Technicalities

A writer in the Detroit Advertiser, unable to meet the arguments of Mr. Birney, attempts to make alledgedtechnical inaccuraciesoninsignificant points a ground for convicting Mr. Birney of falsehood. We find the following paragraph in the Advertiser. "He went so far as to state, that the resolution of censure against Mr. Adams, at the session of Congress in 1842, originated with a leading Whig. (Mr. Marshall of Kentucky;) that the Whigs in the last Congress, tfere tfholly responsible lor that proceeding. That the VVhigs had promised to abolish the 21st rule, but had re-established it, and were utterly hostile to the right of petition. He also'stated that Mï. GiddTngs was censured by the VVhig party in Congress, and that the resolution upon which hé was censured,' was introduced by Mr. Bótts, a Virginia Whig. He did not see fit to teil the truth in either of these three ases." As to the first point, a reference tjb'tÊ Natiónai Intelligencer of Jan. 28, 1842 will show that Mr. Gilmer oiTered the original brief resolution, and that T. F Marshall, of Ken-tuek-y, offered arraEriend mentor rathér' a' substitutie, enibracing a long preamble; and on tuis amendment the whole subsequent discussion for ttto or three weeks was based, and to this Mr. Adonis replied. Mr. Marshall is i Whig. That (hè Whig House of Representatives re-established the gag, anö thereby manifested hostil ity to the right of petition, the writer does not deny. Why then impute a misWtement to Mr. Birney As to the censure of Mr. Giddings, the resolufión tv.is offe red by Mr. Botts, a Whig, but was not entertained by the House, it being out of order for him to present it, bat he gave it to Mr. Weller, of Ohio, wha' offered it as bis ovvn. See Det. Adv. March 30. 1842. These little quibbles are not in { eives worthy of attention; but we refer } :o them, lest ihe minus of some ïnav ' iby be pyejudiced by them. '