Clarksville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1865-1867, 1867-06-21
A CARD.


My attention has been called To colnmn
in the Gainesville Chronicle of the l4th
inst. In which / am accused of having
made charge against that journal Of Ter
tortion iiibera,,ty and indifferent scork' in
reference to its dealings with the Tennessee
Orphan Asylum.
The proprietors Of the Chronicle have been
strangely misled by their informant; have
made no attack upon that paper whatever,
and in the only transaction in which have
had to speak of its dealings | made use of
no one of the above three expressions, though
they are quoted in the Chronicle in inverted
commas, so as TO lead readers to suppose that
they had my very words before them.
The circumstances which have led to all
this misapprehension are as follows The
question came up at u private meeting of the
Board of Managers of the Asylum where the
printing of the concern should be done. 1t
was not only my right but my duty, as a
member of the Board to whom most Of the
printing business had been entrusted, to give
an opinion and the reasons for it; the matter
was no more concern of the public than a
discussion would be between Messrs Neblett
and Grant where they should buy their type,
paper and printers ink and it was an unfor-
tunate indiscretion on the part Of their infor-
mant which carried any part of that discus
sion outside of the Board; certainly the
readers Of the Chronicle can be in no way
interested in it. Since however the matter
has become public, not by my act but by that
of the publishers will here state, as near as
my memory serves me, what course ! did
adopt upon the occasion.
advocated the employment Of Morton
Co. of Louisville in preference TO that of the
Chronicle Office on the grounds that theil
work was cheaper and better, and that the
former had shewn liberality to the institu.
ton which had not been manifested by the
latter. As these statements were made in Q
private business discussion, do not feel my
self obliged 10 give either substantiatior
or retractiou of them in public, am will
ing however 10 state thus much.
The correctness Of my opinion on thu
price and quality of the work could only b.
substantiated or refuted by the exhibition o
the work and the publication of the account
of the two firms with the asylum, thin
manifestly impossible in the columns of
juornal, l can only state, therefore, that m.
opinion remains Yrsltered, while Of cours
Messrs. Neblett ana Grant are at liberty +
make what statements they choose to tn
contrary, which, whatever they may be, wi
not be disputed by me.
With regard to the question Of liberality
| will simply state what Messrs. Morton hav
done the first order we gave them woult
at the rate we have been charged for printer
work, have cost us from $50 to $40. Will
out solicitation they executed it beautiful
and made no charge for it whatever. The
: have since that executed several orders for I
in excellent style and at moderate prices, an
have made us an additional donation in cas-
of 800, and large number Of school book
1t is true thai, as set off against thi
Messrs. Neblctt and Grant claim credit Fl
$l6O in not having charged the asylum f
various short articles which have appeart
In their local column as news referring to Il
= asylum. In my recollection these slocal NJ
tees were generally calling attention
advertisements appearing in another coluu
of the same copy and paid for at the usu
q prices-a thing which is done for all regul
customers without additional Charge
least the only "ocal' on which can lay n
hand now which did not refer to such adve
: tisement is itself charged for and has be-
' paid for. l am willing however that tn,
shall have all the credit they claim; | on
make the statement as justification of m
self in expressing the opinion which l st
+ hold, that they have charged us full pri
for every thing for which any respectful
9 journal in this part of the country max
any charge at all.
DANIEL F. WRIGHT, NJ. D.
n