American telegraph. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1851-1851, 1851-05-05

no canuld reader VIII form judgment between
our correspondent and ourselves, without read
ing our first editorials in the Telegraph on
Friday and Saturday last and, secondly, that
while we cannot denounce Mr.. Bulwer, or any
other gentleman, for repelling SANDER and
denouncing slanderer, we should certainly
be no less prompt than our, correspondent in
resenting a public insult offered to Irishmen
and their descendants in this country. 4,
WASHINGTON, May 8, 1851.
To the Editors Of the american Telegraph.
GENTLEMEN: Your leading editorial of yester-
day, alluding to the late speech Of Mr.. Bulwer,
contains the following remarkable paragraph:
81 Had this distinguished and accomplished
gentleman expressed himself in terms Of scorn
and contempt for the author of the late miser-
able forgery, we could have approved his senti-
ments but by his revealing his contempt only
in words of pleasantly, however scathing their
rebuke, he has done much better, and shown
himself superior to emotions of anger toward
men whom, according to our convictions, no one
can defend without disgrace"
1t is not my purpose, in addressing you this
communication, to yindicate the anthor Of what
you are pleased to call !" miserable forgery"
and is fully able, if truth be on his side, to de-
| fend himself But desire to notice, very
| briefly, the sweeping assertions by which you
not only attempt to justify the insulting Ian
| guage of the British official, but also to cast
| unmerited odium upon those who, in the exer-
| else of an unquestionable right, and what they
conceived to be an imperative duty, thought
proper to give expression to their indignation
at the insult maliciously hurled at them as
adopted citizens of country to whose institu-
tons they are devotedly attached, and which,
in times Of peril, they have ever shown them
selves ready, nay, eager to defend.
Now, what was the offensive language used
by this " distinguished and accomplished gen.
tleman," at the recent st. Georges festival
Read it:
Although it is natural to conjecture, from
the semi mi-barbarous, sem-clad, and Celtic origin
of my Boston friend, Daughter that he had
been guilty Of the crime OF which he boasted--
namely, theft-he had in reality been guilty of
IN offence which more appropriately belongs to
| n further advanced stage of pantaloons and re-
inement-[ laughter ii mean forgery; an
other example, by the way, of the general
MAXIM that all savuges, whether Celtic or other
wise, when they take to inhabiting cities-ever
| such moral cities AS Boston-adopt the vices
without acquiring the virtues or the graces o.
| civilized life"
| If this be revealing his contempt only in
words of pleasantly" surely the vocabulary oi
Billingsgate may hereafter be ftly ranked
| among the polite literature of the age! Surely,
if these be "words of pleasantly" the sting of
the viper must be exceedingly pleasant But,
| seriously, could more grossly insulting senti-
ments have been thrown in the teeth of Irish
men and the sons Of Irishmen, than those en-
bodied in the above extract? Is it not vile
| calumny, rs well as q malicious insult, to say
that the Celtic rnce, "when they take to in
habiting cities-even such moral cities as Bos-
ton-adopt the Uices tcithom acquiring the virtues
or the graces of civilized life?" Is it not base
and infamous insnuation to say that |" it is
natural to conjecture from the semi. barbarous,
semi-clad, and Celtic origin of my Boston friend,
and of course all Of similar origin, that he had
been guilty of the crime of theftT Aud did
not the British minister utter both these un
warrantable and execrable sentiments Call
you these "words of pleasantry?" No, mol
they smack too strongly of the venom on the
tongue from which they fell to be sweetened by
such boneyed term.
But when, in the latter clause Of the para
graph quoted from your editorial of yesterday,
you say that this British Ambassador has, in
using these "words of pleasantly" "shown
himself superior to emotions Of anger toward
men whom, according to our convictions no
one can defend ,eithom disgrace," you venture an
assertion which, as you can perceive only
pleasantly in the words Of Bulwer, you will
permit me very pleasantly to say is unworthy an
American editor, and especially one who, like
the senior editor of the Telegraph, is a de-
scendant Of the Celtic race, as his name i'm
plies. Who are the men whom "no one can
defend without disgrace ?" To be sure, the
language of the editor Of the Telegraph is am
biguous; but the inference is, that they are,
according to his convictions" the Boston
editor and those who we're associated with him
in the recent struggles for liberty in Ireland,
Is it true, then, that one can defend them
without dsgraceY Is it true that O Brien, and
Meagher, and Doheny, (the latter Of whom was
a prominent actor in the late indignation meet
ing,) and host of other bold and daring spir-
its, cannot be defended? Who ever questioned
their virtue, their courage, their patriotism,
save some minion Of British power, or some un-
Americanized American fit to be such? But it
will be time enough to defend them when their
! characters are assailed. Of Mr., Doheny, how