Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1853-09-09

H-TThe Baltimore Times copies tue article of 'Man-
uacturers' from our paper of last week, and prom
ises thunder in future, and expresses its "unqual
lied contempt for those who seek to sustain them
selves by outside influence which will doubtless
make "Manufacturers'' tremble in their boots.
The Times introduces the communication of
''Mgnuaehrers'' in preface, part of which we
insert the rest having no bearing upon this paper:
eat this stage of the pro ceedngs, the now COM
plet-iy exploded doctrine i'll Baltimore. of dis
crmination is sought 10 be bolste'ed up by squibS
and articles, quarters where it is supposed that
our greater interests find vitality. We have
voice from Wheeling. 1t is the "IntetigeMcer,"
from which we expected better things. We ale
glad 10 see that both Editors THAT Journal are abb
sent and indebted TO the pro tenn Tor the lol-
lowing anti Adam Smith Communication-and al
low 10 say, Inti-lree, antitrust and Gnh-BaItl-
morean."
Welnust express our surprise at the tone of the
foregoing notice from paper "from which we ex-
pectcd letter things" thus needlessly attempting
TO saddle upon our pro TEN what it conceives to
be the sins committed by 'Manutaetursrs." Surely
this eff 1t was unnecessary, and perhaps not more
courteous than the occasion demanded. We had
supposed that the Times was in the habit Of pub
fishing respectful communications on questions of
policy even though they might not exactly square
with its peculiar views, and without being respon-
sib!e for the 'anti-Adam Smith ideas they may be
supposed by the Times TO contain. Our pro tenn
had nothing whatever to DO with the article, which
came from respected source, is respectful, clear
in its terms, and which, even though it does not
accord with the views OF the Times and many 9TH
ers, is well worthy the attention of the public.
We have purposeIy avoided the discussion of the
question presented therein, and not the least of
.ourreasons for SO doing was that we did not have
time 10 examine the question whenit was first
Brought to the notice of the public, and for the
additional reason that supposed the Times
would take good care OF its progeny. The Times
appears little exciteable this question, and
threatens considerably. We hope it will proceed
and make full development of whatever de-
serves correction. We desire to see the Balti-
more and Ohio Railroad accomplish all that was
ever hoped for byits projectors, and to whatever
will tend to promote that result we shall ever be
found readyto contribute our mite. Its prosperity
is our prosperity, and gladly hail every effort
which will extend and promote its successful and
profitable management. We advocate first and
foremost the interests of Wheeling, but we would
gladly see Baltimore reap from this road all the
benefits which her constant efforts in its behalf and
her immense outlay entitle 10 her expect from its
completion to the Ohio: Tie controversy, we have
considered principally a Baltimore question, in
which we were more incidentally than directly
int ested, and we are glad to perceive from the
report Of the Committee of the Board of Trade that
their conference with the committee on Transpor-
tation has been so satisfactory.