The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1850-10-09
DUB UesUE:
NEDNEsDAT:":::." o, 1850.
New Nosions proved Old No. 3-Objcc-
items answered.

New No!ions proved Old No. :s-ODjec-
items answered.
| We congratulatc our nephbor of the Tele-
graph upon the very visible change for the bet
ter which it assumed last week, atho' a little Iur-
| king Of The old disease is manifested in the crit
icism upon our "nntions.' The severity with
which our language and sentiments are CRITICS.
ed is always justiiable on the part Of those who
choose to become critics. This of course we
expect, and to legitimate conclusions derived
from admitted or proved facts we cllccrfully sub
nit
| In our discussions with others, as we'll as in
our investigation Of first principles, we have not
cntravorrd to sophisicatc in order to gain vic
| tory; we have rot cndcavorcd to triumph al the
expense Of reason, and when we are met On the
same ground Of fairness in the discussion Of any
notion new DID, which we may choose to pre-
sent to readers, We feel that the battle is for
truth and honorcd be the victor. Such are our
feelings towards the writer Of the article in the
last Telegraph, headed, cold notions become
new, or progressive Dcmocracy.' We DO not
know who that writer is, but there is that in h;
article which tells US who he is not, or ga NIGH.
ty reformation has been workcd.'
Thus much by way of prelude. Now to the
argument Of Our contemporary.
The portion Of our remarks subjected to criti
cism is taken from an article Of the Express,
headed, "New notions proved old, and is as fol
lows:
"Ifit can be proved that two branches are no
rrs$nry for the Legislative Department Of the
Govrrnncnt, we shall reason by analogy from
this point, and demand the establishment Of two
Executives, and two Judicarirs, with co-c xtrn-
s:vc powers and Jurisdictions.
VI l1lfS ""l or'.e">r"rary savs it is "tairly beg
ging the question:; ); we say that it is not -
Here then is dispute in which I've has the at-
! fmnatiyr and by consequence, the burden OF
proof to sustain his assertion is thrown upon him.
But as it may be too long to wait for the reply
: Of our cotcmporary; and as protracted discus
sion may not be profitable to our readers as it
> IS amusing to ourselves, we are willing to waive
iornalt,irs as we'll as technical rights, and
= proceed to prove that We have not begged
the question. begging Of the question i:
that species of argument which advances the
''''Sil'i N!Nl'ult 'o pibol b i4lc posi-
ton itself. Have we done this? or is there an,
thing in the extract subjected to the criticism O
: our cotcmporary which opens u position to sus
tam this charge?
Il Our proposition is in substance ssIi' You prove
that two branches Of Legislation are necessary
analogy will sustain us in Demanding the cstab
lishmcnt Of two Executive branches and two ia
dicIal branches. Now, ths is hvpothctlca
proposition which may be rgituatrly denied
and to prove which would t.rn be on: duty; bu
when we have merely stated the Gncstion hypo
thctcally, and advanced u mere intention 0
5 what we would demand, ifthc affirmative ofth
n hypothesis could be proved, it is not Legitimate
nor just in our contemporary to chnrgc us witt
;, begging of the question. mere hypothttic
al statement of a question, with contingent con
clusion based upon the atirmancc Of the hvpo
thesis, is not begging of the question: If ou
y cotcmporary is not satisfied that we have dispro
II II we'd his assertion, resume the right of call
= ing upon him to prove that we Aaec begged tn
Ii question.
S After charging lis with bad reasoning, to wc
y we plead ''not guilty. our contemporary unfor
d tunatey falls into the following train of suggcs
r tions:
!. eft is not proper for us to prove what is show
everyday Of our lives. The two branches ar
a part of the fundamental law Of the State Th
position the Editor has assumed, renders it obi
gatory on him to prove that they unneccssa
ry. If he can succeed in this, then anaog
would teach him the necessity of two EXecu
tIvcs: two Judiciarles etc. He has failed to do it
Now, we have not asked him, any else t.
"prove what is shewn every day ofour lives. -
l. We have not denied that two branches are
part ofthc fundamental law Of the State; but tina
it should be so of necessity, denied. Th,
If mere existence Of thing is not sufficient proc
of the nccessty of its existence. Yet, this seems
$ to be the only argument in favor of the exist
e ence of two branches. 'lt is SO; therefore i
u y should be So" GA man gets drunk, therefore he
must continue to get drunk" Arguments baset
G upon such sophistry will lead to any conclusion
true or false, but false as well as true.
: The next proposition of our contemporary i.
true, namely, that we are bound to prove thai
two branches are unnecessary. This is exactly
what we are endeavoring to perform in re-
gular articles upon the subject, but if we coulc
succeed in this, it would not follow that analogy
would teach us such lesson as is laid down by
our contemporary. lie says: ''lf he can succeed
in this (proving that two branches are unneces-
sary, then analogy would teach HIM the nccessi-
ty of two Executives, two Judiciares,' &c
Surely our cotemporary did not mean to write
anything absurd as this; but ifhe did, there is
no help for him, but to combat his absurdity-
The reasoning Of our contemporary is this: if VIC
can prove that two branches are unnecessary,
then analogy would teach us that two branches
are necessary in the other departments! That
is, having proved that one is sufficient, analogy
would then teach us that two were necessary!
AS we cannot yet believe that our contemporary
meant to write anything so absurd as this, we
cannot conscientously laugh at the absnrdity.
We give him time 10 correct himself.
In order to present the strong points which
our cotemporary makes against u.s. we give his