Franklin Repository: September 14, 1870Go To Page : 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
(Column 01)Summary: When the Harrisburg Patriot accuses General Grant of having no policy of his own, the Repository defends the president. The editorial points out that, prior to the war, chief executives had used patronage to command obedience. Grant, therefore, was a truly democratic leader who acted with Congress rather than dictating policy himself. In short, the president was carrying out the will of the people. The author then points to the administration's successes in reducing the national debt and reconstructing the South. Furthermore, the Repository calls Democratic leaders unprincipled and derides them for having supported slaveholders and the Confederacy.
Full Text of Article:Cessna On Border-Damages--The Spirit Answered
"General - or rather - President - Grant has no policy, and without a policy what can a party effect?" So, anxiously inquires the Harrisburg Patriot and unconsciously evidences its party leaning in the question. It is in the first place a confession, by our neighbor, that President Grant has faithfully kept his promise, made when he became the executive - that he would have no policy of his own, distinct from or counter to the apparent will of the people. We thank the Patriot for this tribute to the President's consistency. Aside from consistency, however, or rather beneath the fact, lies the primal question - is it right or wrong that the chief executive of the nation should have no policy? So thus there are perhaps more than two answers, according as the querist clothes the question in his own mind. Our neighbor evidently thinks the President wrong in living and acting "without a policy." The Republican party has applauded Gen. Grant for his declaration and his conduct in accordance with it. Perhaps if the qualification - that no policy would be enforced by the use of Presidential influence against the wishes of the people - were fairly added to the President's declaration, as he himself added it, the Patriot and the Republican party might agree that Gen. Grant is right. We say perhaps they might agree. They certainly ought to agree, for we think that the assumption by an executive officer of the right of shaping the policy of a country like our own in accordance with his own conceptions only, is an outrage upon his fellow citizens which nothing can excuse. The spirit of our institutions is bitterly hostile to such assumptions. It is true, in times happily past - in the weary years before the war, that deluge of fire and slaughter which purified the land as only fire and blood can - that Presidents did, by the use of patronage and by force of party drill, compel obedience to their personal decrees and ruled for the period of their terms with an absolutism which the Czar or the Sultan might emulate. But the same war which elevated to the Presidency the man who announced his purpose to forego any such attempts made it his thought so to do by sweeping away the only real cause or occasion of such assumptions. Slavery the source of all our other evils was the fruitful mother of engulfed the parent. Coming out of the struggle for life freed from the system which had usurped all our national powers, which debauching all our pliant leaders of party and of thought, had engrossed all of our governmental sympathies, it was possible for the Executive, uncontrolled and unperverted, to devote, himself to the real duties of his station. No longer the slave of prejudice, of passion of party necessity, Gen. Grant is able to do what James Buchanan was not permitted to comprehend, or comprehending to execute; namely, to carry out the will of the whole people as they express it in the laws, and this without any preference, expressed or implied, for the interests of any party or section, and still better without any overmastering inclination for personal opinions on any subject.
That this is being done - that the President has no policy, as the term was once so offensively used, - we take the Patriot's admission as full proof. The Democratic party, everywhere, charges it, as a fault, on the Republican party, that its Executive has announced no plan of conduct. Now Democrats must mean that General Grant should have a policy of his own contriving, and should enforce it, and that he acts wrongly in following the lead of the Congress and the written and spoken thought of the country. Else, where the point of the reproach? The President is not acting aimlessly - drifting like a shatterd bark, with the waves, hither and thither; but, even the Patriot must confess, has been following the country's lead. In reconstruction, and in the management of the finances, the two controlling questions of our internal policy, he has, undoubtedly, administered the will of the people.
Time and again the voters of the land have registered at the ballot-box their determination to restore the national authority over the misguided people who rose in rebellion, to the end that quiet, order and prosperity might mark those sections as they never have before; a dozen of times the people have declared with equal emphasis, that they meant to pay the honestly contracted debt of the war, and restore the credit of the country. To these two great ends, accordingly, the government has addressed itself, and, as in duty bound, has enforced the laws enacted for them. Reconstruction is well nigh accomplished - the debt is giving way before the assaults of the paymaster as the rebel horde did under the hammering of the Army of the Potomac. In dealing with these subjects, wherein would the President have done better had he evolved plans in the Executive brain and coerced the Congress as a Corps Legislatif to embody them in laws that he might then enforce them on the people? Would they, probably, have been as well devised the plans of the Congress, composed as that body is, of the representative minds of the country, and its members aided by the thoughts of all their constituents - would they have received the ready co operation of the people, without which, in a republic, no laws or policies can be long enforced, or long endure? To state the alternatives in this manner is to condemn the autocratic plan. Besides, had it been an even question at the start, whether the President or the Congress should initiate a policy for the term of 1869-73, the success of the people's plans are now an ample justification of the President's course. We must praise the bridge that carries us safely over, and the policy of the Congress, suggested by the people, in their primary assemblies, has carried us safely over the yawning chasms of anarchy and of debt. Our feet are on the firm ground of order and of solvency, and we may thank the wisdom of the people that they are, and the common sense and freedom from arrogance of Gen. Grant, that they have reached the ground so speedily. The case, seems all around, consequently, to be in favor of Gen. Grant. His policy has been to faithfully execute the policy of the people. For that, surely, the people will not quarrel with him, and the Patriot's question - what can be effected without a policy - may be left to the same people to answer.
It is, rather it was until ten years ago, a curious inquiry why the so-called Democratic party should have so closely allied itself with the only aristocratic element of our country; why men who pride themselves in their love of unbridled freedom should devote themselves with even fanatic zeal to the defence of slaveholding. The union of freedom-shirkers with man-stealers seemed inexplicable, and the inquirer was forced to conclude that either their Democratic pretences were a sham, or that interest was the powerful medium whose common affinity brought the oil and water of the mixture to unite, or that there is something inherent in radicalism, such as the Democratic party profess, that makes Democracy like theirs closely akin to or dependent on despotism for continued life.
There is much, we are inclined to think, in all of these reasons. The Democratic masses doubtless are as honest in their instincts as any other masses, that is to say, they honestly desire their own welfare and believe that freedom from all restraint is the condition for its attainment. Not so with the leaders: they, we imagine, have always been a calculating set, dexterous, cunning, unprincipled, ready to turn with every shifting of the wind, apt to be all things to all men, and advocates of license because they fancy that in a general way license is coveted by the majority. It was true, besides that the combination of the negro-breeders of the South and the Red Radicals of the North was brought about by their common desire to rule and to perpetuate their rule. But, we strongly suspect now that the South is no longer a unit in support of its institution and no longer the powerful and mercenary ally whose help insured victory, that the utterance of such complaints as this of the Patriot's, discloses, as we have said, either an affinity for or a necessary dependence on absolutism somehow and somewhere. If not, why this clamor for a personal government? A personal government is when a President, using all the powers which official station gives him, dragoons an unwilling Congress to pass the laws he has draughted and as much meaner and more objectionable a form of personal government it is than that just ended at Sedan, as an elective monarchy changed every four years, is meaner than one by Divine right or for life. A colossal central figure seems to be a necessity in government power of government, and then are driven to deposit what they have taken away. Robbing the members they are forced to heap upon the head; the circumference, to accumulate at the centre - for they are constrained by the need of government and the necessity for a sufficiency of power, lodged and exercisable somewhere. The nation must live; it must, somehow, be governed. Having no faith in man, they have none in his works: they withhold confidence, everywhere, until compulsion ends their hesitation and then they make the hasty choice of an unlimited President or a Dictator.
From Cincinnatus to Trochu the inclination of mobs has been to centralization. Our Democratic party is a mob held in check by peace and the presence beside them of orderly Republicans. How rapidly the Democratic party tended towards that anarchy, which is the forerunner of despotism, the moment our civil dissensions began! They denied our right to live as a nation, and had they had their will would have led us through a weak peace to dissension and an empire. They may not have wished this, but their ignorance of the path they would have travelled proves their unfitness for statesmanship. Being at peace, to-day, the best they can do, is to howl wildly at the Executive and bay the Republican moon. Their disorganizing and centralizing theories are the growth of the age which fostered ignorance in church and state, and ought to perish from the minds of our generation. When slavery and polygamy, "twin relics of barbarism," are vanishing from the earth, distrust in man and in his capacity to govern himself ought also to be banished, and the way be made ready for the Republic of the World.
(Column 02)Summary: After a Democratic newspaper attacks Republican congressman, John Cessna, on the issue of border damage claims, the Repository offers a rebuttal. Arguing that the very act of bringing up the topic hinders the chances of getting compensation, the writer condemns the Democrats for politicizing a sensitive issue. The editorial defends Cessna's actions and notes that claimants would have a better chance of getting reparations if they elected Republicans because of their majorities in government.
Full Text of Article:The Spirit and Its Congressional Candidate
The Spirit, last week asked. "What has Cessna done for the Border Claimants?" and added "that some weeks ago the REPOSITORY had promised a little light upon the subject for which it (the Spirit) had watched and waited in vain." On our profound faith in holy writ we base our conviction that the Spirit, in spite of its assertion, does not want light, because there we are told such as it hate the light because their deeds are evil. But it shall have what we promised. The Editor of the Spirit has looked in vain to find some weak spot in Cessna's armor where it might assault him with at least a hope of success, and finding none has desperately turned to the subject of the Border Damages. When counseled by wiser heads of the Democratic party than his own to abstain from the further attempt, with mimic rage he shouted that on this question "he would drive Cessna to the wall," and lo! in last week's Spirit behold his attempt at driving.
Thus far we have religiously abstained from subjecting the interests of the border damage claimants to the dangers and difficulties incident to a heated and exciting political campaign, and we had received strong reasons to hope that our neighbor would do the same. Our conviction has long been that in no respect could the dragging them into politics better the chances of their payment but that they must necessarily be endangered and rendered more hazardous thereby. We were sure that this was the sentiment of the entire community, whether Democratic or Republican, and felt that not only their sentiments but their interests should be consulted. The interests of both parties are identical in this matter; the claims are held by both, and both are equally just; the candidates of both parties are alike in favor of their payment, and whether a Republican Congressman or Republican Assemblyman would be able to effect more than a Democratic Congressman or Democratic Assemblyman in these bodies, having large Republican majorities, or not, this is certain, be they one or the other they will do all in their power for the relief of the border people.
But the Spirit has seen fit to make this important question the ground of its assaults upon Hon. John Cessna and thus jeopard the interests of a large number of the people of this Congressional district, and we have no alternative but to accept its challenge.
We have already shown, in another article, that whatever Mr. Meyers did, through the columns of the Patriot, to aid the border people in this matter he did by virtue of a pledge made by Mr. Stenger and other Democrats to support him for the nomination for Congress, which pledge Mr. Stenger and they did not feel bound to fulfill. Mr. Meyers, it seems, then, worked for pay and not for the love for the people, and if those who pledged it refused payment they cannot ask the people to make it good. But aside from the consideration, Mr. Cessna was as earnest for the payment of the border claims as Mr. Meyers. It is true he did not attempt the folly of asking Congress to make compensation, because, however just our claims, he knew that it would be fruitless for a single member of Congrsss to undertake the task. In this respect he held views similar to those of Mr. Stenger himself, likewise, Mr. Meyers, Capt. G. W. Skinner, and indeed our whole community. He thought that the State should liquidate these claims, and that then with a solid delegation of Congressmen she might demand and receive repayment from the general government. With this view he came to Harrisburg, while Congress was in session, and labored with the Legislature for the passage of a bill for the payment of the claims. He also visited the Governor and endeavored, unavailingly we know, to remove his objections against the payment of these claims. Could he do more? What more did Mr. Meyers do save that he was at the head of a paper, and the influence of his paper was secured by means of promises of payment in political preferment.
That Mr. Meyers believed that the only means the border people had to secure compensation was by application to the State and not the general government is fully proved by his own paper. In February last the Patriot said editorially:
A large portion of these expenses have been paid at Washington, as these claims should be and doubtless will be when paid by the State and properly presented. But when the State fails to provide sufficient means of defense, or permits the general government to draw off her natural protectors to far off fields of war, she is primarily responsible, although she may have a just demand against the government at Washington. The obligations of the Commonwealth to protect her citizens are immediate, and cannot be avoided under the plea that these damages should be paid at Washington. The citizens of the border have fulfilled all their obligations recompensed for their losses in the war. It is cruelty to bandy them about from Harrisburg to Washington from year to year, with the prospect of relief ever lessening.
A week later, in another editorial, the Patriot eloquently said:
The appeal is made to the State herself, for that relief which the plainest principles of justice demand; not on the ground that the State is solely responsible, or solely bound in honor and good conscience to make good the losses occasioned by rebel invasion, but on the other and certain ground that the State, is an entire and single community, a social association with common interests and duties, and that an injury to a part of the inhabitants by external force, is an injury to the whole, and should be borne by the whole. The citizens of the border were not separately insulted when the torch was applied to Chambersburg, and when the armed and insolent foe swept over their fields. This State was insulted and smitten. Her honor was offended, her dignity assailed, and her whole people outraged. Is it just, is it reasonable, is it according to that equity which should characterize the conduct of States, that the actual loss should be borne by a few, instead of being borne by the whole? The ultimate liability of the Federal government is beside our question, which is a primary one, and not one of secondary consideration. Shall not losses in a common cause be accepted as a common burden? Shall not the principle of equal contribution according to means, which is the principle of all just taxation, be applied to the question in hand? Is it according to sound social morals that a few members of the community should sustain the entire loss incurred by them as members of the political society? The whole question is stated in the proposition that it is the duty of the State to defend her citizen whenever the ability to do so exists, and that when she fails in performing this duty she shall indemnify those who suffer by her default.
That smilar views were held by Capt. Skinner, we quote from his eloquent speech delivered in the House of Representatives the 30th of last March:
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is folly for men to argue thus. How are we going to approach the General Government? We can only command the influence and support of a single member in Congress, while the State, if she were to assume the payment of these claims, could instruct her Congressional delegation to demand payment of the General Government. This delegation being a powerful at Washington could easily secure such payment. I hope this to be the proper method for the State to adopt.
The State can pay these claims and then very properly ask the General Government to reimburse her.
We have only to add that Mr. Cessna is by this showing as fully identified with the advocates of the Border Damage Claimants as Mr. Meyers, and has this advantage beside, that what he could do he did without the promise or hope of reward. We submit the issue to the people since the Spirit has called it forth and are willing, as we know Mr. Cessna is, that they shall judge between them.
(Column 03)Summary: The Repository points out that the Democratic nominee for Congress has few positive qualifications for the job. Noting that the editor the Spirit has congressional ambitions himself, the author argues that the Democratic paper's support for Meyers's campaign is reluctant. The editorial also praises the Spirit for cleverly hiding Meyers's lack of credentials.
Full Text of Article:False Pretenses
Our neighbor, the Spirit, has certainly exercised commendable moderation in its announcement of the Democratic nominee for Congress for this district, and yet, considering that the subject is very unpromising, it is surprising how much it did find to say. The difficulty is not that Mr. Meyers' political life is so barren of fruits, but that they are like Dead Sea apples. They may do well enough to look at, but to the taste they are bitter ashes. It was prudent of the Spirit not to bring these prominently before the voters. With much skill it evaded mentioning in its advocacy of Meyers, a single Democratic qualification, and with one exception, only mentioned those things which might as truthfully be said of a Republican, as of a Democrat. See what his claims for an election to Congress are as set forth by the Spirit. First, his enterprise as a journalist. Second, his advocacy of the payment of the border claims by the State, and third, very mildly introduced, his opposition to negro suffrage and carpet-baggers in the South. How Mr. Meyers must warm with gratitude toward the Spirit for its enthusiastic and able advocacy of his claims, and its forcible portrayal of his doughty Democratic deeds in the past? But then if Mr. Meyers has reason to feel disappointed something deserves to be said in behalf of the Spirit too. Its situation was peculiar. It was known to be bitterly opposed to the nomination of Meyers, for both personal and political reasons, The Spirit is politic and its editor both able and ambitious. Meyers' record, though not personally objectionable, is politically most damnable. He was the worst of anti-war Democrats in the district, and worked and wrote against the Union cause. He pronounced the draft unconstitutional and tyrannical, and openly invited resistance to it, and is even believed to have incited riot and bloodshed by his course. He is an acknowledged and dangerous free trader, acknowledged because he avows it, and dangerous because he is at the head of a widely circulated journal, and daily promulgates his free trade fallacies. Both of these reasons must render Meyers unpopular in this district, and aid in making his defeat certain, and thereby weaken the Democratic party. The editor of the Spirit is himself an aspirant for Congressional fame, and critically watches every circumstances which would widen the distance between himself and the capital. Meyers' defeat would acomplish the defeat of the Democracy in the district for years, and therefore the Spirit was unwilling to see him made the candidate, and therefore it labored so zealously to prevent his nomination.
Now come the claims which the Spirit, since Meyers is nominated, sets up in his behalf. "He is an enterprising journalist." This, we do not deny, is commendable, but certainly not distinctively Democratic. One should hardly be sent to Congress because his enterprise enters the field of journalism. Mr. Cessna is quite as enterprising as Meyers, but his enterprise turns to the law. Is he for that reason less worthy to be sent to Congress?
But, says the Spirit, "He urged the payment of the border losses by the State." So he did. But last of all should the Spirit urge this as a ground for his election to Congress. The editor of the Spirit was instrumental in securing the support of the Patriot for that measure, last winter, by promising Mr. Meyers his aid, and that of his friends, in securing the nomination for Congress. That was the consideration for the Patriot's support of the border claims bill. But the editor of the Spirit did not deem this promise binding when the nomination came to be made, and opposed Mr. Meyers with all his skill and ability. If he did not consider the latter's efforts in behalf of the border damage bill such as to require him to support him for the nomination, even after a solemn pledge to do so, how can he ask the voters of Franklin county to do it? He certainly does not do so with any sincerity. He does not mean it, but, Meyers being nominated, he must make some show of supporting him.
As a further reason, Mr. Meyers is said to negro suffrage and to perfect right to be, we are sure, but why should these send him to Congress. The people of the Sixteenth district want a member whose labor will be devoted to interests a little nearer home than the carpet-baggers of the South, or negro suffrage which is beyond the control of even a Democratic Congress. The bitterest opposition to these things will not, in the least, make them useful to his constituents. On the contrary, as Congress is likely to be constituted, it would weaken his influence, and render him less useful than he otherwise would be.
But if the Spirit really desired to inform its readers concerning Mr. Meyers, why did it not frankly state his war record, and give his views on the tariff; why did it not tell them that he devoted columns of the Patriot, last winter, to the advocacy of the "Nine Million Loan Bill," whereby it was attempted to defraud the State out of the money belonging to the Sinking Fund? These are matters about which the people would wish to know something, and because of the strange failure of the Spirit to enlighten them we are forced to devote a portion of our own space to making them known.
(Column 04)Summary: The Repository responds to accusations that it is deceiving voters by claiming to be protectionist but supporting the lowering of some tariff duties.
Full Text of Article:Stick to Your Ticket
THE Harrisburg Patriot, of the 8th inst., in an editorial under the caption of FALSE PRETENSES, says:
There is a law upon the statute books of this State which consigns to the penitentiary any one who obtains money or goods under false pretense. How much better are those Republican politicians who attempt to secure their hold on power by deceiving the people with false professions? And yet the whole Republican press of the State do this. They pretend to be protectionists, and yet they supported a tariff which reduces the duty on pig metal and scrap iron, two articles of commerce which enter largely into the manufactures of the country, and in which Pennsylvania industry finds its largest interest. Among the papers which are loudest in support of a tariff for the native against foreign pauper labor is the Chambersburg REPOSITORY; and yet this paper supports the very tariff which reduced the duties on the two articles we have mentioned. We are not, in any sense, "protectionists," as the term is understood in the country, and therefore we do not object to the reduction on pig metal and scrap iron; but we cannot conceive how the REPOSITORY or any other honest Republican paper, pretending to favor American industry by protective duties can support a tariff which greatly reduces those duties on two articles of prime importance. In our judgment it is an attempt to retain political power by false pretenses, and if justice were equally administered would be punished as severely as the law punishes those who obtain goods or money in the same manner.
Further on the same article takes occasion to define the position of the editor more specifically still on the tariff, as follows:
We ourselves are in favor of the freest trade we can have in every branch of industry consistent with the purposes of revenue as the theory most beneficial to the general interests of the whole.
This editorial is evidently intended by Mr. Meyers, who is both editor of the Patriot and the Democratic candidate for Congress in this district, as a reply to a recent article in the REPOSITORY animadverting upon his tariff and war record. The two ideas prominently put forward are, first, that REPOSITORY is false in its advocacy of a protective tariff on pig iron and scrap iron; and second that Mr. B. F. Meyers is in favor of the utmost free trade, only to be invaded by the necessities of revenue. The first we deny. The second we cheerfully admit.
As to the inconsistency of the REPOSITORY in claiming to be in favor of a protective tariff and yet supporting a tariff which reduced the duty on pig metal and scrap iron, two of the main elements of production, we have this to say.
Gen. Schenck, Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a general tariff bill on the 1st of February, and on the 3rd of March, the House went into Committee of the Whole to debate it. This bill, as Mr. Meyers will perceive if he will take the trouble to refer to it, made no reduction in pig metal and scrap iron, and was supported by the friends of protection throughout a period of nearly three months, during which time it was delayed by the tactics of the opponents of protection to those interests, and it was finally postponed for want of time, after it was manifest that it would have been defeated by the free traders aided by the tactics of the Free Trade League working in the interest of British manufacturers. About the 1st of May, an attempt was made by these hostile interests to bring up a revenue tariff, which was only defeated by the skillful management and courage of the friends of protection, and on the 17th Gen. Schenck reported the Internal tax bill, to which, after it had gone through under the rules, he attached his short tariff bill as an amendment. Thus amended it passed on the 7th of June, by a vote of 153 yeas to 35 nays. It was not such a bill as Pennsylvania's industry demanded and was entitled to, but it had become clearly manifest that it was the best that could be had at that time, and that if it were not accepted, there was great danger that her iron interests might fare still worse at the hands of the Democratic and Republican free traders of the House.
The REPOSITORY believes that if a duty of $9 on pig metal could not be retained, it would be better for the interests of Pennsylvania to secure $7 than less, or nothing; just as a creditor is willing to accept 50 cents on a dollar, of his claim, from a bad debtor, rather than to get nothing at all, though by so doing he does not admit that he is not honestly entitled to the whole amount of his claims.
We are in favor of a duty on iron just high enough to enable the iron producers of Pennsylvania and other States to compete with British producers, and thus furnish employment to our laboring masses at fair wages and a reasonable compensation to the employers. If it does not do the latter the iron manufacture must cease, and one of the largest sources of labor supply must be cut off, and many thousands must be thrown out of employ. We believe that the present tariff is scarcely enough to do this, though under the circumstances, and with the hopes of a change soon which will aid the labor of our own country instead of that of Europe, iron manufacturers can do better by continuing than by ceasing to produce.
We have at no time expressed approbation at the late reduction of duties on pig metal and scrap iron, but if we have accepted the tariff as the best that could be had because there were too many men of like mind with Mr. Meyers in Congress, we fail to perceive wherin we have deceived the people with false professions.
Is it not to be feared that the sophistical argument of Mr. Meyers convicts him of the crime of political false pretenses, and that if the offence were indictable and cape.
(Column 05)Summary: The paper reminds Republican voters that the next legislature will be charged with reapportionment making it especially important to retain a Republican majority. The editors urge voters not to split their tickets. "Let no Republican be enticed by friendship or personal feelings to cast his ballot for a Democratic candidate for the Legislature. The prize is too great, the end too important, to be jeoparded by any personal motives."[No Title]
(Column 06)Summary: The Repository republishes a piece from the Somerset Herald, which starkly defines the two congressional candidates and favors the Republican nominee.
Full Text of Article:
THE Somerset Herald says of the Congressional campaign:
We hope and expect to beat Mr. Meyers on the ground that he is the representative of a party that was devoted to slavery, justified and defended secession, sympathized with the rebellion, contended against universal suffrage, opposed and still opposes reconstruction, favored repudiation, is adverse to the reduction of the public debt and the reduction of taxation, and committed to and the advocate of Free Trade, and the consequent reduction of the wages of labor; and we confidently expect to elect Mr. Cessna because he is put forth as the representative of the party that abolished slavery, established universal suffrage, gave liberty to and protected the civil rights of our people, defeated rebellion and repudiation, built the Pacific railroad, secured pensions to Union soldiers, their wives and children, reduced the National debt one hundred and forty-six millions in sixteen months, reduced taxation eighty millions is one bill, and passed a revenue tariff with full incidental protection to American labor.
Surely here are issues broad, and deep, and distinctive, and of absorbing interest sufficient to enlist the intelligent action of the people, without descending into the cesspool of personal detraction and abuse.
(Column 01)Summary: Chairman James G. Elder and Secretary John M. M'Dowell publish a schedule of Republican meeting throughout Franklin County during the campaign season.[No Title]
(Names in announcement: James G. Elder, John M. M'Dowell)
(Column 01)Summary: The Franklin County Horticultural Society met on Spetember 6th. The following new members were admitted: George Lehner, John Mull, Leonard Ebert, and Joh Nitterhouse. Thirty dollars worth of books were purchased to be given as prizes at the upcoming exhibition. Members were named to committees to prepare for the exhibition.The Approaching Fair
(Names in announcement: Reed, George Lehner, John Mull, Leonard Ebert, John Nitterhouse, Keefer, T. B. Jenkins, Dr. Boyle, J. G. Elder, R. P. Hazelet, D. Guthrie, Dr. Culbertson, Frank Henderson, W. D. Guthrie, Josiah W. Schofield, B. L. Mauer, J. J. Dechert, William Heyser, George Rowden, George B. Myers, Dr. Culbertson, John Jeffries, B. F. Nead, J. S. Nixon, John Line, D. F. Leisher, J. P. Keefer, C. H. Cressler, E. B. Engle)
(Column 02)Summary: The third annual fair of the Franklin County Agricultural Society will be held next month. Speed trials have been organized by private citizens, not the fair committee, and citizens raised the prize money for it. The fair will offer prizes for all manner of stock and produce.Melancholy Accident
(Column 02)Summary: George Flack, "one of our most useful and estimable citizens," developed lock-jaw after stepping on a sharp object. He still lives, but his prospect for recovery is bleak.Franklin County Horticultural Society
(Names in announcement: George Flack)
(Column 02)Summary: The society will hold its fourth semi-annual exhibition in Repository Hall on September 23rd and 24th. The general public is called upon to bring or send anything they wish to include in the exhibition. Prizes will be awarded.Religious
(Column 02)Summary: Rev. Izer of Mercersburg will preach in the M. E. Church on Saturday, and Rev. Dr. Harman of Dickinson College on Sunday. Rev. Dr. Mitchell will preach on Sunday evening.[No Title]
(Names in announcement: Rev. Izer, Rev. Dr. Harman, Rev. Dr. Mitchell)
(Column 02)Summary: Samuel R. Pentz has resigned his post as Assistant Book-keeper in the National Bank of Chambersburg on account of ill health.Outrage
(Names in announcement: Samuel R. Pentz)
(Column 02)Summary: A man named Kauffman "committed a nameless outrage on the person of a young woman named Lichtich in the vicinity of Guitner's School House. He has not yet been caught.
(Names in announcement: Kauffman, Lichtich)Origin of Article: Greencastle EchoMarried
(Column 03)Summary: Jacob Heagy and Miss Mary Virginia Heart, both of Chambersburg, were married on September 8th by the Rev. E. W. Kirby.Married
(Names in announcement: Jacob Heagy, Mary Virginia Heart, Rev. E. W. Kirby)
(Column 03)Summary: William Alexander Flack and Miss Maggie Fennell, both of Chambersburg, were married on July 28th by the Rev. L. A. Gotwald.Married
(Names in announcement: William Alexander Flack, Maggie Fennell, Rev. L. A. Gotwald)
(Column 03)Summary: Robert D. Culbertson of Amberson's Valley and Miss Eliza Harris of Concord were married on September 6th at the house of the bride's father by the Rev. J. A. M'Gill.Died
(Names in announcement: Robert D. Culbertson, Eliza Harris, Rev. J. A. M'Gill)
(Column 03)Summary: Minnie May Greenawalt, daughter of Samuel F. and Anna M. Greenawalt of Chambersburg, died on September 1st of scarlet fever. She was 1 1/2 years old. A poem of mourning accompanies the notice.
(Names in announcement: Minnie May Greenawalt, Samuel F. Greenawalt, Anna M. Greenawalt )