure cf his at Home, some days since, people hive been disposed to overlook these trif ling defects and his marked tendencies to Monnonlaw and to admire bun for his in trepidity. The youthful student cf his tory Is Introduced to him as the central figure in the picture of a higher civiliza tion. It cati never be forgotten that he was the savior o! one of the first political coalitions of which we have mention, and that tho descendant* of Colo nels Romulus and Remus were indebt ed to the tact that he slept on one leg and with his left eye open, ou the night that the enemy had almost penetrated to tho heart of tho Eternal City. If ho had ducked his head and waddled under the wood-shed, we might not have been here to-day wrestling for free government under Democratic methods. But flap ping hit sturdy wings and squawking at tho bold raiders who bad scaled the walls, the faithless sentinel who alcpt ou hit post was awakened, and Rome and Tho world, with all of its possibilities, were saved. Wo admire the gander. We have great reaped for. his courage and the way in which ho attends to to his own business, and we look with ill- concealed displeasure at the attempt to set up any rival ou a pedestal opposite to him. Aod yet we are forced to confess that he is about to fall a victim to the icono clastic tendencies of modern progress, that other agencies, as potential as ho and far less respertable, are likely to make a deep impress upon history. Fromlnent among these new candidates lor popular applauao and admiration is a mule’a tail. The mule la neither more graceful or melodious thau tho gander, and he is much more mischievous and not half so courageous, and his tail bas al- ways^seemed to us a:i utterly usoless ap pendage. The mule lies « hide iiupei ViGui tw tuo seasons and to the assaults of flies and mosquitoes, and as he never uses his tail to warn tho colored brother when lip is going to fire to tbe rear, wo have been at a loss to know of what uso it might bo put. Tho horse barbers trim it in the fall season uutil it looks like the wiper of a six-pound cannon, but no man has ever seen a bob tailed mulo. It is held in solemn belief in horse circles that evon that bold Bur geon Dr. Benjamin Duggar would hesi tate to flourish his fleam at a mule’s tail. If we are wrong In this wo trust that tho esteemed horse editor of the Atlanta Constitution will correct our audacity aud ignorance, but la such a way at may suggest reformation rather than to arouse resentment. We are not too old to learn. But let us return to tbe mule’s tall. It would seem that this humble Instrument is to livo in history aud Is to bo embalmed In tbe memories of a great and grateful people. Nay, more, bumblo and insignificant as Is its appear ance, it lias already played a great part in tho world’s history, and is likely to be- como a most ready aud potent political factor. As the tale goes (not tbe mule’s tall), when Jeb Stuart, of Confederate fame, found himself confronted by au over whelming force of Federal cavalry, ho was accustomed to tie a brush to a mule’s tail and gallop him up and down a road, thus raisings cloud of dust. The Federal cavalry^eelng the dust and supposing that heavy bodies of Confederate cavalry were forming for a charge, would atampedo witbeut a fight and seek safoty in flight* .The trick waa simple, unique, and successful. John Logao, the V Moltkeofthe “American conflict,” has lately announced In the Seuato of tho United States that John .Pope w*» deceiv ed, frightened and finally whipped by this device. Fits John Forter, the gallant •oldler and gentleman, has suffered untold wrong, humiliation aud insult, and barely escaped with his life, all because a Vir ginia mule pranced along a dusty road with a brush tied to his tall. what a slender thread, to play the mule trick on the cavalrymen. His moustache fairly quivered with delight when he remembered tho ruse, and ho smllud (trimly and reached luatlnctively for handle of hit sabre. Wo suggested that perhaps Noot and Colquitt had been playing the mule trick on this Congress man at large business, to keep folks from looking away down yonder—south by southeast. We parted. In tho course of tbe noxt morning we collldod near tho same spot. Rushing up to us he oxclalmed, “My dear old fellow and friend, you wsro right about that mule trick. The dust can’t scare mo, I am in the race.” We cklmly inquired, “What ha\eyou got to do ?” “Nothing,” said he, “but to cut my wheat, and glvo the boys a fish fry on Saturday.” Shaking him by the hand a sad fare well, wo said; “Yea let the hoys fry their own fish. Cut your wheat and then put out among your friends, the field for Congressman at largo ain’t‘fixed;’it is open for entries.” War being over, tho mule’s tall may not only whisk In front of a plow stock In re sponse to the gontle admonitions cf a sable statesman, but may become as lively as a caucus, a coalition or an “advisory council” In the political world. To tbe application of tbe moral, font must be conceded by this time that > mule’a tail baa a moral. On Sunday last, while making our way to dinner, we ran up with an old friend, a Major General of the late Confederate States. He was as stalwart In form and as sinewy In limb as when his sabre flash ed at tho head of charging columns oi many a bloody field, and aUlie same time waa as debonnaire In dress and air as when he stood the fire of batteries of eyes from tbe House gallery. Hailing us with a merry smile and tbe brusque diallenge ol a foldler, be directly inquired bow tbe people down our way felt about a Congressman at large. We responded that our people did not follow politics as a business; that they only wanted the beet men for the offices, and were content to let tbe convention make the candidates, and added: “General, why don’t you offtr?” He promptly replied: “My dear fellow, Noot Trammel told me last night that Grady was tbe unanimous choice of the convention; that the thing was 'fixed,' and that tbe petition would be published on Tuesday.” We quietly told him that fix ing things was more easily talked about than done; that not a delegate had been chosen, and that so far as petitions were srned they meant nothing— absolutely nothing. We referred him to the case of tbe English judge who signed a petition for hla own banging, repeated Tom Howard's tale pf bow tbe petition was gotten up to build a shedio keep tbe rain off a sun dial, and gave him our experience bow, after swear ing we would not, we signed a petition with, some neighbor* to have a street widened. When It was done li waa discovered that a little creature who, by tome Inscrutable Providence, had gotten bold of a paper, bad stolen some land belonging to tbe public, and ever since be bad published us as a bad man. We snored him that men would sign anything that did not amount to an ob ligation to pay money; that Elder Hook bad gotten seme gentlemen to sign a peti tion to Parson Felton to make a speeches nd then asked him If It bad ever occurred to him that Atlanta was not the State of Georgia, and that Noot Trammell .was not tbr sole proprietor of the Democratic par ly? . He replied “that he bad reflected somewhat on these propositions.” We then reminded him bow Jeb Stuart used j Tbe Georgia Liar. We trust that tho heading will alarm no one. We are not about to diasoct a political opponent, nor are attempting to terrorize a brother Journalist at long range. Our primo dosiro is to offer a few words of warning to a class ot citizens who are illustrating Georgia in the North ern Journals, and the press generally. Every mall which is laid upon our desk reinforces the original idea which prevails in our bosom that we are indeed a great people. Paper after paper, as it drops from its wrapper impresses ua anew with tlio thought that we are, In fact, an extraordinary people. It makes no difference from what quarter they come, Maine, California, Oregon, Texas, It is ail tho same; somewhere in tho columns of these exchanges we find mute tributes to the moral, intellectual, adventurous, courageous and humorous qualities of our people. Oho tells us of a boy who killed a twenty pound wild-cat with a walking stick In Berrien county; another relates how a wild woman has beeuseen in a certain swamp; another pictures a fanner’s desperate conflict with a nest of snakes; another describes how a Georgian rode tho alligator; another tells of a boy who can work any sum In arith metic, stand.lng on his head in the sun, with only on3 “gallus” ou; another describes the wild flight of a girl oi. tin wings of a tornado; another pictures subter raueau discoveries and cave secrets; an other tells of five hundred bnsheis of oats to the acre, and others still furnish items concerning our beast, fish and fowl until tbe imagination falls with paralyzed wings, and credulity is stalled. Tbe worst of it is, that to these scenes, these accidents by field and flood and curious bapponings somo Georgia paper’s name is added by way of authority. This blind faith in our people la touch- ing. Let us uot overtax it. Tho gentlo- inui who has oats so thick that tlio snakes have to crawl on top ought to alt down awhile aud ;ct the country rest; and tho gentle man with thu four-lioaded duck should not mention It. during the present pres sure., Only yesterday a man came to the office aud said tbet up lu BaruesriUe, where the conference h id been in session, two hens came off tbetr nests with broods and went to fighting; that a boy weut to separate them, and when the old hen be caught shrieked loud enough to be heard a mile, his little sister called out: “Squeeze Ids neck! Squeeze his neck, Johnnie! Folk’ll think we’ve got dele gates stopping here.” Of course we refused to publish It. We told him that tbe market was overstocked at present; that » delegate bad just beon in and said that Rev. Sim Jones was out collecting, and said to a man, “Give me some of the Lord’s mon ey ! Give it to me quickly i” and that the fellow had replied “that lie would see tbe Lords first, and would hand it to him in. person that having refused to put forth one ftory, we could not publish tho other. We do not care to bear our credit In Northern circles. Tiie fact is, tbe Georgia liar has established an above-par reputation for the State, and should re serve some of his fire for an emergency. Let him temporarily thrust his fine Italian baud Iu his pocket aud loaf awhile. A Pertinent Qnmtlon. The Macon Tcr.Er.R.u-ii will Rgrae with us that Die harmony of the Democratic party is the main thin* to t»e considered Just now. It opposes Mr. Stephens because It says he will divide tho Democratic party. Tho only way for the party to be divided is for certain elements to bolt the convention and tight the Democratic nominee. If there is any one whodutends making such a bolt It Is bet fair that the party should know it In advance. We say frankly that the Consti tution will not do It, but that It will abide tbe verdict of the convention. Mr. Stepheus has said with equal frankness that he will bow his illustrious head to tho convention and accept lu decree as final. There will be no bolting from our side of ibe house. Will the Trlkoraph bolt? Will it help di vide the party? WIU U submit to tbs will of the Democratic party os expressed by the con- veuUou, or will it set up its Jndgmeut against that of the party ? We respectful** t^t an explicit answer to tbU Inquiry. Wo have answered explicitly on 'onr part Mr. Stephens has answered explicitly on his part We trust the TztzoRAMi will answer promptly. It gives about six col umns a day to politics. It can surely find space for one line on tills special point While wc thus urge it to give us an answer, we do not presume to hint what its answer should be. W’e ora entitled to an answer, bo- cause an answer either way would clear np the situation. 1. If the Tstxaaarn will not submit to the verdict of tbe conveutlon, it should not go into the convention. It should not help nuike a compact that It is determined to disregard. The Democratic masses should have notice that it intends to bolt if the convention don't act to suit Its views. This onra known it will not be able to do much harm. 2. If the Tele*.it.Mii agrees to abide the ac tion of the convention, then there will be no division. Surely tbe Tcunaartt is the most violent and bitter opponent to Mr. Stephens In the SUtc. No one can exceed it in determined opposition. Now, if the Tcixuaaun says it will support Mr. Stephens if ho is nominated, there will sorely not be fourd a single Demo- who will bolt his nomination. If tho TzLEORAMt wlU toko him after Iho fuss it has made, no one else can fail to «lo so. It will thus bo seen that in either event tho answer of the Txuccaani will be useful to ns and to the party. We tnui It will favor ns with an early reply. It has charged tho CoustituUm and Mr. Stephens indirectly with an attempt to "bose" the party. We say distinctly, and so docs Mr. Stephens, that we will let the porfy •bees” ns. Whatever it does wo will submit. Will tho Tsxtoaara say aa wtach? Or does It intend to try to “boss” tho party by setting np its own judgment against the will of the party as«xpressed by over three hundred represent- atlro delegatee T-MtanU CausUtutlo».tiktmst. We might properly pul the above article aside, and treat It with tbe silence which Us Impertinence deserves. We might re mind tbe Atlanta Constitution that Mr. a fallen sud- s suddenly, In homely recognize the authority of the Atlanta Constitution, or of any one else, to ques tion us as to a line of action to lie based upon future and very uncertain contin gencies. The Atlanta Constitution, though a public journal ot position and power, is no* the Democratic party. It may be greatly astonished at this infor mation, but this will uot alter the fact. We agree with it in sotng things, and most heartily in Its assertion “that the harmony ot the Democratic party Is the main thing to bo considered just now.' Our action has been controlled alone by this sentiment, and for this reason among others, wo havo opposed the making of an unwise and unfortunate nomination. We do not agree with it In the assertion “that the only way for the party to be di vided is for certain elements to bolt the convention aud fight the nominee.” A party may be divided and distracted by tho mle of a ring, clique or com bination. It may bo distracted by a nomination enforced by the power of such agancle,. All of th. clement, may, for tbe i.ka of harmony, aubmlt for tbe time being, or may stand united be cause safety demands, but Ilia seeds ol discord will lw sown nevertheless, tlio poi son will have been Injected that mskei disorder, defest sud destruction but s question of tlmo. Tbe mission of tho Ucraocrse; of Geor git neither commences or cuds wltn tlio present gubernatorial campaign. The pooplo who liaio planted their hopes In it look for Trulls far in the future. It is for this reason, strong others, that tire Tkle- osArn opposes the nomination of au old min decrepit lu physique, worn in mind tnd memory, tnd sturdily backed, sustained and supported by tbe ene mies of tbe Uemocrelic party, between whom tnd himself he Is unable to find tn issuo. Tho fact that he pro nounces himself a Bourbon Democrat raises him not beyond a hundred gentle- ,men in the ranks of the Democratic party or Georgia as staunch as himself, far more robust in health, aud with records Id which thero aro no musing links. We are straggling for harmony uow, bocaiuq this harmony is the heat, tho strongest, tho safest guarantee of harmony In the na ture. But a week aince and we had to call tho attention cf the Constitution to the fact that it assumed to keep every body out of the convention but Stephens Democrats. Now it would seem to prescribe a test oath for those who may be accredited by the people to represent them. It de mands in advtnce a pledge from us that wo will abide the action of the conven tion, no matter what that action may be. no matter how Democratic principles and practices may be violated and outraged by its proceedings. We are not a mem ber of the convention. It Is not within the range of poaaibliitles that wo may en joy this honor. Then why apply a cru cial teat to us, thus far lu advance of a convention with which we shall have no active cor.-lection? Our contemporary saya that If we will not bolt, nobody elso will. When or where can it find a suggestion or a hint from us about bolting ourselves or ad vising any one else to holt? Did the Constitution ever bear of onr bolting at any lime or under any circum stances? Then why, we should pleased to bo informed, are we aelected from ths many Democrata opposed to the nomina tion or Ur. Stephens and subjected to the impertinent examination ot the ConttKu- lion? It opposition to Ur. Stephens to be con sidered a declaration of an Intention to bolt a Democratic convention? If ao, then It were beat that tb. convention b. not assembled, for wo _ have assurance that there ere thousands of good men end true Democrats In Georgia who, In the language at the ConsMutton, ere ee ••vio lently’’ opposed to the nomination of Ur. Stephens ax we are. We deny tnd repu- dlate tbe assumption of the Constitution to pnt ns to the rack. We spam the Impudent end Impartlnent spirit In which It hu approached us, and Wut for onr de sire for harmony, this should be onr only reply. But we never flgbt under cover- We never had an opinion of a public man or e public measure that canid not be bed for tbe taking. The Consiilnlion has been but n dull reader of tbe Tam er it at n il it has not been mada acquainted with tbia fact. It Is already on record on this particu lar point, and It should not have escaped tbe auention or our contemporary, who is much quicker at propounding qntaUoae than in answering them. On Uay tbe 6tk we wrote in e leading editorial: “We repeat now wbal we have before announced,that IT Ur. htepbena do- •tres to be governor, end seeks the position as other aspirants do, is placed upon an acceptable platform, and is nominated by tbe Demo cratic convention, be shall have tbe sup port of tbe TcuonAPn aid Ifiautaou In no half-hearted wiy.” We neither dot tn i or cross e t In tbnt paragraph. We consider and etteem it n duty to try to urn tba Democratic perty, when others may seek lu destruction In order to grat ify their ambitions and to serve their per sonal lnteresu. A SPECK OP trAlt. Emory Kpwr I’aya H!» romplImenU to the Allan tn t un.tUntlnn. ami the Constitution Pays Its compliments to Emory npwr. CONCEALIN'. Til* TRITH TO DECEIVE. Wasuingtox, May 31, 1882.* -Editors Cent <- tutiom I hesitate to address you this letter. It would b® {terbaps more io accordance with tbe rules used among gentlemen to Ignore the publications which you hare of late made with personal reference to me. It U in some sort however, proper that you should be com pelled to publish the reply to your calm*'Dies in the same medium ihtough which you i«r* them currency. Surely you daw not supple ment your defamation by a cowardly refusal to publish this defense. Conversant as I the unspeakable llttieucM of your conduct, I You ray, ”aud ' ore perfectly willing to hear from'him." Now. listen to me. Oh May 26th you charged 1th misrepresenting Mr. Stephens and with tuliig his name without authority. In ex press termjyou impute to mean "lusldlousate tempt to deceive and entrap.” On the 28th of May you say my words were "more than Insid ious.'' “According to Mr. Stephens they were,' ousay, false In words and lu spirit. “It is, 'ou say, with well feigned sincerity, “iudeed difficult to restrain the Indignation which 1* barely veiled In Mr. Stephens’ words.” Thcso are your charges, or mine of,them. They were all based on my opon telegram to Dr. Felton— oil nothing else, for I wrote nothing else. Now, "mark how plain a tale shall put you down." Before me on my desk, appended to anArao* elated Press dispatch, are a few lines over the „ well known historic signature of Alexander II. Stephens. They read us follows: "Tho ubovo is substantially true. What Mr. 8{»ccr telegraphed to Dr. Fslton was strictly true, though not by authority from me. There Is no issue between me and Mr. Speer. To tn impartial mind this would seem conclu sive. The evidence Is undoubted—the signa ture is genuine—the witness Is your candidate for governor of Georgia, be It cold to your cred- herd, tell me where” the "Indignation” which is "restrained with difficulty" and la "barely ' ens’ words.” •rejndtee n veiled in Mr. Stephens' i Your efforts to prejudice me In the minds ot the {>cople whom 1 represent .Is deliberate and most malicious, and yet yourjexposure here made Is so uimplete, your nakedness, as you stand before the eyes of an smused and con temptuous public, is so ludicrous that I have not the heart to be mod with yon. I/Ct us returi, howeror, to Mr. Stephens. What Is it that he says Is "nubstantlally true?" I quote from tbe associated press db{tatch: “7. (the undersigned) told Mr. Stephens that £ would telegraph them to recommend him as the peopled candidate for governor. Ins sec retary furnished me some telegraph blanks aud 1 wrote the telegram In his room, read It to him. and at his suggestion altered it in two particulars.” What 1* it that ho uyi ■ H” What u it that ho uriH ■’strictly true?” The recital lu the telegram, “I know positively he will not reject such recommendation, and that If elected he will be the governor of all tho people, without regard to party." The statement I have now given is sufficient to convince any candid mind that you have grossly misrepresented wluit was a K trlotlc and honest action on my part. 1 bs* ■veil, and stiil believe, that Ml. Stephens was of all men the best and most suitable candidate for governor of Georgia at this Umo. Person ally, it did not concern me more than any other citizen of the Stato. who was to be the governor. 11 did not alfcct my political aspira tions. I have lieeu twice elected to Congress without existence from the governor of ticor- gla. Is it {-atrlotlc and commendable that you should ruiiport Mr. Stephens, and insldfoua #d treacherous that I support him? Is there no pntriotfam in Georgia, rave in the dedegates to a convention. 1 claim that 1 have as much Intercut lu tho Stato—lu its future—In its re nown—as any other Georgian, and I have the rame right with other* to support a candidate for governor. My IndepetidcntUm leads me to advocate the election of him whom I esteem the best. Your intolerance and spirit of pro- KTlptlon impel- ynii to in r.l.-ii me iKTiui-j I dare be Independent to support your candidate Allow me to admonish you that a paltry war fare on individuals, directed by Ignoble mo tives, U never successful In those happy coun tries where tlio people -re free to art for them selves, and for each other. Your object Is to defeat my re-election. Yon will fall. You have not even discomposed me, while you ore confounded. You have made many attempts. In several ways, to Injure mo. You have failed In all. You will continue to (all as long as prejudice aud partisanship are your motires, and calumny your most potent wcaiipn. Kxory 8 peso. . • ’ TassTar’ 4 **"-1 t Jkl*: