Weekly national intelligencer., 1845-09-06
THE TREASURY CIRCULARS AGAIN,


ministration' and who " lend their pens to the CO.
guished for courtesy and candor as for their places,
and for their zeal to add to their other official merits
that of defending with partisan pens those of whom
they hold Office. Among other somewhat uncivil
practices which they employ against us-a part of
them unworthy that we have passed them by in
silence--is that of often charging with employ
ing in argument habitual sophisny, and sometimes
direct Misrepresentation. In their paper, for in
stance, dated Friday night, we have the following
ssThe National Inelgencer Of this morning has
ce upon the remarks and statements which have made
in relation to its editorial upon the circular of the Sc
creary of the Treasury Having much original matter on
hand from the pens of correspondents which occupy
large portion of this evenings Unon, compelled to
lay till evening the few structures which the
National Inegencer' calls forth We shall expose the
phistres into which the negencer has been betrayed
In the tme must say very extraordinary that
in the very first position which it takes, the 'Inegencer
should have been guilty Of most papabe misconcepon
Misrepresentation of statement 1t says, for example,
that the Union does not contradict the allegation and this
is the point of main mportance) that the circulars by whom
distributed have been thus far placed only the hands
Of those whose partisan politics known The Intel
gence makes this bold assertion, when the Union express
stated, upon the best authority, in reply the article of
the National lnegencer, that the assertions of the New
York Tribune, to the alleged designs Of the Treasury De-
parnient just the reuerse Of the truth that is to say,
among the other things asserted that the circulars had been
placed only the hands whose partisan politics
known The reader may Judge, by this single specimen, Of
the way which the Intelligence avoids part of the
NATTER or rather msepesents (which is the true charac
ter of its whole article"
The gratuitous character of this language is
abundanty shown by single fact-that we placed
before readers the entire article of the Union
which it thus states us to have misrepresented.
When one does that he certainly manifests fair
ness which the high representative in type of the
Executive very seldom extends to us. Ii, after do
ing this, one attempts to deduce, from the unmuti-
lated text given, some forced construc-
tons, beg leave to inform the editor or contribu-
tors to the organ that at the utmost gentlemen and
people who know the value of words enttle this
misinterprefation, and not misrepresentation.
But we have not even misinterpreted the Union.
1t adopted, in the article on which we commented,
an article from the New York Morning Ne,cs, and
then went TO add further statements of its own.
In what it cited from the Neoes, there palpa-
bic admission that the distribution of the circulars
among individual manufacturers had been conided
to the postmasters and this the Union left uncon
tradicted. Our conclusion, then, was and is per-
masters in each quarter to decide TO ,oho the cir
cars to be sent, them of course, the Secreta-
ry here could not know ,cho had received them
and equally of course, could not intend TO contra
dict the allegation of the Tribune that they had
been sent to Locofocos only If thus to conclude
that the Secretary and the Union meant not 10 deny
that which the latter had thus admitted they
could not knoW any thing about, be to "misrepre-
sen" either of them then we only beg that the
Union will adopt that mode Of misrepresentng US.
There is then, the adoption of the admission Of
the Ne,os and, on the other hand, the special de-
nal on which the Union now insists could by no
body be supposed, after its previous language, to
be meant to apply to this point. No one would
take it for any thing but what its terms and con-
nexion with the context naturally imply-a particu
lar denial that the Secretary had any unfair de-
sign at ALL in what he had done through the post
masters. 1t being already stated in the NeWsS part
of the Unions article, that the postmasters, not the
Secretary, responsible for the particular direc-
ton which the circulars have received that charge
(of sending them to Locofocos only had been put
out of the question as the Secretary and shifted
upon the postmasters until they cleared it up. In
WORD, we StlH see not now we could nave inter-
preted the Ulions article in any other manner
than we did.
That, however, it expressed itself excessively
ill-that it meant quite the opposite to what we
supposed-that it does not even yet comprehend
what its own original remarks conveyed, we are
now convinced for, in the subsequent explanations
promised in the article cited near the beginning of
this, it contradicts the Nems, and that the cir
culars not principally sent to the postmasters
to be by them distributed according to their own
judgment; but were chiefly distributed in some
other manner, not yet explained but fair. In the
Unions words, thus:
The Secretary may have copies Of his circular
TO the posmaers, but he has by confined them
the posmastes made them the principal means of
distributing them Long before the article in the Tribune ap
peared Mr. Walker had taken the active measures to
have his circulars placed in the hands Of the manu-
actuers, Wings well Democrats and many Of them
had actually been placed in the hands Of leading Whg
ufacures We state this fact upon the best authority and
upon the authority state that, in case any
ntmaton made by the Secretary any one, make any
and Democrats"
We hope that our contemporary now at least
perceive that this present explanation of his is
thing quite different from his first. 1t is quite short,
and yet entirely lucid, except on one point--the
q,ton,odo of the distribution About that, why have
the air OF keeping any thing back People love
4 a.