Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1848-02-23
FOR THE SPECTATOR.

'heis are Out WIFI second Caru, IN which they
change the ground taken by them in the first No
tice would not have been taken of either of these
cards had we any probability of remaining in the
county longer than few weeks. The fact of our
removal being known, has, likely. influenced the
council" at Churchville TO bring our name before
the community through the public prints. The
llrst ground occupied by these gentlemen was l.
hat rumor had charged Rev. MIR. Shickle with
forfeiture of his word. 2. That said rumor grew
out of difficulty between that gentleman and my
sell. The "Council' in their second Card ought
TO have shown that Mr.. Shicke has not forfeited
his word-they have not, however. even attempt
ed It, but have raised new ISSUE by frs. alledging
that denied the existence of difficulty between
Mr. Sbickle and myself; and, second, that they can
substaniia,e DIR. Kulz's editorial. WHY they
leave their first position the reader must Judge
We shall meet them OH the new issue In their
second Gard the Council charge me with deny
ing The existence of difficulty between MIR. Shic
kIc and myself: but my first Card shows that
neither denied nor affirmed the existence of said
diiicuiiy; simply stated some facts and left the
reader TO Judge In their second Card the sCoun-
c'r sun affirm the difficulty does exist, but that
does not acquit MIR. Shickle of violating his word
lney also propose TO prove the truth Of DR.. KS
eo''orlai by notes taken at the time" of nv re-
view OF the Dr.s book: but if they prove that it
docs not acquit Mr. Shickle. But further, if the
notes and editorial are Of niece, they are alike un
'rue ana TWO Incorrect STATEMENTS will never make
correct one. The Council" however. offer 70
prove the correctness of these notes by $50 to 40
respectable persons:" but we shall show that one
OF the "Councl'' admitted the editorial to be incor-
rect. 1t will be impossible for them TO prove that
TO be true. which they and the Congregation a,
Churchvilie, know TO be otherwise. A word about
'hese notes" Who took them Mcssrs Weldon
ana Holland and they will bear me witness that
l stated IN the Congregation at Churchville, that
neither of them was competent to take notes of nv
Sermon.
The Council say they care prepared to sub
stanilaie DIR. KS editorial, except a small mis-
take. 10 show the work they have to do. we
9no'e from that editorial some of the Dr's charges
lie charges me with ''denouncinu him tbrouobout
the Valley of Virginia :" and saws that ii take
special pains TO villlfy him, and like true Roman
priest cut HIM oil from all hope Of salvation" and
lover his shoulders belabor the whole Lutheran
church as standing upon a sandy foundation, des
ttute OF the love ot God, ;" Sc. Sc further that
Il traduce him personally and the Lutheran Church
at large" Again: he says that | 'sride about the
country to vilfy, and Sunday after Sunday fra
duce the doctrines of the Lutheran Church.O All
lhesc charges the "Council'' say they ssare pre-
pared TO subsantate." We demand them TO 81, -
bout II. They, however, except the word through,
the Valley. The DIR. says | denounced him
Throughout, the Valley but the Council" con-
lradct and tell him he did not say so. but said
'''O"S" WINCH Hc SiIOuIu nave SAID ''Iu'' the Val
ley: but suppose the Council" saw no differ
ence IN the meaning of the two words Thew saw
further, that the mistake was corrected, and knew
II. Now, knew no such thing. These gentle
men assert that the letter 10 DIR. Kurtz was based
on notes taken at the time. Well, the Dr. saws
Mr.. Shickle and Mr. Weldon wrote the letter
and therefore, they are held responsible for the Sian
der and abuse contained in the editorial-for the
"Council" say the notes and communication sub
stanlate the editorial. The last named persons
say they did not write: the DIR. SAYS they did =
lhey can settle 1t between them. But Mr. We'll
don says again, that he did write Now. which
one OF his two statements is true we cannot saw
unless we take the independent testimony OF Dr.
X. who atfirms that he did write. We prove II
also by the following certificate:
We hereby certify that w. j. Weldon stated 70
US alter DIR. Kurzs first editorial came ont ,ba,
he had not written 10 DIR. K. at all and since adj
mitted that he did write and also stated that tho
editorial did Mr. HiIdebrand great Injustice. and
that he had written 10 DIR. X 10 correct it. but the
Dr. did not do it-.a Kno,cIcs, p n Woods DDS ''l S
Crosby. j. S. Lambert
The above certificate proves also. that Mr.. Wei
don stated that DIR. X. S editorial did me great in
JUSTICE and yet Mr.. Weldon and the rest of the
oourcii say they ARE prepared to substantiate'
the correctness of the editorial. 1t may be. too
that he is among The 30 or 40 respectable persons'
TO be introduced as witnesses in this couse Co.
M
Dutchman's pig, on both sides Meantime. we re-
specially suggest whether the Council had NOT
as well extend their guardianship TO him as well as
to MIR. Shickle. The last named gentlemen has
also figured in the letter to Dr. Kurtz Mr.. Sbickle
however, denied it ; aud this is the 'di0icuItv -
Now, Mr.. Weldon, Dr. k and Mr. .ShickLe saw
that Mr.. s. did write to Dr. K, and so saw the a.
lowing certificates:
we hereby certify that we heard w. j. Weldon
say that the Rev. Mr. ShicIle did write post
script in his (Weldon's) letter. certifying to the
truth of his statements to DIR. Kurtz. upon which
the remarks in the Lutheran Observer. of March
70, l64I, were based, in reference to the Rev. Mr.
HIlde6Tand.1Hen'y b. Rppetoe, ii. Kno,clcs
John S. Lambert.
We hereby certify that we heard the Rev. Mr.
Shickle say that he did write postscript in Wei
don,s letter, confirming his (Weldon's) statements
to DE- Kurtz, upon which the remarks in the Lu-
theran Observer, of March 20. lS47, were based
IN reference TO the Rev. Mr.. ETlldebrand.-P. a
Woods, Robert Kno,cicS, j. Lambert.
Whether Mr.. S. did or did not write. or wbctber
or not he is among the go or 40 respectable per-
sons we cannot say, but suppose the "Councilu
can determine; and if they should not likely the
public will.
10 conclude, we remark, that the '"Councilv
have not acquitted Mr.. Shicke-they have cbanr
ed the issue They father slanderous editorial
by declaring they prepared 10 prove lis correct
ness, and that in the teeth of Mr.. Weldon who
pronounced it ujust Their witnesses both affirm
and deny that with which they are accused. They
propose to prove the correctness of Dr. X. Is edto
rial by notes and communications, which, IL cor
TeciIy reported by him. are as sIanderous as the ed
ioral itself For the correctness of our statements
we appeal not only to the persons signing the above
certificates. but to the whole Congregation At
Churchville, before whom the review was deliver
ed. The "CounciP' repeat their call for Com
mIttee; welI-we think they need help; we in