Polynesian., 1844-11-02

arov,nG q Language 'chich wdS authorized, Of
rctT0citn@ 1t By Soica!H Tepar0tion. or Of crhib-
ting a scasc Gf Inconsistency, by Cdtering
those ,rbo ,rcre just iIsuhed."
The propricty ofthesc maxims is unqucstion-
able, and in regard to logical qualities, one of
the chicfobiccts ofpolitical discussion being
persuasion or conviction, none but the most
undoubtcd proofs should be relied on, and it
should be constantly kept in view, that ''geaer-
0Hijes, defamation and M%reciire prore nothing;
they Serre os rcGpOns TO readiness and passion"
inappropriate quotations tend to make the
author ridiculous, and vulgarisms wholly
destroy the dignity of the subject. A writer
may inadvertently or through a false taste
ingralt in his style som one of these defects,
and yet by his excellence in other points,
much injury to his reputation; but should he
be found, not only to indulge in one but all
these improprictics, with a frequency which
either denotes design or ignorance, his char
actcr as a diplomat must suffer to a dcplora-
bic extent. And it is to the test of such rules
we intend to bring the letter of the 18th.
September. We design to act with the ut
most fairness towards Mr.. Brown. and in
points which seem to us Objectionable, shall
either quote his own words, or refer to them
in the letter. If he should feel himself ag-
grieved by such an analysis, we beg him to
remember, that we but take his corrcspon-
dencc as we find it, and cannot suppose 9TH
erwisc than that he gave his closest attention
and best ability to a document which so en-
phatically required them.
Before touching upon it, however, we
would premise that we have examined with
critical eyactness the letter of Mr.. Judd, to
the intent of detecting the grounds upon
which Mr.. Brown s%tigmatizes it, as "highly
offensive, :" insulting" and that he should
be justified in "rcquiring it to be withdrawn
or in demanding an apology This is We
hemcnt language, and should be sustained
by facts. The tone of the cpistle is indeed
energetic, but not more so than the contro-
versy ~iustifies. Perhaps the Commissioner
may have some cause of offence, as he states,
in the a~llusion 70 his private note, but it GER
tainly was impolitic to lay himself open in
any way to the inference that he was cndeav-
oring to aid his cause by an appeal to the
"AMERICAN FEELINGS Of his former coun-
tryman. If a minister allows himself to re-
ceiyc confidential and private notes from
foreign ENJOYS, II wide door to abuse is open
ed. He should also r~ccollcct that he gratu-
itously assumed to be the Judge, whether
the case required argument or not, placing
his opinion above that Of a veteran states
man, MIR. Upshur, telling the Secretary OF
state that his ansWcr was a mere q~uibblc, y
and urging his demands" with a perempto-
riness that would appear to be u~ncallod for
by the occasion. The case which he stated
to be a Z" plain one" and requiring no ar
gumcnt," was found, upon investigation, to
be quite otherwise; and we are at a loss to
account for the positiycncss of assertion, oc-
casional displays Of irritation, neglect Of ra-
tional analysis and argumcntatiyc courtesy,
which We are sorry to perceive in his CORES
pondence. Indeed, its tone is the more sur
prising, from being so much at variance with
that ofhis letter Of the l4th. Of February
That is dispassionatc, though emphatic,
and crcditablo to the writer, and it is with
regret, we turn from it to the t1pleasant
task of proving to our readers the truth oithe
opinion we have advanced in regard to
tho nthnr