Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1853-03-26
INTELLLGENCER.
The Timea and Gazette.

from Hancock court, to article which appear
edins!Tuesday's Gazette, having reference to our
remarks on Mr.. Sullivan's letter and the s'vested
right" humbug, originate by a laundering article
in The Times, which has justly been exposed and
ndiculed by the Pittsburgh and other presses of
the country. We took mo notice of the original
article to which we have alluded, for the simple
reason that wished to aid it in escaping notice,
and the just condemnation consequent thereupon.
twas, as aretoo many of the random shots of that
paper, an unfortunate article; well calculated to
prejudice the interests of our city, and to make
vulnerable, by assumed positions, the otherwise
impregnable position of our cityupon the Steuben-
vile and Pittsburgh right .way.. For this obyi
ouS reason, we passed it by, and hoped that it
would attract no notice here or elsewhere. In
this We-were mistaken The Pittsburgh papers
riddledi it and properly The Gazette complains that
its views were misrepreSznted by the Pittsburgh
press. Wehope they were, and that the Gazette
has mot been guilty of the gross folly and ndiscre
ton of which, the face of his article convots him.
What he intended we cannot say, and other pa
pers are always justified in taking the obvious
meaning which follows from the words employed
in giving expression to the idea. When therefore
the Times says "the right of way, &C., is not
proper request because we cannot grant it without
and, f'the Central Ohio Railroad Company has ex-
pended several millions of money in constructing
aroad to this city on the faith that the city would
be firm in resisting the right of way of the Steu-
benyille and Indiana Railroad across Virgins, %
andaYupon the pledge that we would not, because
it was consistently our interests, give that right
of way, the Central Company expended the money
in reaching Wheeling" and "have we not given
ted S0bf 10
frmmaintainance of that refusal, and the steady
pursuit of our fixed couIse'' (the Italics are our
OWN any reader or paper was authorized to con-
clude thatitwas matter of contract between that
Company and of our city. This is the blum.
der we hoped would have passed sub silentio, and
it was not until Mr.. Sulliyan's letter appeared in
the Pittsburgh press, that.we took occasion to dis
claim the argument and the implication of the
Times. In our note on Mr.. Sullivan's letter we
gave The Times the full benefit OF its denial of the
meaning placed upon its article by the Pittsburgh
Gazette. Westa,ed that the ''Gazette had show
thatthere was no contract, &C., and that no such
idea5vas entertained by the article in that paper.
This gave the Gazette the full benefit of its ow
denial and yet the editor of that paper charges that
trying "o torture his article from its legiti-
1t is then perhaps, little unfortunate for the
two parties, to whom he claims we are morally
bound, should positively and perenptoriy disclaim
obligation, and we doubt not but that the Hemp
field road, did it see proper to notice at all the
"yested right' article, would es promptly, as has
Mr.. Sullivan, enter its disclaimer TO the impli
cation of the Times. II is really amusing to hear
the editor of the Times prate on morality. II
brings 10 mind the olden days when 'sThe Devil,
asSaint would he THOUGH wa NAV he nardoDad
OrBuggestng that the moral ideas of the editor are
about crude as his knowledge of ''vested rights
an that he is ignorant of both subjects as he is OF
hemanner and expression, in which courteous,
liberal and even too respectful article, should be
noticed by one desiring to be thought gentleman.
II is not the first time that this Saint has sought to
entrench himself behind assumed morality, and
Though it affords US pleasure to drag aside the
cobwebveil, behind which he seeks to mask himself
may be allowed to assure the Times, that his NOR
ality is fully appreciated in his region at least
Wenevermade any extra pretensions to morality,
but we always attempt, in our humble way, to dis
charge our obligations whether moral or legal,
whether "veSted' or bonded, and should we ever
have occasion 10 take lessons in morality we should
most probably go elsewhere than to the Editor of the
Tines, either in search of precept or example. In
husband his resources whether moral or otherwise,
as we doubt not that the 'home consumption''
will be, Cor should BED fully equal to the product
leaving him very little to bestow upon us. Let
him leave off prating and take 10 acting. Let
him be known by his works, rather than by his
preachings, and when he has established such
character preacher and teacher should have,
when he possesses the conscience void, &c.,
nd ofha
byit, when he can rely upon merit, rather than
upon assumed persecution, for promotion, then and
not till then, will we ask to take lessons at the
feet of such modern Gamalel in moral law
mate meaning" and very gravely reads us lee
ture on morality because we do not acknowledge
the truth ofevery statement and argument which
he may see proper to employ. Mr.. Sullivan, he
states, makes no obie action to his article, and yet
Mr.. Sullivan expressly states that his road would
not have been constructed to Ccshocton; while the
Times says it would have been. Is no question
between them, and what goes with the 50, 900,
600 argument based by the Times upon that as
sumption7 The fact was the Times had sunk
over his depth and gotinvolved in the use of terms
the meaning of which he did not even apprehend.
Gath" ttpledget" and "vested right' are words
which he should use cautiously, and should be
more cautious of his facts before he ventures tn
use them atail. We come now to the moral ques-
onwhich the editor has raised: Had our city
given any .piedge' to the Central and Hemp6 eld
that she would oppose the right ofway, and on the
'etlita'' of that 'tPledgs,'' those Companies had
expended their. means, &c, in coming here, then
opr morals would teach that we should adhere |
to that ,.tpiedge," and not violate our "faith''
and destroy the ''Vested rights of those Compa-
mics, but should those Companies see proper to
deny the existence of any such "pledge'' or
"faitA'.s either express or implied, and when in
fact none such was given, our morals do not teach
US TO attempt to shield ourselves behind an argu-
nent which has no foundation either in fact Or
zzt1777r4--- ----e----r--77---r