The Nevada journal., 1860-10-12
From the Sacramento Demoerot..


tempt to sustain position assumed by its Rdi-
tor in tho issue Of the 18th of September, and in
reply TO answer Of mine published in the
Nevada Journdf Of the 2lst Of the same month
Inasmuch as tie late rejoinder of the Union
accuses me of a '4ong delay in giving" its
first article "attcns sion, y and wishing grounds
to exist for similar complaint in my deal
ings wththat paper, I ask the briefest space in
your columns for reply.
And first, let me call attention TO the unfair
fairness of my opponent in the outset of his last
illumination, in the accusation above alluded to.
His attack upon Col. Phil. l.. Edwards was
published as above stated in the Union of the
18th ult. My defense appeared in the Nevada
journal Of the 21st, four days after. 1 gave
the attack prompt repulse in my first issue
The Union editor waited two weeks; eleven
daily papers were published at that office. in
all of which might have been observed char
acteristic, dignifed silence before my defen e
was noticed. Yet am accused of "long delay y
Surely the boot is the other foot.
Passing over the desperate attempt 20 catch
at words which is observed throughout the
article in yesterdays Union-the ruling fea-
ture in it-with the single remark that the sink
ing are provcrbial for catching at straws. pro-
coed to unrarel the riddle which the cgotsin of
the Union persuades itself it has cunningly de-
vised.
What are tho points at issue? The editor of
tho Union opposes Col. Edwards for the Senate
because he voted for the so called Thousand
dollar act of 1855. / might here impcach the
consistency of my antagonist by calling up the
fact, that during the very session in which the
thousand dollar bill' became law, and while
the indignation" was still fresh, he was found
an earnest advocate of the election Of Col.
Edwards to the Senate of the United States
and only last year expressed preference for
Burton, another supporter of the ''infamous
bill, for Governor of the State! Does it, in
deed, require greater purity and clearer
record to fit n man to represent Sacramel-
10 County in the Legislature, than to sit in
the highest and most dignifed parliamentary
body in the world, or in the guberuatorial seat
of the State or does the Editor of the Union
present another notable case of "stranins at
gnat and swallowing camel?"
| But must not undertake the labor of n If
| time of exposing the ridiculous positions in
! which the Sacramento Union may have been
found. There were allegations in its first arti-
Gle which l denied and produccd the proof The
allegations were, briefly; That the thousand
! dollar bill created great Indignation in all
| parts of the State; that the bill contemplated
tha fnf,r ,bor, a.,
| the extent of thousand dollars each, before
services rendered; that the credit of the
State was impaired and injustice done to her
creditors by the passage of the bill
10 the first allegation, l replied, that there
was no indignation excited by the hill, and for
proof stated that some of those who voted for
it were returned to the Legislature of 1856, none
had been defeated for their action on it, and
others had since been promoted to almost every
grade of Office. How does the Union editor
meet this! BY quoting extracts from several
OF the interior papers condcmnatory of the
act Do these prove his position? Far from it,
A great indignation l do not take to mean n
| furry in a country printing Office. The Union
! quotes from the Democrat Of this city. Does
| the fault finding of the Democrat weigh against
the fact that the people of Nevada County gave
me an increased majority m: second trial
| before them in lS56,and in the face of the para
! "Sh idSt shhtA "iS u cupFoEtci Oi lHOu>auu
dollar act, Docs the condemnation of all the
country papers cited by the Union prove an in
| dignation worthy Of the name when the truth is
patent, that Farley, of Amador, was re elected
and made Speaker of the House in 1856 and
Beatty the year after; that Bates was made
| Treasurer Of State, Burke District Judge of
the 18th Judicial District. Baker, county
Judge of Tulare, to say nothing of Burton. Man
devile, Norman and many others, who have
been reelected by the people? All these otc /
| for that BILL and encountered no "indignatiou."
among the people for their course.
The country papers which the Union quotes
probably took their cue from the Union itself in
r ference to the nature OF the bill. Not being
| thoroughly acquainted With the Union at that
| time, they gave some eredence to its statements
| The Cmion's rebuttal of the evidence | produce
is then but the echo of its own noisy querulcus-
ness. Like the foolish youth in fable. the editor
has caught his own reflection in the water and
is dying in admiration of it.
| 1t is n remarkable fact that the Unions in
| dignation" was not so great as to oppose Col
Edwards for the United States Senate in 1855
nor to break out very furitusly against him till
! the year of grace, 1860. 1t appears to have
been nursing its wrath, growing madder and
maddcr about the thousand dollar act as time
wore on, while the Nevada Democrat. finding its
own "indignation' ill founded or impotcnt, has
| become so Modified by time that it puts with
pleasure, at its head, for reelection to the Leeis
lature the name of III. 3. Hosmer, who stood
| shoulder to shoulder with Col Edwards in sun
port of that terrible bill.
| met the second allegation of the Union. that
| the bill conteEpla ted the payment of services
before they were performed with simple denial.
and accused the Union of falsifying the record.
The Union rejoins by producing the bill rs proof
of the correctness of the allegation. But does
it prove the point desired, and is it Il lnly eyi-
dence to be adduced?
| l might here contend on tenable grounds that
the language Ct the bill itself sustains the posi-
ton assume, and that the phrase. so soon as
their services are rendered" is authority to the
point. and produce the repetition of the lanruars
| of tho bill by Gov. Biglcr in his veto message
as evidence Of the original phrascology of it
But have no need of such resort / said in
my reply to the Union that the bill never con-
templated putting a thousand dollars in the
pocket of each member of the Legislature i'm
mcdiately and before adequate service had been
performed, and that the Union misreprescnted
the facts. 1 shall prove it.
The phraseology of the act amounts to little
when taken III connection with the notorious fact
that there was not dollar in the Treasury to
pay the members of the Legislature, for many
days before the bill became a law! The mem
bcrs contemplated paying themselves thous-
and dollars each, or hundred and thirteen
thousand IN the aggregate, from n Treasury
worse than empty! 1t is absurd. Bet quote
from Gov. Bigler in further .ubstantiation of
my position; He says.
"The Treasurer reports there is no cash in
the General Fund, and also the Controller and
Treasurer concur in opinion that for the reason
that nearly, if not nuife all the reveppa occr,,