The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1850-02-13

hat freedom, certain ten acre lots, worth from
30 to rs dollars per acre, should be passcd oOer"
It valuation of $45.
But here is the testimony of MIR. Nightingale,
Upon this subject. TWAS voluntarily furnished
is, on Monday last, and he has our acknowl-
edgments for the favor Hager has failed us,
md on his account, not our own, we are sorry
for it. He is good natured man, and could
not find it in his heart to dance, but as the Ma
jor bowed his whistle, although we venture the
assertion, that dared he to have spoken his sem
timents, the Major had never suffered himself
to be "dragged before the publie.'
For the Express.
Docron HoLr:
As my name has been called in question. in
the skirmishing now going on between the elk
press and "Telegraph," ~ desire, thro' your
paper, to place myself right in the premises, as
am unwilling that my views, past or present.
shall be misunderstood by my friends. You are
in error when you state that ever worked in
Major Mobley's political Team, and perhaps it
is owing to the fact that never acknowled him
as my driver, that certain causes have produced
certain effects. The Major has been fortunate
to find more tractable material than myself, who
have pulled and hauled him Gas is asserted by
some) much against his inclination, into very
snug birth, which nobody thought worth having
I trust you will keep better posted up in future,
and not give me that credit which more properly
belongs to others. The Editor of the 'sTele
graph is also mistaken in part, when he states
that said 81 did not believe him to have been
Influenced by Major Mobley, but that he [the
Editor,) had other and purer motives in view
the interests of the Wing party" 1t is not for
me to call in question his motivcs or their puri-
ty, or to discuss them here or elsewhere, at pre-
sent. / never alluded to them at all. The facts
are these: some few days since, Mr.. McCraney
asked me whether l believed he (McCraney,)
had been influenced by Moblcy in the conduct of
his journal? replied, that did not; that be-
lieved he had pursued the course which he tho't
best; that it was not the course which would
hare been pursued by me, had remained in the
paper; but perhaps it was best for him. | make
this correction, because the language which Mr..
McCrancy imputes to me is susceptible of We
ry different construction from that which should
in fairness be put upon the remarks which did
use; and were to remain silent, any one unac-
that left the "Telegraph" last June, believing
that my course was such as would tend to the
injury of the Wing party, and that took my
leave, my very soul stirred up with emotions of
the liveliest gratitude and satisfaction. Not so;
though possessing perhaps as much of the milk
of human kindness as the most of men, ! never
caress the hand that smites. Nor can be so
insensible as not to know and feel where the
blow comes from that hits me. The blow that
! received on that occasion was a hard one; it
stag ercd ME considerably l confess; but | am
thankful that am so far recovered as to be in a
situation to observe passing events, and note
them as 60 along Again: always consider
ed that Mr.. McCraney did me great injustice in
his remarks relative to my withdrawal think
so still, and have never hestated so to express
myself To be sure, I have had no cause to regret
that withdrawal; yet, this does not change the
state of things which brought it about. With
regard to Major Mobley's influencing fhe course
of the s'Telegraph,' will say, that the circum-
stances under which left the paper, and con-
versation which ] had with the Editor at the
time, certainly justified me in the conclusion
that the Major, from that time forward, would
exercise an indirect influence over it's columns
- It,: - L.. n
am satisfied that such has not been the case; the
more so, from the fact that Mr. McCranev in
formed me only few days before the CONVEX
sation between US, and before spoken of took
place, that Major Mobley had promised to write
to Ftz Henry Warren, with view to procure
for the ''Telegraph' portion of the Post Of
fee printing; which, upon subsequent enquiry,
he found the Major had failed to do thus giving
the whole of that fat job to the sTribune" We
both agreed at the time, that Mobley was not
nor never had been really friendly to the sue
cess ofthe paper; and this circumstance justi-
fed in some degree this opinion.
| see, too, that MIR. Hager differs from me in
my views relative to the conducting of the Tc-
lcSlCt tulS, anu HuSt CONFESS tndt l
am not a little surprised at this announcement,
and can only say, that if had my sspeculiar
views,' &C., there are some other things be.
side them, that are 'accrry peekooliar.'
GEO. l.. NIGHTINGALE.
Dubuque, Feb. 18th, 1850.
So much for the "truth' of the "charge,' and
now a word upon the "slandcr' contained in it.
Webster defines SANDER to be, ia false tale or
report maliciously uttered, and tending to injure
the reputation of another, by lessening him in
the esteem Of his fellow citizens, by exposing
him to impeachment and punishment, or by i'm
pairing his means oflivng." Under which head
Of this definition is this charge to be placed p
Which of the parties concerned is slandered by
the connection alledged to have subsisted be.
tween thcm' Does Major Mobley feel that a
connection with that paper, or the exercise of
controlling influence over it, would have ten
dency to lessen him in the esteem of his fellow
citizens' If so, why put five hundred dollars
into the concern to sustain it? Is it M Crancy
that is slandered, by being accused of "respect-