The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-05-31

The Intcillgeneer's Plea In yust,Aeatlsn.
Our exposure Of the double-deal;ng of the
inlelligencer, and its deliberate attempt TO pro-
duce false impressions in relation to the real
position Of Senator BUTLER, Mr. Burr, and the
Carolsn'an newspaper, has forced it to descend
from the stills of its mock -dgnity, aud mystify
that which II csnnot justify.
As It has put in plea for mercy on the main
Issues made by us, by standing mute and at
tempting no justification, we will not insist on
its answering those charges but merely append
it's response adding few comments thereto:
:" In the National Intelligencer of Tuesday
last, we inserted part Of an article which We
found in the Charleston Courier, said to be
taken by request from the South CAROLYN
ian,' the object of which was to show that the
apparent unanmity of the late convention OF
Southern Rights Associations was fictitious.
unreal, and Elusive. Exception is taken to this
republication by the organ OF the secessionists
in this city, on the ground that the original arti-
ticle in the Carolinian' was not editorial but a
communication, and was published with "a
protest by the editor against its statements.
This fact was not stated in the paper from which
we took it, nor is it in the least material. The
'Carolipian' is vouched by its collaboration here
to be highly respectable paper Such pa
per would not have published at all commune
cation from source less respectable than itself;
and the force of statements published from such
a source, and copied into paper of as high
character as the Charleston Courier, is not ut all
weakened by the editors dissent from them
Imelligencer Of yesterday.
i 4
that the response of the InteHigencsr is confined
to the most immaterial point made by u.s.
No allusion is made to its injurious inuen-
does in relation to Mr.. BUTLER and Mr.. BURT
No retraction of its injustice to the gentlemen
who composed the Charleston convention. No
further exposition of its new code ofpublic NOR
ais, and individual honesty acode which makes
that conduct honorable in public man, which
would disgrace citizen in his private transac-
tons. All these things, in pursuance of its
usual system Of tactics, it cautiously lodges,
and attempts to mystify little only the last
and least of the charges we brought against it.
We will devote but few words to the ex-
posure of the shallow sophistries by which it
attempts to screen itself in this last instance.
To do this it is only necessary to state its pleas,
Invested of the web of words in which they are
covered up.
The Intelligencer admits lst., that its infor-
nation, like its arguments, was derived at
also, that the manner of insertion
Of the article was such as to produce the i'm
preston of which we complained.
The second plea sets up pretext that can
deceive nobody. For every reasonable man
knows that there is vast difference between
The weight to be attached to the adhesion of an
press to a cause, and the speculations
Of mn anonymous correspondent, however re-
pectable," when accompanied by an editorial
protest.
The third plea is: A highly respectable pa
per aoould not publish anything from source
less respectable than ITSELF and the republication
Of such statements into another paper of high
character, neutralizes the force Of the editors dis
sent q. E. ID.
Risum teneatis Amici %
Restrain your Srrth, Oh frends!" for the
senior organ of the Adminstration-the oracle
of consolidation and of the compromisers of the
Constitutions a solemn organ, and relishes
a hearse-like dirges more than carols" ever in
tent on treason" stratagems, and spoils."
But one link is wanting to complete this cob
web chain of logic, and that is the "By Request"
with which the Courier headed the article when
republished. Doubtless the Intelligencer would
argue from thence its entire endorsement of its
contents, though commonly that prefix is regard
ed in the light of an express waiver of such en-
dorsement.
We have followed up the windings of the In
teliigencer merely to expose its ingenious Jug
glings with the cup and balls; for our original
charge was, that the communication was in
serted in such way as to produce the impress
sion that it indicated change of position on
the part of the paper from which it was taken
The Intelhgencer's answer proves not only
this, but would seem to establish the additional
fact of its having been published by the editor
himself under that impression.