Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1870-05-04

{" integrity of purpose is above re-
prOach," for we know that is true.
But then it was said by some fool,
who had never been there, and don't
know anything about it, that hell is
paved with good intentions" What
good is it to do US to mean well, if,
after all, we can't help kicking
up the devil" with u neigh
bors after this fashion? If we say one
of them is wrong, and undertake to
prove it by arguments and facts, in
stead Of answering u supposed facts
with facts, and Our arguments with
reasons which should satisfy the read
ers for whom he writes that his diff
fering view is true, perchanee he inn
pugns u motives; which the public
care nothing about, which are imma-
terial to the result, and when it
makes no difference whether a saint
or the devil has spoken, but only
whether what is spoken is true or
false. And if we say n of them is
right, and the very prince Of good fell
lows, how are we to get along if that
will net do any better, and all the
rest are to rise up like an invaded
hornets nest and ferociously stick out
their stings at us in self-defense
against our pa~rtiality for one Of their
own number? If any other person
was in such a p-redicament we confess
we should think the case somewhat
too much like that of the unfortunate
man in the fable who was in
a quandary whether to ride his
mule for his own comforts sake
or to carry the mule for the
sake of humanity. Like him we find
some difficulty, at least in the effort to
avoid being misinterpreted.
The best way we know of to get out
Of a difficulty is not TO go in until it
comes to you. And, if our neighbOr
of the A0aldnche will pardon the re-
spectful advice, we beg leave to say to
him the best way he will ever find to
interpret the APPEAL is to assume
that it means precisely what it says,
and nothing more nor less. That is
the way we judge his paper as well as
himself, respecting both, having no
quarrel with, or disposition to dis
psrage either, but on the contrary
desiring that both should be co-work-
ers with US in the erection Of a breast
work for truth, and the assertion of
conservative principles, which will
live in despite of us, and however we
may deal with them. So far as that
is concerned therefore we may go on
well enough together, if ike the
APPEAL,the ArdJdnche wills to do so.
As in the lecture alluded TO we
urged the importance of more perfect
freedom for the u~tterance of all opin-
ions true or false, and that there should
be no force, civil, political, or of So
cial influence or Ostracism among a
free people to overawe or control
mems opinions, as if they were crimes,
so in Journalism, we insist that every
editor shall speak his own mind, sub
ject only to the assignment of such
reasons and arguments as he may be
able 10 give for it, and to all proper
responsibility to public opinion for an
abuse Of his liberty. We have a right
to bring the opinions of another into
contempt if we can, however distaste-
full that may be to himself, provided
we do it by the process of reason and
not by any means of personal invec- ,
tive, the use of which in an argument
only betokens intellectual imbecility p.
and small print; of which, whatever :
may be the measure of our capacity, :
we confess we should be always
ashamed.
But" says our neighbor, the c
inference which may be drawn from +
The comments of the APPEAL would 7
be that we are Radical To our '
mind that is quite a non Seguitur, L
when it is remembered that the infer t
ence is to be drawn from these facts il
alone-the assertion that political t
among editors had caused 7
/ separation, and that the retiring G
,ditOr was q Democrat. Differences o
# political opinion r possible among r,
Democrats; and it does not, there c.
ore, follow that because one is affirmed
0 be a Democrat the other is a Rad
cal. As to this, our intentions do not G
ONE into question. We made no o
uch assertion. If our neighbor is u
ensitive on this subject because Of "
ny circumstance which in his view L
enders him liable to reasonable or u
unreasonable suspicion, we were and r
notaware Of that fact; and so are u
OF obnoxious justly to be charged
18th the diseourtesy of mentioning u,
galIows In the presence of the b,
The APPEAL has not coupled .,
is name with the Radicals, and has nv
'und no warrant for truthfully doing -
We think he is too intelligent a M
to believe ia the Radical here
and too honest 10 embrace what
e does not believe. But let every
prove his faith by his works.u
journalist who talks with the pub
C daily is not likely to be seriously Of
lisapprehended. But, if our neigh wa
or has the least concern as TO the ga
uestion whether the APPEAL has err
lisrepresented him SO as to require ye
D answer, or whether the public will tn,
teen him a good and true Demo- tn
at as one tried in the fire, he has it !
his power to furnish a ready solu- wa
on for every man, who cannot suf. =.
answer a SANDER, can SO lire th,
dOWR that al reputable men shall Isi
enounce it. Now we suggest
the better practice From. s-nMs.
D.. the pudding IS in Chewing ~
e bag" The number of the Ara, duI