American telegraph. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1851-1851, 1851-07-21

~ ~ DcJ hASs
"Were to consult my feelings Of self-respec,
and am confident discerning public will
decide with mel would not again seek to en-,
ter your columns"
We regret the sacrifice our friend has made
and discerning public win regret il also! His
self-respecA 1t is sacrifice no man is called
upon to make--no earthly object is worthy such
a price.
He desired to argue that, because one Of
the editors Of this paper has been jealous
Wing ever since there has been Wing party,
therefore it is treason in him, or at least great
Inconsistency, to doubt the infallibility Of any
of its prime leaders now Believing that his
objects could be as well attained without this
episode, we desired its omission-not that we
cared for it, but that we regarded it as irrele-
want. Had we believed any thing relating to
us could be very interesting to the public, we
should have waived all objections.
He recites Indignantly all our sins of oper-
sonality," in justification of his course toward
us. We are willing that he or any one else
shall do this, for we have spoken to the world
on our own responsibility, and with no other
expectation than to answer for every syllable
uttered. ,es'
He says that we have permitted other cor
respondents to assail public men. So we have,
and upon precisely the same conditions upon
which he is permitted to defend them Public
men have assented, in assuming the positions
they occupy, to submit themselves to the ordeal
of public opinion, and the press is the organ
through which that opinion is pronounced.
ct" speaks much of justice. We hope his
appreciation Of it will enable him to know that
we are not practising its opposite. Our giving
place to communication with the tone and
temper indicated by the paragraph above
quoted, should convince him that we do not
wish to suppress his writings Were he of
gentle temper, we should ask him to forget the
rash promise he has made, and to continue his
advocacy of the side he has chosen as it is, if
he will but keep his attention to the point of
main interest, he will find that we are not dis
posed to smother his arguments on any side of
o controversy. He errs greatly, in the paroxysm
of his excitement, when he thinks all others are
excited. Even his furious epistle cannot tempt
us into indulgence in his naughty spirit of re-
sentiment and defiance.
But let US hear him:
[Communicated.]
To the Editors Of the American Telegraph.
We're l to consult my feelings of selfrespect-
and am confident discerning public will de-
eide with mel would not again seek to enter
your columns The injustice done me is 30
gross that it speaks for itself But that the
circumstances may be more fully understood,
claim once more the privilege of an explanation,
and this shall be the last.
What are the facts? A series Of articles by
writers +" unknown to the public" are permitted
to appear in your paper, making a systematic
attack on the Administration and its various
members, and calculated and intended to do in
jury. You enter the list as editors at least
against one of the assailed, and thus become
party. You assented time and again, to some
OF the charges In strong language, making state
ments of the broadcast character against Cabinet
ministers. /, in accordance with general in
yitation, and the proclaimed independence of
your paper, offer you articles in defence. The
first you publish. In that, in a spirit of can
dor, speak of you as editors, and state that
will offer one or two more. In your character
as editors, you put at the tail-end of my article
published an appendum of reply to what you
are pleased to state are assertions by me. Isend
you second article, and you refuse to publish
on the ground of personality, and because / am
not known IN proprid persona to the public. You
say, at. is welcome, but is required either to
reveal himself or withhold personal remarks"
Now let me examine this reason.
And first, deny most emphatically and pos
itivey that | have spoken Of you personally.
l speak Of you in the second and rejected article
as did in the first as editors, and not per-
sonally. The language in the second article is
no stronger than in the first, only more pointed,
because of your reference to yourselves in the
appendum, as editors. In this appended reply
you speak as editors, you reply as editors
address you as editors. If l replied at all, how
else could reply? Who else was there to reply
TOT here restate, most positively, that there
is not one syllable Of what may properly be
called personality in my article, and, to test the
matter, offer to leave the article, without the
name, in the hands Of any disinterested gentle
man OF gentlemen to decide Had spoken of
you rs a creature" Of "time and sense" rs
the possessor of "baser propensities" which
" characterize the motives and actions of your
life;" as "proud," ambitious, "eminently aris-
tocratic," selfish, "ungrateful," "haughty and
arrogant, "poor and stipendiary," that would
have been somewhat personal.
Bull let me hasten to your other position.
You, as editors, become party to this discus
sion, and what are you doingf You must pre-
scribe to me- another party, what is relevant or
irrelevant You say, 81 must withhold per-
sonal remarks having no connexion with the
subject" Here you are party and Judge both.
You, party, decide or judge what has or has
not connection with the subject was and am
willing for the public to decide. You smother
or suppress my article, and decide for them md
me Had vou taken M mart in the controverav
then your right would have been clear
Irepeat for the third time, as far as this OBJ
lection of personality is concerned, there is not
letter, syllable, word, q sentiment, reflect
ing on your personal character. If there is,
give it to the public--the manuscript is at your
service. But if misrepresented, If l attacked
you personally eyen--which would not on any