Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1859-10-11

When we penned the article of which the a.
bove complains, we Gid not have the spectator
before as. We did not intend to say tnal
the editors endorsed the article, but the "Ta'
ter and we have no means of knowing now,
certainly. that we are right in saying that tiey
endorsed the writer, as we write this as we olo
the first. from memory, without any OF the arti'
Giles before, and we certainly thought, ana suEh
ia opr impression now, that the writer was Ipiiy
and formally endorsed by the editors OF Inc ?peI-
tntor IF in this we are mistaken, we must ask
their pardon for the mistake Possibly, we Lay
have wronged "Conservator" also. II 80 We
respectfully ask his kind indulgence Tor our En-
ror assuring him that we had no INTENTION Oh
misrepresenting him, and we supposed that lns
mirit and style of our article would nave saved
rs from such charges from any source
| Having covered up our errors the pest we
oon we have another point to attend to, raised
hv The Spectator. 1t says: ave are entirely st
loss TO conceive upon what grounds he (we)
felt justified in making such assertion" we
will not point the sting of orr remark in reply
n This by announcing the church relations OF
| the editors, in imitation of the example before
rs but will simply and respectfully say, that
when the editors of the Spectator will give the
language of our article which justified" them
in asserting that we "tbree times III addlton
to the first, alude to them as the "endorsers" OF
Oonseryators article, we will then plead Justlti'
cation on the ground that even the editors of the
".Spectatoqn can sometimes be so careless as to
commit blunders without :'gr0ss misrepresepta-
tons" egaringly misrepresented," or writing
things .'certainly false" We hope the readers
of the Spectator will not infer from ITS srticle
that we were in the "obvious effort to drag
them into discussion of the merits" OF camp
meetings. True, the Spectator cuts rather fierce
ily at US. but that cut must be intended for an
other person.
We are sorry that we so much disturbed tht
usual amiability of our friends of the Spectator
but we hope the acknowledgment OF our errol
aud the example they have given, that the bes
of men may sometimes be mistaken, will restore
our former relations, aud teach ps that: "a sof
answer turneth away wrath"
Will the Spectator publish our explanation =
FincastIe Democrat
ny We publish above the explanation o
: the "Fincastle Democrat" The editor retort
upon MS by asking how we felt justified in sta
ting that we were four times alluded to by tn
"Democrat" as having endorsed the article Q
"Oonseryator." We can tell ,him. In the frs
place he stated in distinct terms that the al
ticle of "CoDservator" had been recently en-
dorsed" by the editors of this paper. In an
other sentence the ARTICLE is spoken Of as haVln
been $50 respectfully endorsed" direct aiusio
to us; and in two other places the democrat
spoke of "Couservatos article and "its endors
ers," which of course included, if it did pot {.
, rectly refer to, those whom he had spoken of q
having endorsed it. 1t could not have mean
anybody else, for we alone are mentioned by tn
"Democrat" as having endorsed it.