Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-07-30

am willing to rely for my successful vindi-
cation against your allegations Of last week,
or any you may hereafter make touching the
point in controversy.
You ore at liberty TO make any comments
you choose upon articles Of mine, | would
prefer you would do ii, and expose any errors
which may be found in them, but think
you cannot be justified in holding such com.
ments sacred from all investigation and crit.
cism nor in alleging an entire want OF
foundation" for what may be stated in your
paper, and yet erclude that "Joandation'f from
y0ur columns.
You asser, most positively that you have
not dune this. Permit me to say it is ex-
%lrenely difficult for ne to conceive you should
not have :" thought otherwise when you pen
ned it,"
Respectfully,
ID. b. DAVIS.
7 mo. 25,h, 1917.
In reply 10 the above remarks, we shall
give a brief statement of the facts in the case.
The first communication sen, us by B. B..
ID. we objected 10 on account Of its length, as
well as on other grounds which we stated at
the time. 1t is obviously necessary for some
person or persons to decide upon the admiS-
sibility Of articles sent for publication, and
that party must be the editors, the writer's, or
the readers. The readers certainly are not
the proper persons. TO enable them 10 de-
eide, the articles must be published SO that
they may judge whether they are fit for pub
LEGATION. Shall the t%oriterS decide itl II so,
then all must be admitted that is written, for
it is hardly sdpposable case that any writer
would prepare an article for the press that he
thought ought to be rejected. If the question
should not be referred to either Of these par
ties, then it must be left TO the editors who
were selected to conduct the paper. The Sc
e0nd communication was a somewhat lengthy
argument designed to show that we ought 10
puUllSn Hlo ulSts Il tIlo was d uldlltI OuI
readers had nothing 10 do with, we, of course,
refused TO insert it; and in conversation with
the writer gave him distinctly to understand,
that we would not discuss in the columns of
the Bugle, the propriety of any rule we had
adopted. He could not have misunderstood
us on this point, for we took care to be per-
fectly explicit, yet mark it, the preface to his
third communication contained the arguments,
or a portion of them, which he used in his
second. Although ingeniously introduced,
we rejected them, as we told him we should
modestly asks us TO eat our own words, and
publish what our judgment has all along told
us ought not to be published. We cannot
do it, even to crafty B. B. Davis, who ought
certainly to have been too wise TO prefer a
charge against us through the columns Of the
Bugle, when he had previously been inform
ed that the foundation''-as he calls it
was not in our judgment suitable for %publica-
ton there.
He simply asserted his charge, we simply
denied il, and were willing so to rest it, leav-
ing our readers to believe which they chose.
In the foregoing communication, he makes
what he believes to be a fair statement of the
matter; we follow his example and again
leave our readers to judge between US.
We feel disposed, however, to say some
thing more, not so much in relation to what
we hare, as what we haze not rejected. Had
would not necessarily render us obnoxious to
the charge of refusing to allow both sides to
be heard, for both sides were heard in our
columns before b. b. d. wrote his articles
for the Bugle, and we think he makes a great
mistake when he supposes they have not
been heard until he has spoken. Although
We are not gifted with very brilliant imagi-
nation, we can conceive of the possibility OF
this, or any other question being discussed
and both sides being heard without any as
~sistance from B. b. d. II, instead of say.
ing we had refused to publish both sides Of
the question, he had asserted that we had moi
favored our readers with all he had written
/ we would have plead guilty to the charge
for we are careful to exclude what we con
: slider unsuitable, even though it come from
his pen.
y We understand that some persons hav'
=. been taking considerable trouble to give cur
rency to the charge brought against us by B