Daily American organ., 1856-04-15
THE nlnck Mail Affair.


We have received the following letter from
one Of our readers, and having ascertained that
his purposes are honestly developed in his
communication, we insert it with such an an
swer as wo trust will furnish him the desired
information. He writes us as follows:
WAsHIsoros, April 10, 1855.
To ths Editor Of the American Organ: ..n.
In common with many of your readers, have
watched withlmuch interest your efforts to awaken
In the bosom of one OF your contemporaries enough
Of the manly sentiment TO impel him to purge him
self Of charges made against him by the responsi-
BILE correspondent Of the New York Daily Times,
seriously affecting his character as man. and re-
hecting most unfortunately upon the editorial pro-
fession In Washington city. Your efforts have
proved unavailing. Your contemporary folds his
arms in mock dignity and silence. He has care
fully avoided all denial of the facts--refuses to
plead guilty. or " not guilty"
But pray, cir, will you be good enough to inform
us relative to the origin of the controversy which
has ended so ignobly for your contemporary p
Many OF your readers know nothing of the grounds
of the quarrel between him and the Times corre-
spondent. Rumor says that in the beginning your
contemporary made serious charges against the
correspondent. Is this sol And ifyes, what were
'theys Have they been met fairly and frankly 7
spondent, who has heretofore sustained the repu-
tation of an honorable gentleman, is as deep in
the mud as your contemporary is in the mire p
Please tell us all about it in your next, and obge
the subscriber, and many others--for this contro-
versy is one Of much interest to oil who appreciate
the press as great moral power, and who under
stand the importance of preserving its purity and
integrity. 5ta w.
AS to the "origin of the controversy" be-
tween the New York Times correspondent and
our contemporary, who has recently opened
an office as Congressional Broker, we have to
inform "W," that, as we understand the mat
ter, our contemporary published an article
(which we did not ready in relation to some
scheme on which the Times correspondent
thought proper to comment, with view to
prevent its friends and readers from being de-
ceived and led into a ruinous speculation
that thereupon our contemporary poured out
many "vials Of wrath" upon the head Of the
Times correspondent, and charged him with
being Enoaon to prostitute the columns of the
Times to any cause or service by which money
lars up, and also to bhckmail all parties COM
ing here on business with the government
Such were the charges made by our contem-
porary.
The Times correspondent thereupon de-
nounced the charges thus made against him
by our contemporary, as "6ald, malignant,
unmitiga'ed talsehoods," and demanded proof,
and moreover stigmatized our contemporary
as "lying scoundrer' if he should fail to
produce the proof of his charges. We have
not the article of the Times correspondent
before us, and cannot now repeat its contents
with any more particularly. The Times
correspondent, after thus giving the lie to the
charges made by our contemporary against
him, proceeded to charge our contemporary
himself with attempting to levy black mail
npon Nr. Cunard, upon the creditors Of
Tsras, and upon the French Spoliation
claimants, demanding, in one instance $4,000
for himself and eight members of Congress,
as the price of these nine persons. The Times
correspondent offered to prooe the charges
which he thus made against our contemporary,
if the charges should Be denied. We have
thus, in conformity with the request of " w"
given statement of the origin and progress
of the controversy as between the original
parties to it.
To sum up the case--it is substantially as
follows: Our contemporary wrote an article
touching matter interesting to SPECTATORS
the Times correspondent warned the readers
Of his paper not to rely upon the views of our
contemporary--our contemporary in very vio-
lent terms accused the Times correspondent of
prostituting his columns for money and of levy
ing blackmail--tho Times correspondent pro-
nounced the charges of our contemporary
"bald malignant, unmitigated falsehoods," and
demanded proof thereof-moreover charging
btack-n.dit upon our contemporary whereat
the latter was indignant and soould not notice
the Times-man any further Now, if any
body asks 1hy our contemporary don't prove
the charges which he made, and which the
Times correspondent denies and demands proof
OF, the only answer we are able to give is, that,
we suppose he can't proDe the charges against
the correspondent Of the Times Is not this
good reason? Certainly j. is and as to with
drawing false charge, that is not his" habit I"
If it be asked phy our contemporary don't
deny the charges made by the Times cores
pondent against him, we can only answer it
thus: We suppose he is afraid'that the charges
viii be proved, if deniedl And besides, the
charges were made "under circumstances, |"
and no man is obliged to answer charges made
under circumstances" and especially if the
circumstances" are all against him Now,
we do hope and trust that nobody win require
us to advert TO the circumstances again, as
it must be exceedingly annoying to our con-
temporary, who has only taken the lead in the