Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1837-08-02
August 2. 1887.

"Was the Chronicle acquainted with
the other "istsreting facts IN the case,
AZ oiyen in the Telegraphi - .. y
II il was acquainted with the facts will
il now make the correction q"-W. Tel
The above relates to the case of Ed
ward Michel. We cannot make any
Correction on the mere authority Of the
Teleoraph's article, because we know part
of II 10 be untrue; and therefore we are
uncertaiu whether the statements il the
same connection respecting switch we
have no information from other sources,
ore true OF not The editor doubtless
made the statements in strict accordance
with what he supposed himself TO know
and with what he believed. W Ctr0H-
icIe.s
If The Chronicle designs to be candid, and
wishes to find the truth in the case, and to
lett be known, instead Of this vague charge,
~we know part Of it to be uutrue"-a
charge brought against an article which has
been carefully suppressed from its readers
why were not the statements, which were
brief, laid before the readers Of the Chroni-
Gle, and the part which is alledged to be
untrue pointed out and exposed? Lett be
shown whether the part is important or IN
important. The article would have occu-
pied less space than the one copied by the
Chronicle from the Newly ork Observer, on
the same subject, the only tendency Of
which latter could be TO keep the readers Of
the Chronicle blinded.
Again, the Chronicle does US injustice
when il represents these statements as ours,
without intimating to its readers that we
made mer ton OF the authority on which
they were made. We expressly stat
ed that they were given us by friend
who lived IN the region Of Dartmouth at the
time Or he occurrence alluded TO. The
friend who gave US the statements is per-
son with whom the editors Of the Chronicle
and the readers Of the Telegraph are some
what acquainted, and whose character for
veracity stands before the public, unimpeach-
ed. He tells the story, according to the
best Of his recollection, as il circulated in
the region Of Hanover at the time.
While on this subject. we have word Of
explanation TO our readers, which will re-
feet no credit on the Chronicle: 1t is this:
Il will be seen, by recurring to last weeks
Telegraph, that the article credited to the
New-York Observer, under the head, Rev.
Edward Mitchell-Colored Students and
Colored Men," commences, We know Mr.,
MITCHELL" &c. This article WIS taken
BY our printer from the Chronicle, while we
retained the Observer on our table, from
which 70 make remarks. But we were dis
appointed and surprised, when the proof
sheet came into hand, TO Ind that we had
been commenting on the Observers asser-
ton, an is q true account" while that as
sertion had not appeared before our readers.
On taking up the Chronicle again, from
which our printer had copied, and compar-
ing il with the Observer the secret was out
The Chronicle, as it would seem, by this
time felt little too sotely pressed to hazard
the responsibility Of endorsing that assertion
from the Observer, and so omitted it. II
stood in the Observer thus: CATER line or
two Of introduction,) It's a true account.
We knew Mr.. Mitchell" Why did the
Chronicle separate these statements, and
omit the former7 We confess there is
something about this thatlooks a little sns-
picious.