The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-12-06
REPLY TO AN EXPLANATION u

cotemporaries it sustains friendly relations. but
it does not expect that its views or the style in
which they are promulgated, shall pass I'M
questioned. 1t is the right of one Journalist to
point out what he considers the wrong opinion,
to resist what be believes to be the ill,judged
policy, of another. Our course is from time to
time criticized, sometimes with severity, but we
are not apt to take offence.
week or two ago, we commented, with some
plainness, upon the constant attempts of the
New York Tribune to revive at this time the
agitation of the Question of Protection and
upon its pro-Russian policy, desiring to coun.
teract, so far as we could, the influence of what
we considered mischievous errors in air influ-
entail supporter of the Republican movement.
We did full justice to the many excellencies of
the paper, questioned neither it's ability nor
honesty, uttered no word which one gentleman
may not speak to another, without violating the
rules of good breeding.
1t seems, however, that criticism we'll meant
and courteously uttered, has been badly re-
ceived. The Tribune, in a long editorial, re-
plies to our comments, with Immature and ar
rogance. Our failure to recognise the imper-
sonahty of the paper Us shield to the indipal-
aats editorial contributors, it styles "imperti.
nent." 1t has "no faith in that wretched tinsel
of free trade which the Era cries up with
such solemn creduity and such pitiaJle AFRO
gdncs for, good gold" 1t has not the "happy
faculty of protesting great devotion to Free
dom, and doing the scork Of Slape,y." 1t is a
free trader, "but not of the school of Calhoun.
jeff. Davis, Pierce, and the National Era.'
Our opinion on Protection it prefers to attrib-
ute, not to "moral perversity," but to "meutal
weakness, and blind adherence to early and
ignorant prejudice every dishonest or very
dull, is the Era, in its attempts to define the
position OF the Tribune on the Russian ones
ton, but it prefers to consider it "very dull"
This is fair specimen of the style and tenn
per of the 2tibune's reply. We do not COM
plain of it. 1t is so much more civil in its
treatment of us than of others who differ from it,
that we feel under obligations to it, as for an
extraordinary act of courtesy.
1t is so much better to be called, dull. men.
tally 'peak, impairment, pHia6ly arrogant than
"a tar and a cilain," epithets not unknown
IN the editorial controversies of the Tribune,
that we really imagine that distinguished In
personality has quite friendly regard forus.
Still, we always prefer that our friends should
be gentlemen. The most cordial relations are
never impaired by courtesy We may like rude
fellow, in spite of his bad breeding-but all the
while we cannot but regret that his mother had
not taught him to behave himself.
The Tribune says we are "impertinent,' y
"pitiably arrogant" &c. Well, it is easy to
call names, and just as easy to retort-but Bill.
lingsgate would furnish specimens in that line
far beyond our genius, if not that of the Tri6-
une-so we shall not enter into that contest
the Tribune may have the whole field Of cpl
thets, without rival.
AS to the immunities claimed by the Tribune
on account of its impersonalay, we have a few
words to say. Should the editor Of the London
Morning Adrertiser have learned that the wri-
don Times was Lord John Russell, and should
he conclude that such an allusoa to this fact
as might give the public hint of it, would
help to counteract its influence, the Tribune
would be very apt to call him a TOOL if he did
not. Suppose, in commencing certain articles
on sectionalism in the Tribune, anxious to in
vest them with additional weigbs in a certain
quarter, we should remark that We have reason
to believe that they were written by the distin-
guished author Of standard History of the
| United States-would this be deemed g imper-
| tinent2" We believe that the New York pa
pers, not excepting our standardtof good breed
| ing, the Tribune, have occasionally, in COM
menting upon certain articles in the Washing
ton Union, for the sake of giving more point to
their comments, ascribed authorship 70 one or
another member of the Cabinet. How very
"impertinent!
Now, we tell our cotemporary that its claim
to shield, by its impersonality, twenty individu-
ais comprising its corps Of editors from all al
fusion, is simply childish and, as this term is
the only personality we have been guilty Of we
nope our readers will forgive us. When, in a
| journal protesting to regard the Anti Slavery
movement, represented by the Republican
Party, as of paramount Importance, we see edi-
torial articles designed to give undue magni-
tude TO other issues, articles which, from GER
tain ear-marks, we know to have been written
by one who thinks that the Anti-SlaVery move
ment, from the beginning up to this time, has
been blunder and failure, we shall state the
fact, and the Tribune may say Just what it
pleases.
The Tribune attempts to make. the Era
odious to certain class of its readers, by class
ing it with Calhoun, JEFF. Davis, and Frank.
lin Pierce," on the Free Trade Question. Does
it not see how easy it is for US to retort, by
CHASING it with the Washington Union, JEFF.
Davis" Franklin Pierce" and 'ethe Slave
breeders and Slavetraders," as it Calls them, on
the Russian Question? Such all captandum ap
peals to unthinking prejudice, is unworthy any
journal that can argue.
The Tribune says the Tariff Of 1916 was
4" forced upon the country, for she advantage o.
the slave-breeding and slave-trading interests,
and that the National Era lends It's "zealous
support" to that great ProSlavery measure
That Tariff was passed befare the Era was
commenced, and we have never devoted sin
gle article to its supports "zeal0us support,
thisl We have never, in fact, expressed any
opinions about it. We hope The impersOnalit,
Of the Tribune will not deem it "impertinent
e we admonish 1t to be more careful in it.
statements. But, we never lodge responsible
ty. Now, that there is an occasion, we So,
frankly, that the Tariff of 1896, ip SO far az !
reduces or removes duties imposed by tn