The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1878-03-27
Reply.

$SHss
The above letters were handed to me
by Mai. w. X. Bradley for publica-
ton. As to the first thfee paragraphs of
Mr.. PERKINS, letter they speak for them
selves and show how he ''pcrfOrmcd the
trust contided to him."
The letter Of Mr.. Perrin seems to show
all u~nwarrantablo interference on his
part in a matter which did not concern
him, but was n controversy between MAJ.
Bradley and the Press and Banner. Mr.
Perrin saws he "made 1t his business"
to see me on Monday. This he did, and
left the impression on my mind that NlaJ.
Bradley would send q communication
to us that night, and in consequence, the
printing office was lighted and the COM
positors present ready to set it up. Upon
going to the post Office that night for
our mail I SAW nothing of the expected
communication, and I supposed that
Maj. Bradley had failed to send it. But
it seems that the communication was
sent 10 Mr.. Perrin who ''maGe it his
business to give the letter addressed to
the editors of the Press and Banner, to
the editor of another paper. While he
seems to have ''mude it bis business" to
''supcrintend' the publishing of Major
Bradley's letter, his own admission that
he did not read it, that he did not know
that it was not signed, and that he did not
deliver it TO the editor for whom 1t was
intended, will show most clearly how
he '.Dcrformcd the trust confided to
him. AS l understand it, Mr.. Perrin
was merely entrusted to deliver a letter
addressed to the editors Of the Press and
Banner, and had no. other duty to per-
form than to deliver it to US. But instead
of "performing the" simple trust con-
fdcf to him." he chose to "makc it his
business to deliver Il letter to
another editor, who sent it to IL office
the next day, it seems, alter taking
a copy of it. AS to Mr.. Per-
rims conduct in this particular the
public are as competent to judge as we
ure. Mr.. Perrin prates about signing
the letter of Maj: Bradley, when in real
ity we think it likely that he had no
moro authority to put Maj. Bradlcy's
name to Il letter than We had. In fact.
Mr.. Perrin does not claim that he had
authority to ''pcrtorm this trust,' yet he
now desires to make it appear that he
was willing enough to make 1t his
business to put Maj. Bradley's name
to Il letter addressed to us.
The gentleman who did not deliver
the letter entrusted to him for US, and
who, it seems, has ''made it his business
to intcrmcddle in matter which was none
of "his business" appears entirely to
mistake the point that we made
in treating the letter as anony-
nous. That point was, that whctll-
or the letter was endorsed or not by
Major Bradley, the handwriting did not
seem 10 he his, and the whole tone, tenn
per and. coloring of the communication
SO totally foreign to tho kindness OF
heart and genial courtesy of Major Brad
ley, coupled with the fact that the sigma,
ture was left out, all furnished ground
for belief ut the time that tho letter was
not Major Bradley's. But from Major
Bradlcy's letter above, it seems that in
, this we were mistaken.
Mr.. Perrin is mistaken in say
ing that l promised him to alix
Major Bradley's name to the let
ter, and tho above statement shows
clearly why I should not have made such
a promise. Mr.. PERKINS, share in this
controversy is entirely gratuitous OH his
part and of his own seeking.
/ HUGH WILSON.
Abbeville, March &c, 1878.