Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1863-10-12
GARD.
HOUSE o. DsEEsATEs. :
Octnhrr 10. 1868

Editors InteEligeHesr:
.GEaTLRARk I'll regret that you felt It
necessary 10 soffar abate the accustomed
amenities ofiths edItdTial profession as to
drag me before ihe public without consent
or notice, as you do 10 yonr Issue OF this
morning. Had | Supposed it at all essen-
tial that the pablic should be advised OF
the authorship of the communication al
luded to by you, my own proper pane
should have been appended TO II.
The reason you assign Tor going out oil
yonr way 10 make the personal ailusions
yonzdO d0essnot- Justify such course
The practice Of anonymous writing mas pc
come almost universal, and for the very
reason of lis tmPersonality. II was as
proper in this case as in any other. The
article signed '.Yindex", could have rested
as fairly on its own merits as any similar
one Il was either right or wrong within
itself. It's statements could be neither tru-
er noF,the reverse, its errors neither fewer
nor greater, its points neither stronger nor
weaker for having been written by myself
than If written BY any one else. It's con-
lsideration did not In simple fairness call
for any reference TO It's authorship; for
unless / graYely mistake the prophecies Of
the case, tits the subject Of the article and
not the writer of 1t, that is under discus
sion |; and am not alone In the opinion
that if you ha attended more to the former
and less to the latter, you would probably
have made better presentation of your
case than you did. II, however, you think Az !;
the authorship Of the article q matter OF
l,moment, and the fact that it was written by
..Ihe Olsrk of the House," likely 70 be use
full to you, you have liberty (for. you have
alrea1y taken it) TO make such use of the
circum stance as you may deem expedient.
Il should be sorry to think that anything
in my article was "otfensive" TO you, be-
cause The article to which it was a reply,
in stigmatiziog the Legislature as plum
derers of the public treasury, was certainly
the very soul Of high. toned courtesy.
Allow me to disclaim your assumption
that wrote at the instance of members OF
the House. II is tlle both to them and my
self to say that no one asked me TO, or sug-
gested that should, write anything what
ever did what ] did entirely of my OWL
Tolition, because it seemed that l could
with proptiety. being q disinterested party,
and having some familiarity with the cir
cnmstances, exoneFate the body of gem
tIemen with whom am associated from
a totally unjlistifabIe. assault upon their
fair fame. -. .-3tsIs III
The "duasi. ofieial" construction you
seek to put upon my remarks, half conceals
and half discloses a suggestion that l feel
bound to notice. Permit me then distinct.
.ly. TO state that he officers Of The House are
mot in any peculiarly sense interested IN This
eontroversy. They are not entitled to mile
age and have not drawn any, The impress
sion, therefore, which you adroitly seek to
create, that my motives may not have been
as disinterested as they ought, is an unfair
and unfounded one: .-5
There are some errors of fact in your ar /.
t:cle OF this morning, as we'll as errors Of
deductions, that ought to be noticed; but it
is no part Of the purpose of this note to
point them out In the position in which
You have placed me, it would be in doubt
ful taste for me to review your arguments
or reiterate my own. That should now, /
suppose. be left to others. Neither has it
been particularly my purpose to resent
what cannot but regard an unwarrauta-
BILE liberty and breach of good taste if not
good faith; but simply, since you chose to
make the difference between us matter of
personality, and myself the subject of pub.
lie. comment, that my position respecting
this controversy should be more fairly
stated than 1t has been by yourselves.
With due respect,
Your obedient servant,
Ha- G. D. HALL,
Clerk House of Delegates.