American telegraph. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1851-1851, 1851-05-08
For the American Telegraph.

WASHINGTON, May 7, 1861.
GENTLEMEN Your correspondent, "F Men,"
sitting in the seat of the scorner, and receding
still farther than in his first communication
from the man of sense and moderation, has
undertaken to play the critic on my letter of
yesterday. After the specimens we have wit
messed of his rhetorical and dialectic powers,
do not think it necessary to be much troubled
on that account, feeling nothing more certain
than that the opinions of the reasonable and
respectable portion of the community cannot be
on the side Of the infammable and ill-bred par
ties who originated, and seem disposed to keep
up, the most senseess hubbub Of the nineteenth
century. If 'F. Men" has been made to
nfiction; and the low abuse to which he
tinstinctively resorts in reply simply proves
how well the lash has been laid on: it is oil
amply transparent.
The only portion of his letter having the
least apparent point is the third paragraph, in
which he labors and sweats to prove upon me
an inaccuracy of speech. But he has again
entirely missed his mark. / said that Sir
Henry Bulwer gave ga public denial to the
forgery" perpetrated by the Boston editor that
he publicly disclaimed its authorship Every
body understood me; for what | said was cor
rect in point of grammar, sense, and fact. And
even ''F. Men" tacitly consents to it; for
what he finds fault with is not what said, but
what he said himself. After formally citing
what wrote he goes on to expound but what
does he expound? Not my remark, but his
own nonsense, in these words: {" the denial of
the forgery of the despatch" Now, after him
self setting up man of straw, it was quite
cheap affair for him to knock it down. He
undertook the feat, and he performed it. That
is the whole amount of his laborous effort in
the third paragraph; that, and nothing more.
Your correspondent denies that Sir Henry s
remarks were directed to the Boston editor
alone He can continue to deny as long as he
pleases but his denial does not alter the fact
one whit. Sir Henry explained what by the
way did not require explanatory most frankly
and satisfactorily, disclaiming the slightest i'm
putation upon any living race of mankind. he
did all man could do in the matter. Now,
the ready dictate of every noble mind in case
of the sort must be this that any set Of men,
who, after receiving from n party a most willing
and candid disclaimer of all intention to affront
still persist in their first pursuit, merit expul-
sion from the pale of civilized humanity. To
disregard handsome explanation or apology,
in the way displayed by Doheny & Co., is to
out-Celt the old Cets in the very lowest cond-
ton of their barbarism. Indeed it is one
degree beloW barbarism it is savagery, closely
bordering on the diabolical.
In another point your correspondent strives
to show off his amazing shrewdness. 1t was
in his discovery of the fine mares nest, that, in
my aim to disclose what Sir Henry did say and
mean, did not quote his speech. Suppose |
had quoted it. what then? Would that have
helped the matter Not bit of it. The bare
words of the speech might be recited till dooms-
day, without effectng any thing. What l did
was what any man Of common sense must do
to secure my object, viz. elucidate by para
phrase. The thing is practicable in no other
way with the honestly dull with the perversely
obstinate no means are available.
| would remark, in closing, that my letter of
yesterday remains unanswered, and still sub
ssts in full force. My opponents letter of to-
day has not grazed it. for at best he only plays
about its outskirts. The strong points of my
letter he has prudently evaded, but has sought
to break its effect by resorting to the poor con-
trivance of raising cloud of dust, so as to
dim the optics of bystanders.
SO long as F. Men" might continue in the
field Of strong reasons and fair argument, he
will find me on hand but when unable or un-
willing to confront me on that ground, he be-
takes himself to the mire and filth of scurrility
and personality, he need not expect me to ac-
company him.
Respectfully, yours, CrvIs.
Aurprc.N R,pTIsr prRIIcATIoy Society