The Nevada journal., 1857-03-06
T Two weeks ago we published an

American party made by the s. F.
Chronicle, which has set all the small
democratic fry a-frizzhng. The editor
ofthe Chronicle, being liberal and big
souled gentleman, noticed our article
very eourteously, and frankly admitted
that some of our statements were cor
rect, and that some of his were, perhaps,
wrong. The Sacramento Union, how
ever, copied portion of our article, and
endorsed nearly all of it, and therefrom
commenced series of very able articles
showing conclusively that the last legis-
lature did more for the state than any
other one that has ever assembled at
the capitol. The democratic papers
throughout the state, unable to answer
any of the arguments or statements en-
ployed in the matter, and annoyed to
death that the attention of the people
should be called so pointedly to these
things, are letting off their bad feelings
in what they consider, we suppose,
smart digs at the Nevada Journal.
One of the most amusing of these Of
fensive demonstrations, that we have no.
ticed, is contained in little paper pub
lished somewhere in Ell Dorado county,
called the Mountain Democrat. In no.
ticing our remark that during the dis
cussion of the state prison bill "no seri-
Gus objection was made to it by the
press" it says that our memory is very
treacherous, because, it says,
"From the day of the Introduction of
the state prison bill until its passage,
,ce took decided grounds against it,
Now when we penned those lines
about "the press we did not mean
any particular paper most certainly
did we not have the Mountain Democrat
in our minds eye. The aforesaid Dem
ocrat may very possibly have seriously
opposed" +" the bill-we are sure we
don't know whether it did or not-but
however 1t may stand affected in the
premises, we still repeat that the press
did not. We would very respectfully
submit that "the press" and the
Mountain Democrat" are not synony-
nous terms.
The Democrat fercely asks, "why
did the Journal then hold its peace ?"
In looking over our files, we find that
the Journal did denounce the bill, and
its senior editor, who then occupied a
seat in the senate, opposed it in his Off
cial capacity, and voted against it on
its passage. But we don't claim that
,ce constitute "the press"
The Democrat admits that the Amer
lean party "frst commenced the system
of guarding the public money, and
closely examining into the conduct of
public oficers;" and, in fact, it says but
little that is worth disputing. Although
it devotes nearly one half of its editorial
columns to the subject, it talks about
but little else than the state prison bill,
and treasurer Bates. Our article ad-
mitted that the American party was
partially responsible for the former, and
we made no attempt to defend the lat
ter. These two matters form all the
tangible objections to the American
party in this state, and democrats fly to
them, whenever they want to attack us.
The Democratic attempt to shield its
own party from all responsibility in re-
lation to the state prison bill, by stating
that ga know nothing legislature pass
ed it, is made in the face of the record
The democrats had majority in tie
senate, and could have defeated it.
The following vote upon its passage in
that branch Of the Legislature, shows
that it was not party measure, but was
supported as warmly by democrats, as
by Americans:
"Ayes-Messrs. Burnett, Bynum,
Coffroth, Ferguson, Fiske, Flint, French,
Cove, Hawks, Hawthorne, Heintzelman,
Hook, Lippincott, Vaudeville, McCoun,
McGee, Rust, Tilford, and Westmore-
land-19.
"Noes -Messrs. Burton, Cosby,
Crandell, Day, Dosh, McNeill, Norman,
Shaw, Wilson, and Waite-1O."
Several of the nominal Americans
who voted "aye," have since gone back
to the democracy where they naturally
belong so that of the 10 who voted
for the bill, Is are now democrats, and
one republican. The trick of moving
a reconsideration in order to clinch it,
was made by Mr.. Rust, democrat. In
the Assembly, Mr.. Sharpe of San Fran
cisco was the only democrat who oppos-
ed it.