The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1849-09-12
The Censure OF General Taylor's Conduct
at Monterey.

The Censure of General Tnylor's Conduct
at Monterey.
1t gives US much regret to have been
instrumental in wounding the feelings OF
Mr. MCLANE's friends to the extent we
have done by our paragraph of last week.
We can heal them only by correcting in
the broadcast manner the false impression
which the paragraph was calculated to pro
duce. To suppose that there was any. de-
sign, on the part of the person who sent
it to US for publication, to make mis-
pstatement, is only absurd. The only pos.
sible reparation, however, that can be
made we have made. We have stated
that Mr.. McLANE served in the army six
or seven years after leaving West Point.
We will add that he served with credit.
| Furthermore, we have, stated that Mr..
MCLANE did not vote for the resolution OF
JACOB THOMPSON censuring the conduct
of General TAYLOR at Monterey. We will
add that, so far from having done so, Mr..
McLANE approved of General TAYLoR's
conduct on that occasion; and that IL ,oas
his immediate predecessor, and not himself,
,Oho poted for the proriso IN question.
The friends of Mr.. McLANE show a
very proper resentment, in view of what
they consider an opprobrious charge. The
Union repels it with the same Billingsgate
terms which the junior editor employed
the other day to stigmatize journal
which had accused Mr. BURKE of being
the author Of an article which appeared
in his own columns. Mr. BURKE protest.
ed that he was not the author, and abused
the person who accused him of it, in Ian.
guage which he would have used, prob
ably, to any one who had charged him
with picking pocket The article was
vile enough, no d ubt; and Mr.. BURKE
was right in repelling with indignation
the charge of having written it; but the
display Of anger was but left-handed
compliment to Mr.. Richie, OF the othei
"young and vigorous mind" associated
with Mr.. Richie in conducting tn,
Union.
So the Indignation which Mr.. BURK,
and the friends of Mr.. McLANE now show
at the idea Of his being charged with votiny
for JACOB THoNPsoN's proviso, is al
right; we appreciate tive sympathiz
with tive like to see it, We shoul,
have felt very much in the same way our
selves, if we had been accused or sus
pected of having done the same thing
But what left-handed compliment il is {
the one hundred and ten Locofocos VIII
voted for that same provisol What left
handed compliment is this indignant re
pudiation to Mr.. McLANE's immediat
predecessor in Congress-whose name ap
. pears in the list we have already publishe
Of the one hundred and ten Locofocos VIII
did vote for that shameful proviso.
; But what was the disgrace of voting 70
that proviso, compared with that of belong
ing to party represented by such jour
mails as the Union and the Argus!
Mr.. MCLANE bad voted for JACOB THomr
SONS proviso, he might have survive
it--but how is he to escape from the dis
honor Of being defended by the journal
which abound daily in the lowest libels an
the vilest caricstures of the great and goo
man, whom Mr. McLANE claims to hav
: defended against the unjust censure Of hi
party associates'
7 We rejoice that Locofocoism is comm