Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1857-06-25

B9 We clip the following sensible,
gell-timed article from the Unioh &
The Difficulty between Nessrs Harris
and Hatlon.
When the first intelligence of the
difficulty at Fayetteville between these
gentlemen reached our Office, we were
absent from the city Had We been at
home the plain, impartial and truthful
statement of our correspondent would
have been prelaced with words more
in keeping with the dignity Of our
position than the language employed.
The only Objectionable term used,
however, was but in keeping with the
general man Merlin which this subject
has been treated of through the Ban
npr.
Notwithstanding we fully justified
the course Of Gen. Harris, and saw
much in the conduct of Col. Hatton,
as represented by hisimmediate friends
to censure, we did not feel disposed
to say more upon this delicate subject
than to give an impartial state ment ol
the facts and leave the public to com
ment. When we returned home, how
ever. We found statements in the Ban
ner and Patriot, which. according to
to the views Of Gen. Harris friends,
were exceedingly unfair, illiberal and
discourte0us, and which, uncorrected,
were well calculated to do gross In
justice to that gentleman. No con.
sideration could have induced us to
have remained silent under such cir
cumstances; and, while We designed
no injustice to COL Hatton, we were
compelled to abandon all de!icacy to.
wards him to secure justice to our own
personal andpolitical friend The Ban
net seems to have indulgedthe Opinion
that because we were one of a number
of gentlemen agreed upon TO sugges
terms of settlement, that therefore oul
lips were sealed, while the opposition
press in Nashville we're free to prose
cute discussion of this subject il
order to relieve their candidate ant
prejudice ours. The Banner is entire
-ly mistaken. While We think it woul,
have been proper for the press to hav,
forborne comment upon this subject
until disposed of by mutual friends
we shall never permit ourselves to b,
SO trammelled by any position as t,
be denied the great and inalie nabl,
right of self-defence.
The information which we receive,
relative to the particulars of this diff
Guilty, was ofsuch a character,and from
such sources, thatwe relied upon it Will
almost as much confidence as if ",
had witnessed the difficulty with on
own eyes. And proceeding upon thi
information we have thought that tn,
grossest injustice was done to Gen
Harris.
For instance: ridiculous and I'm
founded representations have beef
made to the effect that Col. Hatton
was merely pushed" from the stan,
that he pulled" his competitor will
him-got Grneral Harris down-hat
his head under bis arm when serara
ted, and had succeeded in placing
mark upon his forehead that he va
likely to carry with him during tn
remainder Of the canvass. Thes'
things were puerile and would no
have been worthy of eontradicting
they had not been Matched up for
purpose prejudicial TO Gen. Harris
There are five hundred men who weult
testify, il necessary, to the very re
verse. 81.
Other statements, equally un
founded and still more prejudicial Il
Gen. Harris, have been thrown out
For instance, it has been postive,,
asserted that the precise language
that occasioned the difficulty haG
been made use OF by Col. HattoD or
every stump since the opening of the
canvass. Had this been so, it would
only have shown that Gen Harris had
exercised great forbearancs in the
hope that it was not intended to be
personal But we feel authorized to
say that it is wholly destitute oil
truth. Col. Hatton may have been
in the habit of making the same ar
gumnt, with much emphasis, and no
doubt did, but he had never given
the same cause of offence in the use
of the same language, previous to
the discussion Mt Fayetteville. And
yet The opposition press have been
Particular in insinuating 10 the con-
trary, and that no exception was Ia
A. IT.