Daily American telegraph., 1852-04-24
MIR. Mangum and MIR. Brooks.

We have sought i'll the papers of to-day the
reply of Mr.. Brooks made in the House yester-
day to the remarks of Mr. Mangum in the Senate
on Thursday, and have carefully read it over
with the desire to do justice to both parties in
the unpleasant affair; but while it is somewhat
elaborate i'll its composition, filing nearly Co
lnmn and three quarters of the Republic, it con-
tains 90 little substance that it would be totally
prohtless to quote it entire
Mr. B' says he is much averse TO personal ex-
plantations, but wishes to be placed Alright on the
record of the country. He then says:
g have but little respect for that chivalry
which, before it assaults Northern member of
Congress-, carefully consults the lines of latitude
and longitude in order to know where to safely
direct its remarks, and which has winning, WOO
ing tones for every one south of the Potomac, and
rough and rugged for those further north need
not say this however in the present case, because
the speaker of this article is of an age and in
position TO protect him from any personal assault
Of niine--from any assault here or elsewhere; for
should as soon think of vindicating myself in
that way from this personal assault as if were
assaulted by my grandfather.
lie then proceeds to deny solemnly the author
ship of the letter and editorial article attributed
TO him, and says;
"The letter to which the honorable gentleman
| from North Carolina (Mr Stanly alluded the
! other day was brought to me. No inconsiderable
portion of that letter | struck out Indeed all
the personal matters wished to strike out, but
remonstrance was made to me that the rumors
which were put forth in that paper were rumors
! in the mouth Of almost every man-rumors, Of
course, but the existence Of which the writer
could not deny i'll the form they were stated.
The letter went before the public; and but yes
terday, the day before, disclaimed all per-
sonal responsibility for it's statements facts, and
allegations.
'.But it is said that there is remarkable sim
llarity of language between that letter and the
language which made use of in the caucus in
the Senate Chamber upon another occasion.
| Having seen the letter, and having been fired by
many Of its sentiments, just and true, it is but
natural, in warmth and excitement, / should
have given utterance to the same thoughts and
the same language; for the language and
| thoughts were mine, as well as the language and
thoughts of many others who are associated with
me- Amazement, wonder, and astonishment
have one common language, and, like "words
| that breath and thoughts that burn" spring from
the tongue of every man when astonishing events
occur. Hence this similarity of language--hencc
this identity of thought. This accounts for it
nothing more"
To us this denial is very much like an admis-
sion in effect.
What follows here respecting wife, liveries, and
carriage, is badindge, and ends as follows
Il had rather be driven by negro in livery,
| than, Southern man, be the hveried coachman
of Northern Abolitionists, driving an Abolition
team for the Presidency"
For this Mr. Brooks received very good round
Of Democratic applause. 1t was, of course, the
reward he had anticipated, and, if precious to
him, he should be permitted to enjoy it unenvied.
That it was not united in by the entire Demo-
cratic party may be readily accounted for by the
fact that there are gentlemen in that party who
cannot even in moment Of excited party con-
troversy, give their assent to the drivelling and
rbald slandcrs Of defeated and PROSTATE rene
gade against the purest men of the party he has
deserted.
What follows relates to the alleged disaffection
in the Whg caucus. Our readers have in the
above the import of Mr.. Brookss defence. We
heartily wish it were more to the point and more
effective.