The White slaxe, slander.
{"character_count": 3023, "word_count": 547, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9805999994277954], "ccnet_perplexity": [1329.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
In the last PRESIDENTIAL canvass ono OF the chlcl
missiles Of Loco-F Focoism was round assertion
that Gen. Harrison had voted TO sell poor White
men into Siarery tor Debt. The truth of the
matter was that Gen. Harrison voted that men
condemned to fine and Imprisonment for petty
crimes, and who were to stand committed till such
fines were paid, and had no means of payment,
should be sold to labor for the shortest term
that any one would pay their fine for. This
was called very nhuman and yet 1t would
ouzzlc any man TO show that it would be more
humane to let prisoner remain forever in Jail
than to work out his fine in two or three months
on farm. But selling poor chite men into
slavery" was a good eectioneerng cry, and we
doubt not some were ignorant and simple enough
to be fooled by it.


Loco Focosmis now attempting the same game
on Mr. Clay. Its presses are boldly asserting
that Mr.. Clay, in the debate on the Missouri
question, said


mus lei us have white ones for freyood
and black shoes and have our wives and our daughters
work IN the kitchen.


This is credited by them to speech Of Hsnry
Clay; though they know right well that there is
no such speech, and that they arc cheating their
readers. We have already exposed the iniquity,
and yet we will have patience to expose it again.


The most consistent and thorough allegation
against Mr. Clay we find quoted in the Loco Foco
papers from the Abolition Emancipation, which
pursues Mr.. Clay with most envenomcd hatred,
and whose Editor spends his winters in Washing
ton, digging out matter whcrewith to blacken
Mr. Clay. We presume the five Loco Congress
sonal cerlifiers against Mr.. Clay, were indebted
to this Editor for the groundwork of their ccrt!f-
cate He says the sentiment attributed TO Mr.
Clav, was uttered on the 18th Of February, 1919,
but he has the National Intcllisencer OF the next
and following days, and can find nothing of the
kind there. But on the l7th of February,
u-lS20, year and day after Mr. Clay is &C
cused of uttering what is above quoted, Mr.. Rich,
of Vermont, made speech on the other side,
which speech is reported in the National Inte-
gencer Of July lSt, 1920, Orer Sirtcen months
after Mr.. Clay's speech to which It refers. To
this printed speech-not in his speech as uttered
there is appended note, which says:


when this subject was under consideration al me a't ses
,on honorable Speaker tCny remarked 10 the tooins
sFtc.." Then follows the above Quotation.l


Thus it will be seen that the charge against Mr..
Clay was not made at all by Mr.. Rich TIL over a
year after Mr.. Cays unreported remarks, and
WAS not then made in Congress, but IN note 10
a speech printed alter Congress had adjourned.
And even then he does not charge Mr.. Clay with
using the 1ords SO coolly quoted nowadays as
Mr. Cay's, but only something TO the sane
effect, Is this evidence Is this testimony on
which fair jury or a fair man could convict Mr.
lay OF uttering the sentence attributed to him 2
We ask but righteous judgement.