Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-03-02


The charge distinctly made by the Enquirer,
and distinctly denied by the Organ, was, "that
the Organ was in part owned by the proprie-
tor or publisher of the National Era" We
pronounced the charge untrue and proved the
negative, thereby refuting the charge. The
Sostinel Of this morning says:
ave would not impolitely intrude upon the
controversy between the Richmond Enquirer and
the American Organ, of this city, as to whether
or not the Organ is in part owned by abolitonists
but we will ask the liberty of making suggestion
or two. We observe that the Organ states that II
Va not owned in part by the proprietor or the pub
lisher Of the National Era. We observe that the
sole proprietor and editor of the
Era-says that he has no interest in the american
Organ, and that there is no manner Of sympathy
or affinity between the two papers
"Now, all this is true. We believe 1t to be lit
orally true. We believe that the editor of the Era
has nevsr owned any share of the Organ"
1t viii be observed that the Sentinel, in the
above paragraph, first changes the issue be-
tween the Enquirer and the Organ, stating
that the controversy is on the point whether
or not the Organ is in part owned by Adolf
tionistsf" We shall meet this issue as frank
ly as we met the true issue, but we do not
mean to let the Enquirer escape in this mode.
The issue made by the Enquirer is not the one
suggested by the Sentinel; on the contrary,
the Enquirer pointed out the Abolitionist, to
wit: the proprietor of the Era, as the part
owner Of the Organ. We meet one issue at
time, and we do not permit these presses to
shift the ISSUE If the Enquirer will first adj
NIT that its charge was not true that it has
been promptly met and refuted; and if it will
retract its charge we will meet any other issue
il may tender U.S.
The Sentinel is kind hearted in its inten-
lions towards the Enquirer, but we doubt
whether its admission " that tho editor of the
Era never owned any share Of the Organ"
viii be properly appreciated by its ally, whose
charge, on this point, is thus pronounced to
be untrue.
We confess our surprise to learn from the
Richmond Wing Of yesterday, that Mr.. Wise
had said in his speech, Cat what place it is not
stated '.that the american Organ was in part
owned by abolitionists, one Of the proprietors
being also proprietor of the National Era"
Mr. Wise knows our sentiments too well to be-
lieve that we would, in any form or shape, con-
meet ourselves with abolitionists or abolition
ism, and We think we know Mr.. Wise well
enough to discredit any such report of his re-
marks.
We resided for many years in the same
county and neighborhood with Mr.. Wise. We
owned plantation and slaves alongside of his
own. He knows our opinions on the question
Of slavery as well as any man in Virginia. We
have never changed those opinions, and we
shall credit no imputation upon our principles
in reference to slavery, as coming from him,
ill we have his declarations in unmistakable
language.
We shall be slow to believe, that an antago-
nism in politics between Mr.. Wise and ourselves
cannot exist, without resulting in unfounded
assaults and unjust imputations from either
side, upon the other. Our opposition to Mr..
Wise's election is political and not personal.
With the highest regard for him personally,
we should, under the circumstances now exist
ing, and growing out Of his denunciations Of
principles most dear to our heart, rejoice more
sincerely in his defeat than in any other politi-
cal event which has occurred in the last ten
years.
And yet no one outside of his immediate
family would more heartily congratulate him
upon professional success pecuniary prosper
ity, or personal happiness
II Is somewhat unreasonable that we should
be assailed at the North, and by all the aboli-
ton presses in the country, as a pro-slavery
advocate, and by the Forney and Pierce presses
at the South as anti-slavery in our associations.
More than twenty abolition and free-soil papers
ut the North have assailed and denounced US
as pro-slavery, whilst the Enquirer, Sentinel,
South-Side Democrat, and Examiner, have
sought to create the belief that we are aboli-
tionists The National Era, the great central
organ Of abolitionism, thus condenses our po-
htical opinions
"Mr. Ellis IL q slaveholder-an endorser Of the
compromise measures Of 1880, an opponent Of the
agitation of the slavery question He Ia in the
habit Of denouncing aboltionists In the columns Of
HE paper and of stgmatizing the anti-slavery SEN
timent of the North, as higher law hnaticism.'
He claims for the American or Know-Nothng or
der, that IL Is now the only national party that It
alone can save the Union that it is the great bull
wark Of the constitution and the Union, against
higher law fanatcism' on one side, and nullifca-
ton fansticism on the other. And the assumption
he makes from day TO day, in his Organ, Ia,
that the American or Know-Nothing party has re-
solved 10 ignore sink the question ofslavery,
and spledged TO resist its agitation"
We have nothing to object against the above
representations, except that we do not "stig-
Matte the anti-slavery sentiment Of the North
as higher law fanaticism.' With the "anti-
slavery sentiment of the North" we have no
concern,--men may think what they please.
He who regards slavery as an evil, and he
who regards il as blessing, are equally enti-
tied to their opinions, nor do we interfere with
the rightcf opinion. 1t is only when the ef-
fort to enforce the opinions Of either party
upon the ether, is seriously made, and when
It is sought to create sectional preudices upon
dangerous questions, that we protest, as .