The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-07-17
The LANCASTER ISrELLIGEScER AND coLONEI
RRNTDN

Although two articles recently published in The
Lancaster Integencer in regard Col Bsntou position
have excited good deal OF surprise and regret amOngs
Mr. Buchanans friends here we well satisfied thl
the entire responsibility rested upon the editor and th
Mr. Buchanan had no knowledge Of their existence unG
after their publication that We have reaned from any
allusion to the subject What supposed would Occu
Ia the premises has occurred frs the St Louis Democrat
the organ Of Col Benton in Missouri has quoted
the editorials Of the Integencer and assumed that
speaks Mr. Buehanans views and second the IntegeRo
assumed the entire responsibility OF the articles aD
lmt.ed that they were published without Mr. Buchanan
Knowledge or approval IL is due to Mr.. Buchanan ha
the explanation Of the ntelgencer should be published
by u.s. II is as follows;
sOua ST. LOUIS coRREspospEScE.--We learn by III
sentinel objection is made At Washington city
the views expressed by ST. Louis correspondent las
week. reference the unfortunate division OF the demo
cratic party in Missouri The paragraph TO which ebeC
ton has been taken free say, does NOT srpr
our sentiments relation % the dioaies ~ that STATE
nor do he prers siares the action Of he National Goa
veaioa In reference 20 The question: and even Il we entertain
ed similar opinion with correspondent, which VI
d. not sound policy would preyent us from endorsing
views But we presume 1t will not be commended by an
that the publication, without note or comment
endorsement OF the views by editor. This
be something new in newspaper publications.
The obnoxious paragraph, with some additional Sri
lures in the letter, crossed out BY us, rathe
unusual liberty taken with communication from respond
BILE previous handing IL TO the compositor bud
some how or other through strange mistake Of "
latter the paragraph In question was put IN type, con
TO expectation wish or intention AZ the time the
was taken It 80 happened that busy engaged w
several gentleuen who had called business, and there
directed one of the hands in the Office read isupposu
Of course, that everything right except 1t might
some typographical OF Importance. This cod
rect history the why and wherefore 1t appeared in the
tegencer; and regretted more than the editor "
Of the paragraph in print In fact we had
tended noticing the matter this week. even had not
tsnton been called thereto BY the Sentinel.
"We have studiously refrained from any meddesome Il
reference the disputes amongst democratic friends
other States The Benton and anti Benton divisions in
souri, both profess go heartily TO the support Of the
cuna nominees-so do the hards and softs OF New York
and is not our business should II be the business Of
democratic paper to seek TO drive either ON their support
and thereby endanger the election Of candidates in
states.
In conclusion, we embrace this opportunity to rema
once for ALL that for anything which appears in the Intel
pencer the editor alone responsible and Il Is very un
for our friends at Washington elsewhere, to throw
blame on Mr. buchanan The Sentinel was right in
declaration that Mr. b had knowledge Of the commu
cation in question had be seen il at all we will add
his attention called to it by that paper More than
Mr. Buchanan has had previous knowledge Of any ar
editorial or otherw has appeared in the ntege
for the last four years. We not submitted anything
the kind to his inspection during all that tme nor has
at any time In the years we have been In Lanca
written for our columns dictated In any way as to
should or should not appear in the paper.
awe hope this brief statement OF the case viii be sat
tory to all concerned" sz@.