Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1846-03-07
! THE GOVERNMENT PRESS.
[rsox QUA DArIr rArEa or rursDAr.

to ours of Friday, parts of which are in tone
as high and fierce as though the Administration and
its organ, instead Of having placed the country in
position Of imminent danger BY the final rejection
Of the profered reference to Arbitration Of our diff
ferences with Great Britain, without presenting any
substitute for it, had accomplished some desirable
and laudable object. To the remonstrance against
this course on heir part they disdain to answer US
their feowcitizeps p any other Language than that
Of defiance and insult.
With persons thus infatuated i is useless to
attempt further argument. We leave them, there
FORE in regard to this matter, to their responsibility
to their conscience, their country, and their God.
We cannot, however, let the article in the gov
eminent paper pass without brief notice Of the
points which it undertakes to make with the Ma
tional Intelligencer.
l. The . Union" denies having viifed the
Treaty Of Washington, and its negotiator. Let
us turn back 70 the terms employed by that paper
in speaking of both, and, as we said before, I'M
pHedly Of those Senator'S who voted for it. What
is the meaning, for example, of such language as
the following, taken from the article headed aThe
Arbitration Scheme in the Union = of the 18th
Of last month 1T is not enough that some men
4 Of the Wing party, already STAGGERING UNDER
THE oDIUM Of the 0diOus portions of the Hash
ingfon treaty, have yet been foolhardy enough
to stand up on the floor of Congress, and else
where, and heap dishonor on the title Of America
Ito Oregon and proclaim the force Of the title Of
Great Britain" &c.
Whom the . Union" meant by " some men" in
this can mistake; for, except the distin-
guished negotiator Of that Treaty, there were no
men Of the Wing party more responsible for it-or,
as zoe should say, more entitled to the honor Of it,
than those Of the Democratic party then in the
Senate who advised and consented" 70 its ratiica-
ton. Of that party ten Democratic Senators voted
for that Treaty, and we give their names, that
il may be known who they are who share with the
Wing "men'' the denunciations Of the govern
ment paper: They were Mr.. CALHOUN, Mr.. CUrH-
BERT Mr.. FULroN, Mr.. KING, Mr.. SEWER, Mr..
TAPPAk, Mr.. WALKER, Mr.. WooDBURY, Mr..
-WalqxT, and M YouHG.
2. But the Union" intended no assault upon
the Independence and dignity of Congress when it
preached this idea of an Arbitration plot"
The extract quoted from our article says the
Union. "does not say one word, either expressly
or implicitly, Of Congress; Of either House OF
Congress Of the majority in either House Of Con-
. gress Of the minority in either House of Con-
gress nor Of any action ,chateuer in either House
sof Congress-"
What, then, was the meaning of the following
further reference to the ridiculous story of plot
in the aUnion" Of the 18th February, in the very
article announcing the pretended plotl
But that PLOT, in the hands Of those who are
responsible for it. was nothing more nor less than
deliberate and systematic effort Of factious oppo-
sition at home, raliying IN SECRET ooNcLAvE on a
: controversy between our country and England, to
: force an Administration charged with our national
interests and honor, without Its consent, in oppo-
sition 70 its Judgment and in transcendence Of its
legitimate powersto put into the arbirament Of an
alien, if not estranged power and policy, the
mighty and vital question whether the Pacific
: slope of North America shall henceforth belong,
under God, to Americana
~ Who were to rally for the purpose Of forcing the
have right to control the action Of that Admins
tration in matters that concern "he national interests
and honor r. Who but Members Of Congress
The Union itself, indeed, in its own columns Of
the same date, avows that ii was its intention to
embrace Members of Congress in this accusation Of
being concerned in plot Referring to the Editor
Of New York paper, (he Courier and Enquirer
the Union says that he showed q the actors sOho
soere to bring il into both Houses Of Congress !"
and adds the following remark at is not very
surprising, therefore, that the two movers Of the
arbitration resolutions in both Houses Of Con-
gress should have taken some offence at the recent
correspondence, and denounced the rejection of the
proposition submitted by Mr.. Pakenham.''
How can it be pretended, after this, that the at
tempt to fix stigma on those who favored arbtra-
ton was not an assault the dignity and indepen-
dence Of Congress- Obviously it was aimed at
Members Of Congress, and if at any body else, only
for the purpose Of more highly coloring the imputa-
ton upon the Representatives Of the States and the
People in the two Houses. ttM
3. The Union further defes us to produce
proofs from its own columns Of any encroachmcnt
by the government press upon the independence Of
Members Of Congress. These cncroachments have
consisted in the denuncistion Of actions opinions
adverse TO those Of the Executive generally, and
especially Of the course of those who are indis-
posed 70 plunge the Nation into war for /" the whole
Of Oregon" after the Executive itself has proposed
to relinqush the claim to large part of il and,
generally representing the Executive, or the Admin
isration, as the agent for the conduct Of Foreign
Affairs, whose lead it is the business, if not the
- ~. r.