Staunton vindicator and general advertiser. (Staunton, Augusta County, Va.) 1858-1860, 1859-09-09
Editorial Responsibility.

Editorial Responsibility.
The editors Of the Spectator and our
selves must agree to differ on the question
of the duty and responsibility Of editors. -
; Nor do we perceive that the examples quo
It'd Of the editors oe the National In.
telligencer, and three exchanges, illus
trate. the question between us, even b.
precedent, (Which is always bad mode Of
argument in ethics, equally condemned BY
reason and scripture.) We suppose no one
will deny that the editor is responsible fol
his osc,s editorials. Nor do we understand
that the Intelligencer and the other papers
referred to having noticed the subject edi-
torially, question their responsibility to the
advocates of Camp-meetings and to the
public. for the sentiments they have seen
fit to utter against the propriety Of such
meetings. Our proposition is, simply, that
the editor Of a newspaper, who admits into
his columns an anonymous production, as
sailing individuals or communities, (espe-
cially without comment, )is just as response
BILE for it as for his editorials, either legally
Or morally. That he is so legally no one
who knows the law of SANDER or libel doubts,
and it is proper that the press should be
cognizant of the fact That he should be
held SO morally, deeply concerns the puri-
ty Of the press and the peace Of society
Without such responsibility, the freedom
of the press would degenerate into licea-
siousness, and the characters of the purest
men, and the most innocent and useful as
sociations, would be no protection from in
suit and abuse. The illustration put by the
Spectator, showing its own course in refer
ence to a piece signed Justice" published
in its columns the week before, contains no
argument. 1t is mere comparison Of itself
with itself-a justification of one act by an
other-and we can only reafirm the opinion,
(not assa;led by the illustration that the
editor was just as responsible for that pub
LEGATION as if it had been his own The
question between us would be greatly sim
pliied, by the separation Of it from other
questions, with which the Spectator contin-
ually confounds it. The question is Of res
ponsiJility-not Of proprtety or of public
aecessity. We do not pretend to determine
what an editor should or should not do
that is matter for every free agent to de-
eide for himself. We only affirm that for
achat he does he is and ought to be RESPONSE
bic. His paper being his, he must answer
to individuals and the public for its con-
tents. e
As to the piece signed "Conservator," if
we miseonceived it, we did SO after very
careful perusal and while we would be very
happy to believe the author meant no at
tack on the Methodist Church, we can only
express the belief that ninety-nine of an
hundred readers would be apt to fall into
the same misconception that we did, and
those of that church who did SO misconceive
it ought not to be held to the severe account
ability that the Spectator visits on Par
nassus," and others. who have naturally
written under sense of injury. But these
are matters that we have nothing to do with
further than, with all good men, to desire
an end Of such strife.