Gazette and sentinel., 1860-02-18

most sclf-sacrihs.ng political friends
The nature of that attack We introduced
IL the notice Of the public in our last
issue. 1t was an uniustiiiable and IN
called for denunciation in Congress by
the Hon. Ton GREEN DAWSON, "f the
Hon. f. II. HArCH. Collector of the Port
Of New Orleans, through the prctcncc
of vindicating his vote for a know-No-
thing for Speaker. Though one of his
constituents, we were not disposed at
the time to arraign him before public
opinion because Of such vote, being
willing to await such explanation of it
as he might eventually make. He was
aware of the suspicion that would at
tach To him in consequence If such vote,
through former political aliinities on his
part {: and whether or not his vote was
influenced by such affinities, he had cvi-
IDENTIFY walled it around 10y those logical
reasons which. he thought, would patri-
otically Justify him at home, if not add
to his party fealty, if, as he %undoubtcd-
lv anticipated, he should be rebukcd by
the press for 50 doing. The Courier, in
the exercise of its right to cri,icise the
acts of public men, castiSated him in i
respectable manner, in a short article,
for what it thought a tT2itorous dcpar-
turc from the course which a Democrat
and a S~outhcrner should pursue. Its
doing 50 was a right guaranteed to the
press. If it was to wipe away the evil
effects of such article-if such was Mr..
DAvIpsoN's true motivc-why did he not,
instead of rising to bc heard on a
question Of privilege and having the
said article read before the assembled
Representatives, first write to the cdi-
tors Of the Ccurier, explaining the cir
cumStances which induced him to vote
for MAYNARD? If he thought his posi-
ton sufficiently invalncrablc to with
stand the doubts and attacksesshiS col-
stitgSItssf wtieh he evidently did, he
Vas perfectly sensible of the fact that
the editors of the aforesaid paper would
have made such retraction or explana-
ton as would have Superseded the ne
cessity of his doing more-to pacify or
assuage his political sensiJiHtes-than to
request the clerk 10 read the articles
to the House in the order of their pub
LEGATION. But Mr.. DAVIDSON had another
object in view than one soplain and sen
siblc as this. The explanation of his
vote and showing up the injustice Of
the Courier's article, as we said last
week, was merely his ostensiLe reason for
requesting Il be heard in a personal
explanation. His REAL MOTIVE was evil
dcntly to dcfamc, in the presence Of the
nations representatives, a distinguished
Democrat Of Louisiana who had no
meal of defending himself, whom Mr..
DAVIDSON pretended to believe dictated
the famous article, and against whom
doubtless there was an old grudgc in
Mr.. Ds. breast.
That the real object Of our Honorable
Representative, in his remarks in the
House On the 18th January last, was
that Of vitupcration and defamation of
Collector ~llATCH, through pusilanimous
and unjuStifiablc causes, there cannot
he a shadow of doubt. is it RIGHT that
such an attack should go unnoticcd .
Did the Democratic party of this District
elect Mr.. DAVIDSON to Congress that he
should vitiate his hiGhposition 10y a per
sonal attack upon a distinguished gen
tleman and Democrat, now worthiIv
filling the duties of a high and rcspon-
siblc Federal Office in Louisiana? Or
is it the wish Of the Democracy. that
Mr.. DAVIDSON, while in Congress, be al
lowed, for the honor of his party and
the State, to have a rowing commission
to go "stashing GJ0ut," like a 'stump-tail
bull in fly-time," (rcader, pardon the ST.
mile y gearing every body who ever
hid a pull at his abbreviated eppendqgc ??
We should think not! We left the gcn-
tleman last week after commenting un-