Daily national Democrat., 1859-01-16
Glass Houses,

that the first down of manhood appeared up
on his lips, until very, very recently indeed
has the bad taste to copy an article from the
Mountain Democrat, accusing the editor of
this journal of having at one time edited
paper opposed to the Democratic Party, and
of having prominently acted with the enc
mics of the Democracy. Without stopping to
notice the marvellous propriety of such an
accusation from that extraordinary preacher
of consistency, the editor of the Mountain
Democrat who boldly proclaimed himself for
Douglas, upon the Kansas issue, and after
wards delivered himself over, body and soul,
to the Lecompton organization, and has been
ever since squirming in the most rueful con-
tortions with the vain effort to make it ap.
! pear that there is no Inconsistency in his
bowling for Douglas and yet acting with his
enemes,-without stopping to notice the
beautiful propriety Of such an attack from
such a source, we have only to PROFOUND a
few inquiries to the editor of the Express who
seems to have endorsed the remarks of his
distinguished and consistent" cotemporary.
First and foremost, however we desire to set
ourself right on this point of having edited n
paper in opposition to the Democracy. The
only foundation for the accusation that we
can think of is what purports to be a histor-
cal account of the California American
newspaper, contained in the "IIistory ofCali.
fornia Newspapers" published by the Union
on Christmas Day. The Union says:
THE CALIFORNIA AMERIcAN.-This was the sue
cessor of the last Estate Tribune" and candi-
date for the patronage of the new State rulers in
1856. II began this life June I'd of that year, the
day after the Tribune" died. It's propretors
were Jas. Alien, J. r. Ridge and S. J. May. Al
I len being chief editor until January 1857 when
Ridge assumed head management 1t was not
successful, notwithstanding one of the proprietOrs
held the office ofState Printer and during the first
six months is said to have sunk over 1000 1t
died in February, 1857.
Now, the above is unintentonally incor
rect and untrue. We were never one of the
proprietors of the American, and we never
did have the head management of it. We
wrote for it and made up its news on a sala-
ry and never held ourself and do not now
hold oursef-and Gen Allen will substanti-
ate what We say-as Individually responsible
for any of the political sentiments expressed
in that paper. Gen. Aliens was the only
name at the head of the paper, and he alon.
made up the personality of it, Everything
that we did in the concern was at his dicta-
tion and in obedience to his requests, and we
never ventured to steer the course of the pa
per in the least respect, without first consult
ing him. Our position was entirely a subor-
dinate one, and we did not desire it to be any
thing else Many things, and among them
numerous personal articles from the pen of
Dr. S. J. May, which went into the paper
did not meet with our approval, although
they might have been considered by other
persons, fully as capable as ourself, as perfect
y proper, but we did not pretend to control
the paper and therefore had nothing to say in
regard to them. DIR. May wrote, as was his
right, whatever pleased himself and whatever
Gen. Allen chose to permit Ho was not
obliged to submit his articles to our inspec-
per submitted for our approval or rejection,
nor anything submitted to us of the thousand
and one things which are invariably submit
ted to the controlling editor of a public jour
nal. Where we could not control the con-
duct of paper, we certainly think we should
not be held responsible for what it may have
said or done. Our position in the Bee was a
different matter. There we had the editorial
control, and held it until we retired from the
position. SO also, We editorially controlled
the Express, during the term in which the
proprietors employed us as the Democratic
editor of the same, and they were perfectly
well satisfied with our Democracy, and with
our independence also, until we refused to
support the Anti-Ncbraska, Anti Democratic
Lecompton organization at Sacramento, when
our independence became somewhat distaste-
full to them.
But, we said we had few queries to
PROFOUND to the present editor of the Express
who has such house of adanant enclosing
him, that he can afford to throw stones with
perfect impunity. We shall ask him, if he
can reply in the negative to the following in
terrogatorics
lst. Did you edit the Sacramento Union
when that paper hoisted Wing colors, and
opposed with all its power the Democratic
party of this State?
ID. Did you edit the Fillmore Ranger, an
organ of the American party, at San Fran
cisco, in 1856, and oppose, then and there
the election of the Democratic candidate for
the Presidency, to-wit: James Buchanan?
Sd. Did you ever edit paper called the
Bugle, in San Francisco, which blew loud
and shriekng blasts against the Democratic
party, as long as it lived, and rhen was it
that you edited it3
4th. In 1855, the editor of this paper was
defeated on the Democratic ticket in this
county by the Know Nothings, as one, at
least, Of the Express prorrietOrs well knows.
Were you then aiding and assisting the Dem.
ocratic party. or politically speaking, where
were you?
In conclusion, all we have to say is, that
we have no taste for this mode of arraignng
the political antecedents of public writer.
We much prefer to deal with argument and
with principles, but we cannot allow the oc-
cupant Of a glass house to throw stones at us,
without rctaliating by smashing his transpa