New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-12-19

Int under his own proper name aud signature, OF
celumDiator of TIE TRIBUNE, as corrupt, bribed
and bought journal, whose literary criticisms we're
9, scientifically uCjust and worthless; and finding
him thus, ss il were with his fst in our face, r0t
merely slsrderiDg US, but evidently attempting to
Tighten US, ws thereupon hit him a kick, without
any particular a. ntion 10 delicacy in doing So or
much care as 20 the part that might happen to be
bit, or much thought as to the possible conse-
quepces to the party who had thus provoked US
the nose Of the public is offended in consequences
Mr. Underwood not The TRIBUNE, is responsible
The comOrfet is exclusively HE.
Finding himself thus Unexpectedly dragged into
the light of day he now seeks to pass himself of
ard The Boston dtias seems disposed to give him
some countenance in doing so-as poor, limo
cent harmless helpless, disinterested individual,
who merely wished TO discuss the abstract ques
ton whether the two positions Of reader to one or
more leading publishing houses, and that OF lltera-
~ critic to leading Journal are compatible or
not and Of havipg been ruthlessly torn to pieces
by poor innocent lamb that he is-in the AFRO
CANT, upscrupulous, abusive STYLE utterly regard
less of the rights of private character and of the
common courtesies Of life, which he now gives the
public to understand is another of the enormities
which THE TRIBUNE has to answer for.
This, however, is dodge which will not serve.
Mr. Underwood might have discussed to his hearts
content, anoDy mously or otherwise, the abstract
question of the incOmpatibility of the duties of
critic and manuscript reader. He might have
published in every journal of the Union, si ving
usmes ard parti ,ulars that the gentleman who acts
as the priDcip, literary critic of THE TRIBUNE is
also reader to two eminent publishing house, in
New York be might have cbuckled to his hearts
contt mt over this fact as a discovery of his own
acute genius, ignorant that the gentleman In ques-
ton vas known in all literary circles to be In the
service of one Of those houses before he entered
upon ours he might, if lie pleased have criticised
the criticisms of TIE TRIBUNE, and shown if he
could that they were partial and unjust. Ali this
he YVES at full liberty to do without bringing his
own personal motives and position into question
But when he set himself up as an accuser Of
THE TRIBUNE, and deIOuncer of its literary crltl-
csms as systematically unjust" giving therefor no
other reason except his own personal opinion
thereupOn, the questions become OF Import
snce to the public and to us-Who is this Mr.
Underworld Under what circumstances have his
opinions been formsd1 and is this critic of our
critcisms himself free from all basl These ques-
tions the public are now, We dare say fully able
to answer, ard here We are willing to let the
matter rest. We are perfectly willing also to
give Mr. Underwood the benefit Of his own Obser
vation that "very few people go through the
world without committing some folly or alb
"surdity, or worse, perhaps" We hope he may
be one of those sensible people who are able to
Learn by experience; and we presume he will not
commence another onslaught on THE TRIBUNE
without first counting the cost.