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

Messrs. Editors In reply to your response,
would remark that it is my purpose to direct
attention particularly to the matter at issue, u
voiding all personalities (Which find from Pc
rusal OF your paper in the past accords with your
views of propriety) / only know you, gentle
men, as editors, prominent men before the pub
lie, and have written to you accordingly. lwish
to be regarded by the community in similar
light, and in directing attention to your condr
am not out of my proper sphere. lfyour pa
DER had rot travelled out of your office containing
slurs at nv church into my circuit am sure
never would have thought of an assault" upon
you. We do not "manufacture thunderbolts" to
hurl at any one, but always have at our command
the electric spark of TRUTH the effect of which is
not only very startling but often quite disastrous
am not prompted to reply to what you have
written from any sectariaD motive, but desire
the public to understand that this is purely an
affair between yourselves as editors, and the
members of the NJ. E. Church, therefore the mem
bers of other churches have no particular inter-
est whatever in this controversy beyond thai
which belongs to the public generally.
In answer to your defence against the charge
I brought, I would state (by way of defining ac-
curately my position) that never called in ques
ton your legal right to publish the anonymou:
article over the signature of "Conservator," fol
in this I might have been mistaken. Every ed
itor has the right to publish what he peases
provided he does not violate the laws of the
Commonwealth, and of course the people claim
the right of deciding whether any produc-
ton is worthy of Journal designed for theil
benefit. I never held you responsible Cat the
bar of public opinion) for the statements of thai
or any other author; but for your oaon act, viz
giving publicity to those statements, without
RESPONSIBLE name. You had the power to cause
that communication to pass through your press
lust as the author desired, and precisely as it die
appear to the public eye; or in the exercise o.
your own peculiar perogative. you could have
suppressed its publication, and you would have
been iustifable in so doing from the very slant
derons character of the article ITSELF You de-
cded otherwise and for this actand the evils re-
sulting therefrom we hold you, as conductors o.
a public journal, responsible, especially in NOR
al sense. We do not hold you responsible tol
originating the slander contained in that article
but for circulating 1t through your medium with
out note, comment or name.
I wish to advance few reasons why we think
your act not only Objectionable but morally
wrong. The publication of that anonymous
slanderons article which appeared in your issue
of Aug. 3D., over the signature of Conservation
caused the innocent to be suspected and injured
in public estimation. l will make simple
statement which will establish the truthfulness
of the declaration just made. Some of the most
prominent citizens of this county are suspected
of the authorship of that foul communication
This, of course, could not be agreeable, partien
llarIy as they are public men, dependent upon the
people for their high standing and success in thei
various avocations, Like you, gentlemen, they
ought to be above suspicion in regard to any
improper action and yet the publication of thai
obscene article over false name, fastened sus-
nicion mon these very characters and effected
their popularity. What man would not suffer
were he supposed to be the veritable author o
an exceedingly sanderous article against de
nomination of Ohristfans2 The question is how
did this happena We answer your act in pub
fishing. ANONYMOUSLY, an offensive article caused
these perfectly innocent persons to be censured
In the exercise of your discretionary power yol
might have prevented this, by excluding such
co munieation from your columns. This every
nerson knows. You have acted otherwise, and
of course you are not (neither can you beg r,
leased from all responsibility. You are wha
the LAWYERS call 'particeps criuinis'' in this case
Your declaring that you "dont hold yourselves
responsible" amounts to just nothing, for you
are not to Judge of your own actions. AS pub
lie men YOU and are amenable to the people
and it is before this tribunal that all our public
acts are to be investigated. The people there
fore will not excuse rs when we do wrong, lal
though we may attempt to excuse ourselves) J.
The suspicion referred to was the legitimate re-
sult of your decision, it could not emanate IRON
anv other source. You were aware that suspl
cions would necessarily grow out OF all such com
munications and of course an 0n6nowR c6agGo-
ter to the community could not be responsible
His sentiments are in your journal with YOU
sanction according your good aoan and pressure
and constitute a part of what is termed the
Stanton Spectator, giving tone end character te
that paper of which you are the editors Are
YOU not responsible for ths3 Did you ever hear
| of an editor who had nothing to DO with the
productions which constitute the real character
of his organ2 If this were true, where woult
be the necessity of abiding to any kind OF pow
ar discretionary or otherwise belonging to gen.
tlemen of your profession.
You might reply why does not the writer O.
this, demand the authors name, so that the
guilty one may be brought to light We an
swer. we were not the cause Of aay one being
suspected and of course it would be impolltic IL
ns to volunteer our service for its removal (espe
caly as the gentlemen concerned are able tc
protect themselves.) Again, the terms upor
which the authors name is to be given do mol
accord with our sense of propriety or the duties
of our profession.
In YOUR response you say, ellis name is in oul
&c dao;rad hu fbooa offandad fo,
the purpose of seeking redress, will be cheerully
given up when demanded" You do not state
how the person applying is to seek redress.
am informed by two OF the brethren OF the
camp meeting Committee (aoho "demanded" q
you the nance that what you mean by seeking
redress" is personal assault, or an action at lao
and further that no notice can DO taken OF this
correspondent through your columns, after de-
ivering up the name. all redress, therefore, II
to be sought outside Of your circulating medium
This is an established rule of your office known
to most of the prominent citizens OF the town
where your paper is issued. 1t was this thai
induced others not to make further application
We "very good fellows" Methodist Ministers
and might add, lsymen, cannot comply will
these terms, and of course must despair OF Sc
curing from you the real name of the author o.
that very article in which one Minister of their
Church was particularly identified and sandered
| respectfully inquire, can all this be rig t
IF 80 our views of tight and wrong are very i'm.
perfect they cannot be so regarded by an en-
Iiebteped community. Why, gentlemen, when
YOU show by unquestionable evidence that you
are not moral agents, wen not require ofyou the
performance of mo al actions, and of course NOR
al obligation ceases, and you olonger account
able for any act of your life; no, not even TO-
the exercise of that discretionary power upon
which the character of your paper depends
We cannot regard you, or any other editor, in
any other light than that of being responsible
more or less, for public veal or wo F.; and there
fore must insist that the reasons just presented
are sufficient to expose the improperly OF your
course in this whole affair.