New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-02-27
DANGER IN COLLECTING DEBTS SOCrn

IL
information, we wrote Messrs. Snspp b Co.. csu-
planning in polite but decided terms Of the delay M
suggesting that they had not treated us fairly NJ
nclosed stamps for reply. To this note we received
the following answer:
"Messrs =. g. l. Co.--S1.: We in receipt q yOs, sz
Of the 18th u complaining Of the course We deemed pSN
70 say that we think handy words thoGsaA
pss un Gu M. and Upon h ., BE- wi
hi: aadrr.. TO the writer Of your note and hold hn.sn =
W ,e iSse S herewith NJ note The postage san,
Attorney. and Counselor. Il Law.
Now, Sir in view Of the above, would you not Id
wise us to leave the city before Snap arivesl Please
give US your best advice. We shake in our boots.
S&c''
A PERSONAL DEFENSE AND EXPLANATION
10 the Editor Of The NJ Y Tv6uss.
SIR: am obliged, contrary to my usual habit
avoiding, at almost any hazard, personal newspsp~
controversy to request your insertion in your columns
OF reply to an attack on myself, by Mr.. Charles
Astor Bristed, under his well-know nom de plume Il
Carl Benson, published in the last number Of Tie
Spirit Of the Times. am precluded rom the oppor.
tuny of replying in The Spirit ITSELF by the fsa thst
the Editors of that journal in the practice II psb-
fishing scurrous personal attacks upon me by anouy.
nous writers, whose names they have invansblyn
fused to disclose, and replies to one. ut least Of whoa
they have refused TO print.
Mr.. Charles Astor Bristed, 10 this article, havH
taken oHense at some structures Ut nspe published
my work on the Horse Of America conooring GER
tain opinions and dcta set forth in his Partisan Cor.
respondence with the various sporting jounab n
this city, has thought proper FIRST to attribute them
to personal hostility my part towsrd himsek and,
sppoUdly Cause-feoiuQ.
primarily, that reasonable cause for such ieshng
existed-why SHOULD be hostile to him. on tbI
hereafter. h-
Incidentally, he proceeds TO criticise, or rather
,buse my work; to which have nothing to ssy-u
it is his unquestioned right to think and express hh
thoughts as he peases-except far relates 70 bic
insinuaton that l have endesvored TO decry de
parage American trottng horses decry ths1 ups
rority to English trottfng horses--or to stgmstss
trottLg horses, trotting matches troing courses,
in general as low, ungentlemanly or ignobls.
This allegation is, as every enc knows, who h1
read the work. an unqualified fslsehood. It has,
moreover, the appearance OF being IN intentional
one, from the attempt to copfound my sayings VIII
those of certain unnamed English editors, Of whom
know nothing, and with whose opinions have roth
ing to do, seeing that wrote line 10 my Lie
for any English journal. This point was, probably
made IN his letter with a view to exciting national
prejudice against me, as foreigner attempting 10 run
down American institution.
II 80, the attempt is failure; for the fairness
thus feature, in my work, has been emphstcsuy pro
nounced upon by the American press in general, end
by your journal and The N. Y. Times In particular
Whether have ever, directly or Indirectly, en-
deavored to influence the criticisms vi your own "
that journal in my favor yourself and the editor Of
The Times are competent to pronounce.
To come, however. 10 the gist of Mr.. Charles Asa
Brlsteds reclamations, have good deal TO say.
First: have always regarded it as the neanek
and basest act Of cowsrdice which can conceive 70
satisfy personal animosty against q man by attacks
on the productions Of the author generally to ssssu
personal enemies BY the pen through the public prints.
] have never in my life done either.
In my work on the Horse have noticed either with
appreciation or with censure, according to my own
views either TO confirm or to refute what appeared TO
be the prevalent opinions of the leading horse
Of America, as found them published IN the VARIOUS
sporting journals Of the country. OF at east half
dozen writers treated, one has to my knowe
taken ofensei no one, certainly has complsinsdof
personality except Mr.. Charles Aston Bristed.
Further than this have only to add that in my
comments on the views of "Csh Benson" or "the
Partisan Correspondent" although certainly knew
OF whom those were the mons de glume-Mr. Charles
Astor Brlsted had no more place in my mind a. re-
CARDS either friendship or the reverse tfan be would
II were utterly unaware Of his existence.
Mr. Charles AstOr Bristed however after assunning
that was actuated by personal msovoence TO him
sell, proceeds to show why should, in his opinion,
probably be maevolent, and then to reprove me Tor
Ilsbed work, after lapse of ten years, during which
have manifested toward'him no resentment.
On both these issues shall meet him.
At length, says be, !" on overhsuling the Iedgers
OF my memory, it occurred to me that more than ts
years ago, when vas up 20 my ears In Cred con-
uoversy, and hitting all round at a good many
people, Forrester' came in ior few blows inci-
dentaIy, and go far may be- considered to have Q
certain pr0vocatOn," DC.
The facts are these In the year l847 I vas re-
quested by the editor of The Literary WorlIto re-
view for its columns Prof. Feltons edition OF tho
Agamemnon of Eschylus. did SO, and ths review,
generally favorable though containing some
vas published anonymously and editorialy iu that
journal. hsd not at time the pleasure of Prof Eel
tons acquaintance, and so little did he suspect the
writer, that he applied to the editor Of The Literary
World, who asked leave Of rae to disclose the name
Of the anonymous critic
Mr. Charles Aston Bristed then borrowed of no the
identical copy given to me by TIE Literary World,
whence to review the edition for The Knickerbocker.
In that review he virulently attacked Professor
Felton, alludlng In broad terms TO certain social aad
domestic relations Of that gentleman Of nature 20
delicate and, indeed, sacred that by gentsmee, they
are invariably respected, even among the hsrees'
shinoslfies OF personal political warfare He ALSO
attacked Prof. Taylor Lewis, aud, be says, a
good many people," with oil this have nothing 70
90; but believe have heard that lie asked and To-
ceived pardon from Prof FELTON,, which il was proper
and creditsble 30 himself that he should do. should
not aude to these matters had they DOT before rom
being private been made public by being brought INTO
print.
Now % to my own connection with the ahAr. In
the year in which reviewed Professor Fel.on's
kscbylus I uavssf publshai a classical romance.