100

[signaiursl ]
{"newspaper_name": "The daily union.", "edition": "01", "page": "p3", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 2445, "word_count": 429, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9745000004768372], "ccnet_perplexity": [1156.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
We should not notice the editorial article which
appears in this mornings Baltimore SUM-" on The


management Of nslospapsrs" &c, # Il were not Tor
the purpose Of correcting an erroneous inference


which the "Snn" has drawn from one Of our own
articles. No one can more highly appreciate the in
dustry and talent with which the Sun is conducted
than we do. II is entitled to much praise for the
activity which II displays in collecting The earliest
news from all quarters Yet the Sun publishes a
variety of ruOrs, all newspapers are in the habit
Of doing; and some of these rumors turn out to be
incorrect. We do not blame the Sun for this; nor
do we blame the "Sun" at all for publishing "on
Monday morning, in d letler from the Gulf squad
ron, runOr that the Mexicans decline receiving or
sending minister until the United States withdraw
all their force from the country, both by sea and
land.' But il is the following remark in the article
of the "Sun," of this morning, on which we beg
leave to offer a solitary comment "rhis statement
the Union ofTuesday evening alluded to in respect.
ful language, and, as usual with that paper, when
uninformed officially on any matter before the pub
lie intimated a Goubt Of It's truth. On Wednesday,
however, cabinet meeting was held at Washington,
as it seems, relative to the dispatches from Mexico,
at which it was resolved not 10 loiihdrGlo forces
from tie Mexican territory; clearly indicating the ex-
istenee Of such proposition. The Union of We'd
nesday evening, when the editor had doubtless
cleaned something Of the contents Of the dispatches
contained the following paragraph, which, though
Indefinite fosters the inference that proposition
for on srmstice has been made, aud for CESSATION
Of hos,iliiies;' another term perhaps for the with.
drawal Of our forces'' The Sun labors under mis-
take. We know nothing Of the cabinet meeting TO
which that paper and SO many others have referred
though we suspect its character has been mistaken
But this we must say, in reply to the SUM- that we
were us we'll informed Of the subject of which we
treated, when we penned our article on Tuesday
night, as we were Wednesday night; and that, in
our article Of Wednesday night, we did not to
convey the idea that any armislce cessation Of
hostilitiesn had been proposed by Mexico. Other
papers, as we'll as the Sun, had put it upon that
ground, and we argued the question upon that hy-
pothesis alone.