Year: 1861

saw fit to pursue in reference to the publ


cation of his Fourth of July oration at Sac


ramento. The Union publishes extract


from the country press fayoring its own sid


Of the controversy between itself and th


Rev. gentleman. Of course the other party
having no newspaper of his own, is obllgeC
in great measure to allow the impression
produced by the Union and its coadjutors tc
go unremoved.


There are two sides to the matter at issue
between the Union and Mr.. King, and i
seems to US but justice that the facts should
be presented. We have alluded to the affaiI
before, but not till recently were we fully
informed of the merits of the case. Mr.
Kings services were asked by the citizen;
of Sacramento to deliver an Grafton on the
Fourth. He complied, and prepared an ex-
cellent address, expendiug considerable time
upon it. 1t was worthy of the occasion
and the man. Other orations of the kind
have been pronounced in this State-not
certainly better in matter and delivery-for
which one thousand dollars were paid and
no grumbling. Mr.. King gave his services
without the hope of reward. He was, how
ever donated small sum by committee


The Union sent stenographic reporter TO
the ground to get a report Of the address.
Mr.. King requested the Union not to publish
his oration, alleging. what seems to us a
good reason, that he had engaged to deliver
the same address before the Mercantile Lii
brary Association of San Francisco, and
had made promises to deliver it several
times for the benefit Of the soldiers. For
these services he was to receive nothing
| Of course tine publication of the grafton
would destroy its novelty and usefulness for
raising money for the benefit of the mill
tnry. Mr.. King knew this and in Justice to
the cause of the soldiers was bound to pre-
vent the publication if he could. But he
offered to allow a report of the address to
be published provided it was not verbatim,
and even proposed to write such report
himself, for the Union. His offer seems to
have been liberal and reasonable one, but
it was not satisfactory to the proprietors of
the Union, and they went on and published
stenographic report of the address,
noble one that was read with interest by
the thousands of friends of the Union
throughout the State, and treasured up by
many of them to be read again. Now, these
seem to be the facts in the case. 1t is pre-
sumable the address was valuable to the
Union in money point of view, while its
publication impaired its usefulness to pro-
cure money for the charitable purposes for
which Mr.. King designed it. 1t does not
appear that the Rev. gentleman intended to
make money for himself out of the patriotic
address, and if he had, we can see no reason
in the world why he should not do so from
the product of his own brain. and the Union
should


We understand that Mr.. King came to
California embarrassed from having en-
dorsed the paper of another party in the
east. He came with the laudable design of
gaining wherewith to cancel his honest OBJ
legations like an honorable man. He is
taxing his energies to prodlce the desired
result. But Starr King is ~ niggard. His
charitable gifts probably exceed those of
any other man of his calling and means on
the coast. If he gains much, his gifts are
numerous and liberal.


We are prompted to say this much be-
cause clergyman can gain nothing by a
controversy with so widely circulateda pa
per as the Union that publishes all that is
said in its favor and nothing against, and
because it is but simple justice to the pub
lie to know that there are two sides to the
question at issue between the Union and
the Rev. Thomas Starr King.


PINE STREET BRIDGE.-We understand
from Marshal Gregory that about 81 900 of
the tax for building the Pine street bridge