Daily American telegraph. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1851-1852, 1852-04-30

MEssRs. EDITORS Mr. Kennedy has had two
shots ut me; | ask to have my fire now, and
have done. lie says
1T is to be regretted that he deems the men
ton of his profession Mt all derogatory, and that
there is greater condescension in STOPPING to
the journeyman printer than to the man, for
DO not and it was peculiarly proper to dstin-
guish him from the gentleman OF the same name,
think his brother who was an applicant for
the pubhc printing. Under these circumstances,
the proprety OF my discrimination is manifest; ;
and while no disrespect was designed, the dis
tinction is no doubt agreeable, as it was due, to
the master-workman,"
To distinguish between Jno. T. Towers and
Lemuel Towers, you must append the "master-
workman" or the "journeyman printer" Here is
the difference: some editor in Arkansas saws, "NIr
Towers, n respectable printer" Mr. Kennedy
says MIR Lemuel Towers, 'journeyman
printer" The inference clearly is, journeyman
printer cannot be respectable printer, or worthy
of belief-consequently not a fit person to be
acquainted with his honor the Secretary of the
Census Again
ITO me it seems little curious that, fNIr Towers
was serious in imagining my mode of proposing
questions so exceptonable, he should have an
swered them so promptly. My object in pro-
posing certain questions-each of which could be
answered simply yes or no. or assent or
dissent, expressed to all, if he though proper
was not to induce him to 'fatsgy himself for
there was no occasion therefor"
At his old tricks again If | could have an
| swered eyes" or ''no," or assent or dissent to
all, why did he write at the bottom of the ques-
tons, ~ assent to the above propositions and
reply in the Affirmative" If he intended tajr
why write anything but the questions, and leave
me to answer as suited me.
80 wad some powr the giftie gie us
To see oursels others u.s."
Again: Sufficient to say, my object was &c
complished." Now, | deny that or he would
have shown my reply to Mr.. Secretary Stuart,
which would have prevented him from taking the
false position he did in regard to myself in his
letter to the President; if he did, Mr. Stuart is
not the heightened Virginia gentleman l have
been led to believe him to be.
! Again: 6 / saw, and now see, bearing in his
replies of material Importance" This is Greek
to me, unless he means my replies had bearing
towards the truth.
Mr. Kennedy then comes directly to the point,
as he says, and argues to every point of the COM
pass, and at last " comes out of the same hole he
went in" He either came up to where Mr.. Bor-
land was sitting with the intention of entering
into conversation with him to insult him-as Mr..
Borland must have thought, from his reply, " You
have frequently forced your advice upon me, and
| 1 40 not want IL, Wnen want IL L snail SEM Tor
tor he took the reply insult, and
thought Mr.. Borland ought to have had as
much forbearance as himself, and take an in
suit, some moments afterwards but he hadn't
that's all | should have taken the first as an
insult, and left or struck Either would have
been the right course; but to argue The question
and return the insultin words was wrong, clearly
wrong. Again:
fThe only difference between the statements of
Mr.. Magill and Mr.. Towers is, that the former
makes Mr.. Towers to say that he Towers would
have been the first to strike"
There is no difference between Mr.. Magll's
statement and mine. ! never said there was
Mr.. Magill only cut his statement too short; if
he had kept on he would have come out right
have no doubt of that.
ApRIL 30 1852. LEM. TOWERS