New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1857-08-05
Domestic Markets.
The Courier Corrected.
The Courier of yesterday morning says

The Courier of yesterday morning says:
The Crescent objects to the length of our articles.
The especial amusement Of the Crescent is seldom
considered in the preparation and arrangement OF
our editorials, especially when relating to matters
with which it ought to have no concern. We, how
ever present it this morning with variety of brief
articles. Like Don QuiNote, perhaps it does not
care for trout, so there be many troutngs"
Whether the especial amusement of the Crescent"
is considered in the preparation of the Conriers
editorials or not, one thing is very certainwe are
often especially amused in reading them. They
either provoke mirth Or lead to drowsiness.
But, why cannot the Courier stick to facts in its
editorials? In the above little paragraph there is
misstatement 1t says: the Crescent objects to the
length of our articles" The Crescent did no such
thing. We call it to the record. 1t is immateral to
the Crescent whether the Couriers articles are long
or short. We would as soon think of Directing to
the length or breadth of its ears-the thickness
softness of its sku-or any other matter with which
we have no concern, and care nothing about, as to
object to the brevity verl,osty of its articles.
While putting the Courier straight, in this instance
we will just call its attention to previous lapses from
TRUTH with view Of efecting reform in future for
we believe in the principle, when there is life there
is hope no matter how desoate the prospect. There
fore, we republish portion of an article that ap-
peared in the Crescent the 9th of July last. 1t
was as follows:
DoDGtNG THE IssuE.--In the Courier's issue of the
ed Of July an article appeared of which the follow
ing is the opening paragraph
Since the threat first uttered by the Know Nohings en-
3 &c M ss bse ws @@ 9 Eat s9aes an hs
1ot until the Supreme Court had doGor1ei and then
s se os # &c
In the Crescent of the oath of July, speaking of
the above, we said: We challenge the Courier to
nv mon catO nj mo ut oil vn6 In
speak for the American party, who have made use of
any threat in the connection employed byit. This
was certainly plain clear and distinct and we repeat
it. We defy the Courier to point out any person,
persons in the smallest degree authorized to youch for
the American party, who have threatened "to epjoin
the Superintendent. Commissioners and Deputies
after the adjournment of the Supreme Court And, if
it was so ",ceR understood y by the Courier that
! their (the Americans) game was to wait until the
Supreme Court had adjourned before getting ont
the injunction, it ought to be able to bring forward
some evidence to substantiate its assertions or it
ought to back out and make the needful correction.
To these remarks of the Crescent, the Courier OF
the 18th July responded as follows
This threat uttered repeatedly Crescent From the
time the s lay was ars. ess,ea IN the hsgsane until Eo%
tanned the threat form another expressed implied
Against the above we array fiat denial. Il is not
true in any sense, relation or respect The Crescent
has never suggested intimaed, stated or threatened
that the American party would "enjOin the Superin
tendent, Commissioners and Deputies or that theil
(onr) game was to wait until the Supreme Court hal
adjourned before doing So We coniine the Courier
TO its text and demand the proof OF its statements.
To this plain, incontrovertible, statement of thu
facts, the Courier paid no attention. It did not d
itself the justice to retract its unounded assertions
1t did not do US the justice to place US in truthful
position before its readers. And it did not DO tn
public the justice to correct an erroneous impression
it had been instrumental in foistng upon the con1mu
nifty.
We here take leave of this branch of the subject 70
the present, feeling perfectly willing to rely tn
masses of the people for a favorable verdict.