The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1875-04-14
THE EDITOR DOES NOT CONFESS.

ouotb the Colonel lgiih q smile. " EagtaRd has
heard of Jefferson Brick Europe has heard Of
Jefferson Brick Let me see When dill you teore
ERglaRd. Sir ?"
" Flee 1oeekS ago, repeated the Colonel thought
ft as he took his seat upon the table, and Sl0Hag
has legs Moo let me ask yOU, SIR, 'chich Of Nh
Bricks articles has at this time become the most
obnoxious to the British Parliament, and the Court
Of SAINT James
~ hare reason to knOl0, Sir, interrupted the
Colonel that the arisocratic circles Of yo'r com
tyJ OuaH before the name Of Jefferson BRICK
should Ike to be Informed Sir, from yolr Ups,
tohcb of has sentiments has struck the deddheSt
blO,0-"
at the hundred heads Of the Hydra Of CorrUp-
ton no,o qrovellaq IN the dust beneath The lance Of
Reason, and spOutmg up to the aa'gasat Greh
a6oUe as itS SdRguiaGry gore, sad mr. bf'c&'
lttip1 ON q little blue cloth cap lCith glazed fr0Ht
and quoting has last article Martin Chuzzewltl
Jefferson Brick was an editor, and the
terror of his pen may be gathered from these
quotations. He lived in New York (sO the
story goes, and not having been heard OF
afresh these many years, may be counted as
dead. Well for him not to be alive on
Broadway now; the eclipse of performances
by "Speeimen Brick might soon end the
breath of his nostrils.
Coming to plain facts, some statements
and remarks are answers given to the col
umn filed by the New York Observer of last
week, and to matters suggested thereby.
'sThe Chairman COnfesses," is put as the
heading. Certainly; we did admit an error as
to the date of the paper the Observer had
quoted, lin small part from the proceedings
of the Synod of South Carolina, and stated
the way-a very natural One-by which it
was entertained. All reflections founded
upon it were Withdrawn. This was according
to the principles in which we were bred.
Not 80 the Observer. Our article of March
10th, included the following statement CAT
the time and place in which it (the Synod of
South Carolina) held its sessions, q political
meeting was held. Persons who were in at
tendance upon the Synod did, in their ca
pacity as citizens, participate in that meet
ing. By some confusion of ideas, such as so
often takes possession of the Observer, the
Stated Clerk made an entry of the proceed
ing somewhere in his book of Records. =
These statements the Observer charitably
pronounced mere inventions, We have
proved them all BY the Records to be facts.
But ''tAe Editor does not confess.
Again the Observer brought up quota
ton about prevaricating witness, as evil
denee that our General Assembly of 1861
had brought an awful accusation against the
Northern Assembly. We demonstrated its
assertion to be erroneous; but "the Editor
does not confess.
The Observer has carefully needed our
caution against trespassiug upon the domain
of honesty: not an intimatiOn does it give
as to that remarkable difference between the
action of the Northern and Southern AS
sembhes touching the Records of the Synod
of South Carolina, and other matters like it.
That would be very bad reading.
The Observer said that " this single SEN
tence" (abOut the ''prevaricating witness
will serve as ga specimen brick" meaning
that the Records of our Assembly are full of
imputatiOns against the character of that
other Assembly. If the Observer has made
search, as it doubtless has, it is impossible
not to know that while under extreme pro-
vocation, year after year, our Assembly did
not so much as notice the vOlleys of reproach,
and the pages of infamous SANDER which to
this day stain and faint the proceedings of
that other body. We have challenged the
Observer to make good the positive charge
belonging to that Z" specimen brick. 1t has
not done it, and knows its inability; yet
"the editor does not confess" He tells as
that confession is said to be good for the
soul" Excellent doctrine The wonder is
that while knowing that truth, there should
be such failure on hil part to derive any
practical benefit from it.
Yes; we did say of the Observer, that
''the misrepresentation Of that journal in
regard to the Southern Presbyterian Church,
have for years been so frequent and so reck-
less that it has seemed plain duty to lay
them bare to public view with an uusparing
hand" The Observer quotes this in its ar
ticle last week By that testimony the
Central Presbyterian deliberately abides;
this witness is true. If need be We could
abundantly establish the whole of it. One
of the most malignant accusers of the South
ern Church for years after the close Of the
late war was this same paper. To give one
notable instance, let Us see what it said of US
in 1867. A man chosen by mere scouting
party of people in a few counties had been
thrust into the chair of Governor of Virginia,
who sunk into a birth-right Obscuricy the
moment military power ceased to hold him
up. This man had the audacity and men,
dacity to publish the ministers of Richmond
as guilty of feelings and purposes which, if
true, involved them in wickeduess, duphcity