The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-03-10
For the Central Presbyterian.
Reply to DIR. Woodrow's Letter.

L.
MeSSrS. Editors,-Had it not been for
the reflections upon my friends Drs.
Brown and Farris in Dr. Woodrow's let
ter published in your issue of the 18th
inst, should not have deemed any reply
necessary. As, however, | am compelled
to say. something, it seems proper that I
should notice few points among many
which might be remarked on, which
would otherwise have let go unnoticed.
1t is hardly to be wondered at that DR..
Woodrow felt and expressed no pleasure"
arising from consideration of my "card, {"
published In your columns some weeks
since. 1t was not designed or adapted to
this purpose. Its intent was to show that
he had done an injustice" in refusing to
publish proper reply to an article con-
corning myself and TIE. Executive Com
mittee of Home Missions, and 1 think
this was abundantly demonstrated
DIR. Woodrow suggests that l have
showed Inconsistencies" of the laws of
journalistic courtesy" in naming him
and his correspondent personally, instead
OF speaking of the one as Editor" and of
the other as Pastor" In regard to the
first point, if l erred, it was an error of
inconsistencies, for do not remember
that 1T occurred to me, and now that my
attention has been called to it, it seems
trivial. In regard to the second point.
my action was taken Willingly and with
a full comprehension of its meaning, be-
cause there were statements in Pastors"
letter, which no imperSoaaI correspondent
had right to make. If they were to be
replied to at all, it was necessary that
responsible "person," and not an indefi-
mite Pastor" should be addressed. And
l am Informed by one whose knowledge
and appreciation of Journalistic court
esy is certainly not behind that of DR..
Woodrow, that this is matter with
which he as editor had just nothing at all
to do, and that in abiding to it he has
himself disregarded the demands of edi-
torlal courtesy and exposed himself to
just animadversion.
DIR. Woodrow continues: AS to Civ
ing reasons for declining to publish,
think you, Messrs. Editors, have proba-
bly, already discovered that it is usually
best not to do so; | did, however.
so Tar allude to reasons as to say to /.
Mcllwaine that they would no doubt oc
cur to him." Then after paragraph on
the mode of conducting his paper, ETC.,
he says: But to return to the reasons
was giving you. did not publish DR..
McIlwaines so-called reply, because it
was in my opinion bitter personal as
sault on the character and motives of
" Pastor, and further, was even profess
eddy designed to make sport of him-to
quote an expression from it which hap
pen to remember"
1t seems necessary to make some re-
marks on these sentences.
l.. When DIR. Woodrow's suggestion to
me that the reasons why he declined to
publish my letter would mo doubt occur"
to me, is brought into proximity with his
alleged reasons" it seems singularly
anept to proceed from him. Does he sup
pose that if had regarded my letter as
bitter personal assault upon the char
acter and motives, ETC., I would ever
have sent it to him for publication And
yet this is what he says he meant to tell
me, when he said that his reasons
would mo doubt occur" to me. They
did not occur to me, and they would like
ly occur to no one reading the letter, ex-
cept to him alone.
2. This leads me to remark that DIR.
Woodrow's reasons, as stated by him
self are without adequate foundation in
fact. There is nothing in the letter to
Justify the statement which he makes
about 1t, and when he says Quoting from
memory that it was professed1y de-
signed to make sport of him" q. e. "Pas-
tor }, he states what the language of the
manuscript does not authorize. The
truth OF it is this: Pastor" had at
tempted in his letter to render ludicrous
certain views held by me, and in a brief
passage at the close of my letter, I felt
justified In dealing in the same way with
his presentation of my views as contrasted
with his own; but as for making sport
" OF him, this was not its design. DR..
Woodrows statement too is abundantly
contradicted by DR. Farris (who is GER
tainly as competent, and in this case, per
haPs, more impartial judge in the
words quoted by me in my card to
wit o. The tone of your reioinder ac
cords with that of his (Pastors) criticism.
and (2), the matter of his articles needs
the answers you have given it." l also
introduce here, as bearing directly on the
matter in hand, some further sentences
from the letter of Rev William Brown.
D. D., from which | quoted in my card :"