Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1857-06-23
From the Republican Banner of the 2lst
THE CHATTANOOGA MEETING-OUR TRLE-
GRAPH DESPATCH.

rum titS AZ SNotttuH AS0iAtc ~ tiS ~4ets
THE CHATTANOOGA AIEETING-0UR TRLE-
GRAPH DESPATCH.
On Tuesday evening, after the conclusion of the
discussion at Chattanooga, being present, We trans
mitted to the Banner and Patriot the following des-
patch:
''CHATAxoo0A, June lS.-Gen. Harris repudiated
the Union and Americans statement of the difficulty
to-day, and Mr.. Hatton denounced the author in
measured terms"
The Union and AMERICAN copies the above from the
BdHReT of Friday morning into its issue of yester
day, and accompanies it with somewhat extended
comment, from which We extract the following:
"Unaccompaned with any thing else, the impress
sion which the foregoing has created, and which
seems TO have been done Willfly, is that the state
aent Of facts and circumstances attending the difficulty
az FaveeUiLe given through this paper by CORES
pondent, and also by editorial Wednesday, had
been repudiated by Gen. Harris, and that Mr. Hat
ton had denounced the author in unmeasured terms
Such g construction, and it would DE a fair one,
would make the despatch unqualihedy false from
beginning to end. The statement of facts and cir
cumstances attending this difficulty as given through
our paper have been tus to the letter. according TO
the honest judgment Of those who wrote them, and
to say that Gen. Harris repudated them is an act of
gross injustice both to that gentleman and to our
/ Selves
We certainly did not state the facts as explicitly
in q despatch as we should have done under other
II
mtted to say that in opinion, the phraseology
/ that "Gen. Harris repudiated the Union and Ameri-
cans statement of the difficulty, is capable, by
fair construction, Of being interpreted into
seron that Gen. H. Tepudiated the statement Of the
| correspondent Of the Union and American. But the
editor says created the impression that that was
its intention, and if 1t ''unqualifedy false"
The history of the whole affair is given in the Ban
/ RsT Of yesterday morning from our own pen, as i'm
partially could give it, and shows clearly what
the intention Of that despatch was, and we trust has
this relieved the editor Of the Union and AmeTi
/ can from any apprehension that we desired to do
him ''RantOn injustice" We have yet to the
! casioR when, according to our code Of moral or
even political ethics could find it cOnsonant with
| our feeling, promOtive Of interest, if such
motive could influence US, to do any man ''Wanton
| injustice"
| There are some points in the Union and Ansri-
cans editorial, from which we extract above, which
| we will notice We have no doubt of its sincerity
/ In supposing that our despatch was susceptible Of
the construction which 1t gives. We differ with the
editor in this respect but let that pass. 1t occurs
to that it would have been in better taste, where
| doubt existed either as to phraseOlOgy inten-
ton, to have awaited an explanation, before pro-
| nouuCing a statemedt If attended 10 be made, but
which might turn out was Revsr made, or never in
| tended to be made, ''unquahfedly false" This is
matter Of TASTE merely.
In regard to Col. Hatton's treatment of this mat
ter the Union and American is somewhat dissatis-
fed, and remarks:
eff he [Hstton desired to be regarded by the
| people whom he was addressing as denouncing u.s.
it was Unmanly in him under the circumstances not
to have said So and to have used the term editor in
stead Of author"
Here Col. HattOn is placed contingently in at
titude which he did not occupy, and that attitude
| pronounced 'unmanly." Col. Hatton doubtless
knew that the responsible editor Of the Union and
American did not pen the offensive paragraph, and
Cgo-
thor" instead Of "editor" 1t remained for the re-
spOnsible editor TO either dscaim assume the re-
spoDsibility of the offensive statement viz that he
| [Col. Hsttonl had submitted to public chastise-
ment and of course Col Hatton could not anticipate
which course would be pursued-nor was it in any
respect material to him. He desired to eoUsr me
case and as it turned out, he did exactly. The
editor Of the Union and American having disclaimed
this responsibility, that denunciatiOn needs no
amendment--it rests upon the ''authOr," where it
was placed by Col HattOn, whoever he may be-''a
gentleman connected with the business" of the Union
and American Office, as we learn from that paper
Thus, it occurs to US, that in respect to the points
above noticed, the Union and American prOnounces
statement ''unqualifedly taLse," while in doubt
whether il had been made, or intended to be made;
and promising position for Col Hatton pronounces
it 'unmanly," if he occupied it. which he did not.
We repeat, this sort Of argument appears to not
exactly in the best taste.
The Union and american concludes its editorial as
follows:
CHOW we desire to say to the editor of the Banner,
and to Mr. Hatton, towards whom we have been
upon pleasant personal terms, that if they think
they have had any sufficient provocation for insult
ing or denouncing u.s. have at any time so intend
ed, they should make it known in a manner that
would leave no ground for mistake. When they do
so, We will honor them the more for it, and shall
trouble them with no cayelng in the way of news
paper rejoinders."
Col. HattOn has already placed himself on that
platform, substantially in respect to his competitor,
and will doubtless accept it with all others AS for
ourself, we 'acquiesee" in ii with pleasure. We
trust we may never have grounds to ''insult" our
neighbor, with whom we have thus far progressed
with the best personal feeling, but we promise if
such unpleasant contingency should occur, that
there will be no need of "cayiling in the way Of
newspaper reIOinders."