The writer, identified as SLATHEAL, responds to criticisms made in the "Star" paper about the editorial content of "The Californian." SLATHEAL defends the publication and criticizes the Town Council for their lack of public improvement efforts and financial mismanagement. The writer also addresses the issue of unsold lots being advertised for sale despite a lack of money in circulation, suggesting it may result in a loss for the town. Overall, SLATHEAL argues for the right of citizens to discuss and criticize public matters.
San Francisco Politics as Reflected in 1846-1848
The article titled "FOR THE CALIFORNIAN," written by an anonymous author signing off as "SLATHEAL," appears to be a commentary on the state of political discourse and civic engagement in mid-19th century San Francisco, particularly during a period of rapid growth and social change. Primarily, the piece addresses the criticisms levied by another writer, "A Voter," in the paper "Star," regarding the quality and integrity of the political discussions taking place in town.
The author expresses a certain dissatisfaction with the prevailing political climate, stating: “...there has been, and is manifested by some of its members too much indifference in regard to the interests of the town.” This assertion reveals a sense of urgency and frustration embedded in the broader socio-political context of San Francisco during the Gold Rush era. The rapid influx of people led to a burgeoning population that significantly strained local governance and services. The Town Council, as noted by SLATHEAL, struggled with maintaining order and effectively addressing the needs of this growing community.
SLATHEAL’s interaction with "A Voter" highlights the contentious nature of public discourse at the time. The phrase “...charges right and left, at everything in general, which amounts to nothing in particular...” suggests SLATHEAL’s view of "A Voter" as an individual who lacks substance in their critique, which could reflect a broader complaint about the quality of political debate during an era marked by sensationalism and personal attacks rather than constructive dialogue. The author maintains a certain distance from the anonymous contributors to the articles, suggesting a dichotomy between serious civic engagement and the prevailing trend of petty invective.
Moreover, SLATHEAL provides a critique of the Town Council's performance, emphasizing the failure to maintain a quorum for regular meetings, which indicates both inefficiency and potential corruption or apathy among its members. He notes, “...for two or three weeks it was almost impossible to get a quorum present at their regular meetings,” revealing a breakdown in governmental function that was perhaps symptomatic of the chaotic environment of the time. As San Francisco transformed from a small settlement into a bustling city virtually overnight due to the Gold Rush, the expectations for government action clashed with the realities of burgeoning populations and scarce resources.
The commentary concludes with a refrain that suggests frustration over the lack of meaningful discourse: “...but if one of the above mentioned articles teems with the former, the other article certainly teems with the latter.” In this light, SLATHEAL’s commentary serves not simply as a response to one critic but also as a call to arms for citizens to engage thoughtfully and authentically with the pressing issues faced by their community.
The historical significance of the piece lies in its reflection of the dynamic and often tumultuous burgeoning civic consciousness in San Francisco during a pivotal moment in American history. The writer embodies an emerging sentiment that, despite the divisiveness and chaos surrounding them, individuals in the community possessed not only a right but a responsibility to engage in critical discussions about their governance and their future. This dialogue surrounding civic responsibility is a theme that resonates deeply in both the historical context and contemporary discussions on civic engagement.
In the vibrant and bustling city of San Francisco from 1846 to 1848, the landscape was not merely defined by geography but rather transformed into a crucible of opinion formation, governance, and civic responsibility. Central to this evolving narrative was 'The Californian,' a prominent voice of the era, which featured a poignant letter to the editor from a writer identifying as "SLATHEAL." This correspondence compellingly critiques the local government's priorities and resonates with the broader discourse surrounding civic engagement.
While appearing to be a direct response to an earlier article penned by "A Voter," SLATHEAL’s letter transcends simple retort. It encapsulates the palpable frustration, aspirations, and hopes of a burgeoning urban populace wrestling with the whirlwind of change. At its core, SLATHEAL's message calls for accountability among local leaders—a sentiment that echoes with the democratic ideals we champion today.
To fully grasp SLATHEAL’s critique, we must first immerse ourselves in the historical context of the time. The California Gold Rush was just around the corner, poised to transform the landscape. However, at the moment of this letter’s composition, the potential for upheaval and opportunity was not yet visible. San Francisco, still in its developmental stages, faced critical questions about governance and community support amid rapid population growth.
By 1846, as SLATHEAL penned his thoughts, public services struggled to keep pace with their expanding responsibilities, and the settlement was mired in economic uncertainties. Alarmingly, SLATHEAL pointed out, “the funds in the treasury have been expended,” leading to the harsh reality where “there is scarcely any money now in circulation.” This glaring financial strain set the stage for pivotal discussions on governance and accountability.
What truly sets SLATHEAL’s letter apart is its profound engagement in the dialogue surrounding civic participation. Opening with a nod to a prior piece from the “Star,” the writer deftly critiques its tone, establishing an atmosphere ripe for reflection. By likening political discourse to the “atmosphere” and “food that we eat,” SLATHEAL introduces a striking metaphor that highlights toxicity within civic communication.
This metaphor serves a critical purpose: it illuminates the urgent concern for the quality of political discourse in San Francisco. Attacking the personal nature of the rhetoric, SLATHEAL notes that the “writer of the 'Star'…charges right and left at everything in general, which amounts to nothing in particular.” Here, we witness a profound discontent with the prevailing trend of prioritizing personal grievances over substantive dialogue, further amplifying the cry for constructive engagement.
The crescendo of this discourse lies in SLATHEAL’s assertion that citizens like him “have the right, at least, to discuss these matters.” This fundamental belief in civic dialogue resonates strikingly with modern themes of participatory democracy and citizen engagement, laying the groundwork for what we recognize today as vital to a healthy democracy.
SLATHEAL’s impassioned letter emerges as a clarion call for accountability within the town council. He boldly underscores missed opportunities for progress while revealing a troubling lack of quorum during council meetings—a point that strikes a chord even in contemporary governance struggles, where elected officials often appear disconnected from their constituents.
The critique sharpens as SLATHEAL shifts focus to the local government’s financial management, lamenting that aside from a few notable improvements, the council’s expenditures lacked a cohesive vision for the city: “...the filling up of the street in the lagoon and the wharf at the foot of Broadway are about the only evidences of public improvement….” His words resonate deeply today, as communities grapple with similar challenges: balancing infrastructural needs, financial constraints, bureaucratic transparency, and ethical governance.
As SLATHEAL continues, he emphasizes the vital role media plays in molding political narratives and public opinion. By penning this letter to the editor, he demonstrates an acute awareness of the symbiotic relationship between media and politics—one that shapes the narrative landscape of society.
He critiques another paper for its tendency toward “low invective, billingsgate slang,” challenging not only the motives behind such language but also the ethical responsibilities that accompany the press. This aspect of his commentary speaks volumes in the present day, where sensationalism often stifles constructive discourse and amplifies division.
Amidst this media critique, SLATHEAL wisely observes that “facts are stubborn things,” an assertion that reinforces the bedrock principle of factual integrity in journalism. His letter becomes a rich tapestry woven with calls for truth—reminding us of the delicate balance between rhetoric and substance that journalists must navigate.
As we delve deeper into SLATHEAL’s reflections, we witness how disenchantment with local governance manifests itself. Although he targets the pressing issues of his time, underlying currents hint at broader anxieties regarding the city's future. His observation that “the residue of the unsold lots are advertised for sale” amid economic downturns carries an air of foreboding, echoing modern concerns regarding urban development and sustainability.
SLATHEAL’s conclusion advocating for ongoing dialogue reflects a fundamental understanding of democracy: that dissent, discussion, and engagement are critical for fostering a vibrant society. His phrase, “the conclusion is, that a sale of public property under such circumstances must be a sacrifice to the town,” serves as a poignant reminder that hasty decisions can jeopardize community cohesion and long-term stewardship.
In analyzing SLATHEAL’s letter, we come to realize that his concerns are not mere echoes of a bygone era but rather foundational elements shaping contemporary democratic discourse. The dynamics of urban governance, the integrity of media, public dissent, and the unwavering demand for accountability are as relevant today as they were back then.
As we navigate our current challenges of transparent governance, performative politics, and active civic engagement, SLATHEAL’s insights compel us to consider what has truly changed—and, perhaps, what remains eerily similar. The enduring quest for an engaged citizenry that holds leadership accountable is a thread woven through the tapestry of history, binding us to those who came before.
In conclusion, SLATHEAL's letter to 'The Californian' stands as a testament to the earnest desire for effective governance and genuine civic engagement at a transformative moment in San Francisco's history. The challenges acknowledged within this correspondence resonate through time, offering invaluable lessons and resonances with the principles of governance that remain vital today.
By exploring such candid critiques from the past, we unveil layers of our civic heritage, shaping our contemporary and future interactions with those in power. Ultimately, as we reflect on the lessons from 1846 to 1848, we are encouraged to actively engage with the complex structures that govern our lives, ensuring that our right to participate in democracy is both spirited and unwavering.
1. **'The Californian' as a political voice** - This highlights the role of media in shaping early political discourse. For further reading, see this article on the importance of local newspapers in civic engagement from [Columbia Journalism Review](https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/local_news_will_it_survive.php).
2. **California Gold Rush and its implications** - This pertains to the socio-economic impacts of the Gold Rush in 1849. Further exploration can be found in this overview from [National Park Service](https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/historyculture/goldrush.htm).
3. **Civic engagement during urban development** - An examination of the relationship between community engagement and urban growth. For insights, check out this study on urban development and civic participation from [Urban Affairs Review](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1078087418806640).
4. **Accountability in local governance** - This reflects ongoing discussions about government transparency. A relevant resource on government accountability is available from [The Governance Lab](https://www.thegovlab.org/).
5. **Media's influence on political narratives** - This highlights the role of media in civic discourse. For an in-depth analysis, see this article on media influence from [Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/).
6. **Historical context of disenchantment with local governance** - Understanding the historical roots of civic discontent can inform current challenges. For further reading, see this research on civic discontent in historical contexts from [Social Science Research Network](https://www.ssrn.com/).
7. **The metaphor of political discourse as “atmosphere” and “food”** - This symbolizes the quality of civic communication. To explore the use of metaphor in political commentary, view this analysis from [Political Psychology](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-psychology/article/abs/metaphor-in-politics-the-impact-of-politically-loaded-metaphors-on-policy-perceptions/1B8B8FCD57B9BBBEEDD2D76DA9D5F95A).
8. **Legacy of 19th-century civic critiques for modern governance** - This reflects on historical lessons for contemporary governance challenges. An insightful piece on this topic can be found in [American Political Science Review](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/xxi-the-advocacy-legacy-of-the-19th-century-civic-engagement/40C91A5A30ACE04B716C5A78FA615B5B).
**Citation**: The Californian
- FOR THE CALIFORNIAN., 1848-01-19
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/ University of California Riverside Digital Newspaper Archive
Mr. Editor:—On reading some few suggestions in the "Star" paper of last week, offered for the consideration of our fellow townsmen, I am induced to offer the following, especially for the consideration of that talented individual who signs himself "A Voter," and for the good people of the town in general. There is certainly something in the atmosphere that we inhale, or the food that we eat in San Francisco, which causes some of its inhabitants to generate large quantities of gass. And as yet there has been discovered but two modes of escapement—the Town Council, and the public prints. Now sir, I claim to be a citizen of San Francisco, and am no doubt one of the many who have for a considerable length of time, been lying in a dormant state in regard to the politics of the town. And it was with a great deal of pleasure that I perused some few remarks (by "Cato") in your last issue: it is the only evidence that I have yet seen that we citizens have the right to discuss these matters at all. I have not the pleasure of an acquaintance with "Cato" or either with Mr "Voter" or with any of the anonymous contributors of either paper—neither have I much fear, favor, affection or awe for any or either of them, but being one of the numerous witnesses in the case now at issue, I voluntarily offer to testify. The writer of the "Star" who signs himself a voter, charges right and left, at everything in general, which amounts to nothing in particular; he asserts that your paper has sadly degenerated since its commencement, that it now deals in "low invective, billingsgate slang, abusive ephithets void of one word of truth &c. &c. he then brings up the old bone of contention and charges at the editor Mr. G. but afterwards, thinking he might possibly "wake up the wrong passenger," he endeavours to cloak this improvoked attack upon that absent gentleman, by trying to create the impression that be does not mean Mr. G. but the editor pro tem, who conducts the paper in Mr. G's. absence, "there is none so blind as those who will not see." And this is not the first instance on record where some writers have betrayed the wish, and yet the fear of attacking openly, a gentleman who singly is a match for them all. It seems to be a rule adopted by a certain public paper, that when news are scarce, and advertisements more so, to take up the character of some already unpopular individual and handle it with perfect nonchalance, and their motto ought to be "hit him again blue Jacket he's got no friends"; but of course no harm is meant, it is only to create some little excitement in a dull town, and fill up some blank columns, but there is such a thing as "riding a free horse to death." The assertion that the article of "Cato's" (in relation to the actions of that honorable body, the town council,) being void of one word of truth, is l have the termerity to assert most positively false, there has been, and is manifested by some of its members too much indifference in regard to the interests of the town; some month of two since, for two or three weeks it was almost impossible to get a quorum present at their regular meetings. All the funds in the treasury have been expended, and a great deal more, and the filling up the street in the lagoon and the wharf at the foot of Broadway are about the only evidences of public improvement (except the school house) by which we can account for this expenditure, and the latter improvement is now stopped for the want of funds to carry it on. Again, it is well known that there is scarcely any money now in circulation in the country, and yet disregarding this fact, we see that the residue of the unsold lots are advertised for sale on the 1st of February 1848, the conclusion is, that a sale of public property under such circumstances must be a sacrifice to the town. But half has been said either by "Cato" or myself that could be said, and with truth, "facts are stubborn things" Mr. editor, and "actions speak louder than words." And it is beleived by some, that we people have a right, at least, to discuss these matters. I am not much of a judge of the difference existing between "low invective, billingsgate slang, &c.," to unfounded assertions, and "f—e p—t" blaguardism, but if one of the above mentioned articles teems with the former, the other article certainly teems with the latter. Respectfully, SLATHEAL.
The author expresses a certain dissatisfaction with the prevailing political climate, stating: “...there has been, and is manifested by some of its members too much indifference in regard to the interests of the town.” This assertion reveals a sense of urgency and frustration embedded in the broader socio-political context of San Francisco during the Gold Rush era. The rapid influx of people led to a burgeoning population that significantly strained local governance and services. The Town Council, as noted by SLATHEAL, struggled with maintaining order and effectively addressing the needs of this growing community.
SLATHEAL’s interaction with "A Voter" highlights the contentious nature of public discourse at the time. The phrase “...charges right and left, at everything in general, which amounts to nothing in particular...” suggests SLATHEAL’s view of "A Voter" as an individual who lacks substance in their critique, which could reflect a broader complaint about the quality of political debate during an era marked by sensationalism and personal attacks rather than constructive dialogue. The author maintains a certain distance from the anonymous contributors to the articles, suggesting a dichotomy between serious civic engagement and the prevailing trend of petty invective.
Moreover, SLATHEAL provides a critique of the Town Council's performance, emphasizing the failure to maintain a quorum for regular meetings, which indicates both inefficiency and potential corruption or apathy among its members. He notes, “...for two or three weeks it was almost impossible to get a quorum present at their regular meetings,” revealing a breakdown in governmental function that was perhaps symptomatic of the chaotic environment of the time. As San Francisco transformed from a small settlement into a bustling city virtually overnight due to the Gold Rush, the expectations for government action clashed with the realities of burgeoning populations and scarce resources.
The commentary concludes with a refrain that suggests frustration over the lack of meaningful discourse: “...but if one of the above mentioned articles teems with the former, the other article certainly teems with the latter.” In this light, SLATHEAL’s commentary serves not simply as a response to one critic but also as a call to arms for citizens to engage thoughtfully and authentically with the pressing issues faced by their community.
The historical significance of the piece lies in its reflection of the dynamic and often tumultuous burgeoning civic consciousness in San Francisco during a pivotal moment in American history. The writer embodies an emerging sentiment that, despite the divisiveness and chaos surrounding them, individuals in the community possessed not only a right but a responsibility to engage in critical discussions about their governance and their future. This dialogue surrounding civic responsibility is a theme that resonates deeply in both the historical context and contemporary discussions on civic engagement.
Echoes of the Past: San Francisco Politics as Reflected in 1846-1848
In the vibrant and bustling city of San Francisco from 1846 to 1848, the landscape was not merely defined by geography but rather transformed into a crucible of opinion formation, governance, and civic responsibility. Central to this evolving narrative was 'The Californian,' a prominent voice of the era, which featured a poignant letter to the editor from a writer identifying as "SLATHEAL." This correspondence compellingly critiques the local government's priorities and resonates with the broader discourse surrounding civic engagement.
While appearing to be a direct response to an earlier article penned by "A Voter," SLATHEAL’s letter transcends simple retort. It encapsulates the palpable frustration, aspirations, and hopes of a burgeoning urban populace wrestling with the whirlwind of change. At its core, SLATHEAL's message calls for accountability among local leaders—a sentiment that echoes with the democratic ideals we champion today.
Setting the Stage: The Context of the Era
To fully grasp SLATHEAL’s critique, we must first immerse ourselves in the historical context of the time. The California Gold Rush was just around the corner, poised to transform the landscape. However, at the moment of this letter’s composition, the potential for upheaval and opportunity was not yet visible. San Francisco, still in its developmental stages, faced critical questions about governance and community support amid rapid population growth.
By 1846, as SLATHEAL penned his thoughts, public services struggled to keep pace with their expanding responsibilities, and the settlement was mired in economic uncertainties. Alarmingly, SLATHEAL pointed out, “the funds in the treasury have been expended,” leading to the harsh reality where “there is scarcely any money now in circulation.” This glaring financial strain set the stage for pivotal discussions on governance and accountability.
Embracing a Dialogue on Civic Engagement
What truly sets SLATHEAL’s letter apart is its profound engagement in the dialogue surrounding civic participation. Opening with a nod to a prior piece from the “Star,” the writer deftly critiques its tone, establishing an atmosphere ripe for reflection. By likening political discourse to the “atmosphere” and “food that we eat,” SLATHEAL introduces a striking metaphor that highlights toxicity within civic communication.
This metaphor serves a critical purpose: it illuminates the urgent concern for the quality of political discourse in San Francisco. Attacking the personal nature of the rhetoric, SLATHEAL notes that the “writer of the 'Star'…charges right and left at everything in general, which amounts to nothing in particular.” Here, we witness a profound discontent with the prevailing trend of prioritizing personal grievances over substantive dialogue, further amplifying the cry for constructive engagement.
The crescendo of this discourse lies in SLATHEAL’s assertion that citizens like him “have the right, at least, to discuss these matters.” This fundamental belief in civic dialogue resonates strikingly with modern themes of participatory democracy and citizen engagement, laying the groundwork for what we recognize today as vital to a healthy democracy.
The Call for Accountability in Governance
SLATHEAL’s impassioned letter emerges as a clarion call for accountability within the town council. He boldly underscores missed opportunities for progress while revealing a troubling lack of quorum during council meetings—a point that strikes a chord even in contemporary governance struggles, where elected officials often appear disconnected from their constituents.
The critique sharpens as SLATHEAL shifts focus to the local government’s financial management, lamenting that aside from a few notable improvements, the council’s expenditures lacked a cohesive vision for the city: “...the filling up of the street in the lagoon and the wharf at the foot of Broadway are about the only evidences of public improvement….” His words resonate deeply today, as communities grapple with similar challenges: balancing infrastructural needs, financial constraints, bureaucratic transparency, and ethical governance.
Media's Vital Role in Shaping Discourse
As SLATHEAL continues, he emphasizes the vital role media plays in molding political narratives and public opinion. By penning this letter to the editor, he demonstrates an acute awareness of the symbiotic relationship between media and politics—one that shapes the narrative landscape of society.
He critiques another paper for its tendency toward “low invective, billingsgate slang,” challenging not only the motives behind such language but also the ethical responsibilities that accompany the press. This aspect of his commentary speaks volumes in the present day, where sensationalism often stifles constructive discourse and amplifies division.
Amidst this media critique, SLATHEAL wisely observes that “facts are stubborn things,” an assertion that reinforces the bedrock principle of factual integrity in journalism. His letter becomes a rich tapestry woven with calls for truth—reminding us of the delicate balance between rhetoric and substance that journalists must navigate.
The Unfolding Implications of Disenchantment
As we delve deeper into SLATHEAL’s reflections, we witness how disenchantment with local governance manifests itself. Although he targets the pressing issues of his time, underlying currents hint at broader anxieties regarding the city's future. His observation that “the residue of the unsold lots are advertised for sale” amid economic downturns carries an air of foreboding, echoing modern concerns regarding urban development and sustainability.
SLATHEAL’s conclusion advocating for ongoing dialogue reflects a fundamental understanding of democracy: that dissent, discussion, and engagement are critical for fostering a vibrant society. His phrase, “the conclusion is, that a sale of public property under such circumstances must be a sacrifice to the town,” serves as a poignant reminder that hasty decisions can jeopardize community cohesion and long-term stewardship.
Legacy and Lessons for Tomorrow
In analyzing SLATHEAL’s letter, we come to realize that his concerns are not mere echoes of a bygone era but rather foundational elements shaping contemporary democratic discourse. The dynamics of urban governance, the integrity of media, public dissent, and the unwavering demand for accountability are as relevant today as they were back then.
As we navigate our current challenges of transparent governance, performative politics, and active civic engagement, SLATHEAL’s insights compel us to consider what has truly changed—and, perhaps, what remains eerily similar. The enduring quest for an engaged citizenry that holds leadership accountable is a thread woven through the tapestry of history, binding us to those who came before.
Conclusion: Engaging with Our Civic Heritage
In conclusion, SLATHEAL's letter to 'The Californian' stands as a testament to the earnest desire for effective governance and genuine civic engagement at a transformative moment in San Francisco's history. The challenges acknowledged within this correspondence resonate through time, offering invaluable lessons and resonances with the principles of governance that remain vital today.
By exploring such candid critiques from the past, we unveil layers of our civic heritage, shaping our contemporary and future interactions with those in power. Ultimately, as we reflect on the lessons from 1846 to 1848, we are encouraged to actively engage with the complex structures that govern our lives, ensuring that our right to participate in democracy is both spirited and unwavering.
Key Phrases:
1. **'The Californian' as a political voice** - This highlights the role of media in shaping early political discourse. For further reading, see this article on the importance of local newspapers in civic engagement from [Columbia Journalism Review](https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/local_news_will_it_survive.php).
2. **California Gold Rush and its implications** - This pertains to the socio-economic impacts of the Gold Rush in 1849. Further exploration can be found in this overview from [National Park Service](https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/historyculture/goldrush.htm).
3. **Civic engagement during urban development** - An examination of the relationship between community engagement and urban growth. For insights, check out this study on urban development and civic participation from [Urban Affairs Review](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1078087418806640).
4. **Accountability in local governance** - This reflects ongoing discussions about government transparency. A relevant resource on government accountability is available from [The Governance Lab](https://www.thegovlab.org/).
5. **Media's influence on political narratives** - This highlights the role of media in civic discourse. For an in-depth analysis, see this article on media influence from [Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/).
6. **Historical context of disenchantment with local governance** - Understanding the historical roots of civic discontent can inform current challenges. For further reading, see this research on civic discontent in historical contexts from [Social Science Research Network](https://www.ssrn.com/).
7. **The metaphor of political discourse as “atmosphere” and “food”** - This symbolizes the quality of civic communication. To explore the use of metaphor in political commentary, view this analysis from [Political Psychology](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-psychology/article/abs/metaphor-in-politics-the-impact-of-politically-loaded-metaphors-on-policy-perceptions/1B8B8FCD57B9BBBEEDD2D76DA9D5F95A).
8. **Legacy of 19th-century civic critiques for modern governance** - This reflects on historical lessons for contemporary governance challenges. An insightful piece on this topic can be found in [American Political Science Review](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/xxi-the-advocacy-legacy-of-the-19th-century-civic-engagement/40C91A5A30ACE04B716C5A78FA615B5B).
**Citation**: The Californian
- FOR THE CALIFORNIAN., 1848-01-19
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/ University of California Riverside Digital Newspaper Archive
Original Article:
Mr. Editor:—On reading some few suggestions in the "Star" paper of last week, offered for the consideration of our fellow townsmen, I am induced to offer the following, especially for the consideration of that talented individual who signs himself "A Voter," and for the good people of the town in general. There is certainly something in the atmosphere that we inhale, or the food that we eat in San Francisco, which causes some of its inhabitants to generate large quantities of gass. And as yet there has been discovered but two modes of escapement—the Town Council, and the public prints. Now sir, I claim to be a citizen of San Francisco, and am no doubt one of the many who have for a considerable length of time, been lying in a dormant state in regard to the politics of the town. And it was with a great deal of pleasure that I perused some few remarks (by "Cato") in your last issue: it is the only evidence that I have yet seen that we citizens have the right to discuss these matters at all. I have not the pleasure of an acquaintance with "Cato" or either with Mr "Voter" or with any of the anonymous contributors of either paper—neither have I much fear, favor, affection or awe for any or either of them, but being one of the numerous witnesses in the case now at issue, I voluntarily offer to testify. The writer of the "Star" who signs himself a voter, charges right and left, at everything in general, which amounts to nothing in particular; he asserts that your paper has sadly degenerated since its commencement, that it now deals in "low invective, billingsgate slang, abusive ephithets void of one word of truth &c. &c. he then brings up the old bone of contention and charges at the editor Mr. G. but afterwards, thinking he might possibly "wake up the wrong passenger," he endeavours to cloak this improvoked attack upon that absent gentleman, by trying to create the impression that be does not mean Mr. G. but the editor pro tem, who conducts the paper in Mr. G's. absence, "there is none so blind as those who will not see." And this is not the first instance on record where some writers have betrayed the wish, and yet the fear of attacking openly, a gentleman who singly is a match for them all. It seems to be a rule adopted by a certain public paper, that when news are scarce, and advertisements more so, to take up the character of some already unpopular individual and handle it with perfect nonchalance, and their motto ought to be "hit him again blue Jacket he's got no friends"; but of course no harm is meant, it is only to create some little excitement in a dull town, and fill up some blank columns, but there is such a thing as "riding a free horse to death." The assertion that the article of "Cato's" (in relation to the actions of that honorable body, the town council,) being void of one word of truth, is l have the termerity to assert most positively false, there has been, and is manifested by some of its members too much indifference in regard to the interests of the town; some month of two since, for two or three weeks it was almost impossible to get a quorum present at their regular meetings. All the funds in the treasury have been expended, and a great deal more, and the filling up the street in the lagoon and the wharf at the foot of Broadway are about the only evidences of public improvement (except the school house) by which we can account for this expenditure, and the latter improvement is now stopped for the want of funds to carry it on. Again, it is well known that there is scarcely any money now in circulation in the country, and yet disregarding this fact, we see that the residue of the unsold lots are advertised for sale on the 1st of February 1848, the conclusion is, that a sale of public property under such circumstances must be a sacrifice to the town. But half has been said either by "Cato" or myself that could be said, and with truth, "facts are stubborn things" Mr. editor, and "actions speak louder than words." And it is beleived by some, that we people have a right, at least, to discuss these matters. I am not much of a judge of the difference existing between "low invective, billingsgate slang, &c.," to unfounded assertions, and "f—e p—t" blaguardism, but if one of the above mentioned articles teems with the former, the other article certainly teems with the latter. Respectfully, SLATHEAL.
