New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-12-25
FEW FACTS FOR BoOKnES.

We Ola not Ctcm IL PsoPci y" 0"A"eN
plantations of defensive nature any more than
elaboIstely to debate the principles involved our
first care was to meet our assalants and especially
IN AZ into light aud to sileLc the secret SANDER
era no had long been busy in privately injecting all
the mind. they could reach with iDputatons and in
sir ustious against the honesty OF our literary
criticisms In doing so, We did not deem It neces-
sary to treat these hidden calumniators with any
upmerttd ard unnecessary courtesy or mercy.
The rules Of refiuei warfare cannOt always be
observed with those who seek to kill by secret
poison. or with braves who begin their attack by
stabbipg in the back in the dark. Ia treating
these characters 10 a summary manner, some
persons have thought us guilty of und'gpifed per-
sonalities Our own judgment still is that we only
performed an act of indispensable justice.
Ibis part of the controversy being disposed OF,
we might leave the subject with the general con-
siderations which are presented above, especially
as any further statements must relate to personal
matters connected with the internal organization
of our staff, subject with which We are always
reluctant to trouble the public. Bat as the repu-
tation Of journal for honesty and independence
should be lie the honor Of queen, Free not only
from fault, but from suspicion, we trust we shall
be allo ned to devote little space to matters
which would otherwise be kept to ourselves.
II has already been made known to the public
that the gentleman who discharges the duties OF
princit al literary critic of THE TRIBUNE, and who
has held that office nov for some seven years, also
acts as literary adviser for the publishing houses
of Harper & Brothers and J. c. Derby. With
L. stsip cd hat aaf w
we requested him to enter our service, aud as we
then deemed the one engagement no disqualified
ton, 90 neither did we think it necessary to inter
pose to prevent the other when, two years since,
it was made.
As we understand the complaint, it is not that
we have failed to do critical justice to the books
un5er review, but that we have devoted an
undue space in our columns to these two publish
ing houses A recurrence to our files might
ea,iy have decided the question; and flour accusefs
had been more careful about the truth, they would
perhaps have sienced their accusation there before
making it public. Now the fact is that during
the past year-we will not trouble the reader
with too remote details-the publications of
Harper g. Brothers amounted to seyenty-fye diff
fertnt works. OF these, but five have re-
ceiyed a notice in our journal Of more than
a column in length nhile forty haze bee" passed
Jp uithout any notice nhat.rer. In the case OF
the FIVE, the names of Thackeray, Bancroft,
Sidney Smith and Lady BlessingtOn, might, it
would be supposed, without any e1travagant
lberality of construction, have accounted for the
length of our reviews, without the imputation of
unworthy motives The publications issued by
Mr.. Derby since his establishment in this city have
been sixty five, Of which hirtytow haze not had the
Lnft of line in our columns while during the
past year the space devoted to his books has but
slightly, if at all, exceeded that given to the publ
cations of Ticknor g. Fields of Boston or of the
MessIs Appleton of this city.
With these facts, we think one will repeat
accusation of partiality ia our literary depart.
meDt toward favOrite publishers Still, it is easy
to see how the error originated. For the last two
years the claims upon our columns have been so
numeI GUS and urgent, that we have been compelled
to restrict our notices of books to q comparatively
NARROW space, to neglect considerable portion Of
the works issued BY every publisher, and in the
selection of those reviewed, as well as in the length
of our reviews not to consult the wishes or the
accommsd ation Gf any publishing house, but to
exercise an honest judgment with reference to the
interest of our readers and our paramount Obliga-
tions to the cause OF good letters.
Each publisher is aware of the omission of any
one of his ow n works. He looks 10 vain for re-
view of book, in behalf of which he had expected
the aid of the press Not finding it, unless he pos
sess degree of philosophical equanmity not per-
haps a distinguishing attribute of the trade, he
gives vent to his disappointment in Sc 'ret mucmurs
or open Objurgations But that his neighbor across
the street has been treated in the same way, he
hssno " realizing sense" He co mes to consider his
own case as peculiar one, one Of marked neglect,
ore of crying injustice, one which she will stand
" no longer" and hence bis Indignation against
the reviewer, to whom he ascribes oil sorts of i'm
proper motives, exciting bis ewn mind still more
by broodirg over bis fanced wrongs, until his Sc
cfet discomfort bursts out into public crusade
We are glad, however, to believe that the dis
cussion now called forth will Obviate this diff.
Guilty, by putting in clearer light the relations
of the parties. Let publishers once understand
that The press owes them nothing but justice to
such books as it nay judge proper to notice. and
that the manner and time Of its reviews should
be governed simply by the judgment of its con
ductoIs, and a more wholesome state OF things
will at once be established.
---..@
The Hon BAYARD CLARK, ~ G. from the IAth
District of our State, comprising Westchester
Putnam and Rockland Counties, was chosen by