Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-01-06

eAPose MN Iurtnef' hut 10 az ask the question;
why is t that Stanton, who he Commented svarelv
upou the conduct of the President, and many other
officers becomes so angry when he Is rrt on trial9
tie Inslnaates that ne would not l1rs s,,bp,itsed
to discussion of bis ofci II conduct n the Iafa r
vass oy CoL Murray. Was this because of lis
innocence or has he grown so great rs 10 he ex-
empt from that ordeal of public trial to which ali
public men must submit The answer il that ne
knew shat exarnIna ton Of his conduct and oor
Trajectory statements by man with the record in
his hand would result in verdict of guilty against
him by the people. In his letter he comolsins of
garbled extracts. and suppression of the evidence
yet when he comes to defend himself he scarcely
touches it, and then 50 fraudulentiy as to amount
to forgery.
Below give Stanton's Dragging article which ap-
peared in the Banner of November 4sh and nav re-
ply thereto published in the McMinnvilIe Era Of
November I'D, 1860.
For TIE Bonner
9 McMISxEyILLE NEW ERA ALIAS JOHN II. SAVAGE
We are reliably informed that the above paper,
published in Warren county, published SOME sour
rilous articles against s. S. Stanton during his cleo
toral canvass which he (he edtor) failed to stand
responsible for,' when put to the pinch. Stanton
went to AcAInnvilie and denounced the articles and
their author. Soon afterwards the said editor who
was in the town and at the meeting or public speak
ing where the denunciation was made came out in
his paper and referred Stanton to John H. Savage
the author of the articles. Stanton then wrote a
letter Ia reply to the said editor referring him 10
the fact that he (Stanton) had already denoupced
Savage to his face at public speaking in White
county that Sacdqs failed TO resent it and m the
same letter he SanoR) reiterated his denuneiation
against both SGcage and the editor and called on
him to publish the same in his paper. The editor
wrote back to Stanton, asking him to modify his
letter before it should go to the press Stanton re-
piled with stern refusal 10 abate the severity or
change the of the former letter and still insist
ed that it should go to the public as matter of JUS
tice to himself The editor, after having hestated
for weeks finally refused publish the correspond
ence, and Stanton then wrote Sarge letter by Col
Murray, informing him that inasmuch az he Srrnge)
had assumed to be responsible for the articles he
(Stdt0a) would remind him (SacGqe) that he (SJI,-
toni still responsible for the denunciaton which
he (SaHtOn) heaped upon him (SaUdge) in White
county, in reference to the same SANDERS Stanton
has been in the towns of McMinnville and Smitlvie
since, and stayed all night in EACH and in fact has
seen Savage face to face, and no reply has he re-
ceived from either the ostensble or inostensble
editors OF the articles.
Nav ERA OgTcE. McMINxvnLE,l
Nov. 18th, 1860
MEssRs. BANG WALKER Il Co Gentlemen We
have. this morning, been shown your issue Of the
4th instant, containing article headed NcMinn-
UiLe Nelo Era" alias John H. SaUqge which contains
misrepresentation both as to myself and Col Saw
age, and shows that the author was either IN igno
rance in regard to the true state of the matters in
controversy, or has wilfully misrepresented them.
This being the truth, we respectfully request the
authors name. Respectfully. yours &c,
DAVID F. WALLACE.
Eiior Nelo Era.
In answer to the above, we received the following
| reply:
NASHVILLE, Nov. 18th, 1850
D. T. WALLACE, ESQ, McMIxxvulE. TENx-Deqr
Sir: Your note of the 9TH only received yester-
day, in which you request the name of the author
of a communication published in the Banner head
cd T" McMinnyie Nslo Era alias John H. Savage
Hon. S s. Stanton is the gentleman who wrote the
article alluded to- Respectfully yours,
II X. WALKER.
This communication shows Mr.. Stanton himself to
be the author of the article above quoted from the
Nashville Banner and in which he endeavors to
| show that MIR. Stanton is a man of great courage
and much iearlessness 1t seems to US that il would
have sounded much better if it had come from some
other quarter However, we are willing to grant
Mr.. Stanton all the immense courage he here AFRO
gates to himself. In all candor isn't it a pretty ar
| tice to from the pen Of Mr.. Stanton and
| doesn't he pay himself marked attention through
| the entire stuff!
Mr.. Stanton asserts over the signature of :, that
we addressed him letter asking an abatement of
the severity Of his reiterated denunciaton" That
all those concerned may know what amount of truth
belongs to this assertion, publish below our letter
to Mr.. Stanton:
| NEW ERA OFFICE, MCAIFNNvHLEl
September II, 1864
S. S. STANTON Dear Sr:-Your communication
of yesterday, dated at Sparta has Just been handed
NE. and have examined its contents. 1t is too
! late for my issue of tomorrow, as it is now 4
! o'clock, P. NJ.
In the last part Of your article you say II am also
responsible for the denuncation that made at
McMinnyille, against the articles in the Neo Era re-
ferred to above and they those denunciations} apply
to you (meaning myself until you unequ;vocaliy
discliam any and all responsibility for their author
ship"
As l am the author Of two of those articles. |
will be pleased that you designate the language
| which you wish to denounce, so that | NAV know
| where the responsibility may attach. claim the
authorship of the articles appearing in my issues of
June II, headed Sol 5. S. Stanton" and the one of
July 9Th, also headed Sol S. S. Stanton" l claim
that it is duty you me, that you so discrimi-
nate the Objectionable parts that there may be no
! misunderstanding before the matter becomes more
public. By the advice OF your friend, S. i. Spur
! lock, l shall make no disposition of your article
until your denunciatiOn is so qualified that l may
know what course to pursue. Col Savage is the
author Of the article in the issue of the 18th of
July, also the article of September 9th.
| Yours, &c. DAVID F. WALLACE.
What abatement is asked? None, whatever. but
nothing is asked than what Mr.. Stanton should
have granted-a designation of the article or arti-
cles objected to-as Colonel Savage and myself were
each authors of articles in which Mr. Stanton was
mentioned, and which were pointed out to Mr.. Stan
ton in NY letter. The articles written by myself
contained nothing to which Mr.. Stanton should OBJ
Iceland, in truth nothing which has been said by
Col Savage, should in opinion. be objected to by
Mr. Stanton, as Colonel Savage has furnished the
testimony upon which he bases the charges made.
This however, is a matter between himself and
Colonel Savage.
Mr.. Stanton attempts to leave the impression upon
the minis of his readers, that we would not be
spOnsible "when put to the pinoh.' Mr.. Stanton
was furnished tho naEleS OF the authors of all the
articles in which the charges were made TO which
he seems to object, and we satisfied that the
author would give him ample satisfaction whenever
properly called upon. therefore gave curself no
uneasiness in regard to this part of the matter.
Mr. Stanton says: 'the editor after having hesita-
ted for weeks finally refused to publish the cores
pondence." We did refuse to publish the CORES
pOndence but not until after "a hesitation of weeks
So soon as his article thoroughly examined, 1t
was our determination to refuse its publication tor
more reasons than oDei and hia article would have
been returned to his friend Mr.. Spurloek. immedi-
atelY hut for his absence from town. The article
was in my hands some five Or six days, but almost
daily called at the office of Mr.. Spurlock. with
the hope Of being able to place it in his hands, So
Mr. Stantons assertion that we retained his article
for loeehS," has about as much truth in it the
other portions of his Banner article Zone reason
why refused the publication of his article was,
accompanied with a verbal threat that, ''if we re-
fused its publication. he would have it published Ia
the Cooksyille Times. and in the Nashville papers
Mr.. Stanton also asserts that tie editor was pres
ent at the meeting in McMinnyille when he spoke
here, Il ID sufficient to say that Mr. Stanton knew
this not true when he wrote his Banner article
Mr.. Stanton winds up his windy article in the
Banner by saying that he a. has been in the town of
McMinnvie and SmithviIle since, and stayed all
night in each" Mr.. Stanton can come to and go
from Mclinnvile just often as he pleases so far
as concerned we never expect to molest
him. Mr., Stanton knows we were here and where
no GOULD and Us from about o'clock in the
morning till six in the evening. Unlike Mr. Stanton
we make no pretenson to an extra amount of brave
ry-particulaFy of Dragging kind but we shall ever
endeaYOr to muster sufficient to entertain those who
may call upon US in this line
| With this matter we are DONE asking the pardon
of our readers for again obtruding the matter upon
their notice. We now request the attention of our
readers to the following from the Hon. John IL
Savage
Mr. SAVAGE in reply to the article in the Banner Of
the Sth, says: The charges made by him, against
| Nr Stanton, in the Nel0 Era, are based upon Mr..
Stantons own swearing before the Committee upon
the Accounts of William Cullom which Is quoted to
sustain the speculations. This evidence cannot be
| added to or diminished, and if Mr.. Savage has not
set it forth truly it would be easy for Mr.. Stanton
to point out the errors to the public. Mr. Stanton
cannot meet the facts in evidence against him. and
hence no says he ia slandered, and wants the world
| 10 an yOus firl,f in