Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1856-07-17
LANCASTER INTELLIGENCER.


1t gives us great pleasure to notice the man
ner in which our contemporary of the Lancas-
ter Mtetligencer speaks of its having published
letter from its correspondent in Missouri
We thought at the time there was some mis-
take about the matter, and are glad that our
friend Of the Latelligencer has 50 stated. His
explanation will be found below:
Our st. Louis Correspondence.
We learn by the Sentinel that some obec.
ton is made at Washington City to the views
expressed by our st. Louis correspondent last
week, in reference to the unfortunate division
of the Democratic party in Missouri The
paragraph to which objection has been taken,
we are free to say does not express our O,cn
sentiments in relation to the difficulties IN that
State, nor do the aoriters structures on tile action
Of the National Convention IN reference to the
question; and even if we entertained similar
opinion with our correspondent, which we do
not, sound policy would prevent us from en-
dorsing his views But, we presume, it will
not be commended by any that the mere publ
cation, without note or comment, is an en-
dorsement of the writer's views by an Editor.
This would be something new in newspaper
publications.
The obnoxious paragraph, with some addi-
tonal structures In the same letter, were crossed
out by as, (rather an unusual liberty taken
with communication from responsible
source,) previous to handing it to the compost
tor; but somehow or other, through some
strange mistake of the latter, the paragraph in
question was put in type, contrary to our ex-
pectation, wish or intention. AT the time the
proof was taken, it SO happened that we were
busily engaged with several gentlemen who
had called on business, and therefore directed
one of the hands in the office to read it--sup-
posing, OF course, that everything was right,
except, it might be some Typographical errors
| of no importance. This is a correct history of
| the why and wherefore it appeared in the In
| telligencer; and no one regretted more than
| the editor, the appearance of the paragraph in
print. In fact, we had intended noticing the
matter this week, even had not our attention
been called thereto by the Sentinel.
We have studiously reirained from any med
dlesome interference in the disputes amongst
our Democratic friends in other States. The
Benton and nti.Benton divisions in Missouri
both profess to 60 in heartily to the support of
the Cincinnati nominees-so do the Hards and
Softs of New Y ork and it is not our bust
ness, nor should it be the business of any Dem.
ocratic paper, to seek to drive either from their
support, and thereby endanger the election of
our candidates in those States.
In conclusion, we embrace this opportunity
to remark, once for all, that, for anything
which appears in the Iatelligencer the editor
is alone responsible, and it is very unfair for
our friends at Washington, or elsewhere, to
throw the blame Mr.. Buchanan. The Sen
tinet was right in the declaration that Mr.. B.
had no knowledge of the communication in
| question-nor had he seen it at ALL we will
/ cd nptn Id -, ~
| paper More than this-Mr. Buchanan has
had no previous knowledge Of any article,
editorial or otherwise, that has appeared in
the Latelligencer for the last four years. We
have not submitted anything of the kind to his
inspection during all that time; nor has he, at
any time, in the seven years we have been in
Lancaster written for our columns, or dictated
in any way as to what should or should not ap-
pear in the paper
| We hope this brief statement of the case will
be satisfactory to all concerned.