The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-02-18

pldCe 10 10 ll-Guere are CnurCH courts,
composed Of Judges who are authorized to
hear and decide in such cases. Hence,
whenever in debates conducted in the
Southern Presbyterian, one party has lost
his temper, and has wished to reply to
argument by angry personal abuse of his
opponent, | have declined to allow my
columns to be so perverted rom the high
uses to which they have been consecrated
No doubt | have sometimes erred, and
have not always been sharp-sighted
enough to exclude every improper word ;
but this has been my endeavor And
have no hesitation in saying here that if
| have printed one word Justly offensive
to DR.. McIlwaine, because an attack upon
his character or motives, am now ready
publicly to apologize to him and to my
readers, and to give him the fullest OPP
portunity to vindicate himself in my col
umns where he thinks he has been in
jured. But after again carefully reading
Pastors last article, have completely
failed to find single expression of that
nature.
But to return to the reasons | was Civ
ing you. 1 did not publish DR.. Nell
waine's so-called reply because it was in
my opinion a bitter personal assault on
the character and motives of Pastor, -
and further was, seven professedly design
ed to make sport of him-to quote an
expression from it which happen to re-
member. 1t also contained a grievous
violation of journalistic good manners
but this is a very small matter compared
with the nature of the contents.
Dir. McIlwaine might easily have given
all interested an opportunity of Judging
for themselves whether this opinion OF
mine is right or wrong, and whether !
had done him great injustice, by caus-
ing the rejected article to, be published
in another circular in the other Church
papers. But instead of this, he has pre-
terred consulting two editorial experts
the Rev. DR.. Brown and Farris-and
publishing their decision. DR.. Brown
gives it as his decided opinion that Dr.
McIlwaine has been unjustly dealt with
by me; and DR.. Farris says that the re-
jected article would most certainly have
been inserted in his paper" he had
previously published Pastors articles.
! Now it seems rather hard that these
Judges should have tried and condemned
me unheard; they might have asked me
If | had anything to say in my defence
before my sentence was pronounced but
If that is their way, perhaps | ought not
to complain. l have great respect for
Drs. Brown and Farris, and regret that
they do not approve of my course.
would much rather have had their APP
probation than their censure. Possibly
II | could have consulted them in time.
they might have shown me that their
taste and principles in such matters ought
to be preferred to mine; but / had no
opportunity to get their advice, and
therefore had to decide for myself with
out their help,-and | am sorry they
think / decided wrong But much as /
regret their censure, yet the appreciation
of another editor is vastly more necessary
to my comfort than even theirs-indeed,
| could not get on without it-namely,
the appreciation of the editor of the South
err Presbyterian am happy to say
have that in this case; and therefore I
must be content to endure as we'll as
can the condemnation which my former
fellow editor, the venerable DR.. Brown,
and my present fellow-edito DR. Farris,
have authorized DR.. McIlwaine to publish.
am sorry to have taken up so much
of your valuable space with this matter !:
but | did not see how to avoid it for
was not willing to treat it with the con
tempt of silence.
Yours very sincerely,
JAMES WOODROW.
C0lumbio, s. O., Feb. 7th, 1880