Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1859-09-13
Editorial Responsibility.

We have no desire to prolong the discussion VI
editorial responsibility, which has grown OUT VI .
publication in this paper, some weeks sinoe' anu
copcur with our neighbor that it Is pest II a.,
sncb cases to "agree to differ" We are sa'isnsu
from a perusal of the indicators last srllc'e'
bovaver. that there is but little, II any, ainer-
nnoo hatwesn rs. There seems to have oeen
misunderstanding as to the meaning OF tne te,iH
responsibility" The Vindicator says that the
Question is of responsibility OF PT0plasEy OF
of public necessity ;" and without pretending 10
decide what an editor should, or should not 90,
only "sfirms that for aohat he does rs IS ana
Ouqat to be responsible" We say so too; ana
we have never denied our responsibility ie-
gslly. personally, or in any other way, Tor all
that we did do, viz: the publication through our
nansr of "Conservstors" article. We are not
only responsible for our course in publishing 'na'
article but we have taken the position tnae We
did right when we admitted it into our colunns'
and oould not have excluded it consistently win
our duty as the conductors of free press. nut
wa have very much msoonceived the assaults
that have been made upon us, if it is the mere
fact Of publication for which be have oeen heiu
resnopsible. 1t is self-evident proposition that
we are responsible for that, just as we are io'
anv other act. But that we are not responsible
TO the extent of endorsing the statements Oh e''
ery or any anonymous communication ths1 Sp-
nesrs in our columns, strikes US as an equally sei'
evident proposition. If We should refuse 10 sur
rondar the name of an author when the name Is
demanded upon just and satisfactory grounds'
then we would assume the responsibility, out no'
til then. This we understand to be edltorisl u
sage, and we believe it to be an equ'taoie "'
rsngement for all parties.
We know full well that an action for libel vii
lie against the publisher as well as the auIhof
and thus the law recognizes, or rather estsonsn-
90 the responsibility of both. But it is just as
well known that every newspaper IN the countr!
often publishes communications which the editor
does not send forth as expressing his sentiments
and which he would be very unwilling to have
ssddled upon him. The community look TO The
author, presuming that the editor Is Tree lrou
malice or evil inteation, if any exists. Hence
the custom is for an injured party to demand Tue
name of the author. When, therefore, an editor
disclaims responsibility, it is generally under
stood what he means.
In reference to the communication OF "oon
SENATOR" we may say, that just before we wen
to press last week, we received letter from tn
writer giving his own Interpretation OF the piece
and it agrees in every essential particular will
that we gave. Neither he nor we imagined tina
any one would regard the piece as defsmatory
the Methodist Church, and the only dissatisIao
ton we anticipated was that which naturally a
rises in the minds of men when the policy or
tilisy of favorite measure is called in question
We trust that this will be the last we shall b
called upon to say in regard to any matter con
aected with the camp-ineeting question: J"
have regarded the whole affair as a "temptesti
a tea pot" and are quite as DESTROYS as our neigh
bors of the ViudcatOr that there should be al
send of the strife"