The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1849-10-18
TIL E RE ? u B Lie.
WASHIN GTON:
THURSDAY MORNING, OCTOBER IS, ls4s.

The Union denounces the construction
which we put upon passage IN the reply
of the Director General of Nicaragua to
an address delivered by Mr.. Squires on
the occasion of his presenting himself as
the representative Of the United States
Government, as SANDER upon Mr.. Folks
administration. Our construction upon
what the director general then said, was,
that Nicaragua had, pending the usurpa-
ton which resulted in the ACKNOWLEDGMENT
of her territory and the establishment OF
British pretension through the instrument
tality of the Mosquito King, asked the IN
PREVENTION and protection of the American
Government, and that the administration
OF Mr. Polk refused or neglected to offer
the Intervention or protection asked for.
This Interpretation the Union asserts to be
SANDER If we have misconceived the
meaning of the language of the Director
General of Nicaragua, it is an error Of
judgment only To make j: out SANDER
there must be some crime-oficial NAL
feasance or criminal Understanding
puted. Our experience teaches US that
the "sole organ" frequently regards the
bare mention of what was done under the
last administration as Liberal and libel
lous; for example, it is criminally SANDER
Gus, according to the Union, to say ''proto-
col" when Mr.. Clifford is in town.
Lest there should be any misunderstood
ing of what the Union means by SANDER,
it should always, when it charges any one
with such an offence, say whether it is
because the facts are truly reported or
otherwise. In this controversy it is i'm
portant to know whether the imputation
is slanderous on account of error of fact,
or libellous on account of the serious ma,
ture of the offence implied in our construc-
ton of words deliberately spoken. We
desire to know, If the construction we gave
to the language of the Supreme Director
of Nicaragua be the true one, will the
Union then maintain that the last admin
istration neglected" and compromised"
the ssrights,' "interests" and "honor" Of
''the countryp This charge the Union
imputes to our construction; and we again
ask that journal, if it should turn out to be
the fact that the last administration did
neglect or refuse to interfere to prevent
the usurpation of the Mosquito territory,
after having been advised of the purposes,
objects, and doings of the British govern
ment and the sans-culotte savage on that
coast-if history shall show such to have
been the fact, will the Union then de-
nounce the last administration as having
neglected and compromised the rights,
interests, and honor OF the countryl"
The Union says our Interpretation implies
such charge. We now ask the Union, if
our Interpretation is true, will it admit
the truth of its own Interpretation of our
language'
These are plain questions, which any
air-minded paper would answer. Nor do
we take the Union at disadvantage Ii
pretends TO know that the archives of the
State Department will discredit our inter
probation. II therefore knows what it is
talking about. But were it otherwise,
what is or what is not in the archives of
the State Department cannot change the
principle involved in the questions we pro-
pound; unless, indeed, the Union contends
that what would compromise the honor of
the country under one administration
would rebound to its glory under another
| The Union has accused US Of SANDER This
is serious charge; and in our defence we
have a right to be answered in a candid,
fair spirit. Will it do so' If our inter-
probation of the speech of the Supreme Di-
rector of Nicaragua be sustained by the
history of the times, will the Union then
denounce the last administration as having
"negiected and compromised the rights, IN
terests and honor of the country"