Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1880-03-19

ABOUT month ago We published a COM |
municalion over the signature of Freedom
in Righteousness and Love in which it was
stated that 1.-THE Protest OF Congregational
ministers" as first refused by the Chronicle
was '.quite different from the Protest as
printed by the FREE Press. Taking these
words in their most natural signiflcatlon, anu
supposing-as doubtless every reader oil the
communication supposed-that Freedom in
r. and L., believed, and had undertaken to
say, that the Protest refused by the Chronicle
was one thing, and the Protest published in
the FREE Press quite different thing, Rev.
Dr. Stafford in a communication over his
own name, informed the public that this was
incorrect that the Protest printed in the
FREE Press was word for word the Protest
refused by the Chronicle; and that his state
ment in his note prefixed to the Protest as
printed in our columns to the effect that it
had been previously refusedby the Chronicle,
was the simple and literal truth.
To DIR. Safford's communication, Free
dom in Righteousness and Love" wrote re-
joinder, addressed to the editor of the FREE
Pass; but it became mislaid in this office,
and has just reached the editors eye. We
regret the consequent delay in the publication
of the rejoinder As the matter has passed
in measure out of public notice, we now
print only the more material portion of it.
After defending the anonymous character of
his former communication, on the ground
that - the most just, impartial and safe dis
cussion of principles must be impersonal,"
its writer says;
1t is due to myself 10 say that the made,
that the Protest as published in the FREE PRESS was
quite different from that first refused by the Chron-
cls is literally correct 1t may be due TO others to
say that 1t might have been better if had added
that there may have been other communications
between the protesters and the editors Of the chron-
iele of which was not then fully informed. must
say, too, that at writing had not thought OF 'the
statement" to the FREE PRESS about the Protest
having been refused by the editor Of the Chronicle
nor had intent or desire to make an .obvious I'M
pication" that such statafement was false" The
| Christian rule Is that any writer shall have the
benefit of the most charitable construction of his
language. And submit that to q charitable, un-
prejudiced reader, my language, as my thought and
heart, made duplication" OF personal false
hood. So, too, ask the same rule to be applied to
the meaning of quite. According to Webster's High
School Dictionary, now before ME, one definition of
quite Is "entireiy.' could not have meant that,
for l recognized it as the same document 'nrst
fused" and then elsewhere. published" Another
definition Is Considerably" That of course must
be thefsense in which used it. 1t was made con-
| siderably different In order to remove what had
| been pointed out Objectionable The writer con-
fesses in his article Of the 2lst in the FREE PRESS
that it ''isas somerhat diSerent" Then was his
own construction, far astray the difference be-
| tween considerable" and 'somephat" The differ
ence, as in this whole controversy is not enough to
set brethren by the ears about it.
FREEDOM IN RIGHTEOUSNESS AsD LOVE
As we should prefer not TO give further
space to this controversy, and in order to a
correct understanding of tine case under our
correspondents assertion of the literal COR
rectness of his remark that the Protest as
first rejected" was ''quite different" from
the Protest as printed We will briefly state
the facts about the refusal. The Protest
was sent to the Chronicle for publication.
After some correspondence between the edi-
tor and the sender, the editor wrote a def
mite refusal to publish the Protest. Before
he had mailed this he received a copy of the
Protest modified by striking out few SEN
fences The editor then, in a postscript to
his letter, dated day later, and on the same
piece of paper, declined to publish the Pro-
test as modified. The document was then
furnished to the FREE Press and printed by
US without any change whatever.
Whether communication could be consid-
cred as rejected before the refusal to publish
was made known to the sender, is perhaps a
question. The rejection would certainly
seem to be not complete till the sender is
notified of it. In this case the notice of the
refusal to publish the Protest as originally
sent, and as somewhat modified, reached the
sender on the same sheet, and were, evident
ly and not unnaturaly, considered by him a:
one rejection,-after which no change was
made in the Protest.