The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-08-20
OUR CORRESPONDENTS AND THE
SOUTH CAROLINA RAILROAD.

OUR CORRESPONDENTS AMI III"
SOUTH CAROLINA RAILROAD.
We have uniformly endeavored in the dis
charge of our duties to confne ourselves strict
ly to our own business; and it is our intention
to continue to do so in future; however un-
tasteful such course may be to city paper,
which displays chronic anxiety TO- draw us
into controversy upon some point or otner'
Thus, on Saturday last, we were honored IN
said paper by two separate articles IN each OF
which our name was taken in vain-thirteen
times on the first page and three times on the
second page Too much honor. We OF course
feel highly fattered at so much 'notlce' from
90 distinguished source, but as We have never
made any pretensions to reciprocate it, we be-
gin to feel uncomfortable under crushing
sense of obligation.
We know our cotemporary is the very qulnt-
essence of courtesy, and, therefore, would not
be guilty of intermeddling in affairs with which
it has no special concern. We, therefore, clear
it of that charge, however some may think
that its late railroad articles, answering The
NEWS, when not called upon for any answer,
has the appearance of intermeddling
T. was quite correct in saying that "THE
NEWS has no prejudice in this matter" We
have NOT the slightest. We consider ourselves
as staunch friend of the South Carolina Rail-
road as our cotsmporary considers itself, and
we have on many occasions given proof OF 1t.
We must be excused, therefore, if we prefer to
pursue our own course in the matter, and de-
cline to yield to the dictation of outsiders
tits true our correspondent GA. B. c." is anon
ymous--and unless we are very much mistaken
newspaper correspondents in this country
generally, almost universally, write without
appending their true signature. The anony-
nous character of the communication, there
fore, was not sufficient reason for rejecting
it. The letter is one of a series that is being
written for and published in THE NEWS, by an
old and distinguished merchant of this city-a
man perfectly responsible for all he says or
does; and if any one, who has a right to ask
the question, desires to know the name OF our
correspondent, such knowledge will be at his
disposal.
We were asked by our cotemporary to copya
reply to a communication that had appeared IN
our columns: this we declined TO do, because we
knew our correspondents and knew them TO be
responsible men; both old merchants OF this
CITY, very we'll acquainted with the subject
upon which they were animadverting. No an
swer to their structures was addressed to us.
An answer, however, appeared in the columns
of another paper. We had no reason whatever
to believe that this paper was better Informed
on the subject than were our correspondents.
Moreover, we cannot bind ourselves to read
what is printed in other papers published in
this city, for the mere purpose of ascertaining
whether they contain anything to be copied
into THE NEWS, We are not aware Of any pa
pers observing such rule
The NEWS, therefore was not auare "that
proper explanation had been given" The
position of the NEWS is not correctly stated.
We have no means of knowing who "knows the
truth" We are told by our angry cotemporary
that we did "not act ingenuousy in the mat
ter" We do not concede the point As re-
CARDS the "prudence" of our course in ''pub-
fishing such letters as that of A. B. CO., our
cotemporary may put itself at ease, and allow
us to take care of ourselves. OF course we ap-
preciate such anxiety on our behalf, and are
profoundly grateful for this delicate hint at our
want of prudence, being fully conscious of never
having merited it by any similar service to our
well-wishing cotemporsry, however often there
NAV. have been occasions for doing So
At the conclusion Of the very angry lecture,
to which this article refers, our cotemporary
says: ga. B. C. is not more to blame than the
paper which gives publicity to his statements
and which appears to have deliberately adopt
ed the policy of making or publishing unsub-
stantiated er-parte statements, and of permit
ting no refutation of them. This policy might
possibly succeed elsewhere, but it will not sue
ceed in Charleston" Our policy appears to be
strangely misunderstood. Our correspondent
needs no defense at our hands, being fully able to
fight his own battles which, therefore, we
shall permit him to do, 80 soon as he returns
provided he sees fit to continue his structures
upon the Railroad, or to notice any quasi
replies, given by self-appointed apologists.
In regard to what will or "will not succeed
in Charleston" we must do our cotemporary
the justice to acknowledge that his dictum
has tho true er ,cathedra ring. Listen: "lt will
not succeed in Charleston" Lpse diri. Sir
Oracle has spoken. Whence comes his inspira-
tion? Who constituted our cotemporary the
prophetic censor of Charleston!