Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1875-03-19

TO sustain his charges. It has been de
veloped from other sources that the In
formant OF the Times was a bartv nv III.
name OF n. L. Smith, formerly OF Mem
phis. You know Smith. He il IN,
same delectable individual who. as press
agent at Memphis some years ago
teiegraphed slanderous statement ovei
the country in reference to the Memphi
Dali on MErdi Gras day. You will re-
member also that in few DAYS he cent
supplementary dispatch saying that,
In his first statement, he had lied. he
Iost his place as press agent, and also
thst on some one OF the Memphis pa
/, r~crs-the 5U0ldSche, l believe. He
was discharged from the Memphis
Ledger because in his position as river
editor he was guilty Of blackmaiIing the
! river men, and on account of general
cussedness. Wherever Mr.. Smith is so
unfortunate as to be known, his charges
| against anyone will excite no other feel.
ing than that Of derision. He has evi.
IDENTIFY placed tie Times in an awkward
position, from which it seems disposed
to extricate itself by maintaining a mas.
terly silence. Whenever the fact is
made known to the committee that
Smith concOcted that little story for the
Times, and a few chapters OF his career
at Memphis have been made known to
them, they will be ready to report.
Smith is not immaculate-far from it
and while he continues to exist, Ananias
will not lack for descendant.
Nashville Union and Americanl
Even journal as able and as gene
rally well posted as the Tribune gets
things mixed sometimes. 1t all comes
at the little word "ia," which we have
italicized on that account. Had the
Tribune writer glanced over the Nash
vile papers with ordinary care, he
would have understood that the charges
are not made "in" the Tennessee leg
islature, Or "in" the STATE OF Tennessee,
but in the New Orleans Times. A dis
patch was sent to the proprietors OF that
paper, on Thursday last, by the investi-
eating committee, with view to elicit
ing the evidence upon which the article
was based, but no answer has yet been
received. In its issue OF the twelfth,
the day after the dispatch of inquiry
must have come to hand, the Times
thus editorially introduces the resolu-
ton adopted by the house: ''If we are
not disappointed, we shall shortly be
able to publish further evidence of q
character that cannot be snuffed out
with a resolution" This would look
as if the IEDoeS's people had actually
come into possession Of some damning
testimony, but for the fact that the au-
thorship OF the charges is beginning to
leak out. The Memphis Avalanche
says they are generally credited to one
Smith, who was dismissed from two
different papers Of that city last year for
corrupt conduct. He Grif6ed down to
New Orleans, and at last found har-
Dor in the Times Office. Smith?-we
must have heard the name before. Can
it be the same fellow who, when the
yellow-fever was at its worst in Mem
phis, some eighteen months ago, sent
to the st. Louis Republican and Louis
vile Courier Journal and other papers d
slanderOus dispatch, charging the citi-
zens of Memphis with gross inhumanity
toward those who had been stricken
down with the pestilence? Public in
we remember, forced that |
member of the Smith family into hu.
retraction, and he has been in
disrepute among newspaper men ever |
since. Should the responsibility for |
these charges be fastened on the Smith |
we have in our minds eye, the investi-
eating committee need 60 no farther; |
they must simply consider the source |
and drop the subject.