Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1863-05-07
A FEW WORDS OF MILD REJoINDER.


Administration papers which give to the Admins
tration very " independent" support-that lie, o
support, as Canning used to say, "not to be de-
pended on" 1t takes frequent opportunity to
vilpend the services and question particular ad-
ministratiye measures Of the Premier, Mr.. SEWARD.
Down to very recent period it caFped at the adj
mirable reports and criticised the financial schemes
of Mr.. Secretary CHASE. Very recently it has
svowed the opinion that the Administration is con-
Quoting the war on vicious military theory, and
has expressed the hope that it is not too late for
Gen Halleck to revise the entire plan Of our i'm
pending military operations, while of Gen. Halleck
himself it has nothing better to say than that he
holds an Office unknown to the laws, and discharges
it's duties in such way as to suggest the expe-
pedieDcy of substituting for his single direction
the advisory control Of military board, in which
he might have place, but where his personal pre-
JUDGES against certain officers would not suffice to
keep them in reluctant retirement to the dsadvan-
tage Of the country.
1t was perhaps to be expected that journal
which is so conceited and censorious in its appre-
Citations should take exception to observations
we offered a few days ago in defending the Admin
i.tration from what seemed to be the imputations
indirectly cast upon it by Dr. Lieber when speaking
for himself and for the Loyal Leagues Of New York.
he taxed it with contingent delinquency in the
matter Of the British Minister It will be remem-
bered that in his paper this distinguished pubcist
wrote as follows
1--WE pronounce every foreign Minister accredited to
who hampers with our enemes aud holds
intercourse with dsloya men among us, as failing in his
duty toward and toward his own people, and zoe aioan
soiM attention the action of regarding the
recent and surprising breach Of this duty"
As the Government has taken no such "action"
as was expected by Dr. Lieber at its hands, in view
of what he calls the recent and surprising breach
of duty on the part Of Minister who is alleged to
have tempered with our enemies and held in
tercourse with disloyal men among US, it occurred
to us that the Administration was laid under the
burden of failing in proper sense of what was
due to itself and the American people, if this re-
presentation was just we knew the writer felt it
to be before making such an announcement con-
corning the honor Of his Government, as we'll as
the personal and official character of distinguished
diplomatist, whose conduct had previously won
from the President voluntary tribute in attestation
to the carefuness with which, in all his proceed
ings he had respected the sovereignty and rights
of the United States" AS we could not join in
the nculpation Of the Administration this soore
we felt it due to it, as well to the cause of can
dor and truth, that we should give the reasons of
our dissent from the conclusion reached by DR..
Lieber. In SO doing we made it apparent that our
purpose related not so much to vindication Of the
British Minister as of the President, who, by ne
cessary implication, was arraigned on the charge
of ignoring ia recent and surprising breach of
duty regarding which some " action" was await
ed with attention" by his loyal countrymen. 1t is
in the face of such observations, manifestly and
avowedly dictated by suoh spirit, that the Even
ing Post thinks it proper to say that the National
Intelligencer has been 81 moved by the unhappy
position Of Lord Lyons, who cannot properly speak
for himself, to engage in his defence" In fact,
we were moved" to make the remarks we did by
the unhappy position" assigned to the President
in this matter; and as he has no organ at the seat
Of government to "engage in his defence" against
unjust accusations we took it upon ourselves to do
so in this instance, in SO many others where he
has been arragned by his political friends others
on grounds which seemed to US untenable. When
he once felt himself called to reply, under his own
signature, to the "dictatoriar' assumptions of Mr.
Greeley, the hospitality Of our columns was as
cheerfully awarded to him as it was frankly asked
and while always reserving to ourselves the right
to canvass his Administration with freedom, we
shall not yield to the temptation of joining in the
reproaches cast upon him either by socalled friends
or avowed adversares, provided we think such re-
proaches misdreoted.
AS to Lord Lyons have little to say that has not
been already said by us or others. AS our venera-
BILE compeer, the late Mr.. Richie, was won't to
exclaim, misquoting from Shakespeare, What is
Hecuba to us or we to Hecuba ~ We have not
sought to defend him except far as that defence
seemed necessary to protect our own Government
from disparagiDg implications. We do not at all
differ from Dr. Lieber in the principle he lays
down as to the duty Of foreign Minister residing
near our Government. The'only difference between
us is ss 10 question Of fact, which turns mainly
on the recognised political character Of the persons
who sought interviews with Lord Lyons in New
York DIR. Lieber sfirms that they were " our
enemies ]" that they were "disloyal men" in
1850, or, rotovio,,s that 20 bold