We beheve that all good Democrats hol to these positions - that all men are bor with equal rights, and that th'e negro is man, and isentitled con-equently toequa privileges with all other men. When therefore, we see a Democrat doing all h can to hinder the colored man from ob taining the privilege of voting, or holdin office, or following any employment, h may wish, or denying that he ought to hav a trial by jury - or cornpelling him to pa taxes when he never had any voice In ap portioning them - or sustaining that preju dice by which his children are lynched ou of public schools - we affirm that he is an inconsistent Democrat. Why? Because his practice and professed prraci pies are not in accordance with each other. This is the case of thousands in our Stuie, who never dream they are oppressing their fellotv citizens. When they see the inconsistency, if they are honest men, they will forsake either their practice o principies. But when these things hare been mad plain to a man's underatanding, when h 8ees wherein ho is helping to oppress anc degrade the man whose righis he acknow edges to be equal to his own - and at th aame time, continÃºes to hold forth abou equal rights, universal liberly, no monopo lies, &c, as his ruling principies of actio - we think and say that he is a hypocriti cal Democrat. Why ? Because hc pre tends that he is governed by principies which he knows he viÃ³lales contiunally. If he will continue, knowingly, wilfully and designedly to viÃ³late the rights of othrs, while at the same time he professes a raostsacred regard for those rights - he is a hypocrite, and should be trcated as one. Isitnotso?