The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-04
MORE BLUNDERs.

MORE BLUNDERS.
The ayaiion.l Intelligsncer" Of this morning, in
=. article of a column, partly in reference 10 quota
non. from tho Union makes i've or six more blum
dss, 70 which we must give twice as many lines OF
reply; $50
/. The two articles in the "Union" on arbitration,
20 which the Insligencer refers as 'spidsniiy" from
different hands," ssus rriiien by the same hand
q The Inteigencer thinks that the two fol-
loving paragraphs (aken from different articles oil
Ours) are in contradiction with each other, ana
most mpradently quotes them, to show that thsy are
50. Let any man read them, and see now Dad
cause and an unfair spirit can make an intelligent
Journal sufy itself, and try to stufy It's readers,
in desperate and hopeless, and therefore silly
effort to make out contradiction In the views OF an
opponent:
".Thst government 10 alike authorized and re-
CURED by the law Of nations TO maintain its rights
With hrmoess but in spirit Of peace and Of justice;
that in this spirit IL il bound 10 consider the var-
ous mild methods of terminating its controversy,
and 70 have recourse TO that mode or to those
modes which il shall deem, upon due delibcration,
best ftted 10 secure and preserve its own rights,
without attack upon the rights Of others that in the
selection ofsoeh odss nation is free TO exercise It's
own uOucst anu 70 Hupe ffk"e
nature Of controversy, % s exisn Of its right 10 inc
aars and justice Of he opposing cim 10 Us oon pee'
sy constitution, eScumstocss, and Interests, ana 70 re-
e arbitration, on mtdan0n compromise, iehsn-
ipu athr Of iksss modes Of procedure shall seem TO Us
s.0n candid and careful judgment '1neiss o. u''siia-
As-al this 10 elementary, automatic, fundamental IN
the law OF nations. Men no more think OF arguing
10 wsvs these frat prs~eipts, than they make an ar
guaent to show that h the FIRST leerof the alpha
bets,
"sUadsv ihs very xsoa Jspsrabs circumstances, arbi-
ston must always he an sresptonabie and suspicious
mode Of aljuaisg ta,itovisi qusstions, &c.
10 view Of all these facts, resort 10 arbitration by
our government on a question like the question Of
Oregon seems 70 be responsibility which no ad-
minstration nindI Of lis relations and Of Us dulles to
the people, can permit it'sf'" any manner TO as
sume.'"
3. The Intslligencer makes some statements an to
the debate in the French Chambersi "not having
read i'm OF course it bundersin its statements. We
have published some, and shall publish more, Of that
debate. II, after haping read IT, the Intelligencer
shall have anything to say about it, we may make
some reply. We cannot answer an opponent who
nsS, that he knows nothing Of what he is talking
lbout
4. One paragraph more we must cite from the
nisgencsrs article, being the very choicest spe-
cimen of controversial abuydiiy we ever saw:
"The Qualifications, in the paragraph quoted
lbove Of the duty Of nations to consider and choose
from among the mild methods Of terminating con-
uoyersies, seems to refer an objection which has
been taken to subjectng q question OF territorial
rtrht TO arbitration 1.-THE next prescribed mode to
negotaton.) There is one answer TO that objec-
ion which appears TO us to be conclusive. No one
pretends that territorial rights may not be made the
subject Of adjustment BY negotiation. That is the
mode Of adjustment which the present admlnistra-
ion has freely resorted to- and TO decline which, in
case Of conflicting claims ofrigbt between nations,
would be tantamount TO an act of war. What,
then we ask, Is negotiation, but arbiu alton by and
kssssn interesisd and ontagont,t partie,7 AHd in
what conceivable aspect is such arbitration less
wise or lsss likely TO lead to a just and peaceful
result than arbitration By disinisrsstsd and n,aua
fends ~
Negotiation keeps the settlement of your dispute
within your o,cn control; arbitration puts out Of your
control. In negotiation you decide for yourself In
usiraiion, smother decides for you. Yet the Intel
encer sees no real distinction between arbitration
and n<rstiaiisr. Il says, "What Il negotiation but
rbarasIs~, by and between interested and antago-
mist par,e1r' Well, if the lntelgencer can see no
SgHsaes bstween keeping a right ,otthin your O,on
sensro and putting Il into s control Of anOihsr, we
are sorry for the In,elgencer--that is all.
Again: having stated an absurdi,y like this, the
"In,elgencer" should, at least be consistent in it for
Eve lines, but is not so.
If arbitration and negotiation are the same Thing
in substance and principle--if "to negotiate is to
rbirate'---then why find fault with the administra-
ton for not arbiaing7 1t has been negotiating ever
snce it came into power; and if this, its negotiation,
s arbitration, then what does the "lntelligsncer"
find fault With The dilemma Is plain. Either ar
bit,tion and negotiation are different things in prin-
cple, or they are not If they are different, what
folly argue that, because the one has been resort
ed to, the other ough, to be! If they are The same
thing in substance and principle, Gas the "lntelli-
gsncer" very crroneousy asserts,) then what folly
in that journal to blame the administration, which
has all along been trying the one, for not trying the
other, too!
Altogether what perfect tumble of selfeontra
dieting bunders this paragraph we have quoted is
made up Of! Does the "Intelligencer" really think
such "fanfaronade' can blind puzzle its readers