,ors.peadsnc. Of the Columbian Fountain.

/ ALEXANDRIA, March l6, 1876.
{"newspaper_name": "The Columbian fountain.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 2403, "word_count": 411, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9663000106811523], "ccnet_perplexity": [913.2000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
III II


Mn. EDIron 4St. Patrick's Day" has passed oil
hero without notice. except from certain mischeVous
persons, who, as usual, endeavored TO tease our
friends Of the Emerald Isle" by placing before
there dwellings and stores certain figures dressed IN
every variety of garments, called "stu6ed padd'es
Little notice. however, taken of these petty IN
dignities, and those who were engaged IN getung
them up had the modification to find that nothing
but good humor was displayed on the part OF those
adopted citizens who had been favored with these
effeies.


Mn. ED1ron promised in my last to give you
short account of the debate on the Repeal sub
ect before the Mechanical Literary Association at
the Hydraulion Hall. This promise will now en-
deavor to perform. On the evening Of the nth in
stant the discussion was opened by James 8. Doug
every lover Of human freedom in favor of the op-
pressed countrymen Of Emmet. Luther d. Harri-
son followed in reply, and contended that, though
all might feel for and sympathise with, the oppress-
ed Of all nations, still we could not, consistently with
the principles of justice and international law inter-
fee in disputes of any character between foreign ma
tons, much less in those where the matter in dis
pute involved the domestic policy of another nation
only. Mr. Harrison was succeeded by Albert N.
Mills, who controverted the position assumed by the
negative, and argued ably and forcbly that, although
such interference on the part of our government
would be improper, the very spirit Of our institutions
led citizens in their individual capacity to aid the
oppressed Of every land under Heaven.


Daniel A. Veitch, the last poemic, in an exceed
ngfy able address, denied the force Of the arguments
produced by the affirmative, and contended most
ably and eloquenty, that we, as people, had no
right to interfere with the concerns Of other powers
where our government could not second our endea-
vors.


Mr.. v. then proceeded to view the question of
Repeal in all its bearings and argued that it could
not be called struggle for liberty, since it was not
the design of the advocates at home to free their
land from the domination of Great Britain.


The question reading "Should Associations for the
Repeal of the Union between Great Britain and Ire
land be encouraged by American citizens 7? was de-
cided in the negative by majority of two. L.