The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1853-02-19

we are not disposed to pres, the subject. We
have simply 10 remark that when the press OF
Maryland is indiscriminately ASA lied, we do not
plume ourselves upon the 'sdignity," but simply
avail ourselves of the honesty of our Defence
Now We submit: Is that fair dealing!
Is The Suns action IN this case, taken
as whole, worthy of an Independent
and honorable newspaper, such as it
processes to be! One of newspapers
writers has no right to make mistake,
that another may make an attack; and
when a case of the kind does accident
ally occur, the suffering. party is entitled
to the fullest correction of the mistake.
and the amplest apology for the attack.
But the writer of editorials SAYS the
views of Mr.. Smith are still "obiectlon.
able" and he magnanimously proclalms
that he is "not disposed to press the sub
ject." If this is not "adding insult to
tn]ury," we would like to see an exam
pie. What is Objectionable IN Mr.. SIS
remarks, as correctly reported! Does
The Sun pretend to deny that the Grail
road company and its friends, (for Mr..
s. said sit and its friends. " have endeav.
ored to manufacture public opinion IN
their favor through the press of the
State p Have they not done so by com.
municatons--by dvertlsements-an
by editorials, written by "their friends"
or the friends of the bridge Why, IN
The Sun, of only Tuesday last, we saw
lengthy and an able article signed by
Mr.. FELTON,, printed for the express pur-
pose of forming public opinion. And
pray, is it not one of the legitimate OBJ
jects of communications" "advertise-
ments" and "editorials" in newspaper
columns, to form public opinlon;--cer-
tainly it is the most powerful, as it is the
most uniformly sought, means Of doing
II. Will The Sun deny this! The re.
marks of Mr. Smith evidently alluded
to the abundance of newspaper articles
in favor of the bridge-legitmate arti-
cles-and there they stopped; and The
Sun, in our humble opinion, by its re.
port and editorial, in the first instance,
and its second editorial on the subject,
has done him violent injustice;-al of
which we submit to the judgment of
those who read The Suns articles and
this. Thus much We have thought 1t
due to Mr.. Smith and to our county,
which he represents, to say on the sub.
lect at present.
AS regards Mr.. Frazier, we have as.
certained the remarks he made about
the offer of $4,000 were without OBJ.
lection as he uttered them. He was
speaking of the paid lobby members
who were present advocating the bridge,
and stated that when at Annapolis
few winters ago, the bridge question
being then pending, it was intimated to
him that he could get $4,000 for his
influence. 81 do not know" said Mr..
F. whose honesty is certainly as unques-
tionable as that of the Baltimore Sun
81 do not know" said he, in his forci-
Bile, sailor-like way, "anythlng of the
truth oft, whether such an offer would
have been made or not, but if any man
had made it, Shutting his fist and I'M.
tating blow,] | would have let him
have it with all the force God has given
me in my right arm"
''The very head and front of his offending
Hath this extent, no more"
Would the Baltimore Sun have been
more emphatic in its rejection of any
consideration offered for its influence?
VERDICT OF DAMAGEs.-James E. Price
& Co.,. OF Brand ywine, Delaware, have
Ill TT