Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1850-08-31
VOL. 5.
A False Accusation Refuted,
From Me Praelical chri.tian

The views of II. c. Wright have frequently
been oppressed through the Ohio Anti Slavery
Buglc, and to my astonishment Friend Oliver
VIII let nothing appear in opposition thereto
except, perhaps, somc article containing abuse
without any attempt at reason. II Is singular
that a man schooled in the Office Of the LIBERIA
tor, and practiced under the eye Of Horace
Greeley, and one who has wieldcl tho helm of
the Blackstone Chronicle, should have failed to
learn the first lesson of Anti Slavery. wo
must attribute his failure to inability he has
certainly made considerable excrton. 1t will
be well for him to continue his cxertions until
that lesson is perfectly committed; there arc
many who live to be old and die, without know
ing anything about 1t, even among anti-slavory
professors.
Thine for improvement,
MIcAJAH I. JOHNSON.
Short Creek, 9th mo. %, 1850.
u The above extraordinary paragraph es-
capped our notice until our attention was called
to It by our friend Charles Grifiing Of Litch-
field. If we had seen it on its first appearance,
its false statements would have been met by a
prompt contradiction. Having long esteemed
Aicajah L. johnson as a man Of truth we arc
no less amazed than panied 20 find his name ap-
to pronounce false and calumnous.
The only ground for his charge is the simple
fact that, for special reason, long since COM
municatcd to him through the Postmaster at
Short Creek, We did not think it best to publish
an article of his critcising the views of II. c.
Wright. What right has he, for that reason,
to allege that we will let NOTHING appear"
in opposition to the views of IL. c. W. The
truth is simply this The article of NJ. 4. ]. was
called forth by II. c. WIS. Funeral Sermon at
Rootstown. For several weeks after il came to
hand our columns were unusually crowded, and
when VIC could have found room for it, bro.
Wright had left this part Of the State and tho
subject had lost its freshness. 1t was for this
reason only, and not because OF any unwilling
ness ON our part to have the views of IL. c. w.
controvorted in our columns, that we concluded
to omit the article OF NJ. L. j. We submit,
therefore, that the lecture which NJ. T. ]. has
given us in the Practical Christian was not only
uncalled for, but grossly impcrtinent and un-
Just. If our accuser had been as careful not to
bear false witness as We are to obey the first
lesson of Anti Slavery ho would never havo
put his name to such paragraph as that above
quoted. We should have thought that tho
good sense of our friend, if nothing else, would
have prevented him from the folly, to say moth
ing Of the wrong of bringing charge against
us of which our whole editorial life is refuts-
ton. To conclude that an Editor, merely be-
cause he declines to publish single commune
cation under such circumstances as those above
referred to, is an enemy of. free discussion, i.
suporlatiyely egotistical and silly.
We call upon NJ. 4. J. to rctract his charge
through the same channel in which he convey
cd it to tho public eye. We prize the good
opinion of the readers of the Practical Christian
too highly to be willing that they should sup
pose us guilty of trampling upon the right OF
FREQ discussion.