The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1853-02-19


more Sun has deal! very unjustly-to
say no worse--towards Cornelius Smith
Esq, member Of the House of Delegates
from this county. Being one of the
constituents of Mr.. S. our attention was
naturally attracted TO the matter, and
we propose to pass it under q hasty ex-
animation.
The Sun keeps writer at Annapolis
to furnish for its columns, an account of
the proceedings of the State Legislature.
In his report for the sth inst. he pro-
tesses to give the substance of a speech
made by Mr.. Smith against the bill to
bridge the Susque hanna, and makes him
say that "the press of the State had been
suJsidaced."
The Sun, among its multiplicity of
writers, keeps others to write editorials.
One of these, on the 10th inst, COM
mitted to the types a lengthy leading
article, mainly in reference to Mr.. S. D.,
in which the following language-ele-
CANT or otherwise was held:
"The people of Maryland may bless their
stars that Mister Smith is at Annapolis-not
John Smth-he is an obsolete idea; his uhiqut-
GUS professions, his newspaper cxploIls--John
Cp,tt !, Inc prl lair n,I
dirirns--the miraculous versatility of his geni-
us, and other qualities too numerous to men
tion, have assigned him place among the fab
ulous creations of the world, Presler John. the
Galphin claim, and the Man in the White Hat.
Our Mr.. Smith, is Mr.. Cornelius Smith, of Port
Deposit, Cecil county, Maryland-a man of
words, and Of ideas, and, we presume, compe-
tent to substanlate them. If he should prove
so. the people of Maryland will owe him debt
OF gratitude which place in the House or the
Senate, or the Executive mansion, will but
poorly requite."
We admit, as in duty bound, that as
that appeared as the leader in The Bal
tlmore Sun, 1t mast be very witty, sat-
irical, indignant, etc; perhaps it is, and
perhaps it as not.
Then after referring to Mr.. Frazier,
whose case we will notice presently, the
editor proceeds:
"lt appears that corrupt influences are at
work, and 1t is due to the people, that members
who make such declarations should snbstan.iate
them. Unless they do so, their charges and
virtues will alike fall below the level Of COM
mon claptrap. On onc hand we shall have
reason 10 suspect, that the press is charged with
dishonesty through the utlelancc of malice; and
on the other that legislative virtue is ordinarily
a marketable article. We therefore call upon
Mr.. Smith TO make good his charges against
"lhe press,' and, lift will be quite as agreea-
bic to him, 10 commence with the Baltimore
Sum-
Let us agree that all that is very Just
and very proper--admltting Mr.. Smith
did say "the press Oft the State had been
subsadiaed;;" tho it is little strange that
the press of the State, except The Sun,
(and few Others with whose company
it would scarcely feel itself much COM
plmented.) were SO lnsensible that
their honor and chastity were about to
be "clear gone forever" as to pas, the
matter by in silence.
But did Mr.. Smith make use of Che OBJ
Jectlonable language. He did not. We
have taken the pains to ascertain, from
other members of the House, what he
did say, which was nothing like the re.
mark attributed 10 him; and on the mex
day after The Sun referred to him as
quoted above, its Annapolis writer gave
the following as part Of the proceedings
of the House.:
"Mr Smith of Cecil, rose to make person.
al explanations: he had been very rudely assail-
ed in the editorial columns of the Baltimore
Sun. for a remark enormously, but he had no
doubt inadvertently reported to have been made
by him in the debate upon the bill to bridge the
Susquehanna. He did not use the expression
that "lhe press OF the State had been subsidized "
but that "the Philadelphia. Wilmlugto and
Baltimore Railroad Company had eudeorored to
manufacture public opinion in their .faror through
Tie press Of the STATE, &c.'' He entertained os
great respect for the press, for an independent
and high toned press--as it was possible to do
land fully appreciated its usefulness and its
importance; but, he considered the remarks in
relation to him in the Sun 10 be unjust and I'M
dignificd."
Well! what does the writer of edito.
rails now say? Mark the case, reader.
One Of The Suns writer's puts into the
mouth Of Mr.. S. words which-or SIM.
lar to which-he never uttered; where
upon another of its writers pounces on
him and holds him up, as he no doubt
thought, TO riolcule and contempt; nay
more, he held against HIM the following
inuendo:
"Let Mr. Smith and his constituents ponder
awhile upon an inlimaron in these columns,
that he is about TO dspose of himself and their