The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1859-12-01

The ether question by them he PALLADIUM, cd
two o.es and the intn,aoa mat We dare. not exhibit
the Fair, is pradentiy iropped"-Axs.
The editors of the Palladium, in their last
issue, stated very distinctly the reason why
the other question was dropped by them,
to be: the aim of the Axes pop gun at "the
exhibitor of specimens OF printing at fairs
from their office. Not satisfied with that
reason, ''old granny" Drake, adopts the
above btuBlng method, which goes further to
prove his greatness ut "brag,' than any other
thing he could possibly have said. tie was
well aware that another reason existed lchy
that question and his comments thereon
were not replied to in last Palladium. and now
that the Doctor has again referred to the sub
ject in the above bombastic style, | feel my
self justified in publishing the following ex-
tract from letter received two days prior
to the publication Of the paper. 1t is dated
Tuesday morning, Nov. 22,' and directed
to w. r. Holloway;
wish to cultivate friendly relations and regret that
been published to disturb them far am
concsrael nothing shall apear N our paper of an offensive
Once Youls, ID haste, l. $ DRAKE
Surprising that a man who would thus
candidly acknowledge that he had published
something of an offensive, personal charac-
ter" and who promised freely that it
should not be repeated "hereafer,' would
sieze the first opportunity to make the amende
hoaorab2c as public as the ayowed ofense-
should the chance be given him; | re-
piled III 4 brief note, stating my regrets of
any persona! 1iculty-reerred to his gra-
tuitous assault upon me without provocation,
informed him that it was entirely in his
power to set the matter right in bis columns
and that | should defer the reply had made
to his attack, until the issue of his paper
Instead of the expected honorable retfaction
cool allusion is made to the s'work" exhib-
tied at fairs by asserting, with a triumphant
flourish. that the question had been "pru-
IDENTIFY dropped!''
If the Doctor desired to cultivate friendly
relation" with any individual, ii would not
be supposed he would first brand him with
the dishonorabie act of exhibiting Jobs of
printing for his own which were executed by
somebody else-iterate and reiterate known
positive talsehood, that the same specimens o!
printing were exhibited at different fairs
and finally wind up by styling him s.vaunt-
ing" 'sself-conceited.' and Irresponsible"
may have subjected myself to the two first
epthets-yauntiug aqd self-couceit-in the
DOctCT CSt4HIalfOU, btCdtSS | nave SdlQ anu
repeat that would exhibit specimen OF my
printing, against all the jobs ever printed in
the Axe establishment; but why, in the name
of common sense, should he charge me with
being irresponsible when he himself is
hopelessly so. notwithstanding he sports the
title Of "-Neaiq's ex-baakerl' In what par
ticular am not responsible! Did | ever de-
fraud widow or al orphanl Was my prop
osition ever Withdrawn from secret society
in conse luenec ofa letter having been recgis-
ed from the pace Of my former residence2
Why write such a humiliating letter to an
irresponsible persoal
No personal controversy is desired by me
with Doctor Drake. What I have said has
been solely in selfdefensa, and to show him
that impuiatious on my character will be
promptly met. II remains with him as to
the course shall pursue in future. regarding
his character for responsibility" w. L. H.