The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-03-27
who II Rights

Commenting the posture OF European affairs the
Usen of the 23d stated that the report that the ula-
nahum OF Count Lenngen had been rejected and that the
Austrian embassy had left the Turkish domnions.
nfounded. The conditions proposed BY Leningen were
not 30 hard as supposed and the Porte had alter
native but to accept them, 90 to war with Austria
without any hope of supper, from the western owers
The accuracy OF this statement is disputed by the New
York Times, in the following terms:
"The Warrington Union OF Thursday last pronounces
the of Count Leinngen having failed in his mis-
sion the Pore and OF his return, TO be unfounded and
heeupon-in connerion with the other from that dis
pont-bases observations by calculated
encou rage those in the Old World, who hold
their lives their hands, ready purchase with their blood
the freedom of their native lands Where, ask does
contemporary find its authority for its assertion Surely
OF the English press, which
the gaze OF all. Has IL any private intelligence more
definite or more (ssbe than tina, which the public
gains its knowledge of the transactions in Tur
key and Ausra IL noi we zee no reasonable ground Tor
assu ption induced believe has been led
into by conoundlng separate and distinct acts In
the drama and the same"
We will respond TO the n,erroS a,ores OF our cotem-
psrary without hesitation, although we must pause TO
express surprise that well-informed journal
The Times should be isnoran, of notorious fact.
By this the Tines is doubtless convinced OF the accuracy
Of our statement the intelligence brought by The Asia
fully confirms il; bu, challenged produce the
authority on which originally made the con,roverted
assertion. suppose mus proceed to indicate
selves from the credit OF lucky guess.
In the House Of Commons, ia reply to an inquiry
from Lord Dudley Stuart, Lord John Russell, on the
81 OF March, made exposihon OF Turkish affairs, in
the course OF which he informed the House that ",he
English ambassador Vienna bad communicated to the
British government that the Austrian government had
been sa,sh.d-thei ne MISSION q Prince L~inss~ had
bee. rseossf.i" Oar contemporary will hardly ques-
ton The weight Of this authority bat have better
still In the London Times Of March 3,h we find
letter from "Our own Correspondent Vienna,
which communicates the following information 90 tn.
kindness OF friend enables to confirm the
Of the settlement, OF the Turkish ques,ion. On Sat,
urdsy, The 2h, divan held, al which all the high
digniisries OF the aad-Soh in and out OF ohce-were
assembled After long and stormy debate the Aasrisn
prsroie.s ssosskd. 0ner Pasha Is Immediately To
withdraw his troops from Montenegro, which 10 TO retain
its former seuindspenden, position. The HunEansn
and Polish fuSres serving IN the Rumeian army corps
are to he dismissed directly and the Porte has consented
10 pay $4,000 900 pissres indemnhoahon iof Inc
claims az Austrian .usiect. the Bosnians and Here
vo,ines kleek and suerina will still belong TO the Porte
thoosh nor, in name than in reality, an has rs'ln-
ou.AeS s right 10 erect ori6;aons on them, OF TO ap
nro.sA ,A,n hy sea The claim OF Austria TO protect
me cahoc Christians in the western provinces OF Tur
,sy Gas zoe the moment waived. ~ II was not one OF
IA. categorical demsnds is believed that the Sultan
c Ne obliged dismiss his cabinet in order TO appeass
me ultra Turkish party, which is highly enagsd that the
Porte has yielded to Austria"
Til. 10 the foundation of our statement. Will the
Times always have as good authority