The native American., 1838-10-20

1t will be remembered by those conversant with
the public journals of the day, that, for speech
of Daniel O'Connell, that "Great Beggar-man,"
delivered at the Birmingham meeting," on the
first of August and published in the Examiner,
containing sentiments derogatory to our Minister
at the Court of St. James, Mr. Stevenson wrote
a note desiring to be informed by O'Connell
whether this speech, as reported, was CORE It: to
which he received an answer denying that it was
correctly reported. This appearing satisfactory
to Mr.. Stevenson, was published in the London
Morning Chronicle; and so it seems the matter
stood till O'Conne left London. But as soon as
he got out of Mr. Stevenson's presence, whether
Tor fear of challenge, or the proper castgation,
we need not say, he come out with his remarks
on the published correspondence, and if he did
not virtually acknowledge himself liar, plainly
proved himself preuaricator.
The part of the speech which Mr.. Stevenson
transcribed in his letter to O'Connell as offensive
and requiring an explanation, the correctness of
which was denied, was in these words: 81 be-
lieve their very ambassador here is slave breed
er; of those beings who rear up slaves for the
purpose Of traffic. Is it possible that America
would send here man who traffics in blood and
MED this as being correct, he requests the editor
Of the same paper in which the correspondence
was published to give place to his comments upon
it; in these he says it is "a species of almost one
lciI aI ho
vented from sooner making few observations
by other more important matters.
He denies that any apology required or
made: and has the impertinence to say, '' as
made Mr.. Stevenson no apology, he determined
OH making one to himself, and accordingly he
wrote a second letter, and in it presumed that I
had made disavowal of offensive expressions.
Now, this was either fancy or diplomacy, care
not which, but it was as gratutous presumption
upon his part, as the reality would have been un-
necessary upon mime" Did he think as he init
mates, that Mr.. Stevenson would, for mere
show of demanding an apology, be, or appear to
be- satisfied with pretence howsoever evasive it
might be? or that he would act the dastardly part
|
which the language did not admit of? To mani
fest such contempt for Mr.. Stevenson as to charge
him with making an apology to himself, impu-
ting to him the most degrading ins gnifcance, is a
national insult, and particularly regards those
States which, from the cupidity of English ances-
tors, slavery has been enailed upon their posteri-
ty.
This insulting ruflian admits that his speech
did contain passage respecting the traffic which
it was asserted Mr. Stevenson participates in, and
he states the passage to afford Mr.. Stevenson an
opportunity of disavowing it. What right has
he to ask or expect disavowal? What obliga-
tons is Mr. Stevenson as man, or the Minister
of the United States under to this Infamous
wretch, either in regard to his morality or his
mission?
But this base calumniator, to cover his falsehood
and prevarcation quotes the passage of his speech
in question, from ''the emancipation newspaper"
as What he did say, in these words: 'It is asserted
= that their verv Ambassador here is slave breed
er; one of those beings who rear and breed UP
slaves merely for the purpose of traffic. Is ii
possible that America would send man here
who traffics in blood, and who, if he do, would be
a disgrace to human nature9 l hope the asser-
ton is untrue; but it is right to speak OUT
Now, let any honest person decide with what
proprety or truth the passage quoted by Mr..
Stevenson could be denied if that quoted by Its
vile author be admitted as correct.
The addition of the last clause, 81 hope Inc as
serfon is uatrue," does not make any alteration
in the sense or intention of the preceding. The
want of this last clause could not justify denial
of the correctness of the passage; otherwise by
the same rule, its correctness might have been de-
MED because it was not accompanied by all the
rest of the speech. The ground OF cavl cannot
be on the first words of the respective versions
"I beHeue''-and "H IS asserted" Who, among
his auditory, knew better the facts than he may
be supposed to have known! Why did he pro-
mulgate the assertion if he did not believe ii
Every one must be convinced on comparing the
structure and meaning of these passages that there
is no such discrepancy, as that, if the one be cor,
rect, the other is incorrect: and by consequence