صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

man contemporary, we take leave of Mr. Green for the present, and turn our attention to his chief opponent as a candidate for the mayoralty.

Of the qualifications and claims of Senator O'Brien little need be said. None can charge him with collusion with the Ring. Far from betraying any sympathy with the robbers, it is undeniable that no public man took an earlier or more active, earnest part in exposing them. Those whom O'Brien sympathised with were the earliest denouncers of the Ring. We well remember meeting him in the Central Park two or three days after Mayor Hall had, by his advertised proclamation, set all the Ring papers to abuse us. “You must ride somewhere clse on your gray,” said Mr. O'Brien, jestingly. “ You have no business here. Neither the mayor nor the president of Public Parks will any longer allow you to pro wl' about on so precious a part of the domain of Tammany!" In short, Mr. O'Brien manifested to us the same kind, friendly feeling that Colonel Stebbins did in common with so many other good men and women.

The Colonel had scarcely been ten days in Sweeny's place when he politely and kindly offered to present, in person, to the Board of Audit, our claim for having advertised the Central Park ordinances two years previously, and to recommend its payment as an honest, well-founded claim, although Sweeny and Hall had refused to pay it, because, since the advertisements had been authorized by the former, we had incurred the high displeasure of those illustrious personages. That Colonel Stebbins is a gentleman of the highest sense of honor, and one to whom the citizens of New York are deeply indebted for what he has done for the Central Park, none acquainted with the facts will deny. But precisely because he is incapable of any collusion with malefactors, as soon as he ascertained that, while Green made such loud pretensions to honesty, integrity, etc., he was really in league with Hall and Sweeny, he resigned the presidency of the Board of Public Parks. In short, Colonel Stebbins is too proud a man-he has too much self-respect—to be the colleague of such persons as Hall and Green; and, consequently, not a penny have we received to this day of what is due to us by the Central Park Commissioners, or by any other commissioners over whom Hall and Green have any control! We refer to the good wishes of this gentleman, in speaking of our candidates, because Senator O'Brien has used language to us exactly similar to that of Colonel Stebbins. “I will see,” says O'Brien, “ that, at all events, you will not be cheated out of the payment of the advertisements ordered by me. Have


bill sent to my office any day, and I will certify it. Then let Green keep the money from you to please Hall and Sweeny if he can!” And, most unlike Green, the word of O'Brien can be relied upon.

We have mentioned these circumstances, only because we hold that no testimony, as to the worth or worthlessness of any man, public or private, is more valuable than that which is the result of personal experience and observation. We will vote for O'Brien, and we respectfully, but earnestly, urge our readers to do the same; not, we trust, because he has been polite and friendly to ourselves, but because we have seen various convincing evidences of his being a straightforward, unpretending, honest man, and a faithful, unswerving public officer.

So far as we are aware, there is but one other candidate for an important office whose election we could urge as a public benefit. This one is Gunning S. Bedford, our present City Judge—a gentleman who, it is universally acknowledged, would do honor, by his uprightness, integrity and fearlessness, to the judicial bench of any country in the world. Had Bedford been like Dowling the illiterate, unprincipled tool of the Ring, who would do anything, however base, at the bidding of Sweeny, no citizen who dared to find fault with that personage or his accomplices would have been safe for a day while the sceptre of the robbers remained unbroken. In short, no judge who has ever passed sentence in New York has, on all occasions, acted in such strict accordance with the well known precept,

“Judicis officium est, tu res ita tempora rerum

Quærere.” *

* Tristitia, i., 1., 37.

-of the Roman poet who, above all others, had most reason to feel the loss of a just judge who could protect him from the persecution of the tyrant whose displeasure he had incurred.

This being our estimate of Judge Bedford, we need hardly say how glad we are to see that good citizens of all parties and denominations are combining their efforts to secure his election. As an illustration of the laudable feeling thus manifested, we take pleasure in copying from a morning paper the following resolutions adopted by a meeting of citizens of the Fourth Ward :

"Whereas, The friends of Judge Gunning S. Bedford are forming clubs in every ward of this city to further his election; be it hereby

Resolved, That in Gunning S. Bedford, our present City Judge, we recognize a fearless and upright man-one who, unintimidated by threats and malevolence of the depraved and vicious, throws around the hum. blest as well as the wealthy the protection of the law; wbo, in his administration of justice, knows no distinction that can tempt him to swerve from what he deems to be his honest duty to the citizens; who, while ever prompt to punish crime, forgets not that mercy which belongs to his kind and generous heart.

Resolved, That we here, in testimony of his unimpeachable character, pledge ourselves to his support for a renomination and re-election; and we hope, in view of his long and commendable services in the interests of the people of our city, that he may again be chosen for the distinguished position he has so faithfully filled to the satisfaction of every pure and honest-minded man in the community.”

Our candidates, then, are: for President of the United States, Horace Greeley; for Governor of the State of New York, John A. Dix; for Mayor of New York, James O'Brien; and for New York City Judge, Gunning S. Bedford. In earnestly urging the election of each of these four men, without distinction of political or religious creed, we feel that we act in faithful accordance with the Sallustian motto on our title page, which requires that our best efforts as a public writer be devoted to the public good.



The American Elocutionist and Dramatic Reader. For the use of

Colleges, Academies and Schools. By JOSEPH A. Lyons, A.M.
With an Elaborate Introduction on Elocution and Vocal Culture.
By the Rev. M. B. BROWN, A. M., Professor of Theology and
Moral Philosophy in the University of Notre Dame. Pp. 430.
Philadelphia : E. H. Butler & Co. 1872. (Second Notice.)

We have received so many letters in reference to this book since we criticised it in our March number, from ladies as well as gentlemen, for whose opinion we have the highest respect, that, in compliance with the request of several, we would have had a second article on it in our June number had we not been prevented by illness. That this is no mere excuse for the omission our esteemed correspondents may see by turning to page 208 of our last issue, in which we apologize for having been obliged, by the same inability, to omit our usual Appendix. But a still better proof of our entire willingness to be as just and fair as possible, will be found in the fact that we now return to the subject, and allow one of the gentlemen who feel chiefly aggrieved, to state to our readers what the nature of his grievance is, so that they may blame us if they think we have deserved blame. No one who complains to us in the language of courtesy and good-will need fear that he does so in vain through any pretension, on our part, to infallibility. ACcordingly, we cheerfully give a place to the following well-written letter, which speaks for itself:

“NOTRE DAME, IND., April 13, 1872. “DEAR SIR--As you bring my name somewhat prominently before the public in your criticism of the book entitled 'The American Elocutionist,' you would do me a favor by giving, in your next issue, your candid views of that part of the book in which alone I am personally interested; namely, the treatise on Elocution and Voice Culture, which bears my name. As your criticism now stands, the reader is led to believe that yon condemn the entire work, and yet, from the opinion given of my part of it, by several persons who are considered good judges, and to whom I showed that treatise before delivering it to Prof. Lyons, and from the commendations which it received since its publication, I am led to believe that it does not deserve a wholesale condemnation.

"I am not so vain as to suppose that my essay (for such it really is) is perfect, and free from faults ; nor do I object to a straightforward, honest criticism, even though it be severe. But it seems to me that candor requires that the critic point out the good points (if any) as well as the bad, in the work which he reviews, or, at least, that he give some satisfactory reasons for a condemnation in toto, should he think the work deserving of such. You will pardon me if I say that, in my opinion, you have not complied with this requirement, and apparently, at least, condemn the book as a whole, while you give your reasons only for your condemnation of some of the selections, involving me in that condemnation, intentionally or not, though I am concerned only with that part which bears my name.

“That I am a writer unknown to the pnblic, generally,'should not be a sufficient ground for condemning utterly what I write, without regard to the merits or demerits of the production itself. Yet it is not clear from your article whether or not you intended specially to include my part of the work in the condemnation which you pronounce upon the book itself. Hence I would deem it a favor if you would let your readers know the true state of the case by giving your honest opinion of the Introduction on Elocution and Voice Culture, whether that opinion be favorable or not. What I have done is done, and I shall not sleep the less soundly should my efforts meet with a cold reception. So much for my philosophy.

Yours, respectfully,

“M. B. BROWN."

We have but a remark or two to make in reply to the Rev. Father Brown. As we told him nearly six months ago, in answering his polite letter, we do not think that if we attempt to give a sketch of a house for the purpose of indicating its general character, as compared to other houses, we are bound by any law, moral or aesthetical, to give a particular description, or in fact any description, of the vesti. bule. If the house, as a whole, be a vulgar structure, the fact that it has a handsome well built vestibule cannot make it a classic or elegant structure.

We did not condemn the Introduction of Father Brown, nor did we mean to do any thing of the kind. To have examined it with sufficient care and given our impressions of it would have required more time and space than it was possible for us to devote to the whole book, with so many other books also claiming our attention at the same time. Even now we can only speak in general terms of Prof. Brown's part of the work; but far from condemning it, we regard it as a learned and valuable essay on a most important subject--a subject to which none who have any faith in the power of language can be indifferent.

And of the drama of the Rev. A. Lemonnier, we spoke exactly in the same spirit as we did of Father Brown's Introduction. We did not know who the former gentleman was; but the only fault we found with his drama was, that we regarded a piece extending to forty-two pages as too long a selection for a duodecimo volume. Had one of equal length been taken from the best drama of Sheridan or Bulwer

« السابقةمتابعة »