2.73 H4a, Class _l:L£i:i % A A THE MERCURY'S COURSE, AND THE HiaHT OF REE DISCUSSION. CHARLESTON: STEAM POWER PRESS OF WALKER, EVANS AND CO No. 3 Broad Street. 1857. •Hi-^ The Correspondence which will be found at the end of this pam- phlet, having made an appeal to the judgment of the people of the State, "with the evidence before them," upon the issues involved in the several articles which follow, I have.deemed it not altogether super- fluous to collect all the articles which have appeared on hoth sides, and thus give an opportunity for' a fair judgment — the result of which I am quite willing to abide. I. W. HAYNE. [From the Charleston Mercury, Wednesday, August 27.] ELECTION FOR REPRESENTATIVE. The following; is the result of the election held on Monday and Tues- day last, for a Representative to the State Legislature, in place of Col. J. Charles Blum, deceased : W. Whaley. T. G. Barker. Ward No. 1 172 148 Ward No. 2 182 156 Ward No. 3 274 250 Ward No. 4 368 233 Upper Poll 405 161 Lower Poll 298 125 1699 1073 Majority for Whaley, 626. THE ELECTION IN CHARLESTON. The election, whose result we give above, has been looked to with a great deal of interest in the State, as determining the feelings and opin- ions of the people of Charleston, with respect "to parties In the State and the policy of the General Government. The South Carolinian states the issue, which it supposes to be involved in the election, in the following words : " The Election in Charleston. — The candidates for the Legislature have defined their position. Mr. Whaley approves, without qualifica- tion, of the resolutions of the Democratic Party of Georgia and Missis- sippi in their late Conventions, with respect to Governor Walker and his proceeding-sin Kansas; and, if elected to the Legislature, he will vote for that man for the United States Senate who, possessed of ability and chara.iter, will support the principles and policy of those resolutions in Congress. " Mr. Barker (who, by the way, is a young man of about twenty-five, and just entering on the political stage) condemns Gov. Walker's unjus- tifiable interference in the affairs of Kansas Territory — deems the Con- vention, elected by the people of Kansas for the purpose of framing a Constitution, the only competent judges of the propriety of submitting that Constitution to the people — and, if elected, will vote for that can- 6 didate for the United States Senate who, he shall fhink, is best qualified to support the honor and dignity of South Carolina, to maintain the Constitution of the United States in all its integrity, and to carry out the true piinciples of the Democratic Party of the South." Mr. Whaley being elected by the handsome majority of six hundred and twenty-six votes, we suppose settles the question as to the feelings and opinions of the people of Charleston. In our article of the 19th instant, we ventured to assert, that "if the elections for members of Congress or our State Legislature wei'e about to take place, South Carolina would evince the same unanimity which characterizes the people of Georgia and Mississippi. We do not be- lieve that a single man, who sought the suffrages of our people, would dare to defend or support Walker's villainy in Kansas." We wrote these words in view of the election then pending in this city, and determined yesterday, and they have been fully verified. — Neither of the candidates undertook to palliate or defend Gov*. Walker. Mr. Barker's language is as follows: "In reply to 'Many Citizens,' in the Mercury of yesterday, I an- swer — That I regard Gov. Walker's coui'se in Kansas, as reported to us. as wholly irreconcilable with the principle of non-interference in the affairs of that Territory, and with the Democratic principle of self-gov- ernment, which were intended to be secured by the provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska act, and which were proclaimed in the platform of the Cinciimati Convention which nominated Mr. Buchanan." And thus it would be in every part of our State, if elections were now pending before the people. Yet the people were not satisfied with this disclaimer of Mr. Barker of any affinity with Gov. Walker. They elected a man, in preference, who would stand on the Georgia and Mis- sissippi Resolutions, and in the election of a Senator for the United States Senate, would enforce their policy. In another respect this election is very significant. We have heard a great deal about the National Democratic Party in South Carolina. — Its strono-holds were supposed to be Greenville District, under the con- trol of Major Perry, and Charleston, under the control of — we now, since the election, won't say who. Now this election seems to prove that there is no such party in Charleston as a National Democratic party. Neither candidate would grace their names with National Dem- ocrat. Mr. Whaley notoriously was the candidate of the State Rights Democratic party, Mr. Barker, in his speech to his supporters, dis- tinctly declared what he was. He said : " He had attached himself, when he first came out, to the Southern Rights Democracy, and he had fought with them for what he conceived to be great moral and political principles ; and he had no intention nov?, because he was a candidate, to qualify or change his political creed in one single iota." Mr. Barker's position is all that the State Rights Democracy can de- sire. If he had succeeded in his election, they could not have failed. — Their principles would have triumphed, if not their man. We congrat- ulate our friends throughout the State at the result. [From the Charleston Mercury, Thursday. August 2S.] Messrs. Editors : — We have carefully read the editorial of the Mer- cury, and although it professes to throw " a little more light " upon the result of the late" election, we are still so far in darkness as to require still more light in order to comprehend the course of the Mercury. Of what is the" late election significant? We do not care to follow the course of the canvass in our examination of the political antecedents of the candidates, or of the combination of influences which produced the result. These are well understood by the people of Charleston. To us it appears that no election has probably ever been held in Charleston, which was Zei-s decisive "of the feelings of the people of Charleston with respect to parties in the State, and the policy of the General Gov- ernment." It is as much due to Mr. Barker as to the people of Charleston, that dissent should be expressed to the view taken by the Mercury. The Mercury pretends that Mr. Barker's defeat was owing to his not having copied the Georgia and Mississippi resolutions verbatim in expressing his opinions on Kansas affairs, and his not having adopted the identical language of those who interrogated him through the Mercury. We cannot believe that the mtelligence of the community in Charles- ton has been exercised on such hair-splitting distinctions as these. We believe that the people of Charleston adniire the independence of Mr, Barker in choosing his own language in which to state his political po- sitions ; while at the same time the Mercury is forced to admit "that Mr. Barker's position is all that the States Rights Democracy can desireP Again : The Mercury would fain have it that the election disproves the existence of any sympathy in Charleston with the National Democ- racy ? How can this be so ? The very candidate whose election the Mercury. heralds as a subject of public rejoicing, is not only a National Democrat, but declared that "the National Democracy is the only party with whom we have any sympathy of feeling or community of opinion — the only party which stands out boldly for the Constitution, and the only party capable of giving any eftectual aid in the support of our in- stitutions and our common Constitution while in the Union." So far as we are aware, these views remain unrepudiated by Mr. Whaley, and judging from principle and experience, we should have supposed that they were in direct antagonism to those held by the Mercury. We know that it has been the consistent and uniform opponent of the Na- tional Democratic party, and has in no measured terms denounced the Convention which Mr.' Whaley regretted that he was unable to attend; and yet we find it now exulting in'the election of Mr. Whaley over one who is, and has been, a consistent Southern Rights Democrat, and who, at the very time that Mr. Whaley's National Democratic letter was being written, declined to accept the appointment of Delegate to the Co- lumbia Convention, tendered him bg Judge Magrath. What the i^oUtical principles are, upon which the Mercury approves the result of the election, we are at a loss to perceive. The political record of Mr. Whaley furnishes no explanation of so singular a phe- nomenon. We wait for further explanation, CHARLESTON. 8 [From the Charleston Courier of August 29.] THE MERCURY AND THE RECENT ELECTION. Messrs. Editors : — As an independent citizen, reared in the States Rights school, and unconscious of having at any time deviated from the faith, I feel constrained to enter an indignant protest against the at- tempt of the Mercury to make and unmake States Rights Democrats at its own sole behest. This print has, for a long time, assumed to dictate the principles, the measures and policy of the State. In all this it has been sufficiently narrow, prescriptive and denunciatory ; but it is a step beyond to undertake to select the men who shall be voted for to sustain the principles, measures and policy which the Mercury itself accepts. The Mercury of the 27th tells us that "Mr. Barker's position" in the late election " was all that the States Rights Democracy could desire," yet he was not their "man," and their friends throughout the State are congratulated on his defeat. And this is proclaimed in the face of the admission, that what are conceded to be true " principles would have triumphed " in his success. Is it to be tolerated, that a press is thus not only to erect its Procus- tean bed upon which men are to be placed, and the rack applied if they are too short, and limbs lopped olT if too long, but when a man is found to fit — who, in his own fair pioportions, is neither too long or too short, who is "-all that States Rights men can desire" — yet he is put under the ban, he and his supporters, because he is not "their man !" I use "their man" as meaning the Mercury's selection, for in examining the article to which I allude, it will be seen it can mean nothing else. The Mercury says that " Mr. Whaley notoriously was the candidate of the States Rights Democratic party." When was he selected ? — "Where nominated ? How did he become their candidate ? And why, I ask, was he chosen as the standard bearer of the States Rights De- mocracy ? I, for one, know of no meeting of the party — of no consultation of a general character among those usually taking an active interest in such proceedings. Again, I ask, by what authority the Mercury says that Mr. Whaley was " notoriously the candidate of the States Rights Dem- ocratic party." Has it come to this, that the Mercury selects the candidate ? Like other sovereigns, it may have a consulting " cabinet.^'' Cabinets, however, are usually political, and, to some extent, represent a party. Is not this cabinet much more jyersonal than political in its complexion ? If " Mr. Barker's position is all that the States Rights Democracy can desire," in what had Mr. Whaley the advantage personally, so as to make him " notoriously the candidate of the States Rights Democratic party ? " Were his politics more " States Rights " Democratic, or a la Mer- cury, than Mr. Barker's in 1850-51, when he was understood to ap- prove the "compromise" and oppose secession, whether "separate" or in " co-operation ? " Or when he acted as Vice President to a Whig- Convention and supported General Scott for the Presidency? When he contributed to sustain a Scott and anti-Pierce paper after his return? 9 or, at a later period, wlii^n he wi-ote his letter to Judge Magrath, enroll- ing himself as a "National Democrat " and lauding the "Cincinnati Convention?" Were these the antecedents malonglnm par excellence the candidate of the States Rights Democratic party, in preference to Mr, Barker, whose antecedents were always States Rights and Democratic, who declined to go as a delegate under Judge Magrath's appointment, and whose position at the time was "all" that could be desired ? Does it not resolve itself into this, that anybody— Whig, Union-man, Compromise-man, Cincinnati Convention-man, National Democrat, whether he is any one or all of these, — becomes the candidate of the "States Rights Democratic party," provided the Mercury and its Cab- inet approve ; and any other person, though "all" that the party "can desire," is not only to be opposed during the canvass, but his defeat held up as a cause of congratulation throughout the State. Will independent men, free men. Democrats, South Carolinians, sub- mit to be thus Prkss-kidden ? • It is time that real States Rights men — not self seekers, but having at heart the interests of the State and the South — firm in their own con- victions, but tolerant of difference — content to persuade rather than drive — desiring harmony and not distraction — should unite to prevent any journal from assuming to select the candidate as well as to dictate, ac- cording to its will, the opinions and principles of the State. Again : the Mercury sjteaks of the result of the late election " as de- termining the feelings and opinions of the people of Charleston, with respect to parties in the State and the policy of the General Govern- ment." Is it possible that the Mercury can believe this statement to be true ? It is news to most of the voters. Does the Mercury mean to imply that the 1699 votes cast for Mr. Whaley were States Rights Democratic votes, and the 1073 cast for Mr., Barker were the votes of men opposed to the doctrines and principles of the Southern Rights Democracy, as expressed in the resolutions (sanctioned by the Mercury) passed at the meeting of that party in Au- gust, 1855 ? Does not the Mercurv know that the feet is otherwise ? The tifth resolution adopted at that meeting reads as follows : " That ill the opinion of this meeting the existence and pi'ogress of the organization known as the Order of Know Nothings, is opposed theoretically and practically to the principles which have hitherto char- acterized South Carolina as a State, and the Southern Rir/hts party everywhere, and render a re-organization of that party in South Carolina a matter of imperative dutv with those who remain steadfast in the faith." One of the Editors of the Mercury was of the Committee which framed these resolutions — all of them approved. Now, the "organization known as the Order of Know Nothings " may or may not be dead, but is it not "notorious" that the majority of those who Ihen constituted that Order supported Mr.^Whaley? I shall not pry into the secrets of the Mercury's cabinet, but I doubt whether quondam Know Nothings may not be found there. Does not the Mercury know that very many voters refused to con • sider party politics as involved in the election, and gave their suff'rages 10 for Mr. Wlialey (a very pleasant and estimable gentleman) purely on nersonal grounds ? Is it not a fact " notorious," that many voters v^'ere, as they believed, ••ommitted to Mr. Whaley before Mr. Barker was presented as a candi- iiate, and that these gentlemen voted irrespective of any political issue? Mr. Barker was a very young man, brought out only seven days before the election, but little organization among his fri-^nds, and no distinct party issue presented. But notwithstanding this, I am of opinion that Mr. Barker, who had done good se)'vice in 1855, got a decided majority of those who, with the assistance of the Mercury, re-organized "the Southern Rights party" at the meeting referred to in August of that year. Why should the Mercury ari'ogate all the credit of the late triumph to itself? Does the Mercury suppose that the magnificent vote in the Upper Wards was eftected by its lucubrations on Kansas and the Cin- cinnati Convention ? Will it give no share of the credit to its Know Nothing allies ? But Mr. Whaley himself — will the Mercury concede nothing to his gooddiumored face, his facile manners, his many high qualities, and his skill in the way of making friends in a contest not avowedly of a party character ? The late ele(;tion proves nothing but the old lesson, that combination and energy can always carry a community when it is caught napping? For one 'l am now "' , WIDE AWAKE. [P>om the Mercury's Editorial, August 29.] The communication of "A States Mights Democrat" is, we presume, a sufficient answer to the communication in our paper of yesterday, signed "Charleston." We must decline the further discussion of the subject with anony- mous correspondents. The author of the article signed "Kansas" will, therefore, understand that his coramimication is inadmissible. [Communication.] THE ELECTION. Messrs. Editors : — Last fall the National Democrats put foi'th Mr. Porter as their candidate for the Senate. The States Rights Democnits supported Mr. Whaley. Mr. Whaley was beaten by a small majority. A vacancy occurs in the Charleston delegation to our State Legislature, by the death of Col. Blum. Mr. Whaley is again brought forward by the i^arty which supported him last fall against Mr. Porter, and Mr. Bar- ker is- brought out against Mr. Whaley. By whom ? By those opposed to him. Who are they ? Those, assuredly, who opposed him last fall, and supported Mr. Porter. Mr. Whaley is elected. Now, we beg leave to ask, was not Mr. Porter's election over Mr. Whaley last fall claimed as a party triumph of National Democrats ? When now, Mr. W^haley is elected over their candidate, Mr. Barker, is it no triumph at all ? 11 ' This simple statement, and the irresistible conclusion which follows it, it is attempted to refute bv two parties. 1. That some of the National Democrats voted for Mr. Whaley; and, 2. That Mr. Whaley, from the letter published ao-ainst him, had been a National Democrat. 1. That some National Democrats voted for Mr. Whaley is undoubt- edly true, and it is true also that some wStates Rights Democrats voted for Mr. Barker. But such votes on neither side would aft'ect the position of the two opposing parties. Some National Democrats might have voted for Mr. Whaley on personal grounds, or for the same reasons he aban- doned the party, — more especially as recent events in the politics of the Union, bearing on the South, may not have strengthened their confi- dence in National parties; and some States Rights Democrats may have voted for Mr. Barker on personal grounds, or from Mr. Whaley's letter, or a better knowledge of Mr. Barker's opinions than the ])ublic sup- posed ; — but we submit to all candid minds, such exceptions from party voting by no means aftect the character of the-result. Mr. Whaley's letter undoubtedly proves that he was with the Na- tional Democrats last spring twelve month. But did they consider Mr. Whaley to be of their party last fall, when opposed to Mr. Porter, then candidate for the Senate? Did they consider him to be of their party when they brought out Mr. Barker against him a fortnight since. Did they consider him to be of their party when, on last Monday, in the midst of the election, they published Mr. Whaley's letter to Judge Ma- grath, when it was impossible for Mr. Whaley to reply to it before the election closed — not to prove that he was now with them, a National Democrat, but the contrary — to prove that he had been with them, and was now opposed to them, and thus convict him of inconsistency. The communication introducing the letter, after stating his having been of their party, says: "In October he sacrificed his recent prejudices in favor of the Democratic party, ignored his declaration that it was our duty and policy to support that party fully and fairly, and became a candidate of its opponents^ and went into full communion with them." Now, in view of the above facts, is it not marvellous that now, that Mr. Whaley has beaten them, he should be claimed by the National Democrats as one of the party, and his election, therefore, as being in their favor rather than against them. Your correspondent, "Charles- ton," plainly intimates this, and the Charleston Standard keeps time as follows: "When a party is divided between two of its members, and the out- siders run no candidate of their own, they will probably help to elect one or other of the candidates of the divided party. If it be thought by any that, even after this, the issue settled in the late election is not cleai'ly shown, we reply that we cannot help that — we pretend to no more light on the subject." No, gentlemen, this won't do. When you did not say "National Democrat" for your candidate, don't, when defeated, apply it to ours also, and claim that you are victorious by his election. Neither is it quite fair, when you profess to act on distinct principles, now to assert that there were no principles involved in the election. You do your- selves, as well as your opponents, wrong. The election was not mean- 12 ingless, and did "express the feelings of the people of Charleston with respect to parties in the State, and the policy of the General Govern- ment." The "splitting of hairs" involved nothing less than the elec- tion of a Senator to the United States Senate by one party or the other in the State. Everybody understood this. A STATES RIGHTS DEMOCRAT. [From tbe Charleston Standard, Sept. 1. — Rejected bjr the Courier.] THE MERCURY AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. We have heard much during the last year of "Freedom of the Press." What does the term mean, and what is the " area " of this freedom ? Does it include editors only, and those who speak what they would wish to do, but peiliaps dare not ? Or does it embrace the citizen who differs from the Press, and desires to be heard? The publit; have some interest in the solution of these questions. If the Press can utter what it pleases, and stifle all reply, then its boastful " freedom " is a hateful tyranny. It gives power to the Press, and cur- tails in a like proportion the liberty of the subject citizen. The Mercury misrepresents the circumstances of the late election. — A short reply is admitted, which is followed by another article reitera- ting the misrepresentation, and containing a misrepresentation more gross, if possible, of the circumstances of the election last fall, accompa- nied with the declaration that its columns are closed to any rejoinder. This is "Freedom of the Press," according to the Mercury ! Does the Courier recognize the same rules of action ? If so, the community should know, and shall know, how the " Freedom of the Press " in Charleston affects the freedom of the citizen. If there be an independent Press in the city, T claim a place for a counter statement, to be paid for if required, but a place where the dis- cussion of such matters is looked for, and not among the advertise- ments of dry goods and groceries. You inserted my correction of the first statement, for which I thank you — curtailed, it is true, and the point somewhat blunted if not alto- gether destroyed. But of this I make no complaint. I ask to correct the misstatement which has been added to the original one. The Mercury's correspondent (endorsed editorially) says that " last fall the National Democrats put forth Mr. Porter as their candidate for the Senate. The States Rights Democrats supported Mr. Whaley." How are the facts? Mr. Porter's only party nomination for the place of Senator dates as far back as 1848, when he was "put forth" by the "Taylor Democrats," a strictly sectional party, opposed to the nominee of the National Democratic Convention, Gen. Cass, whom the Mercury supported. In 1852 he was re-elected, without a nomination, and unop- posed. In 1856, he being the incumbent of eight years' standing, was again a candidate, without a nomination of any kind. Mr. Porter had 13 sanctioned sending delegates to the Cincinnati Convention. I was one who regretted this movement, but like the great majority of the city and the State, thought it no snfficient cause for dividing our people. While Mr, Porter was thus a candidate for re election to the Senate, Mr. Whaley was pi'esented — I will not say " put forth," or by whom — as a candidate for Congress. Mr. Whaley — though in 1850 and '51a Whig, Union man, and supporter of the odious Compromise Acts — was then recognized as a Democrat, standing on the principles avowed in his letter to Judge Magrath. This implicated him in the Cincinnati Convention movement much more decidedly than Mr. Porter, If there ever has been a period (which I doubt) when Charleston has had before her people a candidate run ningspec/ai/y as a "National Democrat," it was during the short time that Mr, Whaley was in the field with Gen. Gads- den and Col, Cunningham. While things were in this condition, Judge Magrath was brought out, not on account of his Cincinnati Convention views, but with at least a portion of his supporters in spite of them. — Mr, Whaley thereupon declined, evidently showing that he had expected support from the same quarter. Circumstances too painful for public discussion, but which still may /have their private inHuence, induced Judge Magrath to withdraw from the canvass. The Hon, Wm. P, Miles, then and now Mayor of the city, was nominnted as a candidate, at a large meeting of the citizens, and elected by a large majority of the voters of the District, Who were they who nominated and elected Mr. Miles? Does not the Mer- cury know that they were, in the city, substantially the same persons and the same party who had made him Mayor in 1855? Does the Mercury ignore the meeting held in Hibernian Hall in August, 1855 ? It is but two years ago. If the Mercury had really at heart the cause of Southern Rights, and desired to advance that cause, rather than its fa- vorite, it would oftener recur to the platform then adopted, and upon which the Southern Rights party then re-organized achieved so signal a triumph. The Mercury was with that party, and aided in that triumph. These, I say, were "notoriously" the men who "put forth " Mr. Miles. By whom was he opposed? Chiefly by those whom the Mercury had joined in denouncing in 1855 — the Know Nothings, or those who had lately been so. The Executive Committee appointed by those who nom- inated Mr, Miles, adopted Mr, Porter and placed him on the ticket with Mr. Miles, In this way only was he ever " put forth " by any party. — Are these — the former associates and coadjutors of the Mercury — the " National Democrats" now denounced? Why "National Democrats?" Mr. Miles never approved the Cincinnati Convention movement, and no man, perhaps, in the State was better entitled, from his antecedents, to be considered thoroughly States Rights and Southern Rights than he — unless his being a Co-operationist in 1850 and '51 excluded him from that category ? Is that the test with the Mercury ? Then how comes it that Mr, Whaley is such a favorite, who then was a Unionist, a Compromise man and afterwards a supporter of Gen, Scott against the Mercury's sole' Northern exception. Gen, Pierce. Now. if Mr. Porter was "put forth" at all, it was by the same party which "put forth " Mr. Miles. 14 Is it not "notorious" that Miles and Porter, in the main, ran to- S^ether, and Gen. Gadsden and Mr. Whal-^y ? Yet the Mercury says that "the National Democrats put forth Mr. Porter," and "the States Rifflits Democrats supported Mr. Whaley !" The men whom the Mercury joined in denouncing as '■'•opposed, the- oretically anrl practically, to the principles which have hithei'to charac- terized South Carolina as a State, and the Southern Rights party every- where" and whose action had rendered a "rally and re-organization of the Southern Rights party an imperative duty in South Carolina," are suddenly converted, in the eyes of the Mercury, to '■''the States Rights Democrats," and their old associates, (whether they will or not,) are made those most odious of all things, as it is the Mercury's cue now to represent affairs, "the National Democrats." The vanquished Know Nothings, or those who were so in 1855, and as such then most signally defeated, are now, with the Mercury, " the States Rights De- mocracy." "The times have been, That when the brains were out the man would die, And there an end : but they rise again AnApicsh lis from our stools." This is bad enough ; but that the Mercury, our old coadjutor, which exclaimed, on that occasion, '■'■magna pars fui,'''' which really was part and parcel of the conquering forces, though not perhaps the "head and front" as it then claimed to be, should take the part of these unman- nerly intruders, is too much to be borne patiently. In all seriousness, I appeal to my fellow-citizens, among whom I was born, to say whether a newspaper is to be allowed to assign to me my political position, and deny to me even the right of explanation. Am I, who, from birth, nurture, education and association, am as likely to possess a heart that feels, and a head that understands what are States Rights and Southern Rights, as any one of the four or half dozen editors that supply the Mercury, to be disparaged before my fellow citi- zens, among whom I always have lived and always mean to live, and to be denied the plain right of explanation and self-defence. If I stood alone, wliat is my case to-day, might be any man's to-morrow. But I represent now, and on this occasion, a large body of native South Caro- linians, and true Southern men, denied a hearing in the city of their residence. This is a question far above any involved, as I conceive in the recent election. Mr. Whaley is a gentleman whom I respect personally, and I absolve him from all participation in the misrepresentation "put forth," and in regard to which the Mercury refuses to allow "farther discus- sion" in its columns. The majority of those who voted for Mr. Whaley are conscious, and, as honorable men, I doubt not, would admit that the Mercury has, I will not say intentionally, misrepresented the motives controlling them in casting their votes. It is the unjust attempt of this Press to elevate its personal favorites, at the expense of others, that I consider the subject of reprobation. The Mercury rejoices in the soubriquet of the Hotspur of the Press. It "cavils," no doubt, "on the ninth part of a hair" where only the 15 puhlic good is ronce^'ned ; but, like Hotspur, to "a well deserving friend " its cbaritv and genevosit}' knows no bounds. I remember an old lady, once well known among tbe religious community in tbis city, wbose views on tbeology were tbose of tbe extremest Calvinistic scbool. According to her public avowal of doctrine — "narrow," indeed, "was tbe way," and "few," very few there were who walked therein. But so kind was tbe old lady's temper, that, throughout her very long life, no friend of hers ever died, that she did not perceive abundant evidence of "redeeming grace." Whether from a kind temper or not, I will not discuss — but the Mercury is very like her in throwing the mantle of charity over its friends, while the faggot and stake are too good for all others who cannot walk tbe "Al Sirat" of its erection. WIDE AWAKE. [From the Charleston Mercury's Editorial, September 2.] LIBERTY OF THE PRESS. We believe that it is universally conceded that no man has a right to have anonymous assaults upon a Press printed in its columns, and that a Piess has a right to refuse to publish in its columns any such assaults. Tbe reasons are most obvious. To be assailed is by no means agree- able, and no one can, with propriety, demand of an assailed party to help him in assailing him; but to demand of him to pay for tbQ assault upon himself — to furnish the proper type, risk and labor, whereby he is assailed, and then to circulate it afterwards, is really a most extraor- dinary assumption. If an anonymous disputant has such a vight, and happens to be longwinded or malicious, he might bankbrupt a press in six months. For these simple reasons no paper can be bound to print anything (much less anonymous communications) questioning or assail- ing any positions it may think proper to assume in its columns. Other papers may, if they think proper, lend their columns to anonymous as- sailants of a cotemporary press. With a liberality by no means usual (but which shall not easily be repeated,) we admitted into our columns, the anonymous communication signed "Charleston," questioning and disputing positions assumed by us in our columns. We, in justice to tbose assailed, as well as ourselves, admitted a reply, and then declined publishing anything more in our columns against ourselves. For this most extraordinary liberality to those who differ from us, we are de- nounced as violators of the liberty of the press. [From the Charleston Standard, September — .] THE MERCURY AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. " JVo paper" says the Mercury, of 2d Sept., " can be bound to print anything questioning any positions it may think proper to assume in its columns,''^ 16 I had some knowledge of the practice of this press, but the annouTice- nient of a proposition so iinqualitied as the above, even from the Mercury, fills me with surprise. Take the case presented. An election is held in the cit}' and the Mercury undertakes to declare that certain political principles were involved, and that the majoiity of 626 votes obtained by one of the candidates over the other, was an exponent of the preference of the community of one set of principles over the other. "With a liher- ality^'' says the Mercury, " by no means usual (but which shall not EASILY BE repeated) wc admitted into our columns the anonytnous communication signed ' Charleston,' questioning and disputing" these positions. The Mercury, exhausted by a "liberality" so imusnal, and of which it now expresses its repentance, refused a place, the next day, to a communication from a correspondent who protested, upon other grounds, stating that he, and others similarly situated, had been unjustly treated in the representation made by the Mercury. This correspondent, like the first whom the Mercury calls ^^ anonymous'''' sent his name with the piece. The Mercury knew him to be a subscriber of long standing — an hereditary subscriber — and who, as he himself stated in his communica- tion, had expected to leave the Mercury as a family appurtenance, to his children. His father had, with the Mercury, fought valiantly and effec- tively in the days of Nullification. He himself iml)ibed the same prin- ciples, and had been with the Mercury in every political contest ; — on the Wilmot Proviso — the Cass and Taylor canvass — the compromise acts — he was a secessionist — a Kansas agitator — an anti- Cincinnati Conventionist — and yet, when he respectfully protests against being read out of the States Rights Democratic party, for voting against Mr. Wlialey, he is denied a hearing in the journal which he has so long con- tributed to sustain. This may consist with the conventional morals of the press — the press may speak for itself. I take no issue on this point, but it is re- volting to the feelino-s, and shocks the sentiment of every ju-^t man who is not an editor. "The liberty of the press," upon this idea, is a mockery; and the man who (as I know this rejected correspondent ^^ Kansas''' has done in regard to the Mercury) aids in extending the circulation of a paper of his own political f:\ith, helps to elevate a tyrant, whose behests lie must obey, or lose position among his political associates. The Mercury knows, as we all do, that most of its readers can be reached only through its own columns, and this it presu7nes ujjon. No sophistry can reconcile such a course with the inborn sentiment of a freeman. The Mercury, in the very paper refusing admission to the protest and explanation of its constant political associate " Kansas,''^ publishes a new communication reiterating the old misrepresentation, and adding another erroneous statement afifecting a still larger number of voters in regard to the election of last fall. With this second additional misrep- resentation, it declares its columns closed to "further discussion." On the 2d September it is " driven from its silence," however, and favors its subject readers with a royal manifesto more full of preroga- tive and the haughty spirit of self-emanating puissance, than anything addressed to Anglo Saxon ears since the time of that superb specimen of a would-be despot, James 1st. 17 " To be assailed is by no means agreeable !" " to furnish type, risk and labor" for this purpose, is out of the question ! Our 'Hiherality'''' already has been ''extraordinary P'' Ungrateful hinds, you shall have no more of it! No feudal monarch could speak more proudly. We would sup- pose that the Mercury was not only owned by those who spoke, but that its readers and the public were elemosynary dependents upon the suzerain proprietors who issued a daily ^\\%et gratis. The iVlercury has misrepresented a large number of those who have helped to pay tor their " type and labor," and who have aided to place its editors in the position in which they now lord it so magnificently. My question has been answered by the Mercury — how satisfactorily, this communication will express. I address it now to the Press at large — is the liberty of the Press confined to Editors only ? Or, is there recognized such a thing as free DISCUSSION BY THE CITIZEN ? Is the docti'ine of the Mercury and the practice of the Courier — exceptional, however, in this case — approved by their brethren of the Press? Does the authorized suppression of free discussion extend so far as to justify a paper in refusing to print the con- tribution of a subscriber and supporter, of the same political faith, merely because he cjuestions positions assumed in its columns? If we have in South Carolina a Press which is really free and inde- pendent, I ask a free and independent answer. Otherwise, I must sup- pose that the Mercury, on this point, speaks the sentiment of the Press, at least of this State. WIDE AWAKE. [From the Charlestoa Standard's Editorial, September 11.] We publish this morning the re])Iy of "Inquisitor" to the article of " Wide Awake." Whilst opening our columns to a free discussion, it is our duty to refuse to be made the vehic-le of anything personal ; and we, therefore, shall always, as in the present instance, claim the right to modify the expressions of articles presented for publication in our columns. THE TYRANNY OF THE MERCURY AND THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. Messrs. Editors : — Cant ami hypocrisy are the order of the day. The Charleston Mercury, in its issue of the 27th of August, put forth certain views as to the late election, free from all personalities to any one. It stated, (what is very well known in this city) that the election was sig- nificant "of the feelings of the people of Charleston with respect to parties in tlie State, and the policy of the General Government." Or, as your anonymous correspondent, " Wide Awake," puts it in his own language, * * * * "an election is held in this city, and the Mercury undertakes to declare that certain political principles were in- volved, and that the majority of six hundred and twenty-six votes ob- tained by one of the candidates over the other, was an exponent of the preference of the community of one set of principles over the other." 18 For this outcry upon " independent men, freemen, Democrats and South Carolinians," the spleen and gall of this writer is incited to find vent in an ill-tempered and flippant assault upon the Mercury, thi'ough the Courier of August 29th. And this, although the morning previously the Mercury had admitted into its columns, without commentary, an anonymous communication under the signature of " Charleston," contro- verting the views it had expressed, in language as offensive as its general tone was discourteous. The writer called this style of address " indigna- tion." To this, a calm and argumentative reply is, however, made by "a States Rights Democrat," presenting the facts of the case in a plain statement, convincing to all who were conversant about parties in the city, and were unbiassed by passion or prejudice. Another attack upon the Mercury is also presented to its Editors in the form of an anonymous communication, signed " Kansas," which they very properly and respectfully decline to publish, stating that they could not enter into controversy upon such unequal terms as that presented by an anonymous writer. Upon this another effusion of ignorance is poured out upon the Mer- cury, through the pages of the Standard. The article is a studied at- tempt, by a resort to party chicanery and demagogueism, to arouse bad passions and enlist prejudices against a print that has done more perhaps in the cause of States Rights, Southern Rights and pure Democracy, than any other paper in the State or South. Patience and forbearance have their limits, and it is no longer fitting that this should go at large unchallenged. It is therefore proposed at this juncture to respond to the very cogent style of argumentation adopted by one calling himself " Wide Awake." The article is divisable into two heads. 1st. A charge upon the Mer- cury of "tyranny" for the expression of its views — and 2dly, for its vio- lation of the " freedom of the press" in reference to the anonymous writer "Kansas." There are some subjects, Messrs. Editors, so important that they are worthy of consideration, however overlaid by ill temper and perver- sions. Such is the latter charge prei)ared by your anonymous cor- respondent. Brieflv then to dispose of the first point: It is stated that " Kansas'" has been " read out of the ranks of the States Rights Democratic party for voting against Mr. Whaley." It is candidly asked if the writer does not know this assertion to be unfounded in fact ? If not, it can only be said that passion has blinded him to a perception of the plainest state- ment to the contrary. There were, doubtless, sufficient grounds in Mr. Whaley's previous political career to have deterred any anti-national States Rights man from voting for him unless he had become thoroughly convinced of his present fidelity and firmness to the principles of that party. And it is very well known that, for lack of this confidence on the part of some of the party, he did lose so much of their vote, which it is probable Mr. Barker received in consideration of his untried youth. If, therefore, " Kansas," or any other writer, places himself upon this plat- form, not one word has been said against him, as will be seen by a reference to the files of the Mercury. It would, beyond a doubt, take 19 equal pleasure and pride in claiming the companionship of such steiling anti- national States Rights Democrats, At the same time, it believes that Mr. Barker was supported by the most " national" party — as a party — that the city can afford ; and probably, moreover, for tlie pur- pose of voting for a "National" or "Convention" United States Senator, in the impending election before the Legislature. It is equally believed that Mr. Whaley was mainly supported by the anti-7iational States Rights party — so much so as to make the election significant " of the feelings of the people of Charleston, with respect to parties in the State and the General Government." These are grounds upon which the views entertained by the Mercury are based, and under which " Kansas" need by no means consider him- self " read out of the ranks of the States Rights Democratic party," unless he chooses. The charge of the writer then falls to the ground amidst fume and bluster. But to the second point. The Mercury has violated the "freedom of the press" by its rejection of the anonymous communication signed " Kansas !" And this writer further adds — " Is the liberty of the Press confined to Editors only? Or, is there recognized such a thing as free DISCUSSION BY THE CITIZEN ? Is the doctriues of the Mercury and the practice of the Courier — exceptional, however, in this case — appi'oved by their bi'ethren of the Press ? Does the authorized suppression of free discussion extend so far as to justify a paper in refusing to print the con- tribution of a subscriber and supporter of the same political faith, merely because he questions positions assumed in its columns?" By this extract two questions appear to be raised : 1. Is it consistent with the liberty of the press for a paper to exclude from its columns the anonymous communications of a subscriber^ ques- tioning its views? 2. Is it consistent with the liberty of the press for a paper to exclude from its columns amj anonymous communications ques- tioning its views. It is always well to have some slight comprehension of the terms made use of in any discussion. The neglect of this caution not unfrequentjy leads to a confusion of ideas, and to most illogical deductions, even should the writer by chance happen to be honest in his researches. What, then, is the "freedom of the press?" Is it the right of any pri- vate individual, without hindrance or molestation, legal or personal, to write and make public at his own cost and hazard, whatever it pleases him to write and make public, so that it infringe not upon the public decency, nor upon the rights of third parties? Here is not only the lib- erty, but the limit of the rights of the press. But what is the Press? Is it the means by which public expression is given to private written thought ? It consists chiefly in the issue of books, periodicals and news- papers. The "freedom of the press," then, is the right of any private in- dividual to issue either a book or a periodical, or a newspaper. It means this ; no more, and no less. The right of " free discussion by the citizen" is identical and similar in each and every department of "the Press." As the book publisher is bound to publish no book which does not accord with his conceptions of his interest or the purpose to which his press is devoted, so in the same manner, and for the same reason, is 20 the proprietor of a print, whether quarterly, montlily, weekly, or daily — equally and entirely free to express just what views he pleases, and to ex- clude from his sheet whatever he thinks injurious to his interest, pecu- niary or political, or to that of the public. The reason is obvious. Every newspaper, book or periodical is the property of its editor or publisher — strictly private property, as much so as a house, a horse, or a doo-. Nor has any other man but its propi-ietor, any part, parcel or concern in it whatever. An editor, nevertheless, like every other public man, has certain responsibilities to the public, which shall hereafter be defined. Every publisher of books, reviews, magazines, or newspapers, simply col- lects at his own discretion, and his own risk of loss, certain reading mat- ter, which he offers to the public at a certain pri(;e. Those who" think it worth their money buy it — those who do not, won't buy it. If the judgment of the proprietor fails, he is ruined. The loss falls upon him, and him only. The right of " free discussion by the citizen" then, means nothing more than the right of any citizen to " discuss" verbally or m print any matter pertaining to the public interest, whether in the form of a book, a pamphlet, a periodical, or a newspaper, "free" from the moles- tation of government or the violence of pi'ivate individuals. It was for this Milton wrote his gi'eat argument on the liberty of the press. The newspaper press was not then in existence — books were the only means by which men expresseil their thoughts. Any other conception of the right of "free discussion by the citizen" is the result of pretentious igndrance. Nor does the case of a subscriber to a newspaper diftei- in any I'espect from that of a non-subscriber, as to his right to control a paper and pre- scribe its contents. The issue of a paper is but the daily issue of a book. The subscriber who buys the sheet has a fair exchange of equivalents so much reading matter for so much money. But his buying a copy of the paper cannot elevate him into a proprietor or editor of the paper, much less an editor without any of its responsibilities or risks of loss. It is true that editors generally admit into their paper such communications as in their opinion will be of interest or value to the public ; and it is also true that any editor will always be more inclined to give insertion to the communication of a subscriber than those of any other person. There is a bond of union between them — so much so that they, not un- frequently to gratify a subscriber, lend them the use of their columns to publish their most vapid effusions. And I doubt not it was on this ac- count that " Charleston" was admitted to publication by the Mercury. Where a subscriber brings a communication for insertion into the columns of a paper, he stands then like a non-subscriber, absolutely at the discretion of its editor, who is bound to exercise his judgment in de- ciding whether his interest or that of the public will be subserved by publishing it. Every one has a right to print his own thoughts at his own expense, and to circulate them as he pleases, whether in the form of a book, pami)hlet or paper. Type, paper, ink and composition can be bought. The editor casts his thoughts in the expressive mould of the newspaper press, and sells his sheets for a livelihood. And for a man to claim the right to demand of an editor to put his thoughts in the sheets of the 21 latter and to circulate them, irrespective of auy discretion on his part as to their truth, value or benefit, is o-laring oppression. But still further, to make an editor |irintthcm, not only against his juilo-nient and wishes, but to print them, to the injury or ruin, (mayhap) of his paper, to circu- late an assault upon himself, is an unbearable tyranny and a blow at the very base of all "freedom of the press," by those wlio atiecting to be its zealous defenders, would clothe their selfishness in the garb of virtue. Indeed the pretension is inconsistent with the very existence of the press. No man who values truth would undertake to express it in the press, with the obligation of publishing also, at his expense, all the errors or absurdities wliicli always gather around it. The task would not only be bootless, but it would soon bring him to bankruptcy. But are editors without public responsibilities and duties? Bv no means; and in pro])ortion to the manner in which they meet their hio-h responsibilities will be the confidence they will enlist in their behalf. But those very responsibilities require freedom in the exercise of their hio'h function. The claim set up for anonymous correspondents is nothing short of this; that every man in the community, by virtue of the " liberty of the press," has a right to have his anonymous communications printed in the columns of a papei", questioning and disputing its positions, and reasoning, uncontrolled by the volition or discretion of its editor. I won- der what man in England would have ventured to ask old Christopher North to admit into his magazine an ai'ticle disputing his positions or arguments? If the views of your correspondent are correct. Editors would be stripped of all responsibilities. Tlieir papers would be mere conduits, whereby the follies and passions of malignant or silly correspon- dents might disgust or pervert the public mind. But whilst a paper belongs to the Editor, and he has a rir/ht to ex- clude communications disputing his positions or reasonings, or conflict- ing in any way with liis judgment as to their propriety or value, ought ho on all occasions to do so ? I answer it is a matter solely for liis dis- cretion. It is admitted on all hands that no private person ought to be assailed in the press, and even public persons, where their qualifications, mental or moral, are disputed, or their ])ublic course impugned, ought to be allowed the privilege of defending themselves in the press in which they are assailed. Justice requii'es this, and it has been the constant practice of the Mercury. In the present instance there is nothing per- sonal involved in the matter — no one is mentioned — no one is as sailed. Nevertheless in matters of general concern, involving general prin- ciples, his columns should be open within proper limits to free discussion oi general principles, even though he has expressed very decided opinions upon them. Still the whole matter is within his discretion. And if the communication springs from hostility to his paper or party, or is, in his opinion, calculated to injure either, it ought to be rejected. Editors, like other men, are responsible, are bound to use their property and their power to the promotion of good and the advancing of correct principles, and therefore to reject from publication in their columns all communi- caticjns which, in their judgment, are promotive of neither good ends nor good principles. He is morally responsible for the good or evil his press 22 shall profluce ; and he alone, by his conduct, must meet this responsi- bility. The rejected writer may think the editor a fool for rejecting- his folly, but to call it tyranny is insolence. The public have, doubtless, long since come to their own conclusions as to the fair dealings which characterize, or the patriotic motives that actuate the Charleston Mercury. They will not now be lightly shaken from their belief, especially upon any of the gTounds or cTiarges your cor- respondent has advanced. INQUISITOR. [From the Charleston Standard, September, 12] Messrs. Editors : An article appeared in your columns of yesterday morning which requires a word or two of comment and er- sonel of a public journal. What are the personalities suppressed or modified by the Editor of the Standard, I shall never inquire ; still less shall I question his right to suppress and modify personalities. Epithets, addressed to an anony- mous writer, are verv much a matter of taste; and though an editor may not be as exact in regard to a correspondent, as when the language emanates from himself, he is right to refuse to be made the vehicle of what is vulgar or impertinent. The Mercury's next friend^ however, has been allowed the use of epi- thets sufficient to indicate the temper of him who speaks for the Mer- cury, to the outsiders. "Cant and hypocrisy," "ill tempered and flippant," " chi(;anery and demagogueism," " etfusion of ignorance," " pretentious ignoran(;e." " maliofnant," "silly," "insolence!" These are some of the polite epithets applied to one of the Mercury's supporters, subscribers and political associates, who dares question its classification of voters in an election where there was confessedly no party nomination, no party meetings, no avowed party action, and no distinct issue presented. Is this chaste language meant to prove that the Mercury is no tyrant, and that the late election iV the subject of free discussion, provided that "type and labor" are found elsewhere? Or is it meant to intimate that though the Mercury answers not, as a Press, there is a power behind the Press, greater than the Press, which is determined to force other and more formidable issues than those of mere newspaper contro- versy. I will inform the Mercury and its nextfriend, that the question raised is, in my opinion, one of public riijht, and so far as mv action is con- cerned, I intend that it shall be settled by the reason and the common sentiment of freemen, and not by any personal issue between individuals. It may suit the purposes of others to divert the public mind to the con- sideration of subjects more exciting and absorbing. I have no such ob- ject. Whether 1 have exhibited ^'■cant and hypocrisy," "'ill temper'''' and '•'•flippancy^'' '•'■chicanery and demayogueism" whether I have been " malignant and silly" and have uttered only " eft'usions of igno7-ance ;" whether to question the positions of the Mercury be " insolence" or 25 whether one and all of these pretty epithets miglit not be as well applied to the Mer<'ury and its " next f7'ie7id" I leave it to the public to deter- mine. Neitlier "paper pellets of the brain," nor that " something after," of which such dread epithets may be considered the dark foresh ado wings, shall "fright me from my ])ropriety." However much my articles may deserve to be styled "effusions of ig- norance," they have provoked reply. Have they been answered? "A calm and argumentative reply," it is said, was " made by a States Rights Democrat, presenting the tacts of the case in a plain statement." This statement was controverted, and a counter statement submitted, of facts supposed to be "notorious," which has not been controverted, and which it is fair to say, cannot be successfully attacked. A new issue, however, had been raised, and that, it seems, avoiding the old one, is the subject of animadversion by the Mercury's friend. When the Mercury declared that the " result" of the election was looked to "in the Slate as determining the feelings and opinions of the people of Charleston, with respect to parties in the State and the policy of the' General Government" — that the majority of 626 votes given Mr. Whaley " settled this question" — that Mr. Whaley was notoriously the candidate of the States Rights Democratic part}' — when the friends of the Mercury throughout the State were "congratulated" on the "result" — what did all this mean ? Surely this proclaims a triumph of " the States Rights Democratic party." Over whom ? Over those who were not of the States Rights Democratic party. Over those who voted for Mr. Barker. If this is not " reading" the friends of Mr. Barker " out of the States Rights Democratic party," so far as the Mercury had power to do so, then I do not understand the force of language. This abuse of the power of the press on the part of the Mercury, was the subject of my first article published in the Courier. Upon the sec- ond point, that is, the refusal to allow its errors to be corrected in its own columns, I beg»leave to revert to my former communications, and ask whether I have not avoided everything like dogmatism ? whether I have not avoided any attempt to lay down general rules for the govern- ment of the Press ? Whether abstractions have not been studiously es- chewed ? Was the Mercury right in the case stated? That was the ques- tion discussed. Differ as we may in the abstract, can any rule justify the course of that print? It is in the concrete, as the logicians express it, that I desired to have the matter considered. The questions submitted to the press, at large, were these : " Is the freedom of the press confined to editors only ? Is there recognized such a thing as free discussion by the citizen ? Does the cmthorized sup- pression of free discussion extend so far as to justify a paper in refusing to print the contribution of a subscriber and supporter MERELY because he questions positions assumed in its columns ?" I shall not now join issue in abstractions. The term " Freedom of the Press" has various meanings according to the time and place where the expression is used. Its freedom from Governmental restriction is not the sense in which we have heard of it in the last year in Charleston, and the expression here, and during that time, has been confined to the 26 newspaper press. Tliis freedom, define it as you may, is a mockery, I have said, if it can be so construed as to justify the course of the Mer- cury which has been adverted to. The proposition that the " selection and rejection of all matter necessa- rily rests with the editor," determines nothing. This " discretion" author- izes him to reject articles agreeing with and sustaining his own jiositions as well as those '' questioning or assailing^'' them. But does the editor ex- ercise a sound discretion when he rejects an article 'inerely and exclu- sively on the ground that it questions his position? Let the Press an- swer that question — those who are deterred neither by the esprit du corps of the craft, nor by fear of, or hope from, the Mercuiy. A Judge has an absolute discretion in many matters, where, should he be mani- festly moved by either fear, favor or affection, he would stain the ermine of the bench, and utterly disgrace his high calling. A jury has power to render their verdict in a criminal case, and it is decisive, without right of appeal or supervision. But if it be clearly against the law and the evidence, who doubts that they have violated their duty to themselves, to the country, and to their God? If either Judge or Jury abuse the " discretion'''' with which they are invested, they are justly the subjects of public censure and reprobation. Admit then that it was legitimately within the " discretion" of the Mercury to have acted or refused action in regard to the matter in controversy, if it has exercised this discretion in violation of those ^'■public respons'ib'ilities and duties'''' conceded by its ad- vocate to be '•'• h'lnding'''' upon it, then the public have a right to question the course pursued. That these ^'■public responsibilities and duties^'' have been violated in the late course of the Mercury, I have endeavored to prove. The argu- ment, I submit has not been met, either by the Mercury, or its friend, and it shall not be evaded or avoided, by the use of personalities. If the chai'med circle of the Mercury's exclusive readers cannot be reached, a portion, at least of the citizens of South Carolina shall be furnished with facts, which are facts. WIDE AWAKE. [From the Charleston Courier of Septembei" 14th.] THE TYRANNY OF THE PRESS. Of "the late election in Charleston" enough has been said. Nor do ■we propose to enter into the particular acts of injustice complained of by the several correspondents, "Kansas," " Wide iVwake," and " Charles- ton," who, claiming to speak for the community, and specially for the States Rights Democracy of Charleston, have sufficiently protested against the representations of the Mercury, as to the issue said to have been involved, and repudiated the triumph of Mr. Whaley as in any way a triumph of 'p^'inciple over his opponent. The only facts we are concerned with are these : 27 1. An editorial statement put forth in the Mercury on the subject of the election, on the 26th August. 2. A temperate commtcnication disputing ihe Mercury's positions, and denying any public issue as having been involved, but assailinri no one — admitted into the Mercury, August 27, but as is now said, "Sy a liber- ality unusual and not readily to he rei:)eated.r 3. A temperate communication, s\olitical journal, to be particularly scrupulous in its rep- resentations of political issues and party relations. We will begin by finding the Mercury's condemnation in its own words. About a year ago, the Mei'cury, as stated below, '■'felt them- selves hound'''' to publish certain articles, for the following reasons, given in the e>'iv<^t^i and not a public organ. ERSklNE. [From the Charleston Courier of September 15th.] To the Editors of the Charleston Courier : The article in the Courier, signed " Erskine," as well as those from many other writers, waging war upon the Mercury for its editorial as to the result of the late election in Charleston, have been read with no little regret by a large portion of the community ; and they, and every repetition of them, must be continued to be regretted as the cause of unnecessary turmoil continued by malcontents, who will never be satisfied, but continue to growl on until they and their enmities are left by the community in a far more decided min<>rity. Justice requires that injustice and injury may not be done abroad to those who do not deserve it — that the facts of this case should be plainly and trutlifully reviewed, and all will then know whether the Mercury had a right to claim the election of Mr. Whaley as a triumph or not. This community knows full well that there is a set of individuals here who are hostile to the Mercury, politically and every other way. I do not know whether they amount to a party or not, but acting together they have hitherto enjoyed all conquering suc- cess as far as elections are concerned. Without charging Mr. Barker as belonging to any clique or combi- nation whatsoever, we believe — and we further believe that "Erskine" is advised of the fact — that Mr. Barker was at the time of the election, and is now, opposed to the Mercury and its friends politically and other- wise, and that a majority at least of his sup])orters entertained like sen- timents; for instance, "Charleston," "Kansas," and I would have added "Wide Awake," was he not so sensitive ujion the point, and expresses so warm a desire not to be read out of the party for indulging in per- sonal preference. These remarks will enable me to state the case and show where jus- tice lies. Mr. Whaley was first invited to run for the Legislature by those who were in close affinity with the Mercury, in fact its friends, and in that respect, altliough supported by many who were opposed to the Mercury, and objected to by some of his own personal friends on ac- count of the Mercury, he was regarded by the Mercury as its choice, and in that light received its support. Mr. Barker was afterwards invited to oppose Mr. Whaley, and accepted, stating, and I use his own language, "I beg leave to say that I consented to become a candidate for the Leg- islature at the solicitation of many, persons, who, like myself, do not ap- prove of Mr. Whaley's political antecedents and connections." The 29 cause of opposition is here avowed to be political, and is divided into two heads, antecedents and connections. As to the antecedents, I do not think they could have weighed much in the scale of the decided dis- approhation of Mr. Barker and his friends, f )r such sins as constituted Mr. Whaley's antecedents had been forgiven all over the South, and some of the most distinguished leaders of the States Rights Democracy of to-day were old line Whigs in 1852. It was the second head under which his gi'eat sin was to be found, political connections — one of which was the Mercury and its support. That was the great cause of disap- probation, and the prime cause of the opposition to Mr. Whaley. Un- der such circumstances the election was held, and the result is known. With these facts, and they are facts, is it surprising that the Mercury should have rejoiced in a triumph over its enemies. Every one must say it had a right to rejoice, and it did rejoice. And did it rejoice in an unfair way, by putting its opponent in a false position ? No one says so, for in the very editorial itself, the Mercury says in either event the States Rights Democracy would not have suf- fered. So I presume it would be as unjust a case to condemn the Mer- cury for rejoicing over the success of their candidate in the election, having done injustice to no one, as it would be to read "Wide Awake" out of the States Rights Paity for having voted against Mr. Whaley, and indulged himself in a preference for another. MARION. [From the Charleston Courier, September 16.] THE MERCURY AND MARION. Messrs. Editors : — The writer signing himself "Marion " expresses himself in a ti ne of moderation, atid presents the case of the Mercury in a manner which, to himself, from his stand-point, I have little doubt appears fair and candid. He is entitled to a respectful re]»ly. I shall not stop to enquire whether it is true that there is " a set of individuals " in the city " who are hostile to the Mercury, politically, and in every other way." I take the ground that, unless this hostility, supposing it to exist, involves a departure from the acknowledged and recognized doctrines of the States Rights Democrats, or a refusal to act with that party, moving as such, the Mercury has no right, as a public political journal, "to read these individuals out of the States Rights Democratic party," on account of such hostility. The gravamen of my charge is, that while the Mercury has the largest charity for political offences in its friends, it does not hesitate to hold up to the State at large, as opjyonents of the States Mif/hts Demo- rratic partij, individuals, because of their supposed '■'■hostilittj'''' to the MERCURY, however orthodox otherwise. The complaint is not that the Mercury rejoiced in the triumph over its "enemies," but that it undertook to claim all, who voted for its nom- inee, as States Riyhts Democrats, and to misrepresent a large portion of 30 those voting on the other side as in opposition., not to the Mercury., but to the States Rights Democratic party. In other words, it presents, practically, as a test of political ortho- doxy, voting with the Mercury in local elections. " Marion's " communication, when examined, appears to me virtually to admit the charge. But who constitute the "set of individuals" referred to by "Marion?" and where and how did this "hostility" originate? what "elections" are those referred to ? When the "rally and re-organization of the Southern Rights party" took place in August, 1855, were these individuals then hostile to the Mercury? Or is it not true that these individuals took position then, on the platform approved and in part framed by the Mercury itself? Was the election of Mr. Miles to the Mayoralty one of the " all- conquering successes" referred to by "Marion ?" Does this friend of the Mercury consider the defeat of the Know Nothings., in 1855, as a move- ment of that "hostile set of individuals?" The Mercury, as a Press., I had supposed, itself favored the election of Mr. Miles, and was, at that time., opposed to Mr. Richardson as the exponent of the Know Nothing doctrines. Not so, however, with all its present friends. The next election was that in 0(;tober, 1856. The "all conquering success," at that time, must allude to the election of Mr. Miles to Con- gress., and Mr. Porter to the Senate. Had Mr. Miles changed his poli- tics since 1855, when he was the selected exponent of "the Southern Rights party?" Mr. Porter, the incumbent of two terms standing, was a candidate for re-election to the State Senate. He had presided at the meeting of the Southern Rights party in 1855, and had been the very efficient Chairman of the Executive Committee of that party. Does not "Marion" know that this, chiefly., caused the opposition to him? — If the Mercury supported Mr. Whaley in opposition to Mr. Porter, could it have been on the ground of political ditlerence ? I am not arraigning the conductors of the Mercury for allowing pri- vate feelings to influence them in voting, but I protest against the at- tempt of a Public Journal to classify men politically, according to predilections or hostilities purely personal. Who had a better right to proclaim the principles actually involved in the election than Mr. Whaley himself? These were his words pub- lished in the Mercury a few days before the election : "The Legislative election is not intended to be, nor can it be, con- verted into a test of municipal party strength, nor is there any imme- diate issue involved in the contest, save a 2^6rsonal opposition to myself." If the community have been " troubled by unnecessary turmoil," on this, as on every other similar occasion, it will be found that the Mer- cury threw the first stone. WIDE AWAKE. 31 [From the Charleston Courier, September 16.] THE TYRANNY OF THE PRESS NO. II. " To Corresjjondents. — The free discussion of the qualifications and principles of men, brought forward for high political office, in times of difficulty and danger, like the present, has alwa)'s been held by this journal as a part of its duty to the people, whom it seeks to represent. This duty may be sometimes painful, but so long as ive hold ourselves bound to afford the liberty of reasonable response to every correspondent, who calls in question the claims and qualifications of a candidate for office, we do not feel tliat we are invading any riglit, or deviating from the projjer character of apolitical journal.'" — The Charleston Mercury, Sept. 24, 1856. LIBERTY OF THE PRESS. " We believe that it is universally conceded that no man has a right to have anonymous assaults upon a Press printed in its columns, and that a Press has a right to refuse to publish in its columns any such assaults. The reasons are most obvious. To be assailed is by no means agreeable, and no one can, with propriety, demand of an assailed party to help him in assailing him ; but to demand of him to pay for the assault upon liimself — to furnish the proper type, risk and labor, where- by he is assailed, and then to circulate it afterwards, is really a most extraordinary assumption. If an anonymous disputant has such a right, and happens to be long-winded or malicious, he might bankrupt a press in six months. For these simple reasons no paper can be bound to print anything (much less anonymous communications) questioning or assailing any positions it may think proper to assume in its columns. Other papers may, if they think proper, lend their columns to anony- mous assailants of a cotemporary Press. With a liberality by no means usual, (but which shall not easily be repeated,) we admitted into our columns the anonymous communication signed " Charleston," question- ing and disputing positions assumed by us in our columns. We, in justice to those assailed, as well as ourselves, admitted a reply, and then declined publishing anything more in our columns against ourselves. For this most extraordinary liberality to those who differ from us, we are denounced as violators of the liberty of the Press!" — The Charleston Mercury, Sept. 2, 185Y. We freely admit that this is no question of invading "The Liberty of the Press," nor has " Erskine" ever discussed the issue with the Mercury in any such light. In this country, the Legislature is the sole quarter from which such invasions can proceed. A Press cannot, in the proper acceptation of the term, be said to invade " The Liberty of the Press," except so far as it may, by a course of Tyranny or Licentiousness, pro- voke the enactment of restrictive laws. The Law of Libel, in checking such licentiousness and public opinion in frowning down tyranny, are the recognized appeals in such cases. Neither can an individual be 32 said to invade " The Liberty of the Press," whetlier he takes tlie law into his own hands, or resorts to legal process of indictment against the publishers of, what he may conceive to be, a libel. There is a popular expression, often confounded with that "Liberty of the Press," which Milton defended, which by a misuse of words has grown into constant use in modern times. We mean " Freedom of the Press^'' as used synonymously with '•'■freedom of discussion^ This right of free discussion, loe contend, is a right of the citizen, recognized by the unwritten common law of Public Journals in this country. Its sanction is in Public Opinion. To this tribunal we appeal in our issue with the Mercury. A few words more as to the facts of this case. The frequent repeti- tion of the word '■'■ assailed'''' in the last editorial of the Mercury quoted above, is calculated to mislead. We have read the rejected (communi- cation signed " Kansas," and know it to be courtoeus, temperate and dignified. The same of " Charleston," which every one has read, or may read, and judge for themselves. Both pieces written in self-defence and self-vindication — assa'iUng no one. Both pieces accompanied by the names of the authors, and the one signed "Charleston" with a note requesting the Bill. So much for the facts and the Mercury's '■'■unus- ual'''' and not-to be repeated liberality. From these facts, which are on record, from the Mercury's course of late years, and from the tone of its late editorial, — a tone, reconcilable only with the character of a private press, — we have drawn the necessary inference, that such is its present character. That conclusion once adopted, we, at once, acknowledge ourselves bound to yield our right to comment upon the Mercury's course as n j^ublic jomna\. We can no longer, as we proposed to do, regard that press "as bound, by its dutt/ as a ^jwft^ic journal, to the community it seeks to represent, to promote, within proper limits, the free discussion of matters of pub- lic interest." We are no longer at liberty to arraign it before the com- munity for having invaded the rifht of free discussion — for having de- nied the ordinary "facilities for private vindication;" and for having closed its columns to those who felt themselves misrepresented by its published statements. While we do not regard the course lately pursued by the Mercury as one whit less unprecedented and reprehensible in point of tyranny and injustice, considered even as a private press ; yet, if the Mercury chooses deliberately to assume that character, and, as such, to practice tyranny, injustice and wrong, it is for those who are wronged to defend them- selves as well as they can. We thank God that tliere is a public opin- ion beyond the control of the Mercury's influence, and that there are independent journals in this State who deem it no breach of press eti- quette to open their columns to " anonymous correspondents," who resort to them for free distaission, as well as for private vindication. It is only while a press claims, and is allowed, to hold the position of a public press, and to represent the sentiments of the community in which it is established and by which it is supported — it is only while it is supposed to owe "duties to the people it seeks to represent" — while it is understood as admitting the implied contract between the ptiblic 33 and every public press in this cjountry, by virtue of which, in return for its promoting "/"ree discussion'' within decent Hmits, and being a faith- ful and impartial chronicler of events, the public accords full faith and credit to its representations — it is only under these circumstances, and where such a journal has secured a certain prestige, that it carries much weio-ht, or that very great injury can result from its representations. Its character as a private journal, for the dissemination of the views of one or more individuals, being once recognised, and all danger ceases. In this regard, we have felt it due to the people of Charleston to pro- claim to the" world the facts and inferences which sustain our conclusion, that the Mercury, in its present aspect, is a 'private, and not a public organ. ERSKINE. [Editorial of the Charleston Mercury, September 17.] THE MERCURY AND ITS AbSAILANTS. Our readers, doubtless, may be somewhat surprised at the silence of the Mercury under the partizan assaults which have appeared against it, first in its own columns, and afterwards in the columns of the Charles- ton Courier and Standard. We had our motives for waiting our time, which we dare say our readers will understand by the time they finish reading this article. We propose now briefly to review our position and the positions of our assailants To understand the political state of things in Charleston, we will have to take a few steps backward in the course of time. There are but two parties, according to our apprehension, in South Carolina — the National Democrats and the States Rights Democrats. National Democrac^y sprung up in South Carolina when it was proposed that the State should send delegates to the Cincinnati Convention. Heretofore South Carolina had declined sending delegates to any such Conventions. Accoi'ding to the Constitution, each State by itself, through its Electors, is to cast its vote independently for President and Vice-President of the United States. It is a high act of State Rights and of State Sovereignty. The States Rights party of South Carolina has long maintained that the Constitution, in this particular, should be observed, not only because it is the requisition of the Constitution, and a high act of State Sovereignty, but because the requisition is peculiarly favorable to the smaller States. When the Constitution was being made, a fierce struggle arose in the Convention framing it, between the larger and the smaller States, as to the manner in which the Execu- tive of the United States should be elected. The larger States contended that numbers should control the election ; the smaller States, that State Sovereignty should prevail — each State, as a sovereign State, casting one vote. Under the old Confederation, the States had voted in all matters as equals. The subject was compromised. It was agreed o 34 that, as the two methods of election were incompatible witli each otlier, the larger States should, throuo-h the Electoral Colleges, constituted on the basis of Representation in Congress, have the first chance of making the President and Vice-President of the United States. But if they tailed in electing a President and Vice-President, by the Electoral Col- leges, then the States should vote for these officers as equals, as sover- eigns, in the House of Representatives, each State casting one vote. To defeat this compromise, and to prevent the smaller States from ever having an equal power with the larger States in the election of the President of the United States in Congress, and to secure to the larger States the power of making the President through the Electoral Col- leges, National Conventions were gotten up. They were the invention of Martin Van Buren, under the auspices of Gen. Jackson. In these Conventions, emanating rightfully from the people in no way, neither by the ballot-box nor by appointments through the State Legislatures, self-constituted, irresponsible, the President and Vice-President of the United States is practically made. The Electoral Colleges in the sev- eral States are mere registering offices, wherein are recorded the previ- ous acts of the National Convention. If these views are correct, it is clear, that to be a States Rights Demo- crat, and yet a Conventionist, or National Deinocrat, is an impossibility. By supporting National Conventions to make the Executive of the United States, a Conventionist opposes and sacrifices States Rights ; he sets aside the Constitution ; he (.lefeats the action of the States as sov- ereigns and equals in the election of the President of the United States. He is a consolidationist — not by perverting one or more clauses of the Constitution, but by disregarding the whole Constitution ; not by the old way of a latitudinous construction, but by a direct violation of its provisions; not by the regular forms of the Constitution in legislation, but by an extrinsic, an unauthorized, and irresponsible action, unknown to the Constitution, and gotten up expressly to defeat its legitimate operations. He is a consolidationist, to concentrate and make available and predominant the power of the larger States, and to put aside and render inapplicable the power and rights of the smaller States in the confederacy. Nothing but a misapprehension of the meaning of terms will induce a man to suppose that he could be a States Rights Democrat, and yet support a policy which so flagrantly outrages the rights of the States and the Constitution. On this point, he is a New York Martin Van Buren National Democrat ; a consolidationist, with whom the rights of the Constitution are sacrificed to secure party success and a party ascendency. South Carolina being a small State — professing fealty to the Consti- tution, valuing States Rights and State Sovereignty — has refused hereto- fore to lend her aid to this unconstitutional device. Her great states- man, Mr. Calhoun, aided her in these counsels, and guided her policy ; and it was only after he was no more with us, that, previous to the last Presidential election, it was attempted to enforce this polit^y on South Carolina. It was proclaimed that she must be nationalized — that she must bp a follower of the National Democratic party ; and, accordingly, a party arose in the State — National office holders and office seekers 35 being- prominent in the organization — who, from some portions of it, sent Delegates first to Columbia, and then to the Cincinnati Convention. They assumed the livery of the National Democratic party. The divi- sion, thus forced upon the people of South Carolina, was not inoperative in the city of Charleston. It entered into the formation of parties, and the elections of last fall, and in tlie late election. At a meeting of the States Rights Democratic party, Mr. Whaley fully satisfied them of his position. At a meeting of the friends of Mr. Barker, nothing was said as to general principles, but from his answer to the questions put to him concerning the Georgia and Mississippi Resolutions, the inference was deduced that he would vote for a National Democrat for the Senate of the United States, whilst it was not doubted that Mr. Whaley would vote for a States Rights Democrat. On the 21st August, a correspondent in the Evening News says : "We have indeed heard it asserted that Mr. Barker is the candidate of the Broad-street Clique, and from the interest manifested in his elec- tion by these individuals, we are inclined to believe in the truth of the report. Is Mr. Barker a National Democrat? If so, is he unwilling to disclose the fact, and lose his claims to support on his allegiance to that party ? Will Mr. Barker state what his own political antecedents and present political connections are? Mr. Barker's attention is respect- fully invited to these matters." To this respectful call no answer was made by Mr. Barker, On the 24th of August, a correspondent in the Charleston Mercury, signed " State Rights," dissatisfied with Mr. Barker's answer to the questions put to him as to the Georgia and Mississippi Resolutions, expressed himself as follows : " Mr. Barker is ingenious in dealing with generalities, and his answer is good as far as it goes. But we think he should be a little more ex- plicit. There is a national faction in this State, whose object it is to bind South Carolina to the great Democratic party of the Union — that party which holds Conventions for the purpose of making Presidents, and builds Platforms to be occupied only as long as it is expedient. We wish to know, and vve ask it with respect, for we have no other feelin