, 1876-11-16

A-%-~*NA**+
THAT "TIMEs" DISPATCH.
A few days since, n dispatch was sont
from the Chicago Tsms Office to tho New
Orleans Democrat, saying: "All eyes and
hopes turn toward Louisiana. If you
tamoly submit to disenfrancliscment, tue
end is defeat for hope mud reform. The
North will say God-speed to q cloaning.out
Of the PAonAnp and KELLOGG scountlrolB." /"
A temperate comment was mndo upon this
incondiary language in TuE CHICAGO Tn1n-
usE, expressing tho hope TINT it was not sent
by tho editor Of that papor, and carefully
refraining from making my personal alu-
sions or indulging in any abuse. The next
morning d long reply appeared in the TINES,
calling the editor Of The Tn1Duag by na1ne,
and applying all tho epithcts that arc fa-
miliar to b!nckguard. The sono Of tho
whole article was malignant, insolont, and
scurrilous, but 1t contained no disclaimer
that the editor Of tho Times was not rcspon-
siblo for tho dispatch. A second reply ap-
pcared in The TRIBUNE, which did not con-
tain nj intlecorous word, and did not dis
turb Tho i,npcrsonnlity of tho editor Of that
paper. Although it would require very little
wit to apply disreputable epithets to him,
We carefully nbstained from 30 doing Yes
terlay morning tho Times returned to
its mud-sliuging. Tho editor Of TINT paper,
in vulgar, scurrilous, and rtiIinnly article,
written probably by tho individual ropuli-
nted by tho 1imes. and obliged to write his
own condemnation. disavows any authority
for tho dispatch III question, although he
does not disavow approval Of the sentiments
contained in it. A moro unfair, unprofoa-
sioual, ungent1emanly transaction from 1irst
to Inst canuot 10 found in tho records of
American journalism In its editorial of
Tuesday it aays: II such dispatch wes
seut from this Office, the Tina is not respon.
siblo for it," In tho editorial of Monday 1t
sail:
There has heon no time within four yoass when
tllurouQh cleanng out Of thu kILkouu. = pApK aNu-
cAsEr sconndrc!s would not have bccn regarded by
The North AZ n very proper proceeding. -. .,
When the lawa arc Ineffective t clearing ont csju-
lhas III thu North, tho lamp.pust IL FUND very cf-
fcct!ye. Had thu Ncw.Orleans peu3,!e ,,srd the
lamp post auy limo lurn. the laxt eight years, tho
natfUn would mt now oo III i state IT feyersl1 in.
decison ~ tn the legitimate count Of lr yuts ca4t
a we'k ago so'day.
Wo can aae no tliilerence in spirit between
tho dispatch and tho editorial, except tlla.
The latter Is tho more ruillanIy of tho two.
It the 1'a'fs WIS not responsible for tho dis.
patch, il it responsible for tho editorial? Or
Is tho propriotora editor, Mir. KEENAN,, re-
sponalble for both :! Or III my Que RESPONSE
blo for other? Or il any ono responsible
for anything that appears III that reckless
paper9
With this recital of facts, we turn to tho
disclosures mado by the 1iHles In its latest
article, and tho Now Orleans Batlttia, in the
article printed il. tho last issue of The Tn1n-
usE Taking the two anioloa together, there
IL no difficulty iu understanding that tho DIS
patch was sent by kEESAH. 1t was tlatctl at
the office of tho Chicago Times. 1t was sent
from thero. It WIN signed by KEENAN,, and,
although the Now Osloana DHikttu does not
know who KEENAN, IL, 1t IL matser Of iii.
questioned fact tint KEENAN, IL editor OF the
Chicago 1smfs. We aro glnd to know 1t
was not tho venerable proprietor of tho
Itn.ts who sent 1t, mud TINT our sympathy
was wasted. 1t WIN KEENAN,! Wa suspect
ed as much. Tho whilom vision.
ary, airy, sportiyo KEENAN,, now Ban.