Mobile register and journal. [volume] (Mobile, Ala.) 1841-1849, 1845-05-06

hope Of recovery can be entertained
| Our contemporary makes poorer shew Than we
expected he would, in the effort 10 sustain hImseh
tor the exrayagant anti-Amerlcanism OF hi@ lormsr
article on the issues made by the Oregon debate IN
the British Parliament, To be sure he asserts ronnt-
Iy that he means ''to stand by all he SAID, ana Is
| prepared To maintail it," These are stout WORLDS
but the execution susains it SO eeblY, and iheie
are such material refnements and notifications oil
what he did say, that he only shews ihal whl'e he
would like take off some Of the grossness OF his
first assaults upon the American position, he is still
extremely anxious to strike ahd wound political
opponent at home even the cost OF AN absurd and
uuenabIe adulalion ola national adversary.
The inaugural address Of President Polk asserted
an ''unquestionabe" American title to ORG on,
which it would be his duty 10 urge with sacred re-
gard 10 all existing treaty aud convention obisa-
lions, The 81 itsh ministry and presses assall the
declaration. The fdyerlisrr sustained them, and
with even moie Than British bitterness, pronounced
the personal conduct Of the President in making il
t. be marked by .'impudence, ignorance, asinine
stupidity aud something worse; 10 be that OF blus-
ter, and blaggalt On The other hand, Lord Aber.
Ieen and Sir Robert Peel, the British Foreign Sc.
cretaiy and Prime Minister, extravaganlIy baud.
ed for their "dignity, courtesy and craftsmanship
on the same occasion.
This we call, taking he "British side of the ques
tom" as then and there made, not as the Adj
ver'lSer adroltIy said Of the "Oregon question:
lmphedy that side was encouraged, but an exna,a-
CANT bubble upon words which we shall notice pre-
nJaIa Cd,
But Of that in due time.
The reply of sur cOntempGry to tins. ex-
tractsd out OF multitude Of words, is that lie is a
free bora American, aud has The right 10 abuse Jas.
Polk, or any body else, just us lie peases There
Is good deal thigh sounding sentiment about the
freedom of spec, h. sedlion law and all that, which
its present application, is mere rIgmal ole. Ii ID
his legal right to "censure" MI. Polk and every DO
dy else, and he has The power certainly Of describing
by that delicate phrase "to censure' the gross per-
sonal abuse which he heaped upon the President. =
lie must, however, be gracious enough to allow tina
there is also liberty OF speech to defend AN Ameri
can executive, as well as to laud Tory Lord in En-
gland at his expense; and the mutual freedom to at
Lack and to defend being agreed to, undisputedy ol
our part, at least the unornamented part of the ques
ton remains whether he did or did not take 1.-The
British slde,' and whether he has good Cause fol
thus ranging himself IN a national matter, on The
side OF IA foreign government against his own Ii
may suit his party feelings to say that it is Jas. X
Polk whom he wounds, by assailing the chief magls-
trate of his coultry, and Iaudng the British minis
try; but there is majority Of the people To whose
political feelings that partzan Impulse is alien, anc
il still larger portion 10 whose national sensbiiles
it will he oIensye-irrespective of party.
! The fact then being nndeuiable, that between Mr.
Polk and Sir Robert Peel, the President Of The U
States and The British minister, the first named il
bitterly assailed and last named warmly euogised b,
the Advertiser, what may ask IS the real defenc,
attempted for this preference of the British to the
| American side? Where is the broad distnctio,
which marks Peel as courteous, dignifed anc
state smanlike, and Polk as clustering and ignoran
and stupid braggart! Will the reader believe lha
the whole lies in the fact that Sir Robert Peel onl,
uses the epithet Of "irresistible' describing III
British claims to Oregon. and Mr. Polk Uses h,
word "unqueslonable" describing the America
claim, and that this is positively the whole leng
and breadth of the difference.
|
gon is "clear and uuquesIionable. This statemen
the Advertiser ailirms "cannot be sustained b.
facts" and is therefore,, dsglaceful TO himse (Mr
P and the country; because, says this astule cri
tic, that canno' be uaquestionabie which has beel
questioned, and Great Britain has always question:
ed our title! This is puerie stuff, which makes
grammatical bubble Of the meanest kind the ground
of abusive attack upon the President, charging hin
with intending 10 deny the fact, that our title VIA
questioned when he evidently properly said that
could not be successfully OF properly questioned, 1,
was not rghtfully subject 10 question. But 81
r ,belt Peel, according 10 his friend of the Advert
ser, is more choice in his language. Mark h.w tn
Brit sh precisio Of speech is auded by our contem
porary
''Su Robert Peel, IN his late sptsch speaking for
goue nment says: We haze rights respecting this ter
ritory of Oregon, which clear and irrssistibe-
He does not say 'unqnestonabs, because that ,coul
be unhue'
Thus reasons The Advertiser for Sir Robert Peel
grammar. But If Mr.. POLK had said that the Anne
rican claim "uresistbie,' - would that not hay
been pronounced "unirue'' because il has been lon
resisted? Or is 1t, as according the nice criticism
OF the Advertiser, shame and disgrace for Mr.
POLK to assert that to be unique siionable, which ha
IN fact been questioned, and at the same lime cour
'esy, dignity and statesmanshp'' in Sir Robert Pee
TO tell us that that is ''irresistbe" which we bay
aiwils resisted! 1t is, however, exactly this mic
point Of puerile criticism, which Is advanced by tn
Advertiser to prove Peel consum statesman
and the President of the United States, bluste rim
lnbecile! And yet this editor makes "a show of sus
cepiibilIty at the nputation, thai he has IA DISPOSE
ton TO side with The English and against his ow
counrymen. and seems to think hlmsel If exreedngl
injured Ifthis be far specimen of The weight {
influence which nclines hun 10 take that side in
collateral controversy, he leaves ground for appre
tension that il will moi require much to deter min.
his judgement. perhaps it would be more just to say
TO carry his prejudces 10 the same side in more m.
portant stages o The case.
The concluding effort to shelter himself under the
authority of Mr. CALHOUN, is ingenious but fail
ure. The grossness of applauding foreigners for bull
lying and insulting our own Country, finds no sane
ton in the example of Mr.. Calhoun, or part in the
argument quoted. An appeal to Congress to della,
the assertion Of the American right in par amen
iiry way, by legislative occupation. is question o
lime and degree, Of right and title, and is yer,
far from countenancng in the slightest manner, the
position of The Advertiser the subject, as he
has yet defined ii. Perhaps, how ever, in the pro.
gess OF his discussions and explanations he will be
more inleIlig be hereafter.