The Great Political Tickling: How Daniel Bugley Outwitted Seattle’s Beriah Brown

The Evening Dispatch in this city [Seattle], of the 7th instant, contains the most hare-brained example of the 'You tickle me, and I'll tickle you' policy, that the people at Seattle have ever known Beriah Brown to put his foot into. Many people in this community believe that the sad study of Daniel Bugley is power—and that he hesitates at nothing—not even to making his pretended religious sentiments subservient to all manner of tricks and schemes to further his designs, and get the 'drop' on people, so that he can use them at his will—but that he should trap the long-headed Beriah Brown, even after years of constant and persistent efforts, is the most astonishing local item that has ever appeared in either of our papers.

When Beriah jumped the Democratic party a few years since, it was believed to be the 'bread and butter question' which prompted him, and not any real change of sentiments on his part, and hence many of his friends had charity for him, although they did not believe the move a wise one, even in a financial point of view. The result has verified their belief. And all over Seattle today (and it has been the same for the last two years), you can hear men saying 'Beriah Brown stuck to his own faction, instead of trying to "carry water on both shoulders," he would have been better off financially, and preserved his reputation as a logical writer.' When a man sets up to his honest conviction, he moves almost every storm without stumbling, but the moment he begins to cater to the whats and whiffs of some for political sake, that moment he loses his balance, and becomes a target for all manner of ridicule, not only from his enemies, but from his friends, for the latter can't help it.

The last jump of Beriah's into the bosom, not of 'Abraham' but of 'Daniel,' is too plain that Bugley has finally conquered, and got the 'drop' on the old man after all. Does Mr. Brown offer a single proof that the religious meeting said to have been held in this city, with Bugley as chief spokesman, to destroy the Sun, did not take place? Not one. He dare not. The fact is too well known for Beriah to attempt a defense. If Bugley did call such a meeting, and it was held for the ostensible purpose of arraigning the religious influence against the Sun, who would doubt that he would use all of the influence in his power to stop the regular circulation of the Sun, though the Seattle Post-Office Note? Not even Beriah Brown! He knows Daniel Bugley too well. He has not so soon forgotten his trials with him in the University matter.

The public has not forgotten Beriah's hostility to Bugley and son during the last three years, and not until the evening of June 7th have they ever heard a word in their favor from Beriah. And what caused this flush, as a metaphor, across the eyes of our reading public? Ah! Beriah, is it possible that the 'dimness of age' has so obscured your mental vision that you cannot see or realize, that these are natural perceptions of the people! Is it not a fact that the accumulated years Daniel Bugley have 'out-witted' yours! If so, it is because he has kept steadily in view an purpose—no matter how obscure or selfish that purpose—and bent all of his energies and wit to accomplish his design, while you have deserted that high standard of sustaining what you honestly believed to be right—John, Jefferson, Will—it has been the principal glory of your past. But now, you are catering to other views and lies for favors.

Beriah, Had you held steadfast to your colors—or, if you became satisfied that you were wrong; choose that which you believed to be right, and nailed your flag of purpose to it, instead of casting yourself upon a sea of uncertainties, and floundering around to the whims of this man, and that man for favors, your best friends would not have lost all confidence in you. No man today can put his thoughts on you, and tell where you honestly belong as an editor of a newspaper. No party would dare trust you with its helm. In religion it is the same. Daniel Bugley says 'here Beriah, the Snohomish Sun is making it rather hot for me—Tom Merry has made it hot for you—it is going to be a hard task for you to get the people to believe that you have not wronged Mr. Merry under the pretense of necessity without some outside help—now you help me out of the Post Office Scrape with the Snohomish Sun, and Clarence—my son Clarence, dearest good boy that he is—and "a chip of the old block", will screen you in the Merry scrape.' Oh Brown, where were your wits that you could not see the light in which this would place you, in the eyes of a reading observing public? And both articles appearing in the same issue! The public were never more thunderstruck at your stupidity.

Never were you known to make such a weak defense of anything before the public, as this sham pretext for Bugley's sake. Your quotation from the New York Herald is imbecile on your part. You know, and the public knows that the Snohomish Sun is now, and has ever been since its first issue, open to both sides for a free discussion of the serious religious dogmas of the day. Witness the recent publication of the Rev. Charles J. Beguer's discourse on 'Our Faith in God,' also discourses of Rev. H. Thompson and others. You say 'an accidental failure on the part of a professed Christian (please stick a pin in that word accidental—it sounds so nice, and logical for a man of your known ability in dealing with facts) is attributed to malicious motives and the result of a conspiracy extending through all who profess Christianity.' What a handy thing to have on such occasions is this word 'accidental.' It is such a nice shield to many of the acts of these professed Christians, but we will let this pass now, and ask if you will deny that the meeting referred to—with D. Bugley as chief spokesman—was held, and that too as a conspiracy meeting against The Snohomish Sun? If not, then see how any you stumble in logic, when trying to foster up a decaying carcass, when you can smell its rottenness. When a man attempts to cover up what he believes (or possibly knows) to be fact, he is bound to betray himself, before he gets through.

You say 'but for Christian parents to take measures of any kind to protect their families from doctrines which they regard as pernicious in their tendency, is regarded as persecution.' Is not this equivalent to admitting the fact at that meeting, and its purpose! Oh! Beriah, where were your brains? Evidently not with your honest convictions. Do you not know that the Catholics are constantly taking just such steps against the Protestants, and all others who do not believe (for it is all a matter of belief and faith with them) as they do, and daily lecturing their hearers, till they have heresy power? An air goes up from our Protestant side against the Catholic. It all hinges on a matter of belief; the Catholics are winning to get the helm with the light of Rome will succeed, while both the Protestant and Catholic elements want to be left alone, while they throng our 'treason-laden' high ways to preach us, in God's name, we are accused of 'contempt against holy sentiments'. Why is it, that these professed Christians will not reason upon the validity of their belief in what they call religion, as well as in other matters of importance in the human family! Let Beriah answer this question, now that he has taken a hand in the Religious muddle. EQUAL RIGHTS.