THE UNIONIST.

BROOKLYN, AUGUST 8, 1833.

The Advertiser has taken us to task quite severely, for what, with his moral accuracy, he calls our “false pretences” or “gross inconsistency.” The irresistible reasoning, by which he arrives at a conclusion so unfavorable to us, deserves a passing notice. After quoting from our prospectus, a sentence showing our disapprobation of the dominant party in our last Legislature, he goes on with the confident air of a man who thinks he cannot be mistaken, “what is this but an acknowledged preference for, and a devotion to a political party?” How conclusive! Because we disapprove one political party, we must necessarily—not merely approve, but be devoted to another. Because we have expressed a hope that one party will not reign long, “it follows” that we shall endeavor to transfer the rule to another. Admirable logic!

To the Advertiser’s assertion that the paper originated in party feeling and from unworthy motives, we answer, (first asking by the way, who probably knows our motives best, we or the Advertiser,) that it matters little to what motives the establishment of the Unionist is attributable, so long as its course is fair, upright and consistent with its professions. If the Advertiser will pursue such a course, we will promise to say nothing about the motives which induced its change from the “bitter hostility to President Jackson and his friends” which it manifested “for nearly five years,” to a course and character diametrically opposite. We will not even hint that the disinterested Advertiser which resolves to “continue firm and unflinching in the pursuance of its duty, so long as it has one reader left,” was bought up by the Jackson party.

But it is said that we are not consistent with our professions. We will not take it upon us to say whether, in making this charge, the Advertiser man has exposed his incapacity to comprehend the plain import of language, or has shown a disposition, wilfully to pervert the truth. One of the two is evident. That we do not possess experience “in getting up independent papers,” headed with professions at variance with our intended practice, or in any other species of deception, which would enable us to impose upon the public and yet escape suspicion, we freely confess; nor is it our desire at present to avail ourselves of the superior experience in such matters of any of our editorial brethren. When we engage in an enterprise which requires that kind of experience, we shall doubtless call in the assistance of such of our acquaintance as are best versed in the mystery of making promises to be “revoked.” But that we are incompetent to the easy task of telling the truth, (for we consider it easy, whatever the Advertiser may think of it,) in plain, intelligible language, we are unwilling yet to admit. We refer any candid man, to our prospectus, and the leading article of our first number, for evidence that we have spoken intelligibly; and to the whole of that sheet, and of this also, for proof that, so far as we can be judged by our acts, what we said was truth that we have been consistent with our professions. We ask our readers to compare with the evidence thus collected, the leading article and several other pieces in the last Advertiser, and say if that paper has not misrepresented us. We have never represented ourselves as indifferent or neutral on the questions moral or political, at present agitating the community, nor are we so. We have opinions which we shall defend to the extent of our poor ability, for their defence this paper was established. In our leading article last week, we alluded to the fact that “the majority had no organ of communication,” as one reason why some gentlemen opposed in sentiment to the Advertiser, had put in operation this press, one object of which would be, to counteract the effect of the Advertiser’s unfair course. Now does not this show clearly, that in charging us as guilty of inconsistency because we oppose the measures he advocates, the Advertiser editor brings against us a groundless accusation.

But it will perhaps be said, we are pledged to no party. And so we are. Can the Advertiser see no difference between opposing his party and supporting another? Cannot this paper be made the organ of the majority, and yet be the exclusive organ of no party? If he will lay his finger on the passage in our paper in which we advocate any party as such, or in any way depart from our expressed design of canvassing the claims of men and the propriety of measures on their own merits, then will we acknowledge our offence, and humbly ask forgiveness and promise amendment, nor will we “revoke our promise” before the week’s end, even should he tell his readers we have made it.

While we thus openly declare that we are not indifferent on the subjects which have been noticed in our paper, we still adhere to our avowal, that we shall discuss them and give our opinions upon them, without reference to the circumstances that this or that party holds sentiments similar to, or differing from ours, we shall also admit properly written communications against, as well as in favor of our views. If this will not constitute our paper as independent one, we acknowledge our ignorance of the meaning of the term.

When the Advertiser detects us departing from this course, he may then complain of us, as we have done of him, for being one sided, and may call ours a “counterfeit independent paper.” And when we perceive him pursuing a course like this, we will acknowledge his right to the praise of genuine independence. But till then we shall consider ourselves justified in adhering to our original assertion, that the want of fairness and independence in the Advertiser, led to the establishment at this time, of another paper.