Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-05-15
What Does II Meant

An inquiry has recently been made by
Messrs. Harlan Pennington, Galloway, Puryi-
ance, Giddings, Cunback, and Bingham, of
the House of Representatives, Of Judge Lea
witt, of Cincinnati, to this purport, to wit:
Did Judge Mclean suggest, approve, aduise,
or acquiesce IN q. ur decisioa IN the case Of
Gaines and has slaues' The first question to
be considered in the inquiry, as to what this
means, is this: What was the object Of these
gentlemen in making the inquiry? The next
is, why they did not make the inquiry of
Jude Mclean himself who was in the city
Another is, why did these gentlemen insult
Judge Leavitt by asking him whether or not
Judge Mclean told him what opinion to give
In the premises2 These gentlemen evidently
acted upon the supposition that Judge Mclean
might become candidate for nomination
for the Presidency before one Of the June con-
ventions now approaching This may be so,
but we opine that Judge Mclean will not con-
sent to BIO brought before either one Of these
conventions in the present state of political
parties. He is certainly regarded, universally,
az a gentleman of excellent sense, Gas well as
of conservative opinions,) and we suppose he
would not court the empty honor Of a nomina-
tier when he could have no hope Of success.
Are these gentlemen the friends or the enc
mics of Judge Mclean? We are obliged to
conclude that they are his enemies, or they
would have soughtthe information from himself
instead Of calling upon Judge Leavitt as wit
ness, to learn the facts touching his participa-
ton in the decision which was rendered by
Judge Leavitt Were they his friends they
would have been content with denial by
Judge Mclean himself Of any participation in
the decision by Judge Leavitt and they would
only have sought the testimony of witness to
yindicate him from the charge, when the charge
should be made, under circumstances requlr-
ing vindication. But again, do these semitic
men hold the position that Judge Leavitt's de-
cision was erroneous? They must hold this
opinion, or they could have had no motive
either as friends or enemies Of Judge Mel can,
10 calling upon witness to prove that Judge
Mclean prompted or sanctioned the decision
Of Judge Lcavitt. If they considered the de-
cision right they could not, as his enemies, de-
sire to show that Judge Mclean prompted or
approved the decision; nor could they, IL they
are his friends desire to place Judge Mclean
in the awkward position Of debating to another
Judge how he should decide question pend
ing before him, yor such dictation would show
him to be tyrannical and dictatorial, which no
friend would desire to prove, even were it true.
But again, these gentlemen, as .fiiends Of
Judge Mclean, would have no occasion to pile
proof upon proof showing his sound conserva-
tive views on the slavery question, but they
would allow his well-known decision on the
Fugitive Slave law 10 stand as satisfactory
proof of his conservatism, until dssdilsd, and
then bring forward the proof, il it existed, that
he approved and endorsed Judge Lcavitt's
opinion. II seems to us that these gentlemen
could not, as sensible men, If ftiends Of Judge
Mclean, adopt so unwise course as to SEEM
ingly question his conservatism before II was
assailed
But again, the fact that Joshua r. Giddings's
name is appended to the letter Of inquiry to
Judge Leavitt, forbids the idea that these gen.
temen sought to show the conservatism OF
Judge Mclean, and were acting as his friends
In addressing Judge LeaSitt; for, although
others Of those whose names are attached 10
the letter Of inquiry have pvetessed to be
Americans, and therefore conservatives their
connection in political movement with Joshua
II. Giddines proDes they are not practiedlly
what they hare been professedly.
Upon these grounds we now assume chat