Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1875-11-12


TCis, as QUE readers wll rememher
was the dieingoHuous aud demago2ica
use made first hy Governor Cham
berlain, and than by himself ri
an extrtcf from Mtcaulay's g Essay on
on Milton, IN support of nogro suffrage
and it's attendant evils. For this We
arraigned them, AMI inflicted con-
| Gign punishment upon both. But IL
| doing 80, We made g distinction. In
! behalf of Governor Chamberlain, i'll
da"d, we had 10 mitigation to make,
but convicted him Of oeryer-
| sion, the most uiIful sbamrloss,
| aud dishoneS-. Fer he is a scholar
| and as such tnwrr+ high above the
molly host Of mea.ier nffAnlara pre- en-
| inert in partsas in misci.i,f. Bnt of
him We say no more rutil t shall be-
come necessary to egain take him in
hand, Gen. Barringer IN his fir-t r.-
p'y 1ried I" make il appear that we
had accused him of plagiarism rnIy.
\ W whtje the coi0cidence was and re-
mains truly inaxpicab:e still fhat wa
not the grsVam-u of onr charge which
was tEe wii'fnl perve. sion %: the Que
fEd the str pjd miSapprehension Of tue
othrr. Taking that view of it we
3tr"v" - acqTjt h'In as far as we cou'd
for he wae and is prof, undy ignorant
Of the who e import of the writings as
we'll OF Macauley az of Milton. But
he declines such cl@nl' ncy rs we he'd
TO offer and persists in pie tding cuifty
to tH" 9raver sunt in ou- indictment
Evrn row we know he ja far lass gulfP
than ie would have tt, public balisve.
Bat we think we can acc0put fer his
parverEity. For he Is lawyer and as
~uch mus; be ftnliiisr with tha maxim
shat ignorance is not valid plea aud
thai crtSs2 ney2iTHntia miy even be-
come a crime. Bn6 it is otherNi7e in
the court of crit.ciszn4, aud such crassa
igaordntja as tiis Of bis shall always
meet with proper indulgence while We
are prosecuting there.
tvithStanding this Cpo. Barrin-
ger continues to speak of our criti-
cism of him with "contempt" which
our readers and his c4npot fail to
see is only the contempt # Ignorance
He shows however that he is himself
not beneath contempt inasmucL as be
is not wholly iusensible to satire. This
we speak in his praise and is more
than we would say Of any one Of his
in having charged rs with expending
in cur first article whose columns
of vituperatiOn upon him." For the
truth i8 our entire article was barely
two columns III length and of which |
more than three-fourts we're taken up
ia viniica'i0n Of Macauley leaving less |
than one balf of one column to be di- |
vlded betweer himself and Chamber |
/ il. But lie douhtlees has another
mode Of measuring the length Of such |!
things ei"ca II l. plain that lie mistakes |
# g aoutebess Of his own snfferings for |
the duration of our at sck. In this !
view Of the case his misstatcment is
both natural and in one sense true. |
We wish Wa co1}d say as much for
his u4a of the word "vituDeration. "
But here we fn3 sHch confusion Of
itizqa as IL at once charaeteristic and
nniq1e. So much 50 that we shou'd
t.ink lin altogether incapable of
di~+i0gu p between "vitnpe. alton
AMI it,recfrc were it not that
the keernoss with which he has folt
its edge shows that he is still abe to
jcsI What he Cannot dcfne. Ird@ed
We rhi, K he has every reason t. feel
even honor-d by the we l-laserved
ahusa Of the JOURNAL coupling as il
did his own with tlie name of Macau
iev or even with therome of Chamber
lain. For a. he 10y there sal3wjcbed
as If were between them ne must heve
fit as he certaiply looked like a fly
caug't in amber feeling no doubt
T'4s 70 WIS ri her rich
T + hOg =, q ri @aTn : II III r ?
But we protest that or purpose
in writing, the gina' article which has
led to this controversy was not Simply
TO max" Cen. Barrirger look ri7icu'ous
in tEa evfe Of the pnhlic. That we
could ct wcli avoid ard what we have
failed to 90 he has done for us and for
himself. Neither was il our purpose
merely TO d;spley orr learning and
make literary capital by the expo
erreq Of such charlatan "a lie. That
was On easy achieve ncent indeed / ut
when we had done tive as little
ia, upLt of boastirg as thonGh
We had impaIeA "a mnsqrl-
10 or broken a butterfly upon a wheel
4? onr original article we undertook to
show that Nh. passage taken from the
Essay on Milton was either perverted
or r1ieundrrs TODD. We went farther
and showed that If it cou'd be n ale t.
bear the CONSTRUCTION sought 10 be
pat upon it, still iscanlay had over
aud over p gain disavoTved that rs well as
every other paragraph of that Essay.
This we proved by reference 10 the Bi
ographicaI @ketcl, Of him prefzad to
his last work-the fifth volume of bis
History of Eng'and-whera, according
to the London Times, he is made to
say that his :uatured judgment ap
proves scarcely a par'grsph in Tat
Essay and wi'sre the Lord0n Ah-
eaiuHn sa5s, lie later il life was
! a hamad cf il" Ana yet i face Of
ss.,I Authority Ge., DarrinSer has 'he
= i11.; &" a:,.:sci,y III. rep~a;, a.7
he 4 j.. il hI5 RI ''n7 Of to-day, that
/ NEacau ay has never reean'ed +. Shall
we say unblushil g aud"city? or ough
We not rathcr to say that he persists IN
his denial with degree of duiluess
for wh;c', e-t-u-p i'll i-t-y is 10 name.
Indeed, he muat allow rs in want of q