The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1869-11-18
Gard From Mr. Alnnton.
WHEELING, Nov, i, 1850,


To tho Editors Of the lntellIEonceE
Your notice OF the introductory part
OF my argument In the National Road
case, calls for a word OF explanation.
The statement that the editors OF the
INTELLIdBNCRR were not Informed Of
our proposition to publish our Argu-
ment In the Register, and 10 furnish the
IETRGIIGBNCER q proof sheet copy for
publication at the same time, Is q mis-
take. The proposition was made 10 the
local editor Ofthe INTRLLI0ENCRR about
o week-certalnly not less than i've
days-before the argument was pub.
llBhed. In addition 10 this, the fact that
this proposition had been made was
communicated 10 o former editor Of the
1NTBLLIaENCER some three or four days
before the publication In the Register,
and the reasons why we dlsllked to
have the arguments published In the
Register and not In the lSTBLLluENcR
were stated to him.
lie said he would see the editor OF the
1NTBLLlaBNUHR about IT, We heard no
more upon the subject until after the
publication Of the argument OF Mr..
Ferreps counsel. It did not occur 10 ua
that such Voluminous arguments could
have been paid for 40 advertisements,
And we took 1t for granted that 10 the
lNTRLLIaRNoER had declined to pub.
llsh our opening argument that they
would not publish our reply. Our ar
gument was prepared with the expectR.
tlon that It would only be published In
the Register, II 1t was published Of oil.
As we greatly preferred II II was
published at all, that 1t should be pub.
llshed In the same paper that contained
the argument OF Mr.. Ferrelb counsel,
we determined after It was prepared to
offer It to the INTBLLldENCRR.
We called on Mr.. Hall with the man.
usorlpt In our pocket on Friday, and
were told that the publication Of the ar
gument Of Mr.. Ferrel's counsel had
been paid for, and that no presumed
ours Could be published on the same
terms, but could not say positively un.
I'll he could see Mr.. Frew, who was not
then Ia the Office, but that he would see
him and let us know the next day.
We called the next day with the
manuscript, and upon being told that
II would be published, II WAS handed
over Immediately.
The Objectionable Introduction had
escaped our recollection, or II would
have been stricken out.
We found no fault with the INTRLII-
GENoER for declining to publish our
opening argument, and regarded the
reason assigned as satisfactory.
4 On the evening assigned for the oral
argumentof the case before the Board,
Il reporter for the Register appeared, and
informed the parties that he proposed
to report the argument monographs
oally.
We told hlm that our argument was
mainly In manuscript, and that II IL
was to be published 1t all, we would
rather furnish him our manuscript,
than truAt u report made by reporter,
1t Ia certainly the privilege OF news.
paper In this country 10 publish judi
olHl proceedings, and 10 use them for
any purpose that the publisher may
think them capable Of
We supposed that the main object OF
the Register was to make political Gaps
ital NJ this proceeding, II the subject
matter Ut II, and It's results, were such
as to make them available for that pur-
pose.
But we did not then, nor do we now,
suppose that they could have any In
tluence on the then pending election,
because the case was not disposed OF.
And we do not see how we could
have prevented the case from being
used for political purposes.
II the arguments had not been pub.
llshed from manuscript Furnished by
counsel, they wouldIhave them made
orally and reported and published from
Q reporters notes.
The official conduct Of public officers
10 the legitimate subject Of public crIti.
cism, and every political party Is prop.
erly held responsible for the conduct Of
the men whom It appoints and retains
In office.
Our attention was not called to The
Objectionable matter In our argument
until the proof was furnished for cor
reolion.
We would then very willingly have
stricken 1t out, II we had been told It
was Objectionable, and indeed we re-
GREETED after we had corrected the proof
that we had not done 80.
D. STANTON.