Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1882-08-19
MR.. McFADDEN.
A Supplemental Note.

When Mr.. McFadden sent us the letter
whicn we printed, last week, he also sent
the supplemental note which We print be.
low. The first letter and this note contain
ed some illusions TO q communication signed
Taxpayer" which appeared In this paper.
accusing the writer OF being "Ooserver" and
'.Patron'' OF former articles In the Register.
MIR. M%cF'adden after sending US the manu-
script found that he was mistaken as to
.'Tax-psyer's" identity, aud wrote US asking
US to strike out all that part OF hts commun-
icstion relating to "~Tsx-psyer." From =
cursOry reading W. thought that the whole
OF the supplement alluded to him, aud hence
omitted II. He has since written to US re-
quesLing that 1t be published, and we com.
ply with his desire led. Int.
SUPPLEMENT-.
You will See from .he iiate Of the fore
going that 1t was intended tor last weeks
paper, but recoIlccting that yon would have
much political matter to publish, l held 1t
over. see that Patron" alias observer"
Is still dissatisfied. Has he not assumed q
sufficient number Of Inherent names now 10
have The detectives placed upon bis track!
and in order to give them a"clue" will
say that be is un ex-county.schOol.snperin-
tendent. | despise The principle which leads
u mai to fire ut Others IN Ter cover OF ,an as
gu ned name. Nova few words 10 regard to
your profession. A paper In this city pub
iished from time to time, three articles from
one man who labored to make It appear that
OR scnoOl houses were Ms bad to create de.
sesse and death, AS the prison ships Of Eng.
land were during the revolutionary war and
denouDcing the board OF education for not
building larger houses and furnishing them
with modern seats. with u score OF other de-
hands. and charges Of like character. These
were all published without one single word
OF dissent from the editor. 1 attempted an an
swer To the three, In one, and thought l hsd
succeeded pretty well; but before my article
was admitted to print whole sentences were
cut out, q word dropped out here and there.
words put In and words changed TO some
other words, and the whole article was so
manipulated as to have neither point. force
or anything else but nonsense. l am aware
that editors have the right (under ordinary
circumstancer) to pitch Into the ~ sste-bask 81
or return to the writers rs the case may be,
oil articles they do not wish to publish. But
the question l wish to ask IL, has an editor
the right TO chang an article as described
above, and then put the original writer's
name 10 1t instead Gf his own? l have the
original as written by me, and rs published,
for comparison. in all probability this is the
last article 1 shall ever write Tor the press,
AMI wish to say that l have q cOnscisn: ct
void OF ofenss toward God and man in this,
that I never engaged IN q controversy thai
I was not drawn into. 1 have tried for many
years 10 make That command OF scripture,
"Let not tue sun go dOwn upon YOU
WRATH" my guide. ami l can -frnly say
have neither wrath or ill-will Treasured fol
any one. My heart Is al peace with all men
aud l believe God is at peace with me. Rest
ing IN this belief l care very little what thu
men OF this world may say or think sbouI
me. Yours, &c., MCFADDEN.