Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1885-11-07
AN EXPLANATION.

The editor Of the GAINESVILLE Chronicle is
informed that the editor OF this paper,
while employed as an editorial writer on the
Jackson Wing, WAS not the editor of tnat
paper and had no voice in controlling its
| policy. He was simply what some ignorant
| persons and conceited journalistic tyros
emptuously speak of as a"hired editor"
But w hfle he did not dictate the policy of
the paper he was In all principal particu-
lars In accord and sympathy with 1t, believ-
ing and knowing that 1t was and is true
Democratic journal. and very conserva-
tive one-owned and controlled by an hon.
orable gentleman and a genuine Democrat
And while engaged with that excellent pa.
per the writer of this never wrote political
article he did not endorse, and which could
be termed inconsistent with the policy and
course of the paper over which he now pre-
sides. The Wing mildly advocated the repeal
of the railroad commission wand in doing
SO il did not differ with the views ofthe writer
who, while an advocate of the right and
necessity of railroad regulation, was never
am adInirer of the law enacted. He, now, as
the sole editor of the Anchor and an equal
partner In the publication, advocates; as he
they may be wrong, he believes to be right.
Union City ARchor.
The head and front OF our offending
against the editor of the Anchor was
having alluded to him as the Dugald
Dalgetty of the Tennessee press.
Dugald Dalgetty, in our estimation,
was is no sense a contemplate charac-
ter, as he made no concealment of his
true position. He was professional SOL
soldier and gave his services to whoever
was willing and able to pay for them,
he didn't fight from conviction. The
journalist who should initiate his
example would not be very admirable,
nor, we suppose, very influential, but
there are a thousand such in the
Uuited States. They violate no con-
victions for they have none, but write
as their employers may direct or as the
business interest of their paper may
dictate. We supposed Mr.. Tatom, the
editor of the Anchor, was that type of
newspaper man, because the tone
of the West Tennessee Wing, with
which he has lately been connected,
was different from that of the Anchor,
OF which he is now the sole editor.
The Wing opposed the railroad COM
mission and Mr.. Tatom confesses in
the above that he didn't like the Saw
age concern, but the Anchor follows
the American in hurting anathemas
at Independents and declaring that
the ungodly scratchers have no place
in the Democratic party. The Wing
favors the Blair Educational bill, the
Anchor opposes it. The Wing, we
think, wants two conventions held
next year, the Anchor says there must
be only one.
The tone OF the Anchor, too, is so
vigorous and pronounced, as to make
these differences more noticeable. 1t
even went so far as to take hand in
our GAINESVILLE squabble and to lament
the sad fate that had befallen this city
on account of the great river scoop"
1t was in consideration of these facts
that led us to class Mr.. Tatom among
the Bohemians. We are ready to
make abject apology for whatever in
justice we may have done him and
hope our readers will duly consider
the explanation he makes in the above.