The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-07-13
oY I'M DnuviIls Eims1 90 'Ds
selIson's card 5
rFrofn The Times Juiys1l

there was anything Objectionable in his man.
aer Of delivery; but 1t appears that their
sole object was to ascertain the identity OF
the words used on the occasion. They state
this TO be their sole object, and it isirendered
still more paIpable by the fact that they did
not publish the certificates which they OBJ
tanned. It'll 4
The whole result of their visit to Danville,
SO far as we have been able to ascertain, was
the obtaining of three certificates, as fol.
lows: 5iz HI
The first:
1--WE, The undersigned, certify that we verify be-
lieve the f0reaoirg address, read In our hearing Is
Dr. WiIssn before the Roanoke Female College ON
the / 9th Of June, l674"k2
The second:
~ We believe this to be the language used by DR..
Wilson, with tie interlineatlons added; but regret
TO feel It our d1;S to Sd5 fa1 the tone gestures
such 70 rendsr 1t offensive toanY claste and re-
Hned audience" .ry5: ..t:. =
The third: ii, 81
II hereby certify that the lecture as read in my
hearing by iir Burrows: contained the same words
rs were used by DIR. Wilson In his address before
tn. young ladies' OF Roanoke Female College; but
will further state that there was as much In The
pr ssons used, the emphasisiwlth which he dwelt
on certain words and phrases. and tn his manner
ana gestures. to ofeud the sensbiies of his audi
encc, as there was In the words themselves"
There were sixteen signers 10 al, six of
whom bad signed the certificate endorsing
our article, and not one Of them retracted
an ioia Of what he had stated by his en-
dorsation. But some OF them, as the certiti-
Gates show, were unwilling to put their
uames to any paper in regard to the matter,
without adding at the same time that the
manner was offensive.
1t thus appears that DR.. Wilson did not
wish that the public should be informed Of
all the facts. Hence he kept back a portion
Of the testimony.
1t appears, moreover. that there were in
terlinea' ions that DR.. Wilson used some
| words in delivering bis address which were
not in the manuscript. Why did he not
state that fact ? We think the interlineations
were important; but if he thought other
wise why did he not print them, that the
public might judge for themselves This is
in keeping with the persistent refusal TO
publish the manuscript, in order that the
public mighsuec as TO whether the Bap-
fist ministers were right or wrong in en-
dorsing it.
DR.. Wilson says:
"My preference would be to bear misrepresenta-
ton III Slleuce." &c.
We did not misreprcsent him. The
charge we brought against him was proved
by fitty-siX credible witnesses.
Again:
"Uf their own motion, and against my ,judg.
nent, they 1.-THE ininistcr5 prepared aud published
on the 23d u card positively denying the charges
1t was against our judgment, too. Per-
baps he was satisfied, before he left Dan
vile, that he had outraged public sentiment
and taste, and that the more the subject was
aoitated, the worse it would be for him.
But, having gotten tue endorsation of ten
"Chtistian gentlemen and Scholars" it APP
pears he relied upon it to sustain himself
against whole community who heard the
address delivered. But that was not stuff.
ccnt. The public demanded the publica-
tion Of the manuscript.
..Tbcse criticisms (?) were sustained by certifi-
CAFE OF some of the persons who heard the ad-
dress
ibis remark suggests to US to state that
otter signatures could have been obtained at
the time, and have since been added TO our
list Of protesters; but we thought tifty-six
we've sufficient. If the gentleman is not
salts fed, we can furnish more testimony.
And If be objects to our selecting them all
from Danyife, we will refer him to two gen.
tlemeu in Richmond, onein Lynchburg, and
Others from different parts of this county, all
Of whom heard DR.. Wilson, and expressed
tueir decided disapprobation Of the now ia.
nous lecture. But we hold that the people
of Danvillc are as good judges of matters of
taste and p7opriety as any other people, no
matter where they may be found We may
also state that four ministers Of the Baptist
church were present when the address was
delivered, and we have heard that every one
of them condemn it.
The fact is, after all that has been said,
and such a canvass of the subject as we bave
seldom witnessed before, we have no reason
to retract one particle Of what we stated in
the beginning-namely, that there was no
room 10 doubt as to the sentiment of those
who heard the address; and it stands to rea-
son that IN address which was so universally
condemned, must have been indecent and
improper.
DR.. Wilson leaves it to the public to decide
whether the persons who heard the address
are more competent and reliable for the
point ut issue than the ten ministers who
read the manuscript. We cannot doubt that
the public will decide in favor Of the former.
Besides, it is rule of law, which win hold
good in this case, that the presumptiuns are
all against the party who has possession of a
paper, who could have produced it, and has
failed to do so. This is law, and ii is com.
mon sense.
In another place he says:
s'Neithcr the correspondent of the Wing nor the
editor OF the Times has ever heard or read my adj
dress"
That is a matter of no sort of consequence.
We undertook to reflect public sentiment,
and we were supported in our criticisms by
the overwhelming testimony Of those who
heard the address,
"Who wrote this certificate and by what repre-
sensations, or other palms. were signatures OBJ
tained?"
We wrote the certificate. What matters
it who wrote il? The individuals who
signed it read it. We represented that the
! card Of the Baptist ministers virtually
charged us with having made false repre-
| sentation, and in as much as our structures
were based upon the statements of those
who heard the address, they chivalrously
| came forward, and at the same time that
they relieyedus from the false imputation,
they administered well-merited and manly
rebuke to one who had outraged public sem
timent and violated the rules of propriety.
"Ths alone, Of all that has been charged against
me, Is capable Of direct answer"
If he could have gotten the persons who
heard the address to certify that it was
proper and chaste, it would have been an
answer to our article charging him with
having delivered lecture filled with smutty
remarks. But this he utterly failed to do.
GA change of front is couched in the following
| question from the Times OF the 9Th:
| S. How do they know that he read 1t to them as
he delivered 1t here with all his disgusting actions
"This, considered In itself, and at the late date al
| which II was put FORTH" &c.
This question was asked in the next issue