Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-03-20
STILL sHEnGING.u

BILE old age" and "sneaking little
meannesses, of course the latter stings
terribly coming from a journal which
could perpetrate the little pleasantly
reproduced elsewhere under the head Of
''Bannerism." But the Banner, in
the course of its highly spiced article,
has this reference to the UNION AND
AMERICAN
at is not over a month ago since we
convicted it of fragrant perversion of
facts-we will still use mild language
and yet it never loses a chance Of re-
sorting to the same sort of Pecksnifian
warfare. Out ON such paltry triekery,
which some people dignity by the name
Of journalism"
We propose to restate the case re-
ferred to, to show how plain story viii
put our contemporary to shame. On
Oct. 5, 1873, the Banner printed in
loaded type, the first article under it,
editorial head, a political leader, SO to
speak, on "The Political Prospect, 50
near the close of which occurs this re-
mark:
-'The people do not like all things
that are labelled Republican, but that
20 ~ 6Uot party there Is In UlIis vOurntTy-.''
There was nothing to indicate that
this was not the sentiment of the
Banner, expressed in its own language.
We accepted it and dealt with it as
such. The Banner on Oct. Is charged
that ''the italics and the credit" to this
extract ''are both gratuitous and
studiedly unfair" and reproduced its
political leader of the 5th, but included
much of its article in quotations, which
were not in the original publication,
but carefully abstaining from repudi-
ating the sentiment it had given 50
conspicuously without quotation marks
q few days previously. To this the
UNION AND AMERICAN replied, Oct
II, as follows:
The people do not like all things that are Ia
beled Republican, but that is tke best party
| party there is in this cOuntry.-NdshriIe Ban
HeT, oct. 3.
Our contemporary says this quotation is stud
iedly unfair and a paltry subterfuge. We are
| anxious TO have the Banners good aid in coming
struggles with Radicalism, and hope its dislike
for being so classed may continue. But as tc
our quotation, what are the facts? The above
words appeared in the Bdnner's leading edito-
rial of the 5th inst in editorial types and leads
| and without quotation marks. Thus appearing
it was endorsed and adopted by the Banner as
its own sentiments. Every reader and every ed
itOr 50 understood it. In fact, without quota
ton marks, the most indulgent friend could not
determine where the remarks Of the New TorE
Post ended, or where those OF the Banner be
| gins.
Now where does the ''paltry subterfuge" come
in? Is it when we accept as the Baansr's own,
a statement so put forth and circulated by it? OF
is it when, after thus putting forth and circula-
ting a. its own editorial such eulOgy of the
Republican party, the Banner now seeks &c
dodge behind the venerable POST We leave the
question of "subterfuge" to all intelligent read
| ers, and the editorial fraternity Of the State.
Nor can the Banner plead ignorance of the
| significance of quotation marks, and the signifi
| canoe of their absence. In its issue of yester-
day it processes TO reproduce its article Of the
5th in full 1t does mere, because it inserts quo
t1ti0a marks which did not appear on the 9Th. II
We believed in the logic of billingsgate, we might
ask If this is a second ''subterfuge?r'
The Banner may tell US tomorrow that the
| quotations which appeared yesterday were omit
ted accidently on the 5th. If 50, it should have
told It's readers yesterday, and not leave them
under the impression that the article reproduced
yesterday was identical with the one from which
we quoted.
| The Banner denounces innuendO, and in the
| same breath calls US a ''snpeTfiuOus veteran
| Our subscription books are a pecuniary proof
satisfactory to US that the people do not regard
Us as ''superiuOus.'' And we are not ashamed
of being called veteran" because veteran:
are always in demand when there is any hard
| fighting to be done.
As veteran, we return 10 the charge. Does
| the Banner now repudiate the sentiment 1t pub
lished editorialIy on the 5th? Does it regard the
Republican as the best party in this country
Does it now endorse the Post or not? A simple
Yes or No settles the matter, and we will bt
happy to record its answer in the negative.
The question we propounded to the
Banner as to whether it "repudiated
the sentiment it published editorially
on the 5th" of October, stands unan.
swered to this day. If it does not be.
heve the assertion that the Republican
Sis the best party there is in this coun.
try" to which it gave such unusual
prominence-but subsequently when
taxed about it, claimed to be that Of
the Nelv YorL; EUeniHg Post-it has not
deigned to say so. 1t gave this asser.
ton the prominence of a position in its
leader, without quotations, and it has
never repudiated the sentiment.
One word more. In our controversy
with the Banner we have endeavored to
give hard knocks IN return for hard
knocks, but in a manner that would not
offend propriety and gentlemanly bear.
ing, and, if that Journal had got the
better of us in the argument, weshould
most certainly not have set up blub
bering and resorted to calling names,
that would have told as plainly as that
two and three make FIVE that we were
whipped.
WE have been shown letter from
/
Col. w. K. Yerbeka, Of Harrisburg
Pa, who is now at Canton, Miss, t.
Col. Sam. P. Ament, in which he state!
that himself and three gentlemen from