Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-10-14
MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1854.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1854.
It was not necessary for the official paper, the
Union, (and it must pardon us for saying that we
notice its contents as often as we do solely be-
cause it as the official paper to occupy half column
Of its space, it did Saturday. to show its in
ability to appreciate an unwillingness in public
journal to do injustice to political adversary The
Union thinks it strange that we should apologize to
Freesoiler or an Abolitonist for the inadvertent
admission into odr columns of coarse and abusive
epthets; and quotes violent antislavery sentiments
and opprobrious language from Senator SUMMERS
speeches to show that he deserved the epihets ap-
piled to him, and was entitled to no apology. We
praise, that We do not graduate our language to-
wards political offenders by the measure Of their
deserts, but rather by what is due to ourselves and
to the respected readers Of our journal. The
Union may be very right in boiling that no terms
are too offensive to be employed towards Abolition
lists; and, if we were the conductors Of Govern
ment organ, might think 10 but, as our taste
lies in a different way, the Union is too good
logician to blame us for difference in that Abo-
lition and even Freesol politicians as little to
our liking as they can be to that Of the Union; but
we will not manifest our disapprobation of them by
virulent abuse. We do not even call the Union
hard names, and if we abstain from their use in
regard to it, we could hardly be pardoned for using
them towards any thing else.
But the gist Of the Union's reprmand is, that, in
relieving ourselves from the wful use of foul words
i AZ nj
to show that the term /" brazen-faced Aboitionist"
was unjust towards him, as well as indecorous
Now, in classing Mr.. SUMNER with the "Free-
soilers' rather than the "Abolitionists," we had
reference to his own declarations in the Senate !;
and, even if wrong in that particular, were only
relieving from shade of odium,a person who had
been elevated to the Senate by the Unioa's own
party. This the Union calls, in the heading of its
piece, (to catch the eye Of many who might never
read further,) I" lr. tSumner endorsed By the Ma
sional hteAigencer." We suppose that the Union
justifes the tide to its article by the old Demo
cratic maxim that all is fair in politics, its own
version of the rule, that every thing is fair towards
a political antagonist
Suppose, however, that Mr.. SUMNER IS an Abo-
itionist. Who, we ask, put him in the Senate
Did the Wings? Certainly not They opposed his
election; they supported the able and eloquent
WINTHROP; they fought against the coalition of
Abolitionists and Democrats who put up Mr..
SUMNER, but they fought in vain; the coalition
prevailed, and Mr. SUMNER became Senator by De-
mocratic votes But, dyed he thus was by every
thing politically repugnant to us, we do not choose
to outlaw him from the decency which we observe
towards all men.
One word more After all the Union's horror of
Aboltionism, it seems to be with it a mere ques-
ton Of latitude; for, while it holds the heresy in
such detestation in Massachusetts,, it extenuates
it in Illinois Docs the reader doubt it? Here is
the proof We had ascribed to the new Democratic
paper at Chicago the Times, the support of Aboi-
tion opinions and the Union, determined to put us
in the wrong any way, comes to the defence of the
Times thus:
GAS matter Of self-defence, it was natural
for the Times to state its indioidual opposition to
slauery in connexion with its ardent support Of
the Nebraska bill. This was done not by way Of
comfort to the anti-savery men, as insidiously
charged by the Inteligencer, but to meutralse the
prejudice sought to be excited against the friends
{ of the Nebraska bill"
r~.Ht I. r~., n