The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-09-19

Lei US Iuoc d IL" PHRASES hun Gavin VI '"e '"o
IA i S ys s pu General si'i Ssny into
day he Of the GA De- San ps,qaa on he mo,n,as q he
attacked heat General Kearny charged
ed caliiornisns s 10y pee fight routed eneny
chased hiaas sniies
with than hundred His force was .sme"s short
Enlee,d u@1a~pid An e %, t, By ne long
Of miles" setl and mostly destitute of cloth
Now venture to say that will undertake to
deny that these two accounts came from one and the
same head.
The next quotation which shall introduce from the
Pcayune article quoted here only for the purpose OF
identifying, by means of it, subsequent publication in
the Louisville Journal and Tor this purpose present
them together:
The day after the battle the With the greatest dculy
@ % % h Sn s Dss ss. % &
% i sa"s s
Diego the 10th and ind than
s,s s s" ."
s . ns.s sy . Sf s"a a on FIJI. % .. %
and under the Generals q her'e Cali
srdsfs sns , ,ss1 s,s ss f sss e ''''
70, .a ,r c.i =. heart Of Mer'ea"
The remarks which these particular passages call for
will be presented when the article from the Louisville
Journal reached in order Here, the object is only
show that the two articles came from the informant,
which is infalby established in the single quotation that
i have made. But before laying aside the Louisville
piece, will continue the two extracts little further,
show how utterly reckless, of consistency, that in
fornant and how he varied his statements, perhaps
with the absurd hope Of by that means, escaping detec
toa Continuing right on from the above the two ex-
read with this remarkable difference
Ffom hs Piearms piece Fro. The Loui,pile piece.
and on the ash Dsss% to let him have the
with about $40 the rae .a'isl.c.ou stockon
S aore accompanied BY the o'm~' own 'hA'sr''
In the first place, it is not true that Kearny the
proposer of the expedition 10 Los Angeles The arrange
ments in progress for before Kearny left New
Mexico This falsehood. however. is no way peculiar
to these two pieces appears wherever publications in
the interest of kearny made The other and great
er fasehood, however, which the Louisville piece con-
tains, that Kearny first refused the for the ex
petition, appears only as far as have discovered this
and two other places, and elsewhere in a modified form
compared with this that in this particular, the lbes
Of Emory are entitled to the palm even over Kearny and
Cooke bad eninence but the ''acting adjuant gene
rai' is entitled to it-ant he shall have it.
the article in the Picayune, which continues
as follows:
son the 9Th of January the enemy showed himself in
force, dispute the passage of the San Gabriel river
the heights charged and drove him from his position"
The spirit OF these paragraphs reminds again strongly
of the Panama letter. but shall 90 to higher source
sance,' which Solomon might have wished his enemy,
self-betraying to write
n d. ~ 81 January the m~gy Asss, s,,.el
ss~,a A" force to came in night of =: Ser ssa
'"'' ese1 flank 's s"a Became became qui,e
dispute II. passage q river"
phoogs,s, to the effect, that if three words coincide in
two different languages, it is ten 10 they must be de-
rived in both cases. from some parent language or intro
duced in other Six words, 1t is added,
would give more than seventeen hundred to one, and
eight near a hundred thousand TO one: Upon the same
principle how m any chances in million are there that
this Picayune article and the report of Emory pre-
pared by different authors, and how many that Emorys
newspaper publications not patterned the same
model, imbibed from the same source kearnys
dispatches
There are, further. two small points TO Identify this
piece one with the Havana letter, and the other with
Emory's report The Havana letter states. among other
items OF news The storeshp Livingston had arrived; )"
rived the 27th" Now, there vessel in the navy
called the "Liungston" The Lexington was the vessel
meant and there is probability that two different
writers would thus have fallen into the same error in re-
ldion to the name OF single vessel. Again: in the
Picayune article and others of the of newspa-
per lbes, the of of the California eaders-he
San Bernardos thus given: Andreas Pico 1t is given
the same way in Emors report Wherever It occurs it
spelt Andres PIco, without the which Emory in
serts. The mistake peculiar to Emory. Ii is not
likely that two different writer's would fall into it 1t is
ridiculous in Spanish to write Andres (Which is
Andrew with before the s. as il would be in
English TO spell James in the same way-an be-
lore the s-thus Janeas; and f. you saw James
twice written that way, in two different accounts OF
The same transaction IN which he engaged,
would you not be sure that the same hand wrote
both accounts 1t IS no argument against the sepa-
rate authorship OF two different pieces that they tell
true thing or right thing which two parties saw
or han equal opportunities OF knowing, with points of
semblance; but when 1t wrong thing or a
false thing, the different II it be false thing
there must have been invention fabrication and ii ia moi
supposabie that two inventors fabcators would have
hit precisely on the same thought; If it be a wrong thing
there must have been and the argument is not that
Two persons committed the mistake but that the
person who committed it once would commit it again
The Pcayune article concludes with two unadnteraed
the extract. 'n'' A'''' 20
fremont ,cas tohape made junction Nth Gen Rea,nv
J's.t =, az me Puebia, but did Of do
inc batlc OF the 9th January, Andreas Pico the
hroIu H command OF the Mexican forces, having fcice
Keaynv ~ and erPectiag quarter from General
and Scy y n oh small portion of the sneny's force,
IL .n. treaty nth Coiont Fremont ser.riag to ann
49,, a"aa.s o' nus crimes. This ,ty though illegal
oes 1Aeculea without the authority of the commandIng
from ,notires Of poiicy.' 'P''''u ny 'he geherai
lhe hrst OF these II believed is macmillan 70 Eror
ms 10 ne Ioubu as lar as am aware now here so IN.
here Inc second Is found, in modified form in ono
other place, VIZ IN the letter already spok on ri ,r;
from San Diego. The acting ailutan, pener,l ~ ,b
army OF the west and the lieutenant colonel Of " NM ,e
mons divide the honors OF being the rela,rs Of 10;
falsehood, though it not believed that either of ha
was its author, but that they both deceped into i'
circulation This inquiry however, will properly be
made when the Diego letter shall be up its turn
conclude what | have here TO say OF the Picayune
and It's authorship, with these points in addition
10 the overwhelming proofs have adduced
l. The name of no other person than Lieut. Emorys,