, 1857-04-17
First look at this Picture, then at that,

The following communication from the
Marshal, Mr. CoRIIss, requesting that he
may set himself to rights in our columns
in regard TO q charge We made last week,
in connection with martial law, is willingly
granted. We have not intentionally mis-
represented him, and We are happy to see
he gives MS the proper credit. Yet we can
not see hOw lie has been msrepreScnted
Let the reader take up the article of last
week, and read the following statements in
connection herewith, and see how far we
have been led astray by our duLiness All
we attempted to prove was that the cou-
versaton respecting "respites," and par
doaS," aerer occurred, and that the MAR
shal never obtained it," from Mr.. Miller,
or any one else, rs would naturally be
inferred from Judge CHENowErHs let
ter to the Sc retary. The letter must have
been thus understood by Gen. MILLER, (and
just as We understand it) otherwise the let
ter of explanation from the Marshal to
Gen. Miller, would have been uncaIled for.
But if otherwise viewed and understood by
the readers of the Pioneer" why, then,
Mr. Marshal, we stand corrected, and you
are cleared from the imputation. "The
deeds upon our head" and we must pay
the penalty" for our stupidity. Here is
the Marshars letter requesting publication:
OLYMPIA, April l5th 1851.
EDrroRs " PIONEER & DENocRAT:
SIRs:-In the last number Of your paper. You have.
unintentionaly, no doubt, misrepreseuted ne. In
commenting a statement contained in letter from
Judge Chenoweth to Secretary Marcy, you say the
marshal aty cOntrdfets the statement, and tcf can
make good assertion" The fat is, the mar bal
has not atly cOntradcted the statement and that you
can make good your assertion, ia simply mstike. |
have -tlted that did not report anything 0f the kind
coming from Gen Miller TO my elf. But the Jud ye
in his letter did not as you to inier state that
the marshal" got his information from Mr.. Miller
and have merely stated that Mr.. Miller did not report
this TO me. have MT therefore contradcted the
Judges statement, and had you not been extremely
dull when looking over these papers, you would have
discovered this fact.
1t is true have now no distinct recollection Of any
report as to the alledged conversation between Gen
Miller and the executive, (the Judge may have been
mistaken to his author) but the respite for Col
Shaw was publicly talked Of, and was looked for and
expected.
In conclusion, have to request that You give this
place in the colUmns of your paper and that you do
not again my name in manner to Comnel me to
claim similar right. ! have endeayored to stand
aloo from the discussions, and protest against be-
ing drawn into them.
am, very respectfully, &C.,
GEO. W. CoRLISs.
1t will be seen that he is a Gfte DareriAg
in his confidence of his own memory, and
has no distinct recollection of any report
rs to the alledged conversation between
Gen. Miller and the Executive" and thinks
the Judge must have been mistaken as 10
his author" This is simply a verfcaton
of what We stated last week, that as it ne
yer had occurred, it could not have been so
reported, and must have had its origin in
idle rumor as suggested in our last issue
As to the respite of Col. SHAW having
been publicly talked of" we have no
doubt. In fact, it was not only Cooked
for and expected" but many would very
much liked to have seen it served. Mum
bers would have stood ready to magnify
the ERROR" aud reported it as an outrage