Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1854-08-08
SATURDAY, AUG. 5, 1854.

SATURDAY, AUG. b, 1854.
NOW YOU'VE cor us-Now you HAVE MI.
It must be very plain to every individual who
has read the discussion between the Times and
the Mnnesotiau, that the editor Of the latter pa
per, is determined, at all hazards, to neutralize
the influence of the Times, knowing, us he does,
that as long as it exists, he cannot cupy the po
sition which hitherto has been his PROVINCE
Chatting under his recent castigation, and morti-'
fed Mt the ludicrous dilemma into which by his
fool-hardness he has placed himself, he seeks on
every occasion to vent his spleen on his rival, and
as he terms us, green" neighbor. Forsaken by
friends who have long stood by him, and who
have become Disguised with his career-kicked
and cuffed about like a common vagabond-
branded Us liar and slanderer, and proved such
it is no wonder he is becoming desperate-no
wonder that he catches at every twig to save him
self from the waves of odium now rolling over
him and which, sooner or later must consign him
to an ignomnious grave. Thus we find him once
more engaged in inventing falsehoods in hopes
that by some show of plausibility he may be able
to place US before the community in false light.
TO this end he copies an article in our paper of
the 25th, in &c juxta-position'' with one in the
Tribune of the 18th, and ingloriously gloats over
what he deems a victory. To the uninitiated such
it may appear, but full statement of the facts
will put different complexion upon the matter
and convince the reader of the vileness of the
accuser. We will endeavor to be brief and ex-
plict: eIfe
A short time since, our eye wandering over
the columns of the Statesman, a paper pub
lished at Wilmington, Delaware, it fell up
on an unleaded article on the Pacific Railroad,
,oih no credit. Perusing the article, we found
it of interest, and at once concluded to preface
it with some remarks of our own and publish it
in our paper. Still we were at loss to know
why no credit was given to it. On a re-pcrusal,
however, the omission was readily explained, for
we observed that the statistical portion was taken
from diagram by Mr.. w. T. Steger, of the
General Land Office, and which we had been per-
mitted to see some time since. Presenting that
the editor who copied the article was cognizant of
this fact, the reason why he did not credit it to
the paper from which he took it, was sef-evident
the statistics belonged to Mr.. Steiger, and Mr..
Steiger credited in that article for those stats
tics, which he had gathered probably at great la
Dor and expense. Well, what did we do? We
prefaced the article with a few remarks of our
own, as we originally intended to, and then
added lHe
" From q diagram recently published by Mr..
W. T. Steiger, of the General Land Office, we
learn that there are seven different routes under
contemplation"
We might have added 'as follows" but then
al Jo1 - ~.
routes as set forth by Mr.. Steiger, the proper
source to which credit was due. Was there any
thing rascally in that? Was there any Schuyler
ism exhibited in our action? Where did the n
Y. Tribune get those statistics Did the editors
go over the route and collect them? No. Did
they send out special reporters? No. Where
then did they come from? Why, from Mr.. Stei-
ger. Did the Tribune steal them? No, because
it gave Mr.. Steiger credit. Did the Times steal
them? No, because it gave Mr.. Steiger credit
Now if the Tribune stole them the Times stole
tn IN ; and If the Tribune did not steal Them
neither did the Times steal them, and all
this buster on the part Of the Minnesotan to
impeach our honesty, falls to the ground. When
we put the article into the hands of the compost
tor, requested that it should not DO loaded for
the purpose of making as broad distinction as
possible between our own remarks and the sta
tistics Of Mr.. Steigcr but it ,cas loaded, and we
gave the proper credit, at least the only credit
could give, having never seen the article in the
Tribune, but copied it unleadcd from the States
man, with no credit whatever, further thln we
have already given.
Now how foolish the assertion of the Minncso-
tian must appear in the eyes of the community
How absurd for us to attempt to palm off statis-
teal matter, of which We knew nothing, only
from another, without the proper credit? 1t
would be naturally asked, where did the Times
get that information? The editor has not been
over the Pacific route? No. How came he by
it? Look at our article:
"From diagram recently published by Mr..
w. II. Steiger," &c.
This part of the article, which preceded that
copied into the Minnesotian, is left out, by the
editor, for what reasons the public can best Judge.
And now having exposed another wilful
and malicious falsehood, of the Mnnesotian,
we will turn to examine it's antecedents
and see if ii is not guilty Of the charge 1t brings
against us. Mark distinctly what we assert. In
wv ASS"~ W |,''y3 IVY -~u3 Aoo1, Will w
found an article as editorial, loaded, with the
caption "DIED YESTERDAY" That article was
stolen, every line Of 1t, and palmed off ON this
community as editorial. The difference between
the chaste and beautiful language and the vulgar
lucubratiOns of the "Senior'' of the Alinnesotan,
was SO marked, that we did not deem it necessary
to call attention to the theft, and we find that it
was not necessary, for the community generally
recognized the difference. There are other articles
which have appeared in the Minnesotian without
credit, but we have hitherto deemed the matter of
too little Importance to daily with it. We have
given our attention to the discussion of princi-
pie, but we sometimes deem it binding upon us
to stoop sufficiently loU to answer the foul asper-
sions of vulgar, venal, jealous mind.
GIThe N. Y. Democrat states that wel-dri!-
led corps of negroes was out few days since in
full dress, numbering about seventy muskets.-
They were accompanied by one of the white bands.
V The Cincinnati Gazette states that Messrs.
Met, ullouoh Morris e. Co of that Mace has fail.