The Literary echo, and Pawcatuck advertiser. [volume] (Westerly, R.I.) 1851-1854, 1852-09-30
HoPKINToN, 18th of 9th NO., 1852

HoPKINToN, 18th of 9th NO. 1852
To the Editors of the Literary Echo:
My friend Stillman seems disposed to
excuse himself on the score of publishing
his structures on my remarks, to an other
man, and in not publishing my reply to
those structures but as he has volun-
teered in concern between me and
that man, l did deem such omission un-
fair and unfriendly; and none the less
so, as l thought the tenure of his to me
was more dcclamatory than argumentive.
The first knowledge had of his pub
fishing the poetry, was of late date,
when 1 happened to see it in the " Re
cOrder" printed in New York and then
the subject was so incorrectly introduced,
as to its origin, that I took no notice Of
it, as stated before but when saw
him the other day in your office, l asked
him who sent it to the editor of the
Recorder in New York, for publication,
when 1 understood him to say, "I sup
pose 1 sent it." And by his statement
in last weeks paper l understand him to
admit that he furnished a friend with
the documents, and that he had them
published in the " Sentinel" by John
Maxson, at DeRuyter. Hence, if his
memory is correct, the poetry has been
published at two different times in a
public newspaper, besides again in his
own book. And now taking into the
account that 1 answered his to me by a
private letter-to which he never re-
piled; but instead Of this only fair way,
has, as it appears, had his structures on
mine to another man, published at three
different times without my knowledge,
and without referring in any way to my
reply to those structures; but now al
leging, as an excuse, for not meteing
the measure due, that my answer to him
was too lengthy for publication-at-
tempting to describe the ground it COW
cred; bat in this, if the true copy of it
which I retained should be admitted as
an evidence, he was mistaken in count
ing sheets. However, if the length of
this answer to his was an insurmounta-
bic objection, he should have thought of
that before he had published his own
structures over-even before he began
such course towards his neighbor, and
not without noticing his reply, or meet
ing him personally by cool friendly dis
cuSsion.
But now, before finishing his article
of last week, he seems to have slidden
off the track, and left the subject matter
in hand, as if himself was not fully salts
fed with his own former arguments on
the subject of the Sabbath, so repeated
and lengthy as they have been. But
for one, have no desire to turn him or
his friends out of their conscientious
J course nor was discussion of the doc
trine at all in view in the presentation
of my note to him, some weeks ago.
But seeing he has now struck out
upon argument in his article of the 9th
inst, would just say that 1 suppose
the whole disagreement between him anc
me, rests upon the question, whether
the seventh day of the week, is in the
8 abstract more holy than other days Of
, the week
t That men should cease from then
own works and worldly concerns as otter
as one day in a week, and devote thai
day to the service of assembling them.
selves together for the purpose of Divine
: Worship, and to other religious i'm.
: provement. In this I conclude thai
his people and my people, if not all othel