Constitutional Whig

MR. PATTON.

Speaking the other day, of Mr. Patton's resolution to prohibit the publication of the proceedings in Houston's case, pending the trial, we observed that we were less surprised, at his resolution, than at the zeal he had manifested throughout the affair. We added that "the paper he alluded to was the Telegraph—the publication, that to which we had reference on Friday, as farther illustrating the attempted fraud in the case of the emigrating Indians." Mr. Patton declared he had been informed by one of the parties implicated, that the publication was grossly false in its essential particulars! Did Mr. P. expect one of the parties implicated, to confess it to be true?

We understand that Mr. Patton was misreported in the paper (the Telegraph) from which we extracted the report of his observations; that he did not say he had been informed by one of the parties implicated; that with none of those parties had he acquaintance or intercourse; and that he had reference to information derived through others.

We make this explanation with much pleasure, there being few (out of the circle of his personal friends) better disposed to wish Mr. Patton success in his path through life, than ourselves. We confess, that entertaining high respect for his abilities and his independence, we were somewhat surprised to see the apparently, partizan nature of his exertions at the outset of Houston's affair; a sentiment, we believe, pretty generally diffused throughout this part of the community.