Mi h"' «^i''u.' t ^ ¦ .-if; i; fi> ' ,, •, w(.i, ft.' #/<,.'' '.I • t , - tt". '^ [ fv ' ''\ w (¦ wiw *'.*.*K 'aKr V. -4,'- ^ .1 >, t' THE MERCURY'S COURSE, •_ 'f '.• .. AND >" . THE liiaUT ' V ,f OF FREE DISCUSSION. CHARLESTON: STEAM POWER PRESS OF WALKER, EVANS AND CO. No, 3 Bboad Street. 1857. 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, "tvith 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 both sides, and thus give an opportunity for a fair judgrnent — the result of which I am quite willing to abide. I. W, HAYNE. [From the Charleston Mercury, 'Wednesday, August 27.] ELECTION FOR EEPRESENTATIVE, 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 IN'o, 1 1'72 148 Ward No, 2 182 156 Ward No, 3 274 250 Ward No, 4 368 233 Upper Poll 405 161 Lower Poll 298 126 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 Iheir 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 character, 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- didate for the United States Senate who, he shall think, 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 principles 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 were 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 ^ 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,- 1 an swer — That I regard Gov, Walker's course 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 Cincinnati 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 afiinity with Gov, Walker, They ejected 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 strongholds were supposed to be Greenville District, under the con trol of Major Perry, and Charieston, under the control of— we now, since the election, won't say who. Now this election seems to prove that there js 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 Southeru Rights Democracy, and he had fought with them for what he conceived to be great moral and political principles ; and he had no intention now, 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 28.] 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 Charieston, which was less 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 intelligence of the community in Charles ton has been exercised on suoh hair-splitting distinctions as these. We believe that the people of Charleston admire 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 desire." 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 effectual 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 by Judge Magrath. What the political 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 sufiiciently narrow, proscriptive 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 proclaii)ied 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 Proous- tean bed upon which men are to be placed, and the rack applied if they are too short, and limbs lopped off if too long, but when a man is found to fit — who, in his own fair proportions, 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 JVIercury 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 personal 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 advaintage 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, when he wrote his letter to Judge Magrath, enroll ing himself as a "National Democrat" and lauding the" Cincinnati Convention ?" Were these the antecedents makinghira 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 tinie was "all " that could be desired ? Does it not resolve itself into thi.s, that anybody — Whig, Union-man, Compromise-man, Cincinnati Convention-tjian, National Democrat, whether he is any one or all of these, — becomes the candidate of the "States Rights Democratic party," provided the Mercury aftd 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 congratidation throughout the State. Will independent men, free men, Democrats, South Carolinians, sub mit to be thus Press-ridden ? It is time that real States Rights men — ruot 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 speaks of thej-esult 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 jyieri.mry 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 oast 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 Mercury know that the fact is otherwise ? Tbe fifth resolution adopted at that meeting reads as follows : " That in the opinion of this meeting the existence and progress 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 Rights party everywhere, and render a re-organization of that party in South Carolina a matter of imperative duty 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 then con.stituted 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 suffrages 10 for Mr. Whaley (a very pleasant and estimable gentleman) purely on oersonal grounds ? , ,, , Is it not a fact " notorious," that matTy voters were, as they believed, ¦ommitted to Mr, Whaley before Mr, Barker was presented as a candi date, 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 friends, and no distinct party issue presented. But notwithstanding this, I am of opinion that Mr, Barker, who'had done^-ood service in 1855, got a decided majority of those who, with the assistance of the Mercury, re-organized " the Southern Sights party" at the meeting referred to in August of that year. Why should the Mercury arrogate all the credit of the late triumph to itself? Does the Mercury suppose that the magnificent vote in the Upper Wards was effected by its lucubrations on Kansas and the Cin cinnati Conventi6n ? Will it give no share of the credit to its Know Nothing allies ? But Mr, Whaley himself— will the Mercury concede nothing to his good-humored 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 election proves nothing but the old lesson, that combination and energy can always carry a community whei) it is caught napping ? For one I am now WIDE AWAKE, [From the Mercury's Editorial, August 29.] The communication of "A States Rights Democrat" is, we presume, a sufficient answer to the comiViunication 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 communication is inadmissible, [Communication.]' THE election', Messrs. Editors : — Last fall the National Democrats put forth Mr. Porter as their candidate for the Senate. The States Rights Democrats supported Mr. Whaley. Mr. Whaley was beaten by a small majority. A vacancy occurs in lAie Charleston delegation to our State Legislature, by the death of Col. Blum. Mr. Whaley is again brought forward by th6 party 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 la,st fall claimed as a party triumph of National Democrats ? When now, Mr, Whaley 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 by two parties, 1, That some of the National Democrats voted for Mr, Whaley; and, 2, That Mr, Whaley, from the letter published against 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 States Rights Democrats voted for Mr, Barker, But such. votes on neither side would affect 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 ofthe 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 public sup posed ; — but we submit to all candid minds, such exceptions from party voting by no means affect 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 theiV 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 clearly 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 ydu 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, wroilg. The election was not mean- 12 ingless, and did "express the feelings of the people of Charieston 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 the Charleston Standard, Sept. 1. — Rejected by 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 perhaps dare not ? Or does it embrace the citizen who differs- from the Press, and desires to be heard? The public 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 I^ress," 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 plaxje 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 incuralDent 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 sufficient cause for dividing our people. While Mr. Porter was thus a candidate for re-election to the Senate, , Mr. Whaley was presented — I will not 'say " put forth," or by whom — as a candidate for Congress. Mr. Whaley — though in 1850 and '51 a 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 candidaterunning«pecia^iy asa "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, J udge 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 influence, induced Judge Magrath to withdraw from the canvass. The Hon. Wm. P. Miles, then and now Mayor of the city, was nominated 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 andthe same party who had made him Mayor in 1855? Does the >Mercury ignore the meeting held in Hibernian Hall in August, 1855 1 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 1856 — 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 bis 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. Wljaley 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 gether, and Gen, Gadsden and Mr, Whaley ?- Yet the Mercury says that "the National Democrats put forth Mr, Porter," and "the States Rights Democrats supported Mr, Whaley !" The men whom the Mercury joined in denouncing as " opposed, the oretically and practically, to the principles which have hitherto charac terized ^outh 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 I, 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 1866, 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 And push us 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 Hve,- and to be denied the plain right of explanation and self-defence. If I stood alone, what 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 fhe recent election, Mr, Whaley is a gentleman whom I respect personally, and I absolve him from all participation in the misffepresentation " 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 public good is concerned; but, like Hotspur, to "a well deserving /nenc? " its charity and generosity knows no bounds, I remember an old lady, once well known among the religious community in this city, whose views on theology were those of the extremest Calvinistic school. According to her public avowal of doctrine — "narrow," indeed, "was the way," and "few," very few there were who walked therein, ]3ut so kind was the 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 the " 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 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 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 the 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 right, 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 tliinkr 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 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 de nounced as violators of the liberty of the press. »> [From the Charleston Standard, September — .] THE MERCURY AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. '¦'¦ No paper^'' says the Mercury, of 2d Sept,, " can be bound to print ajiything questioning any positions it may think proper to assume in its columns." 16 I had some knowledge ofthe practice of this press, but the announce ment of a proposition so unqualified as the above, even from'the Mercury, fills me with surprise, claimed that she must be nationalized — that she must be a follower of the National Democratic party ; and, accordingly, a party arose in the State — Natianai ofiffce holders and office seeker* 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 the 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 Evetiing News says : " We have indeeid 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 whi,ch 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 we ask it with respect, for we have no other feelings towards Mr. Barker, whether he is of that party, and whether he would regard Mr. Orr, or Mr. Pickens, or, probably, Mr. Perry, such a man as comes within the category of those he would support for Senator." Here, in these communications in the public press, pending the elec tion, it is distinctly charged that Mr. Barker is the candidate of the Broad-street Clique; He sees, also, without denial, the construction put upon his answer as to a United States Senator. Mr. Barker himself, it is to be presumed, understood whether there was any party contest in his election ; and he openly stated that it was a party contest, in which the Charleston Mercury and Mr. Whaley was of one party ; and he, with the rest of the community, was of another. What the principles of the Mercury are, we presume there can be no doubt. It is of the States Rights Democratic Party — and there was but one other party opposed to this — the National Democratic Party. His letter, refgj-'ring to his acceptance of his nomination, is but a repetition of the same thing. He says : " I beg leave to say, that I 36 consented to become a candidate for the Legislature, at the solicitation of many persons, who, like myself, did not approve of Mr. Whaley's political antecedents and connections." What was the antecedent most galling to him and his friends? The one, surely, that they thought proper to expose, and relied on in the canvass to defeat him. What was that? Why, that he had been of the National Democratic party. And what were his objectionable ^oZi&a^ connections? He had but one — that with the' States Rights Democratic Party. Nor out of the city of Charleston does there appear to have been, in the State, much misunderstanding as to the meaning of this election. The South Carolinian, a National Democratic organ, published the dif ferent answers ofthe candidates as to the Georgia and Mississippi reso lutions, whilst the Pickens Courier, of August 29, takes the following notice of the elections : " An election for a member to the Legislature from Charleston, to fill a vacancy, is creating considerable excitement. William Whaley, Esq.", is the candidate ofthe ultra party, and Mr. T. G. Barker represents the Democracy of the city. Mr. Barker will, most probably, be successful." Now, under all these circumstances, we beg leave to submit to our readers, had we not good reasons for expressing the opinion, that this election was significant^ as to the feelings and opinions of the people of Charleston with respect to parties in the State and the policy of the Gen eral Government? » The first assailant ofthe Mercury was a writer under the signature of " Charleston," who subsequently asserts that his communication was not anonymous, because he sent his name in a note to the editor, with the offer of payment for its insertion. We might suppose, therefore, that he desires the disclosure of his name. We reserve that. We inserted his communication without pay, and without the least comment from us. We let it go for what it was worth, in silence. He affirms that his communication was "decorous in language, and temperate in tone." We think that it was neither. He says in the communication- — " the Mer cury pretends that Mr. Barker's defeat was owing," ^c. Is this language "decorous" and "temperate in tone?" If a man is stating facts, and "pretends" only — ^what is the inference ? If we were to say of him, that in his statements against us he pretends to speak the truth — would he deem such language to be " decorous" and " temperate ?" We think not. We, at least, would never have used such language towards him. Yet, we admitted his communication with the offensive and discourteous inaendo it contained, without, we trust, forfeiting our position to be a "respectable Journal !" But let us turn to the reasons assigned by " Charleston" to prove our errors, 1, "Charleston" asserts that Mr. Whaley was a National Democrat, and, therefore, that no issue would have been made by the States Rights party in supporting him. This position was also taken by the " Stan dard," Now, is it not strange that this assertion should be made, when they published Mr, Whaley's letter to Judge Magrath, to prove Mr, Whaley's inconsistency, and to injure him with the States Rights 37 party, by showing that he had been a National Democrat? Mr. Whaley never denied that he had been a National Democrat, but like thousands of others, who, within the last few months, have changed, he had learneil that National Democracy may mean the betrayal of the South to party. In a speech he delivered to the States Rights party before the election, he made them as satisfied with his policy as all men in our city have always been satisfied with his integrity. 2. It is argued by " Charleston," that Mr, Barker was a State Rights Democrat in principle, and, therefore, that no issue could be made by his being opposed by the State Rights Democratic party, and supported by National Democrats, It is not very unusual for a party who may not feel very strong, to support a man of general principles opposite to their own, to gain a par ticular end. Thus John Tyler, a Nullifier, was supported and elected by the Wliigs in 1840 to the Vice-Presidency of the United States, The Tariff protection party have often joined with a portion of the Demo cratic party in the Northern Legislatures, and sent a Tariff Dem ocrat to Congress, The object in this case might have been to secure a vote for a National Democrat in the Senate ofthe United States, But if no such, objects existed, his "political connections" were with Na tional Democrats, and that was enough for the opposition of the Slates Rights Democratic party, 3. "Charleston" affirms that the answer of Mr, Barker to the ques tions as to the Georgia and Mississippi resolutions, was, in substance, the same as Mr. Whaley's. We think that it was not. The Georgia resolutions called on the President of the United States to remove Gov, Walker from office, Mr, Barker's answer evaded this point, and it gave no assurance that he would carry out the policy of the resolutions in this particular, in the election of a Senator of the 'United States, who would have to confirm or reject Walker's appointment in the Senate, We turn, now, to " Wide Awake," the coadjutor of " Charleston," 1, He asserts "that the Mercury undertakes to make and unmake States Rights Democrats at its own behest," We might drop the assertion with a simple denial, but we can guess to what he refers. We never asserted that no States Rights Democrat voted for Mr, Barker, On the contrary, we know of some staunch and true men who voted for Mr, Barker on account of Mr, Whaley's letter to Judge Magrath, showing that he had so lately been with the National Democratic party. Others voted for him from respect to his father, who, in 1848, was the candidate of the States Rights Democratic party for Congress, and was opposed and defeated by many of the men who now uphold the son. All that we asserted was this : that the bulk of the States Rights party voted for Mr, Whaley. We undertook to give position to no one. \, 2. " The gravemen of my charge is, that the Mercury does not hesi tate to hokfup to' the State at large, as opponents ofthe States Rights Democratic party, individuals, because of their supposed hostility to the Mercury, however orthodox otherwise." We answer simply by saying that we are not aware of having done anything or said anything to justify this charge. •38 3. "The c.omplainant is,' that the Mercury undertook to claim all who voted for its nominee, as States Rights Democrats ; and, to misrep resent a large portion of those voting on the other side as in opposition, not to the Mercury, but to the States Rights Democratic party." We have claimed, not that all who voted for Mr. Whaley were States Rights Dernocrats, but that the great body of his supporters were of this party. We neither represented nor misrepresented " a large portion of those voting on the other side," but we hav^e said that the great body of them, were of the National Democratic party. We believe still this to be true. 4. He asserts " that Mr. Whaley was not the candidate ofthe States Rights party. When was he nominated? how did he become their candidate ?" Mr. Whaley was nominated by members of the States Rights party in the public press of the city. At large public meetings of his friends he avowed fully and distinctly the principles ofthe States Rights Demo cratic party, and was supported in the election by the great body of the party, while he was opposed by the great body of those known as the National Democrats. 5. " If Mr. Barker's position is all that the States Rights Democracy can desire, in what had Mr. Whaley the advantage previously, so as to make him so notoriously the candidate of the States Rights Democratic party?" Mr. Barker, so far as his general principles were concerned, was unex ceptionable to the States Rights party. But he opposed Mr. Whaley on account of his "political connections" The State Rights party did the same to him for the same reason, and besides, they were satisfied that if elected to the legislature, he would not vote for a Senator who would carry out their pohcy in the Senate ofthe United States. 6. " Does the Mercury mean to imply that the 1,699 votes cast for Mr. Whaley, were States Rights votes, and the 1,073 cast for Mr. Bar ker, were the votes of men opposed to the doctrines and principles of ¦the Southern Rights Democracy, as expressed in the Resolutions (sanc tioned by the Mercury,) passed at the meeting ofthe party in 1855 ?" We answer, that we mean to imply, that of the 1,699 votes cast for Whaley the great body of them are now States Rights Democrats. But we have never, by the remotest implication, asserted "thatthe 1,073 votes 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 ofthe party in 1855." We approved, and now approve, of those resolutions. They were directed against the Know Nothings, who are now, as a party, obsolete. So far' from charging that a majority of those who voted for Mr. Barker were opposed to the resolutions of 1856, we think that a majority of them, most probably, voted for him. 7. " Does not the Mercury know that very many voters refused to consider party politics as involved in the election, and gave their suffrages for Mr. Whaley (a very pleasant and amiable gentleman) purely on personal grounds. We admit all here asserted, but it does not alter the general char acter of the election. 39 8, It is further charged that the Mercury supported tlie Southern Rights organization against the Know Nothings some two years ago, and there fore it is now inconsistent for it to have the Know Nothings with the States Rights Party, The Know Nothing party is dead as a party.in Charleston. The great majority of its members in Charieston were as staunch Southern Rights and States Rights men, as any' in our midst. We now welcome them back to the States Rights Democratic Party, as we have done Mr, Wha ley from the National Democratic Party, and, as we trust, we shall do thousands in the State, who will see how vain it is to rely on any National Party in the Union to protect and enforce the rights of the South. 9. But the great point made by "Wide Awake" is, that the Mer cury has violated the freedom of the Press, in arresting discussion against its own positions in its own columns. The Mercury admitted "Charleston," and a reply to "Charleston" by a "States Rights Demo crat," but rejected " Kansas," and claims the right of excluding from its own columns anonymous assailants of its positions. We are really at a loss how to argue a proposition so plain as the right of an Editor to exf^lude assaults' on his positions in his own col umns. He must have this right, or every one has a right to introduce anything they please into his columns. Such a pretension is as incon sistent with the existence of the Press, as it is with the responsibility of the Editor, But morals and questions seem to vary to suit the Mercury, Last fall it was contended that the Editors of the Merou-vy were the pro prietors, the sovereigns, the autocrats of their Press ; and that, there fore, they were responsible for everything contained in its columns, — Now it is contended that they have, rightfully, no control whatever over their paper. They violate the liberty of the Press, they are tyrants, if they venture to decline printing in their columns assaults upon their own positions. These inconsistent positions only manifest the animosi ties, not the justice, of its assailants. So much has already been said on this point that we forbear, at the present, further discussion in an ar ticle already, we fear, too long. It is the first, and we trust may be the last time, we shall tax the patience of our readers in our defence. — "Erskine" has proved, to his entire satisfaction, that the Mercury is a private, and not a public Press, and we congratulate him upon his dis covery. [From the Charleston Standard of September 22.] REJOINDER TO THE MBRCURy's REPLY. TMs persecuted print, after much, long suffering and forbearance, has turned upon " its assailants," in grave rebuke. Strange that such mon sters should be found 1 Men so hard of heart and of spirit, so aggres sive as to "assail" a Press at once so gentle and so just/ 40 " This Duncan Hath borne his faculties so meek; hath been So clear, in his great ofHoe. -» -X- -» » » Sf -» , * That tears should drown the wind." Why is the Mercury persecuted ? For myself, " I am in blood, ' Steptiin so far, that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er." But to be serious. I should make no rejoinder to the Merpwy's la bored defence, but for the new matter introduced. On the old points I could but repeat myself. My former numbers still remain unanswered. The Mercury, however, true to its usual policy in not "bothering" its readers by presenting " both sides," gives no inkling in its reply of the counter statement of facts made by "Wide Awake," and cites the bald propositions without any notice of the argument or inferences intended to sustain them. This article, of course, will share the same fate. On these points, then, I will say but a word or two, and dismiss* the subject. 1. Mr. Whaley himself, through the columns of the Mercury, de clared to the voters of Charleston that ther^ was "no immediate issue involved in the contest, save a personal opposition to himself," and as a voter of average intelligence, I myself declare that I was uninformed as to any suoh issue of principle j^resented. This is a question of fact, as to which I still insist that the Mercury was wrong. 2. The Mercury is again wrong in point of fact, when it speaks of Mr. Whaley's addressing the "States Rights party before the election." No such meeting was held before the election. The only meetings were those of the respective "friends" ofthe candidates. The call to the meeting referred to was such as to exclude every one not already satis fied .with Mr. Whaley, and to include all — Whigs, National Democrats, and Know Nothing.s, who meant to vote for him — as well as his friends of the States Rights party. As to the other point, affecting "free discussion" the Mercury is spe- • cially studious to prevent even the "bald propositions" of "Wide Awake" from reaching its readers. I have accused the Mercury of abusing its power, in excluding ar ticles MERELY on the ground that they questioned its positions — these ar ticles coming from political friends and supporters of the paper, whilst it (the Mercury) reiterated statements in regard to the States Rights party, disputed by these persons. This, in a public political journal, was an abuse ofthe "discretion" vested in an Editor — a discretion which, it is conceded, gives him the control of the columns of his own paper. In a paper of the prestige and established reputation of the Mercury, this abuse of power was a " tyranny," and the editors are re sponsible before the tribunal of public opinion. In what respect this position is inconsistent with an alleged personal responsibility of an Editor for an abuse of "discretion," still more mis chievous, perhaps, in allowing the publication of matter clearly libellous, I must confess myself unable to perceive. Both the rejection and ad mission, under these .respective circumstances are, in my opinion, in 41 violation of "the public responsibilities and duties" "binding" on Editors. r r 8 I propose, however, to notice the new matter introduced into the Mer cury's defence, and here, I find that, which, I confess, is the root of offence with me in the course of the Mercury. I am one of those simi)le mortals who think that those really in earn est, who have a great enterprise in view, should be anxious to enlist coadjutors enough to effect their purpose. When I see, therefore, those engaged inan enterprise difficult and perilous, whose position gives them power, habitually use that position to produce distraction and division rather than union and concert, I doubt their wisdom and capacity as leaders. When I see the usual spirit of intolerance and proscription yielding readily to personal predilections and interests, while it is aggra vated and intensified into recklessness by local and personal antagonism, I consider ,such offenders as incorrigible. The Mercury says that there are two parties in South Carolina — " the National Democrats and the States Rights Democrats." " National De mocracy sprun^up when it was proposed thatthe State should send del egates to the Cincinnati Convention," I think, on the contrary, and I appeal to my fellow citizens to sustain the truth of the assertion, that no such PARTIES, as such, exist in the city of Charleston. The Mercury, it is true, has labored hard to produce such a division in the Democratic ranks, but hitherto it has failed. The true history is this: a movement was made by several influential gentlemen, for the purpose of arranging to send delegates to Cincinnati. A meeting was held, but the popular heart did not respond. The people were apathetic and indifferent — the masses took no part. The individ uals concerned gained nothing by the movement ; but, just as certainly, they lost no'thing. The Mercury opened its batteries, and " far flashed its red artillery." But it all ended " in smoke." Again there was uo response. Nobody minded the Mercury's thunderings. The people — the great mass of quiet voters cared nothing at all about the Cincinnati Convention. The few who disapproved (outside of the Mercury's family circle) cared quite too little to make it the cause of discord and strife, distraction and division, where, as good patriots, they felt that there should be harmony, concert and union. They could tolerate difference of opinion, and never, for a moment, thought of discarding long tried and valued friends because of a single error. At the period of Judge Magrath's nomination, no impression whatever had been made on the public mind. His nomination for Congress was made without reference to this question. The Mercury, which but a short time before had in glowing language congratulated the country on Mr. Magrath's appointment as Judge, opened its columns to an attack upon him on very many grounds, personal and political — the least of which was his connection with this movement. Circumstances, brought about by this attack, induced the withdrawal of Judge Magrath. And a large portion of our citizens being satisfied with none of the remaining candidates, nominated the Hon. Wm. P. Miles — certainly without any reference whatever to this issue. Mr. Porter was at the same time a candidate for re-election to the 42 Senate. The opposition to him, surely, had no reference to the Cincin nati Convention, nor had the support which insured his success. If Mr. Whaley, his opponent, has ever repudiated his advocacy of the Cincin nati Convention, I am not aware of it. He certainly had not done so then. The only election since, is the recent one in which, if Mr. Whaley is to be allowed to define his own position, there was no such issue. When, then, 8id the people of Charleston become divided into these "two parties?" If there are two parties in Charieston, they are not such as the Mercury describes. If there are two parties, the one party consists, for the most part, of those persons known in 1865, as Know Nothings — the party which supported Mr. Richardson for the Mayoralty — with whom, as it seems, the Mercury and a cliqu6 of personal adherents, have chosen to ally themselves. TJie other is comprised, chiefiy, of the party known, in 1855, as the Southern Rights party — the party which elected Mr. Miles. If the Mercury chooses to style the party with which it has formed its recent alliance, leavened with the new infusion, "The States Rights Dem ocratic party," and to dub the other as " the National Democratic," it undertakes, as I have chai'ged, to make and unmake States Rights De mocrats at its pleasure ?" If this be not the true solution, there are no two parties in Chariestou, and every individual votes upon his own predilections, or under in fluences apart from party altogether. The Mercury says that " the Know Nothing party is dead in Charles ton." Yet the Mercury admits that Mr. Barker obtained a majority of those who formed " the Southern Rights party" of 1856. Whence came the large vote of Mr. Whaley ? Can it be otherwise than that .he ob tained the Know Nothing vote with a minority fragment of those who constituted the other party? If the Know Nothings or those who once were so, vote thus together, how can it be said that they are " dead as a party in Charleston ?" The inference is rather that they live, and that the Southern Rights party " is d ead in Charleston." Strange that the Mercury should so readily " whistle down the wind" its former friends and coadjutors, and take to its " heart of hearts" the contemned Know Nothongs of 1855 ! There must be something in that " Senatorial election" so often alluded to, more than meets the view. But let us inquire who are these so called "National Democrats," whose touch is contamination to the Southern Rights Pharisees. They stand, in Charleston at least, on the same platform with Quitman aud Davis, of Mississippi, Yancey and Clay, of Alabama, McDonald and his supporters, of Georgia, Hunter and Mason, and their friends in- Vir ginia. Nay, they come up to, if they do not rise higher, than the highest standard of Southern Rights erected by "ultraists" and "ex tremists," as these are known in any other State than South Carolina; Why should such men be denounced as unworthy of public confi dence? Differ with them, if you please — argue with them — but do not 43 denounce and use your utmost efforts to drive them still further from you! It cannot come to good. "Concert," says Mr. Calhoun in his dying speech, his legacy to his beloved South, "concert is the one thing needful." Is this the course to secure it ? But why are these men denounced, and Know Nothings applauded as being " as staunch Southern Rights and States Rights men as any in our midst?" If the Know Nothtngs have repented and repudiated tbe atrocious doctrines — denounced by none more strongly than the Mercury in 1855 — receive them again into the fold. This is right, provided you believe them sincere. But have they done so ? One of their leaders publicly renounced the principles of the Order, and in the election of last fall he was abandoned by those who but lately acknowledged him as a chief. Where is the evidence of recantation, of repentance and repudiation on the part of those whom the Mercury thus openly prefers to National Democrats ? Does the Mercury not know that, in the main, as they voted in 1865, they have voted in a body, in every election since ? And does the Mercury believe that there is any man who de sires their support in a body, as it has been hitherto given, who dares openly renounce the principles and doctrines which united that party in 1865 ? If the quondam Know Nothing still holds the principles of the Order, we have the Mercury's authority fisr it, that he " is opposed the oretically and practically to the principles which have hitherto charac terized South Carolina as a State, and the Southern Rights Party everywhere;" if he does not hold those principles, and remains silent, he avails himself, by a studied deception, of an organization originally formed upon those principles. Well might Mr. Barker object to any such " political connections." I have said my say, and herewith renounce my pen. WIDE AWAKE. The following correspondence was made public in the papers of the city, at the instance of Col, Rhett's friends, and with the assent of Col- Hayne, on the morning of September 25, Charleston, Sept. 23, 1867 — 6 o'clock, P. M. Sir : — You have lately thought fit, in divers articles published in the Courier and Standardpunder the signature of " Wide Awake," to attack the Mercury with no little bitterness. From your article in yesterday's Standard, I extract the following passage : "Strange that the Mercury should so readily whistle down the wind its former friends and coadjutors, and take to its heart of hearts the contemned Know Nothings of 1866 ! " There must be something in that Senatorial election, so often alluded to, more than meets the view." The name of my father, the Hon. R. B. Rhett, has b^en mentioned in connection with the vacancy in the Senate of the United States from South Carolina, and I suppose it is to this you allude. I understand you to charge that the course of the Mercury has been governed, not by the motives and principles avowed, but by a desire to promote Mr. Rhett's election to the Senate. Deeming such a charge an insulting aspersion, I beg leave to inquire whether you intend, directly or indirectly, to make it. My friend, H. M. Manigault, will hand you this, and receive your reply. Very respectfully yours, R. B. RHETT, Jr. Isaac W. Hayne, Esq. Charleston, September 24, 1857. Sir : — I received your note yesterday at 6 o'clock, P. M. You allude to divers articles published in the Courier and Standard, in which you say that I have attacked the Mercury with no little bitter ness. I am not conscious that I have at all exceeded the bounds" of le gitimate comment on the course of a public journal. And my position was announced in reply to an article signed " Inquisitor," in which I ex pressed myself as follows: " I will inform the Mercury, and its next friend, that the question raised is, in my opinion, one of public right, and so far as my action is concerned, I intend that it shall be settled by the reason and common 45 sentiment of freemen, and rmt by any personal issue between indi- •viduals." I have seen no reason to change my position, and now re-affirm it. , The passage extracted from the later article, I notice only because you speak, not in the general character of Editor, but as a son of the Hon. R. B. Rhett. My last article, like the preceding, was addressed to the course of the Mercury as a public journal \ and I cannot perceive that to charge a paper, as such, with political inconsistency, arising from a desire to pro mote a favorite candidate or candidates to high public office, is an " in sulting aspersion" upon any individual, nor was the expression cited in tended as such by me. Very respectfully, yours, I. W. HAYNE. To Col. R. B. Rhett, Jr. Charleston, Sept. 24, 1857. I Sir: — Your note of this morning, handed to my friend, Mr. Man igault, by Hon. Wm. Porcher Miles, is before me. With respect to the charge of inconsistency which you make against the Mercury as a journal, I am content that the State, with the evidence before it, shall decide upon the correctness or incorrectness of its posi tion — its consistency or inconsistency. Your reply that " (you) cannot perceive that to charge a paper, as such, with political inconsistency, arising from a desire to promote a fa vorite candidate or candidates to high public office, is ' an insulting as persion' upon any individual, nor was the expression cited intended as such by (you)," is satisfactory. Your obedient servant, R. E. RHETT, Jr. Col. Isaac W. Hayne. VALE 3 9002 08854 0100 I*'" U'i pS: km