Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-08-15
NUMBER 232
From the Raleigh Starof August ..
The Standard Prating about yeracity
Ta! ha 4 ha!

/
The Standard prates about g an issue of veraci-
ty" between Mr. Rayner and Mr.. Barringer. Is not
that amusngg The Standard having the assu .
ance to talk about reracity "iii Veracity is al,
article in which 1t does not deal-a subject on
which II is profoundly ignorant
There Ia no issue of veracty between thcm--not
the least Mr.. Barringers letters to Mr. Raw.
ner and to Mr.. Ellis both fully confirm and sustain
| Slr. BIS statement, viz That the Pope's Nuncio
told Mr. Barringer before the news of the forInu.
| ton of Mr. Pierces Cabinet reached Madrid and
whilst 1t was in doubt and subject Of conjecture
in the public mind there, that Mr.. Campbell, a Ro.
man Catholic, was member of the said Cabinet
That is what Mr., Rayncr said, and that is what
| Mr. Barringer confirms. As evidence that Mr.. r.
| did not give any other version of IT, he has been
in the habit, since he received Mr. b 4 letter OF
reading from the letter ITSELF in his public address.
es. Mr.. H. is not responsible for any inexact
reports OF the newspaper press of what he
| may have said. Nor is IL to be expected of any
| prominent man, that he is to notice and correct
every misrepresentation of what he may say and
do. Suppose Mr.. r. was to attempt to correct
every slanderous imputaton against him that ap-
pears in the columns Of the Standard. II would
take all his time to do The editor of the Stand
ard knops there is no issue Of veracity between
Mr.. Rayner and Mr.. Barrnger. He is playing the
kmaue more than the .foolin pretending to discover
any such issue.
variance of opinion does not involve an IL.
sue OF veracity, and base are the views of the
editor of the Standard in regard TO truth, he il
not stupid enough to think so. Mr.. Rayner saws
he "hinkS" Mr.. Barringers letter establishes
the charge which had been made of an under.
standing, at least, between the Roman Catholics
| and tho Pierce party. Mr.. Barringer does not
even take issue with Mr.. r. in regard to this mat
ter of opinion. The purport of his letter s, that
ne bad no opinion on the subject, at the time the
communication was made to him by the Nunco.
1t is reasonable to suppose he should have had
none, being out Of the country and unacquanted
with all the issues involved in the party contests
ofthe day. Suppose atthe time the Nuncio made
this communication to Mr.. b., he (Air. b. "did
not suppose" the Nunco had any previous knowl-
edge that Campbell was to be appointed yet,
does that necessarily imply that Mr.. B. NON be.
lieves, after due weighing of all the facts and
circumstances Of the case, that there was not suc,
previous understanding? He has not said so
Our word for it, he will not say So Does the edi.
tor of the Standard understand Mr. Barringer as
saying that he thinks the Pope's Nuncio did
not have any previous knowledge of an intention
to appoint Mr.. Campbell to ofice?n The Standard
with all its etfrontery, will not dare say that il
draws any such inference from Mr. Barringers
letter. So we repeat there is no evidence of a
variance Of opinion even between Mr.. Barringer
and Mr.. Rayner.
fact that Mr.. Rayner did not publish Mr.. Barrn-
gers letter Well, why should we have published
it. Mr.. Barringer did not in that letter request il
to be published. We have seen the letter, aud
there is no such request it, He spoke of news,
paper report hc had seen OF Mr.. RS ausion to
the subject, slightly variant from the fact and
said, If it referred to again in public il was
but just to all the parties concerned that it should
be properly understood, and that the correction
ba Tha lard ulra ,,;tt Al
enoum . " maui nc oeangaro ASKS win the
letter of Mr.. Barringer to Mr.. Rayncr of date Ju-
ly G, at once published here ?" We win conde
scend to reply to the bloated insolence OF the
Standard, although such question deserves moth.
ing but indignant contempt. 1t wrs because, "a
we presume, Mr.. X. did not choose to publish it.
The letter was his own private property No re-
quest had been made by the writer that it should
be- published, US the condition on which its con,
tents should be used The only condition was,
that the fact should be stated with exactness which
Mr.. Il. seems always 10 have done. He published
portion Of the letter as soon as 1t became neces-
sary for the vindication Of Mr.. Ellis against the
foul imputalions of the Union newspaper. Why
not publish the letter indeed. Why, the imperti.
nence Of the Standard is exceeding all bounds.
We suppose we shall next be called on TO pub.
lish euery letter we receive TO which any alluson
Is made in our columns.
In communication to the Standard signed "No
Ghost" 1t is said that Mr.. Rayners first version
of the story was that before the 4th of March
the Nuncio made this communication TO Mr.. Bar
ringer. This is false-thoroughly and absolutely
false. Mr.. Il. never so stated in any Of the public
addresses in which he alluded to this subject. We
heard his speech at the first ratification meeting IN
Raleigh, at the conference.-the first speech be
made in the State after his return from Phiadel-
phia. The point he then made and which hu
pressed forcibly and earnestly, was, that II was
rican, that the Popes Nuncio should be in posses
sion Of the information as TO who constituted the
Cabinet before our Minister at the same Court re
ceiyed IL. And now We appeal to the Standard
and -- but pshaw what is the use OF itS We
were about to appeal TO the editor Of the Stand
ards pride as au American citizen, and ask him, If
IL was not humating reflection indeed, and if he
did not 90 feel ii. But appealing to the Standards
pride Of country, would be like appealing 10 the
honesty Of the FOX, the magnanimity of the hyens,
or the intellect OF the ass.
The Standard, and its sInall-iry imitators, with
all the long retinue Of pop-gun orators in the Tor
cign and Romish party, cannot evade, by con.
temptible quibble theforce of what is conclusively
proven by Mr.. Baripgers letter to both Mr. Ray
ner and Mr. Ellis. The Pope's Nuncio at Madrid
knew Of the Roman Catholic Campbell being IN
Mr. Pierce's Cabinet before our Minister there or
the public at large, had heard Of it, 1t is testi.
mony strong, we think conGrnatory, Of the bar.
gain made before the election between the Romish
hierarchy in this country aud the Pierce wire
workers The minions Of Franklin Pierce and the
Pope of Rome cannot get rid Of it, by oil the sps.
cial pleading they may resort to- 1t will stick to
them like the shirt Of Ncssus They shall, and
will hear Of il to their hearts content, from this
till the next Presidential election. We don't care
whether it was Jetore or after the 4th of Marcl,
53, that this communication was made by the
Nuncio 10 Mr.. Barringer 1t is propcn that the
information was communicated to the Romish
hierarchy in Europe before IL was TO our Minister,
or TO the public. hr. j. says 50 unequivocaly
II don't matter how charitable transporting Mr.
Barringer may have been at the time, in supposng
that the Nuncio may have been more active than
he was in getting the news in regard to his own
| (Mr. B. country; yet an unbiased public can
regard 1t in no other light than strong corrobo-
rative proof that the appointment of Campbell was
only consummation Of the bargain that had been
| made before the election.
Even If it we're possible TO suppose that the
Nuncio had received the news by regular course
Of mail yet il still proves how deeply concerned
the Ronish Church in Europe is about our coun