Nevada national., 1859-05-21

We publish. in another column. n letter
from Rev. S d. simonds. which he intends
no doubt. as n reply to a criticism. in oar
last weeks issue. on his lecture. on Life
and Art, and Aurora Leigh"
The Rev. gentleman called at our Office
few days since. and cmphatca;ly denied the
charge OF plagiarism said our article was
unruthful, Re. As the criticism was rcpor-
ted for the National, we were disposed to
give him fair opportunity TO yiudicaie
himself from the charges made against him.
BY agreement be called at our Office the
next morning with some of his friends, and
with the manuscript of his lecture, portions
Of which he read to us with many wearisome
comments and with wonderful vehcmence If
not eioquence.
The manuscript, as read to us, dJOWnded
with quotations from Mrs. Browning's po.
ems aud from a criticism on the same, pub
lished in the Westminster Review, and also
in the Eclectic Magazine for January, 1853
After reading from his lecture. he desired
MS 10 give him positive answer that after.
noon. as he said unless we retracted he wish
ed 10 set himself right before the public at
Mr. Briggs lecture 10 be delivered that eve
ming. We answered him in the presence OF
Mr.. Conaway, Rev. Mr.. Fish, Mr.. Maslin ard
Mr.. Veriner, that We would write out our
views on the subject and show him the arti
Gle that evening, pr0sideS he would leave
the manuscript of his lecture. or n copy OF
Il with us for reference. He replied that
he would not trust the manuscript out Of his
own hands, but would make copy Of il and
send il to our Office that afternoon. We did
not receive the copy. and therefore sent 10
written communication to him on the sub
ject. The Rev. gentleman says, in bis let
ter, that I've promised TO give him our
conclusions independent Of copy Of the
lecture" II is false and We are prepared
to prove that we made no such promise.
We will not comment on the elegant, re-
fined and classic ettr Of the perseeuted Mr..
Simonds, as il is beyond criticism, and il it
did not relate to ourseli we would not give
il place in our columns.
He is at liberty to seek any redress he
may think proper We are convinced that
our contributor charge Of plagiarism is sus-
iained on Mr.. Simond's own showing; and
that it IL corob grated by the sensitiveness
and oysrweening vanity exhibited by him 10
his attempts at vindicaiion.
The Rev. gentleman is prone to make
charges OF literary piracy against others
He therefore should not erumble when he
himsefis caught poaching on the maga-
zines. lie made direct charge in The pres
ence OF the gentlemen whose names we have
before mentioned, in this article, against the
Rev. Doct. Scott. who he said. had stolen
trhoie lectures, aud whom be could prove to
be a literary fhief.
The Rev PlAgiarist aseribed motive to
as for exposing his literary psce0diHo. It
was all because he was an antislavery man.
lie is welcome TO that cap. aud We are will
ling he should wear IT, in The mariyrdom he
80 anxiously seeks. although. in fact, until
this lecture, We bad never even heard Of bis
existence. much less of his political opin.
ions. But there is another cap We will not
permit him to wear. lie and his friends
have charged US with hostility TO the church
he claims TO represent This we cmphsii-
eally deny and we aver that TO argue the
contrary from the mere fact Of our exposure
# on unworthy rotary Of the church. is il
logical. and il. If possible, even more alb
surd than our deyoting 20 much OF our space
70 ihis Insignificant matter.