The hydraulic press., 1861-03-16

EDIToR PRESS Noticing in the last two is
sues of your paper some severe criticisms on the
course pursued by our Representative IN the
State Legislature, Mr.. Miller, anfwkich reflect
much idiscret upon him gentleman bf honor
and integrity, Il wish to inquire-andI deem il
no more than just and right, as well as your
duty as man Of honor; to publish to the world =
the reasons which have induced you to arraign
Mr.. Miller before The bar OF public opinion, and
condemn him, as you have done, most unjustfy
as think, for the crime of abandoning his par
ty and arrayTng himself with traitors TO the Gov
ernment."
These are broad and serious assertions, and
might, in darker ages of the world, have succeed
ed in alienatiHg from Mr.. Miller the deserved
esteem and confidence of an intelligent commu-
nifty but in these modern times, when scheming
and trickery the secrets of success with the
generality of political aspirants, ard when the
masses eff the people are honestly seeking after
truth, it will not answer. Nor have you any
moral right to bring such accusations against a
man without furnishing indisputable proof Of
their validity.
was one of the most earnest advocates of Mr..
Millers nomination, We went further in our
| friendship for Mr.. Miller-we wanted him NOM
mated for the Senate.-ED. Press and aided
what could, in my humble way, in his election;
| not because he was resident of San Juan, nor
because waseparticularly friendly toward him,
| but because believed him to be the man for the
position, and we'll qualified to fill it in every res
ltpect.
In regard to "UNIoN's" article, in your last
ISSUE have word to say. He remarks, that
N'but year previousfto Mr.. Miller's nomination.
he (Nliller) was violent Lecompton, Admins
| tration Democrat; and when he declared for
Douglas, his opinion on the Lecompton question
had undergone no change"
Mr.. Miller was never "violent" advocate of
any political dogma. He is far from being an
enthusiast and especially was this the case in
regard to the Lecompton question. Had he been
''violent' Lecomptonite, he would, in my opin-
ion, have received the nomination the year pre-
vious, as he ought to have done instead of S. T.
Curtis.
At the Convention which nominated Mr.. Mil
Ter, the Lecompton issue was not presented in
any form; and one-half of the nominations
which were made at that Convention, were, the
year previous, supporters of the Administration,
and no one had any reason to SUPPOSE that their
opinions had undergone any change in regard to
Lecomptonism.
"UNIoN" goes on to say-"He obtained his
| position under false and fraudulent representa-
tioEs-sailing under false colors.' All have to
say about that is, the assertion is most grossly
| false. Still further: 'He owes his election en-
| tirely to Republican votes, most of which were
cast for him at San Juan not because he was
| the most fit man before the people, but because
| of his being resident of the place. an asser-
| ton which mus: have resulted from gross igno-
rance or wiful and malicious desire to misrep-
resent the actual facts. Mr.. Miller received
nearly as many Breckinridge as Republican
votes in this vicinity, besides respectable share
of the Bell-Everett vote, and that, not because
he was ga resident of the place" but because he
was believed to be the most fit man before the
people.
Now, if Mr.. Miller has deserted his party and
gone over to the disunionists, Breckinridgers or
any other of the ties or isms shall be as severe
in denouncing his course as any one; but Unjust
have conclusive evidence of the fact before be-
] lieve it; for he has hitherto maintained char
acter for moral, social and political honesty and
| fidelity of the parest types ana I stbn4it to a
candid public, whether it is fair or just to arraign
him before the High Court Of Public Opinion for
the crime of treason to the trust and confidence
reposed in him by highly enlightened constitu-
ency, and sentence him to obloquy and disgrace
without the least form of trial, or any tangible
evidence of guilt. E PLURIBUs UNUM.
REMARKS ON THE ABovE.-Mr. Miller has an
able defender in "E PLURIBUs UNUM," and we
are glad of it. Our structures on his course
were prompted by no spirit of unkindness, but
simply in discharge of public duty as the editor
an independent paper. He is public man, and
his public acts are justly open to the criticism o.
those whose opinions he was chosen to repre-
sent.
Our correspondent puts his case In stronger
language than the facts would seem to warrant
The harshest and the only harsh thing we saic
about Mr.. Miller, in the words quoted by
"E PLURIBUs UNUs," to-wit "He has aban
doned his party, and arrayed himself scith trai
tors to the Government" We have not accused
him of being either secessionist or traitor, but
of afiliating with that class, which declaration
we now repeat. Our correspondent wants the
proof, and here it is:
1st. He was nominated by Douglas or anti
Lecompton Convention, and accepted the nom
nation unreservedly.
3D. He was elected ON the Douglas or anti
Lecompton ticket, and went into caucus with that
party, but subsequently withdrew and boltec
their nomination.
Sd. In the Joint Convention of the Legislature
he voted every ballot that taken, for some
other man than the caucus nominee.
4th. He accepted an invitation from certain
secession leaders of the Breckenridge party
met with them for the avowed purpose of effect
IL