Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1878-03-06
The HAuhyine UnpIeasantness

Major Tom UConnor was nneu $oV
for his assault upon Mr.. Atcheson, Of the
Banner, and Messrs. Cherry, 0'Conner,
William Morrow and A. N. Shook,
lessees of the psnitentiary, have brought
suit for libel, claiming damages al $l0,-
600, against the Banner. Mr.. Atcheson
comes out 10 q Straightforward, manly
card, in which be gives the particulars
of the affair and the causes which led TO
it. He announces that the most eminent
lawyers of Tennessee, backed by the
people of the State, will represent the
Banner in this libel suit. Some lively
developments may be expected. 1t is
an unusual thing for o newspaper at the
capital of the State to get into a contro.
versy of this kind, ard the people are
surprised at it. We thought Memphis
had the monopoly of this sort Of bust
ness. Mr.. Atcheson says:
A few weeks since | copied a letter
from the Cincinnati Enquirer, detailing
some of the wrongs inflicted on Tennes-
see convicts working on the line of the
Cincinnati Southern railroad. 1t was
published in the Banner simply as a
matter of news, and without tie faintest
idea of wrongiDg any One. But it gave
serious offense to certain parties, and o
request was made hat no article Of q
similar character should be allowed in
the columns Of the paper. Just think OF
the freedom and independence of a news
paper hsmpered by such restraintsl In
Mondays Banner an article from an
Fast Tennessee paper was copied, reflect
ing severely on what is known as the
" penitentiary ring" / put it in simply
as q matter Of current interest, and as
having a material bearing on the State
campaign just opening. While the Ban
ner copied the article, asst does hundreds
of others, this paper was not com.
United to any charges contained in
the original publication. There is moi
a man, woman or child 10 the State that
has not heard of the "P~enitentiary Ring
and 10 ignore it in the discussion Of State
politics is to cease to be a newspaper,
The specific charges in question may Be
true, or they may be false; but as tht
Banner did not make them. but gave
them as coming from another paper, il
specifically diaclaimed responsibility for
the same. But is there no reference Il
alleged wrong-doing to be made without
specific proof on hand? Everybody re
members what is known as the Hobbs
transaction. l am glad to say | hat
something to do in bringing to light "a
least some Of the hidden mysteries con
nected Herewith. At first therl
was a good deal OF bullying, tbeI
a libel suit, then a legislative in
v~estigation, and in the end SOM
very queer disclosures were brough
to the surface. Does anybody for 8 mo
ment believe that these things woult
have been brought to light If it were no
tor a fearless and vigIlsnt newspspea
prssa2 l mention this siBply by way 0
illustration, and not TO unnecessarill
wound anybody's feelings. The doing
of the "psnitentisry RAG" have heel
before the public for ten years. Whethe
right or wrong. that ring" is associates
in the public mind With ways that srr
DARK" The Banner has said very littl
about it in the past, bat, depend upon il
should occ lsion require, and the interest
Of public justice and morality demand
in the future this paper will not be silen
when there are wrongs to be righted anI
public grievances to be redresssd, u
matter what rings or cliques may be i'm
plicated,