Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1846-01-08

For The Green Mountain Freeman.
Miss WebSters Defence,

MEssRs. EDITORS You doubtless have seen the
very ocvcraoYdioioG oftSc tRi S'e~oeg Reporter -
on my book and character | forwarded to that paper
the enclosed communication in reply, which the editor
has seen fit to return, without giving It an insertion in
his columns. His reason for not admitting it I will
give in his own words, and then | shall not %misrepre-
sent him. His language is the following, viz
".MiSS Webdu Yours of the 1st IS on hand. I
have read it with care, and, | think, candor. Were it
ever 50 satisfactory, its length, and the limits of the
Reporter would forbid its insertion. 1t is, however,
very far from being satisfactory. | do not see that its
reasonings and statements help the case at ALL"
Now l feel that the course Mr.. Phelps has pursued
in this affair is very reprehensible indeed. 70 hold
up a young female to the world as a liar, and then re-
fuse her the privilege of giving her own explanations,
and of speaking in her own defence to the same class
of readers, is certainly exhibiting more OF the Pope
than I had supposed could be scared up in the entire
antl-slavery ranks in the nation. l am aware that some
may deem this remark rather severe, but | cannot think
it more so than the case demands. For an editor of q
paper to assail the character and christian standing OIL
an individual, and then refuse this individual the right
ofself defence, is most palpable violation of the laws
of Justice and christianity. | know it is course fire.
quently pursued by editors, but I believe it merits the
severe rebuke of every lover of fair dealing in the land
One word upon the reason given by the editor fo
not publishing my reply.
l. When Mr.. Phelps published his criticism, h,
must have known that if it received reply at all, tina
reply must necessarily be somewhat lengthy; and if hi
did not wish his columns filled up with such matter, hi
should not have introduced the subject into his paper
Again; iftho length Of the reply was such that
| could not consistently be admitted into one No. of thu
Reporter, why did not the editor divide it and admit
in that form, rather than do me the injustice to refus
r it altogether? If he should object that he was not a
S liberty to divide it, l would answer that there is a reg
: ular mail between this place and the city of New Yorl
s and, as he holds the pen of a ready writer, he coul
e have asked the privilege of doing SO, which l wogl
e Rave granted most c~heerfully, rather than no. have la
= my reply thrown before the same class of minds tina
: had read his criticisms.
2. As to his assertion that my case is not helped a
o all by the reasoning and statements in my %communica
: ton, think the judgment ofhis readers would, at leas
2 have been as unbiased as his own, as he has now be
come a party in the affair.
That | feel wounded at these proceedings, none ca
doubt. But, encouraged by the many kindnosses whic
t you, gentlemen, have already shown me, l am induce
J., to ask an insertion of my reply in the Freeman. It
=, lengthy, and, l am aware, viii occupy much space
$ but do not see how it can well be condensed. Tco.
d %sistcnt to give it room in your columns, you will there
! by confer a great obligation on the deeply injured.
D.. A. WEBSTER.
d Dec. 9Gth, 1915.