Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-11-28

Editor Evening Std1'-DEAR SIR: In your yes
terday's edition notice the following:
his Letter Fa that Ia he he is in smpath
sf to deny to 9f shs
and the feeine cell in the south towards him Ina fnasmnch
as as TEE STAR had never put those expressions in n
for him to deny them ne he has been reported % as
uttering the sentiments complained of, it was in
fs9eT ao ae the
Ga) Chronicle to the effect that MI Stephens pre-
have published anything parporting, to be Mt. Ste
ghens' sentiments on the Grant question, aud then
the extract was duly credited to the paper from
which it was TAKEN"
Now please allow me word on this subject.
I have never in any letter denied that was in
contrary, have uniformly said l saw nothing
Objectionable in his letter. This denial of my
sympathy with him was the work of some tele
ton % of nv letter, denying the truthfllness Of
what purported to be an interview With me on
the part of some member of your staff. This re-
port Of what purpofted to be such an interview
(a.) Chronicle ana COnStitttO1laltSt on the Goth
instant. 1t is that interview that so emphat-
cally denied by letter to the Augusta paper that
published 1t. had not seen 1t in THE STAR, but
supposed it might have been in 1t and escaped
my attention, and hence in my letter OF denial
use these words: "Dear Sirs: Your paper OF yes
terday is just at hand. In it see, for the first
time, what phrpOrtS to be the report of an inter-
view between me and some one ON THE STAR
newspaper in this city, &C. No such
interview ever took place between me and re-
porter Of THE STAR or anybody else. The whole
thing is a groundless fabrication, from begin
ming to end" In this did not, by any
means, assert, or mean to assert, that the pre-
tended interview ever had been published in
THE STAR. only meant to assert that what p1tr-
ported to be the report of such an interview, as
published in the Augusta papers referred to, was
utterly groundless ard untrue In your article
above quoted you disavow the appearance of
such report in THE STAR at any time. But
you must. nevertheless, perceive IL was worth
my while 10 deny the report thus attributed to
THE STAR. 1t is now for the editors Of the Au-
gusta paper to explain where they got the pre-
tended and false report. What you say you did
quote and credit the Augusta Chronicle with is
substantially true. Be assured, with your state
ment above referred to. have no complaint
against you whatever. Very respectfully,
ALEXANDER Il. STEPHENS.
[NoTE.-A brief explanation will settle this
controversy, and show that while Mr. Stephens
had apparently warrant for using the name of
view as that complained Of ever appeared in
these columns was entirely true The STAR did
publish a conversation with two democratic
congressman in which one Of them, who did
nearly all the talking. used the Identical Ian
guage denied by Mr. stephens. The names OF
these congressman were suppressed for the good
reason that their conversation was not intended
for publication. Some enterprising and imag-
NATIVE Washington correspondent, it appears,
assumed that Mr.. Stephens was the Congress
man interviewed and took the liberty of insert
ing that gentlemanS name where we had left
blank, and in this shape sent the matter to the
paper he represented, credited to THE STAR.
1t was in this unwarranted manner that Mr..
Stephens was made responsible for the utter
ances of another man. The interview published
in The STAR was not with Mr. Stephens, or any
member from his state, nor was there anything
said in connection with 1t to warrant the as
sumption that he was the member quoted.-ED.
STAR.1