The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1871-08-23

Thought was a chain. lt required only Few wen
directed blows to shiver it to pieces, and to show
that the chain was forged ont Of f8ncirs. With
caution inspired by experience, the forger makes
hardly an attempt to pick up the scattered Inks.
He tells US incidentally that January 2Srd, 1867,
was "an evident typographical error Of the O6ser-
YER But that does not help him out OF the dltt-
Guilty. Because, first, if he dates it In 1868, that
breaks up the theory Of his allegation about our
having made periodical attacks, and which he
set out to establish second, 1t still leaves the ale
CATION itself as unfoundad as before. Then, too,
what becomes of the assertion about 1887 And
what about the others? Notwithstanding this
grievous break down the Observer repeats the as
sertionabout the nOtablecoincidenees that marked
its tou-) attacks on US in the past There are
few who would not have felt some obligation either
~ Rove or to retract-f.om the ObserCcT re ex-
peets3 iith4se, and are therefore not disappointed
Butlot all this pass.
lis quite useless to follow the Obsarsr through
two columns of matter, most Of which whether
right or wrong has no direct bearing upon the real
poipts. No one has denied that public questions
NAV be publicly discussed in the newspapers OF
elsewhere The question is whether 1t was nghs
for the Observer to allow any man In such discus
sion 10 assai by unsupported assertions the ehaTae-
ter of any other nan, aud especially of public OF
fcers of the Assembly. 1t makes no matter
whether this was done in the paper Of the Sth OF
February. or any other Was it right TO allow any
man. in discussing the question Of the removal OF
the Committees, TO use It's columns In bringing Tor
ward against Drs. Wilson and Woodrow such
charges as these, and unsupported by particle OF
proof J. THAT there has been embezzIement OF
culpable expenditure of the funds placed IN their
hands. which has been covered up by false or de
fective reports. 3 " That they have taken aa-
vantage Of their position to pay themselves more'
in the way Of salaries than authorized Or pro-
per under the circumstances
That Is what the Assembly Committee say was
the substance of the allegations made by the writer
and published in the columns Of the Observer. -
Did the Committee make a mistake as to the real
character Of those charges? That's the 6rst Ques
ton. It would be very surprising If gentlemen
of such emineuce should after careful examina
ton, have made total mistake. We see not how
any man Of sense who examines the question can
say they did, If they did not then the charges
were in their own nature reckless, injurious and
deiamatory. If they are not, then tells US what
would be,
The next question Is had the Observer any bust
ness 20 publish them? L. takes the ground tha
it had. Ii talks Of expressions that may have
been unfortunate or unwise, but deuies-deule
what? Thar the charges reported by that Com
mittee we're not contained In the publications.
10 Indeed i5 has never ventured 60 do that Th'
extent of its denial Is simply higgling on terms
chat {, may hen pushed have loop hole of re
neat We6o say, sior rs any czaresa gb'cf
is So saadcses er harsh as to make It's publication
wroag. Any sgpressioai Justas if "a man cou.C
not be charged 10 the most polite te,D1s with al
sorts Of villaiuy
But curious part Of this chain" is to be no
tced. The Observer with one breath tells you II
did exactly riebt 10 admitting these speci6,
charges and IN Che next that it did wrong; iol
Il has now twice declared that it published then
"ogaiast oar oon better 3glgmeaL' Yet sgang,
to say that 10 this beautiful chain Of logical ar
gunent the fact chat +, did the thing contrary tc
'.i,s better Judgment is adduccd as the speeia
reason Why i, eli rightI
Another curious link in the cbain" is the pie,
that because soue article before had been admit
tbev contained. I'VE had no more right to alter
or modify thespeciGcatons than to suppress them,
Bat perhaps the greatest curiosity IN this re-
markable chain is what follows we give it il
the words Of the ObSrrer.
Again. we remark, the question, Did the 90
Serrer DO right In publishing the discusslont was
answered Ia the affirmative Jg the r0te Of the Gen
er0l ASs9lbM The CutQl claims that the re-
a. rh
as "a ceusure on the Observer We reply, IT the
mere preparation OF q report ceusurng US tCthOWt
a hcqrHQ, be any evidence that the Observer did
wrong, by parity OF reasoning, The act OF the As
semby In stri5iug CUT or rJcctVg that report
by q uHQuim0US UOte and adopting a substitute
which does a0t contain word rejecting upon any
body, is a complete indication Of our course.
This Is certainly discovery. We adducod the
report of the committee not as absolute proof of
the character of the charges referred to- but, for
what it was worth, Ia great deal truly the opin-
ion Of so many eminent, impartial men who had
examined the subject carefully. A part Of tbatre
port expressed a pointed disapDrobation Of the
publication of such charges in our religious news
papers. There is no evidence chat the members
Of that Assembly did not personally and strongly
disapprove Of the course Of the O5serrar In fact
we have never heard oay one speak Of it who did
not The adoption Of another paper, simply de
olared that they did not choose 1.-The reasons may
have been yari0usl 20 express an official opinion
upon that or other points.
The parity Of reasoning here is about equal
TO that of the Igishman who upon being told
BY the Judge that ten witnesses could be brought
to attest that they saw him commit certain
deed, very innocenty replied that he could bring
fifty who would swear that they did not see
him commit it. The parity Of the OJserga's
reasoning would make the Assembly's action not
OILY ga complete yiudjcatiOn Of It's course in
publishing these charges, but also Of the person
who made them. IL would be a great mistake to
suppose tins paragraph was intended as joke. 1t
was prepared as the last, brightest and completing
Ink and Immediately precedcs the following est
mate put upon the whole:
The foregoing remarks, ike our editorial Of
July 5, resemble a chain.
From what has been presented in these discus
sions it is now pretty evident what views the o.
serrer holds about editorial responsibility 1t is
very true that an editor not accountable for every
improper expression admitted into his columns,
nor for every thing wrongly charged by one person
against another. 1t is also true that the official
acts Of officers Of the Church are at proper times
and in proper way matters for public discussion
Even impeachment in its severest forms might
possibly sometimes be proper rarely however in
the first instance at least, since the courts of the
Church are the only decisive tribunal. But we DO
utterly and most solemnly deny that any man