New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-03-22
TuE TIMES AND THE TRIBUNE.

Our neighbor of The Times favors us with two
columns of his last issue in reply to our last ar
ticle on Copy right. We wish we could afford
room to reprint il in full, to let our readers
see what our neighbOr considers gentemany
propriety and decorous discussion, as contra
distinguished from our billingsgate and false
hood" But we know that the public do not
care TO be bored with column after column of
personalities and We forbear Suffice it that
The Times reprints our specific allegations as
to its Editors own past and present rela-
tons to the Copyright question, aud virtually,
though reluctantly and with all manner of cut
fetish cOntortOns, acknowledges the corn,
as follows:
As TO The TribBRts allegations az anst u.s. the facts
stated though falsely coOred have basis Of truth the
inference for which The Tribune provides Is utterly and
maicOusly false And there IA the less for il,
because the Editor OF The Tribune has before
dragged these charges before ehe public, and
ctyed an explicit and decisive answer. Tie was told
then desire 20 tell him nOw-that the Editor Of
The Times neyera . jealous and active supporter
OF International Copyright'-thAt be was once, some
twelve years ago, while in The Tribune employ nOmi-
nal member Of Copyright Club that he attended
than two of IL meetings and took part IN
lis action delberatiOns and thar mis- connection with
IL nominal and accidental and indicative neither of
settled opinions Jealous wishes upon the subject
The Editor OF The Tribune also knows that his relations
with the house Of Harper & Brothers whatever they
may be-and whether intimate for profitable" is
Of The TrbHHss businessRre strictly business re-
laons and give that house neither authority CONTROL
nor influence over his opinions bis upon any
public question whatever; have is members ever
attempted % exert any such influence upon this or any
other subject We feel a sort Of humiliation az being
Ia nj
matters but under the pointed and repeated ibels Of
The Tribune concerning II, silence would naturally be
nlsconstued. We have no choice, therefore but 10
brand them false and after the contradiction we gave
them when uter from the same quarter some months
ago. known 10 be false by ths Editor who now repeats
them
We can well afford to let this confession
speak for itself, asking every reader TO Judge
whether its repeated charges Of falsehOod, libel,
&c, help our neighbours case Those who
deem them in point can find enough more such
in the residue of The Timess two columns.
But, as The Times magisterially reproves our
reckless, slangwhanging style" We shall
keep such logic out Of The Tribune, lest some
dull reader should suppose it original and
at home in this paper
The Times speaks OF our backeuing its
motives" aspersiOns," "psltry attacks"
impeaching its integrity, &c. OF the fitness of
these epithets, the reader viii judge. Sup
pose all this true, it asks, what then ?" Why
just this, neighbor that when you held
different position in relation to the question of
Copyright, you took q different view of it
that s all. Your integrity may rank A MOL;
but We do think you stand in the position of
lawyer who is arguing his wealthy clients
cause, rather than q disinteresred adviser of
the public. You may be quite sincere in your
present line Of argument-we think most sdvo-
Gates are so-but We de most undoubtingly be.
leye, that if you had never been connected
with the Harpers, you would never have written
q line against International Copyright. We
have hitherto briefly set before our readers the
grounds of this opinion; We have now given
your own replication thereto: and our readers
will Judge whether our conviction is well or Ill
founded. five are in error, they vii see it,
and Judge whether your charges Of falsehood,
&c, do or do not help your case or harm ours
There is one part of your article which We
must leave unnosiced-that wherein you at
tempt, without directly asserting it, to give
the impression that the Harpers are indifer-
ent to the fate of international Copyright.