The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1842-01-26


either that the editor never read the article in,
question: or, if he did SO, that his mind at the
tlme' must have been laboring under some hallu.
eifnatlon, which caused him to naisconceiye to-
4 tally, the meaning and intention of "Lancaster,''
or else Lancaster" himself entirely failed to,
convey the ideas he intended "Lancaster',.
s ! thinks however, that careful perusal of the
i article in..your paper will convince even the
4 editor, that the fault iswith him and as it is
apparent that he must .shave read the article
! is it not fair to conclude a, tnind dseased,r
is the cause of the blunders intewhich he
has TALENT Deus Quem uah 4erdere prias de-
mentat. Let not the editor suppose however,
from this, that Lancaster" @onld5 anticipate ei-
ther his destruction or insanity God knows,he,
lentertains towards the editor, no such feelings
Of hostility, as would lead him to desire such a
catastrophe. ~. I. u, - z 5, q.
f But to prove that q ancaster' is right in say
ing the editor has committed gross blunders in
his reply, attention to very brief examinations
of his article, isinvited. He says, that .sLar1-
caster" charged him with inconsistency, because
he was opposed to giving the election Of govern
or to the people, on the ground of letting aveiry
well alone" and AZ the same time was in favor
of change in the judiciary system: But an ],
caster says, in this, he is mistaken, Inhis aptis
Gle on the proposed change in the election Of go-
vernon, the editor denounced all Achange fe
ing too, the changes on the zword-aM said it {
would do for the wings, but advised the demo-
Gratis and friends Of good order against it; get,
in the same paper, he intimated very strong.
desire to have an important tschange" effected
in our Judiciary system, which tits believed, has
worked WELL. and also in. some other matters
and what Lancaster said in reference ito This
was, that it was scarcely consistent to denouhees
"change," and at the same time, gotor achange
But the editor appears now TO be Of opaion,hisz
consistency will be preserved, if thinks
law; he wishes changed does not work svefy
well"s But does he not perceive he must .ac- 7;
cord to Others the same privilege Of "thnkin -.
which would justify them, and preserve their
consistency, not only in advocating change ii,
the election ex-governor, but in the support Of
any other achange," however wild and inconsis-
tent; ;andat the sametime shield and protect them
from all denunciation? Or will lrshe think, like
the lawyer in the fable this extension Of the prf
vilege of thinking to others, "alters the case;
and if, &C." y, X ! +, I,
But again, the editorsays, "f our two positions;
be inconsistent, what are his own precisely oppo-
sitein both cases" appearing to have understoods
Lancaster as having expressed his .positions, the.
opposite ofhis own. But Lancaster says this is
ga most lame and impotent conclusion, and one,
not supported byany thing contained in his arti-.
cle, Indeed, it would have been tinconsistent,r
with the scope and desgnof his mlnnnication-
Manfestly, his objectswas, not to give sutterance
tohis own opinions, on the subjects referred to-
but to point outthe inconsistenc enciesoftbe editor
Id relation to the proposed change in the.eiecton
for governor SO far from expressing anysopinion,s
he expressly withheld it, merely stating that heS
could not anticipate as the result of suchsa 3
change, the dreadful consequences, which the. (
editor appeared to toapprehend from it. tits due
to himself for Lancaster" to say, that he did ;
not refrain from expressing his opinion on that 3
question, from any fear Of making those opinions
known, or ofexposing his consistency to the test
of inquiry-but merely because it did not come
within the object of hisarticle. !, -. $
The editor then, passes over, perhaps, the most :
important charge of change alledged against him
by Lancaster" Introducing by the by, the
poor apology of having lost the .Journal, 2 and
concludes with flourish, which he, no doubt,
supposed would be complete ertinguisher to
aLancaster," and hereafter deter, not only him,
but all others, who might feel disposed to ques-
ton his consistency the rsetitude of his course
He says: "If the friends Of Gan Independents ju-
diciary'''- judiciary wholly independent Of and
irresponsible to the people Ia system which does
not obtain in this State] are desrous Of enquiry
on the subject, care ready to meet them, and
believe the people are" Now, might not 'Lancas-
ter'-or rather, the advocates of giving the elec-
ton of governor to the people, banter, with
equal as much confidence, by saying, if you, sir,
'are desirious Of eliciting enquiry on the sub
ject, we are ready to meet you. and believe the
| aoon1o ,ro1D .-.sr7. -'.. -