A BEAM OF LIGHT ON GOODIN'S POLITICAL FAITHM AND PAu TICEN. We publish thea subjoined letter simply that the writer shall not have it to say that we are not disposed to give him a hearing. Now nothing was said in our article intimating that Beam’s interviewer was Hol lister. Whence then, Oh, Beam, originated in thy brain the suspicion that Hollister was the man? Is Hollister the disturbed spirit ‘that follows your path like a hound on the tiger’a track,” or is it not barely possible that in an unguarded moment you may have ventilated the Hon. John R. rather more freely than was politic for a Private Sec retary to do or than you intended? But in justice to ourselves we must say that you were made to define the position of the Hon. John R. 80 faithfully, as we understand it from the record, the idea that we were being imposed upon with a mere fancy sketch never entered our heads. And a desire to give to the public what seemed an authorita tive exhibit of Mr. Goodin’s “plat form’? must be our apology for the liberty we took in using Col. Beam’s name in the interview of which he complains. Here’s the letter. It’s vigorous and characteristically Democratic in tone. LAWRENCE KAN. Sept. 2, 1876. . Ep JouRNAL: In your issue of this morning I find a lengthy inter view reported by a “reliable” citi zen named “Hollister.” I wish to say “to all whom it may concern’ that there is but one fact stated in this Ishored communication—that is that I am a Democrat. The re mainder is a tissue of misrepresen tations and misstatements that I should never have expected to ema nate from such a source. But des perate cases require desperate remedies and a cause must be weak, indeed, and in a desperate condition that requires this kind of dirty work. Yours respectfully, C.J. Bean.