Columbus Whig. (Columbus, Miss.) 1843-18??, 1844-03-07

thought proper to speak in such harsh and dis
respectful terms of our correspondent 'VOice ~
We assure them that they are entirely mistaken
in their estimate of the character of the writer
| He is gentleman of high standing. as much re-
spected for his talents as for his unaffected plety
and moral worth. If not a subscriber, he is a
reader of the Wing, and doubtless thought that
his Article spoke the voice of many subscribers
| 1t was conceived we believe, in friendly spirit
and was certainly couched in respectful Lam
guage. But this is matter we have nothing to
do with, and We here drop it."-DemOcT0t.
The Editor of the Democrat, must have Civ
en- little attention to the article of"vo;ce," he
must from love of appreciation have forgotten that
| as umpire between two parties. it was his du-
| ty to be impartial.
The Editor OF the Democrat says, ait was con-
ceived we believe, in a friendly spirit, and was
certainly couched in respectful language" Let
US present to the Editor a sentence from the
| ticle of''voice," and then hear him, "1st. 1t II
| altogether inconsistent with the province of a
secular and political newspaper to discuss relig>
ious doctrines, and especially to prostitute its
coiu,c ns--need we go farther 7 Will the Ed
itor of the democrat decide that this is prospects
fol language ~ no, We dare say he VIII not
Again. the editor says, she is as much res
pected for his talents for his unaffected pietV
and moral worth 20 very well this sounds very
pretty but let US present him with quotation
from "voice," and then ask his decision on hi
morality and pieLy.
Voice" says, i've take your paper for it's 10.
cal and general news and political principles
Only-it is our family newspaper. and therefore
we are unwilling that religious tenets that ,De
A anJ ;1;
ed upon US and our families" What does the
personal pronoun "we" represent Does it not
represent the writer with some other person
Could it be employed without including the wri-
Ter If not. what are we to understand by the
phrases, 1--WE take your paper Whose paper ?
The Editors Of the Wing, of course for he is ad-
dressing them. Who then, are "tce?''it is Fand
others, and yet the Editor of the Democrat, says
in his last paper, 'if not n subscriber, he is a |
reader of the Whig," poh, poh. Mr.. Editor do |
you intend to insult US Does not "voice him>
self say that "we and is not "we'' the first per-
son plural of 1 7 stake your paper :" and does |
not the Editor of the Democrat give 1t up that I
he is not subscriber :?
Again he says, sit is our family Newspaper :, |
can it be ''our family newspa per, unless he /
the writer takes it and further, can it be our +
family newspaper, unless, and others, meaning
1--WE" should have family?
Now for the conclusion. IF he is not a SUBJ
scriber. to the "Whig," and does not take the
paper, he has misled his readers, by the term
1--WE" and has as such, been guilty of soiLfuI de-
ceptiOn.
If he has no family. or if he has family. and
the Columbus Whig," is not used as his family
newspaper, he has been guilty of a ,oitfuI mis-
statement ) 81 that under any construction of has
language. with the explanation of the Editor ofI
the Democrat, he fully merits the charges pre-
ferred against him, in the last "Whig," as a I
man of neither piety or moral worth and fur |
Their the Editors of the "Whig," could not be | I
cuPable for using strong language against SO
contemplate pTO-scriber.
The Editor of the Democrat, saws she in "a b
much respected for his talents, as for his unac C
Iected piety and moral worth 90 IF he has no | q
higher claim to talents than he should have. for
1ls intrinsic moral and religious ,corfh wa are
quite sure, he would be fifty c.assed. If nlaced v
wong the idiots :: andif he has no more claim O
morality and piety, than what 10 shown. in the {,
otaI disregard of truth, in his address 10 The I'D
tors of the Whig.' we are satisfied that Satan u
would not feel fattered by his association. we d
eel contempt for the author of ssVoice and 40 q
must the patrons Of the "Whig, !" not because of
ne objections he urges, to religious CONTROVERSY n
secular newspaper, bat because Of his bvn-. 81
cfisy, IN assumingthe relationship of 4 subscril
er and patron Of the sWhig when he is1not 20 ltE
We hope, that in the future our attention svillI
OF again be called to the notce Of ssVoica,s "a Ie
c WISH 70 have no carYcsponieree with SO M