Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-04-28

plicant for foreign or any other appoint
ment, why do not those who make the as
sertion produce the proof of it? The denial
of the assertion has been made over and
over again by Maj. Donelson in all his pub
lie speeches. He has himself also published
the letter he wrote at the instance of Col.
Wilcox, which bears date long before the
Inauguration Of President Pierce, and is, of
itself, the most conclusive refutation of the
idea that Maj. Donelson recognized the
policy indicated by the administration. If
the editor will publish that letter, or get the
President to publish it, we venture the as
SertiOn that every one who reads it, will
pronounce it direct censure of the leading
Cabinet appointments, and that the only eff
feet of the letter was to defeat the appli-
cant who presented it, and who was, in
other respects, strongly recommended.
We advise the editor of the Maysville
Express to be more cautious hereafter in
his statements about aohatheAappsns to knOaO
as an ex-member of Congress. If he will
refer to the records of the time, he will find
that the members of Congress who recog-
nized the old doctrines of Jefferson, Madi-
son, and Jackson, sustained Maj. Donelson;
and that the ultraists, North and South,
coalesced against him after having endeav-
ored to make terms with him. He will also
find that when events proved that this ultra
influence had possession of the President,
he abandoned and denounced him. 1t was
not Maj. DOnelson who abandoned the
time-honOred doctrines of his party, but the
Nashville ConventionistS and their allies in
the North, who, under the guise of State
Rights, had arrayed one section of the Union
against another.
1t was not necessary for the ex-member
of Congress, now editing the Maysvile
Express, to manufacture a statement to boil
ster up the story circulated by Nicholson
and Forney respecting Maj Donelson's re-
lations to the Democratic party. Every
one has known, since the assembling of the
Southern Convention at Nashville, in 1850,
that he had committed on objectionable sin
in the eyes Of the members of that body,
and no higher compliment, in our judgment,
can be paid to him, than to say that he re-
jected all propositions to make his paper
suhServient to their reasonable schemes
against the Union. If, like the present or
gan Of his party at Nashville, he had de-
cared the compromise of 1850 an infamous
surrender of State Rights; or, like our
great Mount Pisgah oracle, he had given
out that his heart would break before he
could rejoice at the passage of that measure,
he doubtless would have been still proclaim-
ed a shining light of Democracy, worthy
not only of the applause bestowed upon
him by Presidents Polk and Pierce, but of
the highest honorS within the gift of the
people. 1t is the boast of Maj DOnelson's
friends that he could not be bought up by
this new Democracy, and that his whole ca
reer as a public man, is an indignant def
ance of their power and patronage. To
say that he is "odiOus" to such democracy,
is only to say that he is following in the
footsteps Of those patriots who formed our
Constitution, and who have taught us to
frown with Indignation upon those politi-
clans who would even suggest scheme for
its overthrow.
We shall advert to this subject again in
a few days, and quote extensively from the
speeches of members of Congress on the
subject of public printing in 1852, showing
that Maj. Donelson was opposed, at that
day, by a coalition of Nullifers, North and
South, for being true to the Constitution,
just as he now is by the same coalition, for
beng an American, and pledged to use his
best exertions to restore the Government to
its original purity.