The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1864-01-02

an insult T. ore whe has done more,
probably. than ang other man 60 popu
iarizs those economical truths on which
therights ofproperty areIbased;to say that
il is . four libel, for which the writer Is
smenabIe TO law, were beside the qles-
tiOn. because the'0bject Of the calumny
would acorn any other court Of spPesl
than that Of public opinion. Buta wide
oaesiien Is forced on our attention by
this specimen Of your too habituai mode
of dealing, not merely with ineiViduais,
bus with the interest ofsocietT. A tone
of prs-sminent unscrupuiousness IN ihs
discussion Of political questions, aeon
tempt for the rights and feeling of others,
aud an unptincipled disregard OF the
claims Of consistency and sincerity on
the part offs writer's have long been
recognized as The distinguished ehsrAc-
teristics of the Times, and placed it in
marked contrast with the rest Of the pc
riodical press, intending the penny jour
nsls OF toe metropolis aud the provinces.
rs writer's are, believe, betrayed into
this tone msinly by their reliance on the
shield Of an imysneffable sterecy. No
gsntleman would dream of saying, under
the responsibility of bis signature, what
your Writer said Of Mr. Bfightyesterday.
will not stop to remark or tn deterio-
ration Of character which fOiloTa when
man Of education and rare ability thus
lowers himself, aye even il bis own
eyes, 20 a condition Of moral cowardice !;
for viii hesdeny that if be we're 10 meet
Mr. Bright in the club, or in the House
of Commons, with the knowledge that
his secret was diYulged, he would cover
With conscious inferioTity before the
man be stabbed in the dark THE, how
ever. Is his own affair. But. there is an
other aspect Of the subjsct ia which the
public is directly interested.
In the present management OF the
Times there is one established departure
from the plan on which twas conducted
twenty or thirty years ago, which dis
tinzuishes it from all other journals
They who associ ste IN the higher poli-
teal circles Of the metropolis know that
the chief editor and the manager OF the
Times, while still maintaining q strici
inooQnito toward the public, drop the mask
with sufficient reasons in The presence of
those powerful classes who are at once
the dispensers Of social distinction and
ION which | might have something to
say) of she patronage Of the Govern
nent. We all know the man whose
forrune Is derived from the Times. We
know its mGnsgeT; its only aTowed and
responsible editor--he Of the semi -oticial
correspondence with Sir Charles Napier
in the Baltic, through whose hands,
though be never pens = line himself
every Islander Ia its leaders mn pass
is as we'll known TO us "a the chief offi;isl
At the Home Office. Now the question
Is forced on Us whether we who are be-
hind the scene srs not bOund ia the in
tsrssls Of the uninitiatsd puslic, and as
the only certain mode of abating such
outrsges a. this, to lift the veil and dis
pei she delusien by which the Times is
eusbled 10 pursue this game of secresy
to the public and servility to the Gov
eminent "A game q purposely use the
world which secures for it's connections
the corrupt advantages, while denying
to the public its OWE boasted benefits oil
the anonymous system.
Il will be for public men 70 decide,
each In his own case, (fOr myself have
10 doubt on the buhjeet) whether, in re-
sponse 10 such attacks IS these, they
viii coDtinue to treat the Tines IS sn
impersonL myth, or whether, on the con-
trary, they will in future summon the
responsible editor, manager, or proprietor
to the bar of puOlic opinion, and hold
him up by name TO tbs OblOquy which
awaits the traducer and cslumnistor 10
every other walk Of political and social
life. 1 am, sc,
RICHARD CoBDHz.