New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-12-17

objects of their assauit they gave embodiment
to vague SANDERS, which in their individual CO.
pscty they had previously assisted in circulating,
but from the responsibility Of which they now
shrink They have accordingly placed themselves
in the position of emitting a foul accusation
against not obscure and unnhuenti,l journals
in particular, AID the whole periodical press Of he
country in general and wien summoned to make
good their words or to gain the notoriety of reck
Lees calumniatOrs they dodge behind the shelter Of
"impersOna Intention According to taeir
present explanation, the whole charge of bribery
which was SC deliberately utforth under three sep.
arate counts would seem Ia be resolved into the
sertion that certain newspapers are in the habit OF
promising good notices of books in return for
the publishers advertisements or for copies
of the books themselves A slender foundation,
certainly, for the grave, and dishOnorabe charge
which they so undisgaisedly and sweeplngly
put forth. They row aver also thst they had
no intention of provoking personal dis.
cussion but did they venture to imagine that
prass personalities would be suffered to pass IN
challenged Had they the stupidity to suppose
that there was no sense Of personal honor in the
community Could they have been so infatuated
AZ 10 believe that such insinuAtions against
the press, or any portion of the press or asy ndi
yidual member of the press, would be allowed to
90 abroad without meeting with scathing iadigna-
ton and rebuke1
Their statement closes with an unmsnly and
contemptible equivocaton. 1t asserts their charge
10 have been that " there are journals whose book
notices are influenced by pecunisry considers
TORS and that these are not to be found among
the obscure alone" Their charge was not an
upmeaning generality like this 1t was more spe-
cifc n its fern aud more direct in it's application.
I. was intetded to involve the Publishers AssOcia-
ton in the private quarrel of the writer, whose
initial is borne by the article. Their cOuntenance
WAS invoked for the sanction of base insinuatiOn,
or rather barefaced assertion. The intention of
the writer was to include particular journal in
general charge-as such the article was understood
by the pubc-as such it was eucidated by ne vs.
paper comment-and as such it was promptly
repealed in our columns with the scorn due to
malice and falsebood How far Mr.. w. II. Apple
ton and Mr. George P Putnam were aware OF the
motive which prompted the article, Of course we
are not informed If they were privy to it, they
have been guilty of gross wrong; if not, they
have fallen into grievous misfortune. At all
events, they have committed deplorable error in
giving the sanction of their names to calumuies
which their better judgment should have told
them would have drawn blaze of indignation
around their heads.
They accuse THE TRIBUNE Of "bad taste" ia
holding the committee of the Publishers Assoca-
ton individually responsible for charges made in
their journal. We will net, however, stop to dis
cuss a question of aesthetics on the present ocea
sion. But those who give their names to published
words must, both in law and ethics, be
held to answer for their effect 1t Is also
our custom, when unjustly attacked to re
turn a blow which must seem in /" bad taste to
those who are its objects. And if they are apt to
faint at the sight Of blood, they should not have
ventured upon course which must inevitably end
10 an affray