Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-08-20
JONAS HARTZEL.
REMAnks

6ONAS uAllIbL.
REMARKS.
II would be quito useless for u.s. 50 FAR ms Mr.
lIartzc is concerned, to attempt our own vindica-
ton from the unworthy motives with whc,, he secs
fit to charge u.s. Inilcls in Mr. Ilartzclrs creed
arc Of necessity bad men. Mr. Barker aud the
Editor of the Bugle are to him infdcl hence their
motives arc very easily suspected. We have, ncv-
crthcess, few words to say.
"What urgency" he asks, "to bring out this
speech of Mr.. Barkcrs just now?' We answer,
MIR. llartzcl had repeated in most odious FORM the
ISLANDERS against abotionists, with which the coun-
try is filled. lie had disparaged the obors of abo-
tionsts and the results of their abors and exalted
the anti-savory labors and influence of the church.
above the truth, and beyond all credible facts
Whether ignorantly or Intentionally we cannot
know, but he had grossly misrcprescntcd the abo-
ltionists, as we understood him. Mr.. Barker so
understood him and most triumphantly answered
his objections and corrected his misstatcmcnts.-
Fidelity to the slave, whose representative we arc
required of us-"urgcntly" required of us-to
publish this answer to tho world that not only Mr.
lIartze but all his fellow contcmncrs of anti
slavery might be rcbukcd together. We are glad
10 find Mr.. lIarzcll sensitive to this rcbukc We
hope others who entertain similar opinions, and
pursue similar course, may he equally 50. This
was the reason, aud the only reason which induced
the publication of the speech.
Mr.. IIartzell puts us as it were, upon our oath to
suy whether Mr.. Barker has correctly represented
him. We answer yes as we understood him.
Hence VIC considered Mr.. Barkers severe criticism
most justly mcritcd. And VIC now consider it,
But Mr.. llrrt2cll says we have "misrcprcscntcd
him." AT present we can only say that if so, we
are sorry for it, His letter gives evidence of
the fact. When we receive that evidence, we will
very chccrfuy make such correction rs the evidence
demands. Whether he asked the question in the !
precise "vcrbal dress" "what have abolitonists
,lonc?" we will not say. But that in substance
and in fact he did ask it, we do believe, and his |
audience we think have very distinct recollection
of it, If he did not, how unaccountable, that Mr.. |
llaftzcll should have listened to Mr.. Barkcr's
scathing answers to that question, and when he
came to reply, never once have alluded to the fact
that the quc gtion ON which the whole was based,
was mere invention of Mr. Burkcr's. How easily
could he have spoiled all of Mr.. Barkcrs artillery
by denial and an appeal to the audience for its
truth. But he never limited at such denial during
the discussion,
But Mr. IIartscll has another defence. "If |
asked such II question at all, it was with reference
TO that class of aboitionists with whom Mr. H.
was then in conflict" Indeed! So your conflict
was with aJoliioaiSiS after all. We in common
with the whole community, had u right to think "
before this avowal, that it was n conflict with
Joseph Barker, about tho authority Of the Bible,
as a rule of life. But you supposed you were put .
ting down "class of abotionists." Pray sir, if
YOU thought so, with what face can you complain
of that class of aboltionists for self yndication
As to the "argumcnt or logic" which will "proye
the Buglo aud its cause pro-slavcry" Bugle is
omen to receive it, and to communicate it to all its
readers.
But the publication of Mr. Barkcr's speech was
n garbling of the discussion. We think not
What was said about abolition, was a sort of cpl
sode in the discussion, complete in itself, and not
affecting the merits of the discussion one way or
tho other
But we are charged with "partiality," "one-
sidcdncss," and inconsistency with "the doings of
an honorable editor"
Let us see what we have DONE Mr. IIartzcll, in
discussion of general interest, took occasion to
assault cause the cause of abolitionism which it
is the especial work of the Bugle to advocate and
defend. This induced a reply from his antagonist,
which we published. Our report is correct one.
Neither Mr.. IL. anybody else has yet dispuedt.
This we had right to do--this We were bound to
do. We were desirous Of publishing Mr.. HartzelPs
remarks along with Mr.. Barker's, that our readers
could Judge for themselves of their merits and
of the justice of Mr.. Barkcr's reply. We applied
DO tho Photographic Reporters, the only place
where they could be obtained, for copy of all
Mr.. Hartzells rcnarks on the topic. They de-
clined furnishing them to without Mr.. HartzelPs
revision and consent. We next received the above
letter DESTROYS still to save words and let our
readers Judge of the justice of Mr.. Hartzell's
charges against us, at our request the Reporters
wrote out Mr. HIS remarks, out of their regular
order, and dispatched them to him, that We might
receive them and publish them with this letter.
Here is Mr. IIartzels reply to this fair and honor
able proposition, sent through one of the Reporters
81 Say TO Friend Robinson, that he can only make
me amends for the Injustice done me, by puDhshlhg
my letter, (if he has not) 1t is impossible to 90
me justice, anti-slayery advocate, before anu
slavery men of all creods and casts, without giving
my entire argument, lie has there misrepresenied
me- (morally,) and injured me pccuniarly, IN get,
ting up a prejudice against the book, II any oi
my religious friends had treated MIR. Barker as he