Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1856-08-06
LETTER FROM MR.. CAMPBELL.

in all their glaring absurdity, unvindcated.
That Mr.Turner's speech, ,'swas nothing more
nor less than re-hash of some false and stale
Abolition editorial from the New York Tri-
bune or some other disunion organ,'' that ssit
was full of misrepresentation, unfair and un-
patriotic, and was badly written, badly deliy-
cred, and was as grossly defective in grammar
as it was in flcts,'' affirInationS publicly
made by Esquire Moore, and their trutn ques-
toned by me, their foundation pronounced
grourdless, and their author challenged, by all
that is manly and brave, to verify them.-
These affirmations then, and these alone, to
every impartial and intelligent mind, form the
only true basis and subject Of our controver-
sy and cannot be overlooked or eyaded until
they are manfully met, logically answered, and
their proof established beyond the power of
refitation. Has this been the course of said
Edtorl Did he in his last touch one of the
points in question? Readers, judge for your
selves. Had the subject of debate been the
most deadly serpent, from the venom of whose
fang no sanity can recover, Esquire NJ. could
not have more carefully avoided it. Fear it
not, Dear Sir, it is the offspring of your own
rich genius.
The Editor says ssin all controversies are
consistency demands him to have this ace in
italics and No. /, aflixed) honor the antago-
mist who will stand up to an open and manly
contest-to fair and free fight"
This language when eontrasted with his re-
ply to my letter, reminds me of the Preacher
who was addicted to falsehood, intemperance.
profanity, immortality and debauchery, but TO
his congregation he was careful to preach
truth, temperance, heavenly conversation, o.
bedionce to the Moral Law, and immunity from
all ''that defleth or maleth a lie,'' and ut the
close CT the sermon he would usually add,
'fBrethren, do not as DO 6uk do as tee s,on -
Such is fair specimen of the mode in which
our down street Editor conducts a controversy.
lie says 'swe characterized the piece as of
partisan character, and expressed our disap-
probation OF 1t foT itGt reason Gione.'' Why
then did not the Editor conine his ssstrictures''
to that feature ':alone" which he believed to
be Of ''partisan character ?'' Why say it was
badly written, badly delivered, and gran,mati-
caL}y incorrect, and thereby cast reflections on
the Teacher with no other design than to in
Jurc? Why call it an ssAbolition editorial,
when there is not an Abolition sentiment in
it /? Had he confined himself in his "stric-
lures" to what he calls its BIPARTISAN cliarac-
teri and not dipped his shafts in slander min
gled with falsehood, and aimed them at the
Principal and the Institution it is highly prob
able that my pen never would have been rails
ed in answer.
The Editor insnuates that Mr.. Turner was
imposed upon by me, and that he did not fully
understand the nature of his speech. This is
untrue. Ny former letter plainly shows that
OF the same 'FOpinion" in regard to its charac-
ter That | did not in this respect discharge
my duty to him, s'not only as his tutor but as
his friends and that ethe young man ssqr
nothing in it Objectionable but air. Campbell
did" are assertions, Esquire, that will not
square with the trnth.
The only thing Of BIPARTISAN characters (if
it will bear that name) that can be legitimate
ly extracted from ssthat Speech" is the dis
honor which seems naturally to reflect upon
the Ruling Power, when we speak Of the dis
tracted affairs of our country. This, in my
opinion, is fair embodiment Of its worst
''partizan' feature
Those must be the s.kjndcst feelings'' indeed,
by which the Editor was 'sprompted'' to notice
our last Exhibition, when nine lines only out
OF thirty-four "a little over one fourth) were
S'filled with fulsome aduIation,'' and even in
the latter part of those nine lines, that venom
ous serpent began to show his brazcn head,
which the Editor now so much fears to touch.
lie says ''we arc not acquainted with all the
rules laid down in Kirkham.'' This is no
doubt an honest confession, and it is not like
ly that any one, familiar with his editorials
and especially with his late criticism upon my
ctter,would bring serious charges against him
for being 'sacqJaiatei" with any of those rules
much less the rules of logic.
Pray Sir, by whose logic do you get author
ity to evade entirely the subject of controver-
sy, and spend your force in another course?
Ii this be not gross perycrsion of logic who
can define what logic is /?
In so much OF the Editors reply as was oc-
cupied in italiczing and numbering certain
words IN my letter as incorrect, without giving
any rule of logic or grammar thereby violated,
he plainly manifested the spirit of a coward
who raised his arm to strike, but had not the
courage Gin his case the knowIedge) to infict
the blow. Now | assert, without fear of sue
cessful contradiction, that the Editor ccnaot
by the rules of grammar and logic, combined
or separate, prove those parts in my letter he
has Italicized, incorrect. Without an addi-
tional stretch Of candor, he could as easily
have pointed ont forty-two feigned mistakes
in it, as twenty-one.
lnsinuatng that composition is Incorrect
and italicizing certain words in it. will pass
neither for argument or proof, and though
they may have the appearance, of show to the
illiterate-in the estimation Of the wise and
learned, they will not ssweigh feathey.''
The idea, Esquire, that by your italicizinr
and numbering those words in my letter. Won
are exempt from the burden of proof that rests
on you in reference to the unfounded asser-
tions in your notice of our last Exhibition. is
simply ridiculous. 1t is, no doubt an inge-
nious, but weak and despicable dodge. 1t is
certainly ''query'' to know how long the legs
of your logic are!
VIII the Editor come up to the subject of
controversy, and vindicate his assertions. or
frankly acknowledge his error, and show for
once that he ''triH stand up 10 an open and man
iy coatest-fo a fair aad free fght;' and let an
impartial public be our judges.
Yours truly, W. a. CAMPBELL
REMEMBER.-Th pro-slavery party propose
to ''save the Union,'' but at the expense of
Freedom, and viii make it slave oligarchy.