Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-09-15

statement Of Mr.. Barringer as reported by him.
selfa "Simply this that he (the Nuncio) hap
pened to receive information Of the formation
of the Cabinet short time before (Adr. b.
did, and before il was generally known'at Ma
drid who constituted its members"
In regard to this we may remark that there
is nothing strange in the communication by
the Nuncio of public fact derived through
the government monopoly of the telegraph.
Nor can we see any other motive in the publi-
cation of this fact by the American Minister,
except TO show the postal monopoly of the
| Spanish Government, and the confidential in
tercourse held by that government with the
Nuncio of the head Of the Spanish Church,
neither of them new or material additions to
public knowledge. How the four gentle
man, who heard this simple statement, could
have inferred anything from it to the preju-
dice of President Pierce, we cannot see; and
how, from that statement, they should have de-
rived authority to add another strong, if not
conclusive proof of an existing charge against
him is wholly irreconcilable with any rule of
logical inference, or of common sense. The
supposition that these four gentlemen, hearing
the statement at several different times and
places, should have united in version wholly
inconsistent with the statement, but yet iden-
teal in the misrepresentation, would constitute a
greater miracle than the liquefaction of the
blood of st. Januarius, or the winking of the
| Virgin. Such o phenomenon would be abso-
luteyl in opposition to every known law, of
human reason. For,
i l. The facts Us now stated, must have war
ranted an inference totally irrelevant.
2. Four men hearing these facts, must each
have drawn from them an irrelevant inference !;
and,
8. Four men hearing these facts at several
different times and places must have drawn
from them not only an inference irrelevant to
these facts, but the separate differences of these
men must have been identical in their results.
That such concentration of incongruities
should happen is simply impossible and alb
surd; and, therefore, we infer that Mr. Bar
ringer has forgotten what he did say upon the
several occasions referred to, since what he
did say could not have been adduced to prove
the charge which Messrs. Rayner and others
who heard it have employed it to prove
But Mr.. Barringer assigns reason why he
remembered the fact that the Spanish govern
ment let the Nuncio into the post Office before
him, but which we must be pardoned for say
ing, has even less bearing upon the charge Of
bargain and corruption than the fact itself
Here is the reason:
The reason why / remember the circumstance
at all is that he expressed his pleasure at the ap-
pointment Of Catholic to Office, and his admira-
ton of that feature of our republican government
which excludes no one from Office on account of
his religious opinions. He did not, as you misun-
derstood to say, according to your letter, ex-
press qualification that his church was so strong
and influential in the United States as to obtain
such an honor" but he more than once on subse-
quent occasions alluded to the principle of religious
federation as one Of the fundamental bases of our
political institutions.
This is tolerably cool in the Nuncio, and
must have been founded upon the supposition
that Mr.. Barringer knew nothing of Pa
pal principles or sentiments. What the Nun
clio of the Pope expressing his admiration Of
that feature ofour republican governmentwhich
excludes no one from Office on account Of his
religious opinions" How is it possible that a
Papal minister can "admire" feature in a
government SO wholly inconsistent with the
practice and doctrines Of his own2 The Pa
pal Nuncio regarding +" the principle of religi-
GUS liberation as one Of the fundamental bases
Of our political institutions I"
When the Nuncio OF the same Pope has been
withdrawn from Madrid because the Spanish
government was breaking down the Papal reli-
gion, as established by property endowments,
in Spain, and when we know that freedom of
religion is everywhere incompatible with Po-
perry Really, the Nuncio must have been
quizzing Mr.. Barringer to his face. There
certainly could have been nothing in the Nun
clos love Of religious freedom to render charge
of corrupt purchase of the Papal vote by Mr..
Pierce or his party probable. Itwould rather
have shown that the appointment Of Campbell
was a natural incident to the principles of reli-
gious tolerance. So far from furnishing a
ground for attacking the administration, Mr..
Barringer absolutely furnishes the adminstra-
ton with Justification Rayner, Houghton,
and Credup could not then have derived from
conversation intended to illustrate the toll
erence Of our institutions an argument to prove
a corrupt abuse Of Executive patronage Really,
this last reason renders the misunderstanding
st more singular.
We owe an act Of justice to Mr.. Rayner,
which we shall render before dismissing this
incidental testimony upon the great charge
for the present Mr.. Rayner's report Of the
Nuncio's statement raised presumption OF
collision between Mr.. Pierce and the Papsts
almost incontroyertble, because 1t went to ex-
clude the possibility that the appointment of n
Catholic Cabinet Minister could have been
known to the Nuncio, being in foreign coun-
try,-in advance Of any possible communication
between that country and the United States,
except through foreknowledge on the part Of
the Nuncio Of an executory contract, before
tho hannan;no, nf |, E.c+ Of ,rb;cb tbo r.ot Z.