Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-10-30
FROM the Cltleston Courier, Oct. 90, 1860.
IEFAaEua1, Il Vakav md that MAMMA

As we desire to promote the public communion
ton of truth, and do Justice to all, we give place
| to the communicate OF George n. Sanders which
| has been widely clcuated, and reached us under
cover of the frank # Thomas J. Barr, u. G1 OF
| New York We knOtnot by what right or claims
the letter of Mr. Sa1ers appeals to the Thanking
| privilege, but it appars that everything which
promises to serve th interests OF Douglas is Pra-
| Uileqed. .N... ..
| We ask an attentivta and critical perusal of the
letter with special reeHnce to two points, on which
we take positive aud Greet issue with the recol-
IectioBs Of Mr.. George NSanders. .
We assert Distinctly pequivocally and on ample
authority (Which can he PRODUCED If worthy issue
be oered) that the dipnei party at j. D. iooyer's,
mentioned by Mr., Sandes as the first instance Of
reference to the Vice Presidency in connection with
Mr.. Yancey, was not the fist instance.
We assert, as above, th4 the nomination for the
Vice Presidency, by the cAssnt and knowledge OF
Stephen Arnold Douglas, had been made and repeat
ed TO William l., Gancey, an declined by him before
that dinner party. - ---.
This nomination before th, dinner party referred
to, was known to George N. aiders, and to several
others At least one land We confidently believe
more) of the confidential and influential friends of
William L. Yaneey had been appealed TO by the
knowledge and consent of DOBl las and Sanders, be-
fore the dinner party referredto in order to urge
on Mr. Yancey the acceptance OF the nomination.
In other words and to sum 10 all the whole af-
far of the no.4netiOn had beef made, urged and
repeated before the day end the lace and occasion
to which Mr.. George n Sanders rtfars his first con-
nection with or action in the mater.
The reference at the dinner tableof J. D. Hooyer,
we readily admit, was designed as atjoken and was
no doubt designed to be SO ilndertood by those
present, who did not know the previous offer made
in earnest, and urged with earnestnss and lmpor-
tunty TO some extent.
In relation to this dinner party (Ehoss table Sc
crets Mr.. Sanders has needlessly and irreleyantly
divulged) we add another correction of his recol-
lection.
j. W Forrey, of the Philadelphia Press. was not
present at the dinner think but ioned the par
~ in the evening afterwards. IN addition to other
names mentioned by Mr. Sanders as guests we may
confidently add Mayor James G.. Berrett of Wash
ington and James L. Pugh, " c. of Alabama
So much for the dinner party, which we repeat
was not the time or place. or date of the nomina-
ton or the offer of nomination. which we have as
serted, and now distinctly and positively reafiirm.
As to the interview between Stephen Arnold
Douglas and William L. Iancey, Mr.. Sanders is
equally mistaken in recollection. That interview
occurred at the request and proposition of Mr..
Douglas and from motives creditabe to both-a de-
sire to preserve and testify old and confirmed rea-
tons of personal friendship, notwithstanding polit
cal differences and apparent antagOnlsm.
1t is not necessary or proper for us to refer at
present to the connection with this interview had.
was designed to have with the offer of the nOmi
nation or with the decision of Mr.. 1ancey.
We dem&ud in common Justice the insertion of
this new and repeated assertion by all journals that
give place to the explanation of Mr. Sanders, andwe
invite the special attention of all gentlemen cOgni
zanJ IF 1.-THE facts. to the distinct and nequivDca1
we have made, giving the true issue in
fact, which is not met decided in the statement
of Mr.. Sanders.