Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1842-10-26

|
has given the reasons of the editor of the Telegraph
| in the columns OF the American for rejecting his
communication, it may not be improper for US to
! say word on that subject-generay speaking,
there are two sides to matters connected with po-
Utica controversies. Mr. Bennett therefore will
not blame for giving our version OF this matter,
as the public have heard one side.
1t is true that we declined TO publish Mr.. Ben
nett's communication-t is true that we assigned
all the reasons he has named but is also true that
there were many other reasons, which induced US
to decline publishing his communication.
In the first place it may be well to say a few
woids in relation to the commencement OF the con-
troversy between Bennett and Sholes, as these two
gentlemen appear to be at issue this point, and
attitude to the parties may in the minds of
some be censurable excusable according to
the decision of this point A short time previous
to the election a land bill was circulated, to which
Mr. Benefits name was appended; the purport
which hand bill was, that the authors of a certain
Democratic Address guilty of having commit
ted a forgery Now Mr.. Bennett will not deny
that he did not know at the time he signed the
aforementioned hand bill, that c. {. Shoes was
the reputed author of the address in question. We
believe ii was pretty generally understood by the
democratic party in this town that Sholes was the
author of that address, and also that when the
hand bill signed by Bennett out, 1t was equal
ly we'll understood that the accusation of forgery
which it contained, was meant to apply to G. c.
Sholes. 1t was for the purpose OF defending him
self before the public against the charges contained
in said hand bill, that Mr.. Shoes solicited the use
of our columns. This was the view which we took
Of this matter, and may serve as reason why we
deemed ourselves authorized TO break off the con-
troversy in the Telegraph at the time it was done.
Again we intimated to Mr.. Bennett at the time
he presented his communication to us for pubca-
ton, that it contained statements which were not
true Had these statements not involved our own
character, but related to the individual with whom
he was engaged in controversy, we should not have
objected, because that individual could have replied
if he thought proper. But with US the matter was
dlfierent-the controversy purported to be between
Shoes and Bennett and it had been ntimaed to
us by the friends Of Mr.. Bennett, as well as Others
that while the controversy was allowed to go on in
the Telegraph, the editor would be expected not TO
Interfere What then was to be done! Was Mr..
Bennett to be allowed to 90 on and implicatc the
character of the editor of the Telegraph in his own
paper, and at the same time the editor expec-
ted to observe neutrality because the discussion
was ostensibly between Shoes and Bennett? Not
only Mr. Beunett's second communication, but his
first one, contains statements which taken in con-
nection with the charges which freely made
by the enemies of the democratic ticket previous to
the election, strongly impcate the character of the
editor of This paper, and they were true he would
be justly entitled the indignation of the people.
That Mr.. Bennett designed to mplicae us in his
discussion with Sholes we dot pretend to say; but
this matters not, so far rs the impressions which
his statements were calculated to produce on the
minds of the peope.-If Mr.. Bennett honestly
wishes to charge the editor of this paper 18th poll
tcal sins or inconsistencies, he is at liberty do
so, and for such purpose, he will not be denied
the columns of the Telegraph-et an assailant
come directly upon us with his charges, and then
if we cannot defend ourselves will rest under
the imputations. A covert warfare s what we dis
like.
There is another reason entirely disconnected
from those we have given, which in our judgment
sufficient to render Us under no obligation to
publish Mr.. Benefits communication. Mr.. Ben
nett has during the past year withheld his official
and business patronage ftom the Telegraph. and
given it to the Wing oflice-he had procured the
printing of political hand bills previous to the cleo
ton at the Wing office. Why not then trust his
communications in reply to Sholes to that Office
Why seek to use both offices to carry on his poi-
cal operations We know of no Usage of the press,
which require. that political dispuants have an au-
thorlzed light to the columns of the same paper
Had there been but one press through which the
parties could have spoken the case would have been
different; but here two presses-Sholes had
employed one and Bennett the other before the cleo
ton Why then change their attitude In view
of the position which Mr.. Bennett occupied tow
ards the Wing press it is no wonder that the edi-
ior of that paper should come up boldly to his re-
hef-Sancho knows from whence comes his b. cad
and butter, and he is not so stupid as to disregard
the hand that feeds HIM. Hence the public may ex-
pect from him an abundance of learning and poetry
in which he will discourse of the injustice done his
friend of the liberty of the press the fate of repub
lies, and crash of worlds.
But we have already extended this article beyond
the limits we intended; we will only remark in con-
cluson, that we have no design to do Mr.. Bennett
any iniustice--we entertain towards him no unkind-
ness, although we may differ with him in some
matters of political propriety.
lJ7Flour has fallen in New York City, to 81 81
per barrel. Prime beef So IS to So co.
LEARNED CRITIcISM.-- Milton was neither a
Statesman nor poet, but Devil.
Most of the leading Wing papers continue to
nal IN.hstor his "a snanch Eane-