Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1859-09-20

signature of "Conservator" was a mild essay OF
the subject of camp meetings generally. fot
add, "We should have inserted it just as freely L
| it lad been an assault upon al Episcopal Con
vention or Presbyterian synod" | really &c
rot know how to believe this, such is my mgr
regard for you, gentlemen, and were 1t not IRON
your own pen, in your own paper, l would posi-
lively deny it. You state ''If it had been an as
sault," it Yves then according to your own show
| ing an attack upon one denomination. VIVA
denomination You answer this in the same
editorial 1.-THE fact that it was Methods
meeting, or that our subscribers in that reglool
were methodists had nothing whatever to &c
with our decision of the question" Ii, gentie
men, you have never written line against ina
denomination, you have permitted the Metho-
dists (or if you please, their meeta1gs 10 Do sla9
derously assaulted through your medium. ln
is startling fact deducible not from the state
ments of any anonymous writer, but from VIVA
we find written by yourself.
Let US look into this matter little farther
you state you would shave inserted it just as
freely that is with great pleasure, lift were al
assault upon" two other branches OF the church
Can it be possible that you would have allowed al
Episcopal Convention or Presbyterian Synod u
be represented as the cause OF persons men
roosts being robbed, lewdness," and in WORD
almost every species of crime, "because you re-
cognize the right of every man in the land OF ths
free and home of the brave to discuss freely" (at
ter the style of your nameless correspondent, O
course) "any matter in which he may conceive
the public interests or the public morals involv-
ed no matter whose toes it pinches, whether
Episcopal, Presbyterian Or Methodist II this Il
the course you intend to pursue as conductors O
newspaper, you III not be sustained by an en-
llghtened public.
Where is the respect of any editor who may
have acted as you have done, for the feelings ol
the community and especially the members Of
the NJ. E. Church. You have not only opened
YOUR paper tor slanderous communication a.
eainst the meetings of the Methodists, but you
have declared your willingness to act similarly
toward two other denominations of Christians
sincerely regret that any editor should be found
who is Indifferent to the rights of religious de-
nominations and particularly wanting in regard
to respect for them, Perhaps you did not in
tend to be disrespectful, and that you III certain.
ly reconsider this part of your response. Ii
not, to avoid the force of this as you have en-
dorsed to some extent the article signed Conser-
water, by passing upon it very high encomium,
representing it as nothing more than lamenta-
BILE allusion to camp-meetings generally as eff
testing the public morals You must now by
''logcal cogency" prove that it was a correct
history of camp-meetings, and by no means Sian
derous. Your remarking that it "was written
by highly respectable and responsible gentle
man of the county," will but exhibit the "pue-
rility of this statement unless you show that the
article itself was respectful toward the denomi-
nation for which it was designed and therefore
worthy of place in your journal.
We desire you, very respectfully, not to resort
to merrment, for however Insignificant that ar
ticle might have been in the estimation of some,
your response to my letter has given it an i'm
portance which it never deserved, and by your
shielding its author SO that it is impossible for
any Minister or layman to procure from your of.
foe his name, without compromising his char
ecter, you have indeed made this serious affair.
Permit me to say that as you "avoid controver.
sies even those of political character" it is to
be lamented that you admitted the article into
your columns without its authors name, which
is tile cause of your being involved in contro-
versy at this time. This ought to have been
thought of before the article in question was
printed.
As to your experience in editorial etiquette
(while would not say that you intended to be
disrespectfuD yet cannot give you credit for
much in certain phrases found in your response,
that l would not have you to reprint. 1t cannot,
of course, BE- expected that | should follow you
through that kind of composition, and if resum-
ed in your next, this will certainly be my last
| have no desire whatever to protract this dis
cussion, and would not have written this reply
were not urged to do SO by some friends in
whose judgement fully confde. 1t 10 indeed
questionable whether would have penned an
other line on this subject if | had not been mis-
represented in your issue before the last.
am, gentlemen, not engaged in Crusade"
against your pace. / only referred to your
Methodist subscribers, because did not think
the publication of that anonymous, slanderous
article, in their paper respectful toward them,-
And one reason why addressed my letter to
you, was that desired you, as editors, to de-
nounce the s'anderous statements in that article
aud also regret their publication, so that your
own interest might be promoted and the char
acter of your paper sustained. never designed
your injury in any respect, but am tree to con-
TESS that am always ready to defend everything
Gas best CAM which appertains to our beloved
Methodism.
i II, gentlemen, have not been respectful, al
though in your estimation, am mot very ma
ture," am ready at any time publicly or prl-
vatey, to make the "amende honorable" ant
certainly have the right to expect the same
from those who may have offended my brethren
f. O. TEBBs.