The Empire County argus., 1854-10-21
LETTER. TO SENATOR GNvIN.

will command public attention. The writer deals
with the Hon. Senator without gloves and as one
knowing the wires. When charges are made poin
tedly publicly, aud specifically as is done by lnte
ror' they should receive calm attention The plea
that they are made over an anonymous signature
will not answer, the readers will notice in the con-
cludng paragraph that the real name of the writer
is at the service of Mr.. Gwin, the same may be said
of Citizen"
These bstering charges do not emanate from
Wings, neither do they come from "Electionists'
but from true tried unninching, reliable Demo-
Gratis" II these charges be untrue, let them be
proved false by stern facts-idle defamation or
vituperative denunciation will not answer for argu
mcnt or be received by an intelligent people in ex
planation of charges thus explicitly stated. Until
the charges thus proved untrue they must stand
undisputed facts If untrue let the public rec
ords speak and let the history of public conduct
spoak-thus let the fair fame of the Hon. Senator
be vindicated until he shall shine brighter and
brighter unto perfect day"
From the Marysville Herald, Oct. IA.
TO THE HON. VIM NJ. GwIN:
Your organ, the Times and Transcripts contains
lately made over the signature Of Interior. 1t was
false in most of its facts. and in its entire spirit.
You were charged with having sold your constit-
uents to the assay Office, and with having repealed
the mint bill, with view to continue that abomi-
nabe institution. Your defence in regard to the
assay office is, that the Secretary of the Treasury
contracted for the assay of gold at too high
Why was not this guarded against Why was
this law not made to contain check on that
Oinceg I on drew the law. and adapted it express
ly as an instrument of fraud You never, (until
the camor Of the country compelled you to do so,)
made an objection to the outrageous terms of the
contract with Curtis & Co. You were always con.
suited by the Secretary you were in this matter
and those who knew your relations with Curtis 4
Co.. will always believe that you approved it, and
divided the profits.
We never wanted such an Office in the country
at all, and its establishment, even if it had been
honestly conducted (Which you acknowledge 1t
was not,) was nearly fatal to the establishment of
"A Branch Mint. 1t was that alone which delayed
the passage through the House of a law for that
purpose which you repealed after it did pass.
You pretend to have passed bill to reduce the
rate Of charge in the assay Office. You know well
that You did not. You did pass a joo& restitution
forbddng the receipt Of sugs for government dues,
and authorizing the Secretary Of the Treasury to
contract with new assayers at reduced price
but you never repealedyou took not to repeal,
modify, touch, the old contract-th0t you left in
full force and rJrtue- -andyour resolution had no eff
feet but to distress and annoy the business cOmmu
nifty almost intolerably
But leave this absurd preteXt by which you seek
TO avoid the responsibility for this measure, pc
culiary your and shall consider the still more
extraordinary subterfuge by which you seek to avoid
the charge made against you in regard to the mint.
You do not pretend to meet the charge againgt
you. You claim all the merit of having passed
bill through the Senate to establish mint, but deny
the authorship of the section in the deficiency bill,
by which it was repealed
1t is a strange fatality which attends you Some
one always interieres to and mutilate all your
splendid schemes. Your work is always perfect
everything which experience proves to be bad is
the work of some one else. You admit by your 81
lencc that the effect of the section which quo
ted in my former letter to you, was to repeal the
mint bill, but you say that Senator Hunter, of Va,
"prqjacted ana proposed the amendment to the de-
cheney bill" This do not believe. In one Of the
many pamphlets you have franked over the coun-
try, proclamlng yOnr services you claim to have in
troduced this very measure. That would not. it is
true be conclusive proof: but Mr. Hunter is man
well vcrsed in tue usages of Legislative bodies, and
more than ordinarily obsJrvant of the proprieties
and etiquette Of his high position 1t is impossible
he could have acted in this matter without con-
sulting fully with you. 1t was a measure of i'm
mense import to this State. and you would not have
permitted him to regulate it, nor would he have at
tempted to do SO, without your advice. But furth
er--ths measure was discussed in the lousc when
the bill first introduced, and defeated and be-
sides the denunciation Of MIR. Marshall MIR Toombs
of Ga, made the following remarks, Cong. Globe,
20 vol, p. 9l9
Il admit the section is altogether bad. There
are several provisions in it which, if it is to pass
ought to be amended but relying on the commit
tee being willing, at least as the gentleman says
that the bill which passed last year for the
tablishment Of Mint in California will be carried
out, | shall make no such motion am told from
good authority that bids are now before the Secre-
ary Of the treasury for the building Of that Mint
he committee ought not to hesitate. for the amend
ment would be throwing away the $500 900 on an
assay Office. hope that the recommendation of
the committee ON Ways and Means will be agreed
to, and that the section will be stricken and the
matter left where it now stands 1t is unnecessary
to offer further amendment on it. Let San fran
cisco have the Mint. see good many things COZ
erel up winch had risen to My hare to the commit
tee; but as general disposition seems to prevail
in favor of striking the section out | shall not do
So"
And after the appointment of the second commit
tee OF conference upon which both Mr.. I0Ombs and
MIR. Marshall were placed, Mr.. Hunter met them
from the Senate and was chairman of the joint
In that joint committe, the section WAS
denounced (and the reasons fully given for the de-
nunciatipn) as corrupt job This was address
ed to Mr.. Hunter and if he had claimed the pa
ternlty OF the measure, neither the debate in the
House, nor the still explicit charge made in
ftnd