New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1848-01-12
Assoetnffon iscussed.,

With which the name Of Prof Tsyler Lewis is given
a. .u,bor. SO far a. j, refers 70 matters reviewed
ve should very readily lie, it pass without notice
for we think 10 discerning mind read L. even
with no other light on the subject and that
we were mos, unfairly treated by our opponent in
the Discussion and are still more 30 by bis trum-
peter in the review. Bot, since the latter closes
with very bitter and sweeping attack on the gen
ersl conduct snd character Of The Tribane, pub
ished where it is calculated to DO us great injury
and through a channel which the writer well knew
would be closed against any defence or reply we
are constrained To claim in our own columns the
spsee need for a refu.etion Of some Of its graver
errors
T. L. premises that Mr. Brisbsnes pamphlet on
Association was reprint from The Tnbone ana
that we referred TO il as an authority with Us
wrong in both cases. He IS wrong again in repre-
senting rs as disclsiming any moral responsibility
for the articles published IN our paper IL 1928 by
Associationists because they hired column per
DAY for season and filed it. advertising every one
that tbs column was theirs not ours. II tnose
articles were evil, be ours the blame Tor We GER
tainy should not have incurred the enrnities and
loss Of patronage they were certain TO provoke
unless moved by strong conviction not only OF the
truth but the Importance Of their general scope
and purpose What we wished understood, and
what every candid reader did understand was that
the details the particulars the ways and means
wera the writer's own, we concuung heartily IN
the general object contemplated and according 70
the advocates Of Association the liberty OF CON-
rnending those objects az to them should seem good
But, says T. L. in the Courier, the Editor had no
right to admit anything of the kind to his columns
any more than a clergyman has right to invite
one of hostile and abhorred tenets 70 occupy his
pulpit-We accept the parallel. Let Us suppose
the case of clergyman who has commenced and
gathered his own church or congregation, taking
the pastorship by his own voli.ion and depending
solely on the voluntary payments of bis hearers to
support it. BY. and by he chooses 10 permit some
one to occupy the pulpit who holds tenets different
from any he has hitherto preached whereat many
Of dis hearers take offence and quit him. The loss
he must bear Of course but has he done any moral
rrong7 We think not.
And now to the subject matter
T.. safes the origin Of the Discussion as follows
After the completion Of this 1.-THE Fou,er series Of
pap.rs various articles appeared from time 20 time IN The
Tribune advocating the same general views These were
occasional noticed in the columns OF the Courier ara
ENQUIRER until It finally resulted in mutual propositions
for The discussion which has oecssonsd the volume m
la the final agreement that followed, there vas only
one item in any way unusual and which therefore II De-
comes important to notice IL stipulation which
never should have been demanded By party or As
senei TO By the other Instead OF general examination
an or Associaonisrn az esettled system,
grounded certain fundamental prneiPles and hsvng
esItsn standard .itins Lhe lEsgSs f Ger
tanly was presented and most unusual feature IN
thu ethc, Of controversy IT, however deesed itself by
by its sbsurdity II could not be strictly carried
ont because in such case II at once whenege rigid
ly and consistently applied, have put asIoP to the discus
Sod" sc. &C.
Here is a clear admission that oar opponent IN
the discussion systematically evaded or violated It's
Fundamental condition. The excuse lie that he
could not help it-that he could not otherwise dis
cuss the main question atissue-thst the condition
was an absurd one, and ought never to have been
exacted nor accededt to- Let us look into this.
Sept. :. '46. the Courier announced that It had
received long article from Mr.. A. Brisbane ia re-
DIV 20 it's recent structures Association which il
would publish if The Tribune would insert its reply
Sept. 7, The Tribune replied that it would do
no such thing, having no space then TO spare. and
not admitting the right Of any to call on US TO
publish his answer TO some third persons essay;
but. we added. when the Election shall be over,
We will publish an article, filing a column Of The
Tribune very nearly favor of dssoetoH as re under-
s.and and upon tbe Courier copying this and replying
We viii give place 20 its reply snd respond and
Ill esch shs have published Twelve ereies on us Own
side ad twelve the other which shsl! fulfil the terms
OF this agreement
Here it Will be seen that we commenced by IN
sistng that we would not be bed responsible for
snothers notions and arguments but must be al
lowed to define our own position and advocate IT.
and it wss for this very purpose that We proposed
this discussion Sept. g, the Courier responded
coessing surprise ct our refusal of its oiier, aud
Offering tn discuss with US,
Association is-iha. a. a. it defined in the writ
ms Of Fourier Brisbane Goodwin the Roxbory Commu'
My. The Tribune and ether advocates ana apostles OF ne
Cause II it will take s aoie subJeet we vii. resdi-
y discuss II on almost any terms &c.
Sept. TO- we replied, referring to an article OF
our own Of the LIST il reply to the Courier as ex-
pressing what we understood by Association"
and closed
"To bring the discussion within the space sford
H. the rule have proposed Of lng sach party sp,aS fer
h,mef end be rs,po5bie only for ai he ProT0aHds sP
pears 10 us Indispensable
Here the matter rested till Nov. 10, when the
Courier called apon us to commence the discussion.
We replied Nov IL, that we would not engage
in any such discussion as our adversary medisated
OF the opinions and views OF every body who has
deemed Social Reform desirable, but only such
as we had expressly proposed.
Nov. IA, the Courier rejoined repellins our sus-
picions, and repeatedly offering to discuss the
subject on the terms laid dorm By The Tribune
pself'-broadly intimating that we were seeking
pretexts for evsding the discussion altogether
Nov. 10, we explained why We could not assent
to discuss the principles and plans Of the Associs
tionists' which 1t had urged, saying
1--WE insist on our light to lay down PROPOSE
ons and be held maintain those propositions and
none others II the Courier accedes 70 this
servedly, viii directly open tho discussions # not
not"
Nov. II, the Courier repeated unqualhedly its
offer to discuss the subject Of Association on
The Tr1Eune's oWn terms"-"UPoS THE TERMS
LAID DOWN BY The TRIBvsE ITSELF &c. &c.
adding
"If The Tribune can quibhls out Of this II probably
will II not, Il take whatever II thinks
best
Nov. ls. we responded as follows
"Ths Courier and Enquirer offers assent anreseryedly
70 the which rginaly proposed. and have
all along willing discuss with Il the subject ot As
Vary Rely OF good Of