Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1905-01-21
REY. DR.. JOHNSON
WRITES AGAIN.
DENIES THAT HE CON
DEMNED THE EDITOR
Says His Language Was Mis-
construed-Makes EN-
phatic Statements.
Is SENSITIVE ABOUT HIS CALLING
objects to the Invasion of the Rolig-
ious Fieid-NO Preaching News
paper Man for Him.
Editor MITCHELL,
My Dear Friend:.

My Dear Friend:-
Yes, l have the temerity to come
again regardless of the severe chastise-
ment L received from the editors form
or and the three column answer TO NV
Last article. Editor Mitchell will bear
in memory that I stated in nv first ar
ticle as follows: II am trembling now.
but venture the danger L risk in thus
presuming to write such an article to
your Paper" And IN my last srtioJe
stated that 81 was aware that / was
up against two-edged sword;" so how
ever great the castigation have received
mp TO the present, aud may receive in
the future rom his facile editorial pen.
Is not a surprise to me.
COMPLEMENTARY REFERENCES.
Ihave known Editor Mitchell too long
70 be surprised at whatever drubbinp /
may get at his hands. repeat, il was
with the knowledge of these facts in
view, that made me say, II tremble
now." l wish to say further that am
70 that my sss5Sse,sd6Rp. rs With AN
editor,-with an editsr OF perhaps over
10 years standing;-with an editor rho
has passed through what few editors
have In many respects. for know the
editor OF the PLANET, know,his battles;
know his conflicts: / have profltsd
greatly by his editorials. 1 have nv.
self had new life infused into nv old
frame, by his zeal, enthusiasm, bravery
and courage, for a braver, boldeI, more
courageous editor, no race has possessed
or does possess, to-day, because l read
after them all and so am able Gf YOU
Will pardon the egotism) TO draw a con-
mn
again after him, it is with the full
knowledge that 1 may be treated even
worse as to this last article than the two
former ones.
WAS TREATED BADLY.
Now / want to call Editor Mitchell 10
some Of his mannerisms in the treat.
ment or both articles; and indeed of
Whatever subject-matter that comes un-
der his purview. but especially with
reference to the treatment Of these arti
cles or mlno. It is this: the freedom
and liberty with which he presumes
ms Editor, that he has the right to take
the correspondence OF q correspondent.
because 1T Is the correspondence of a
correspondent, and treat it with the free
dom and caprice Of the bout and ton
denotes and logical trend Of his own
may put upon it from his own point of
view. l claim that this is what Editor
mitchell has done with both Of my ar
ucles. For exam pie he puts words into
my mouth that / never uttered He
puts constructions on my propositions
that never thought OF. Indeed if he
Will allow me to say it and / do it
with respect and courtesy, that he per-
verts the whole trend, thought and pur-
pose OF both my first and last articles.
DENIES CONDEMNATION.
L have In no word condemned Editor
Mitchell for giving credit, special credit
to the special individuals, to whom he
mas referred. / stated that, in nv
last article, and denied that l was criti-
clslng him for the praise he bestowed
upon those who had made efforts so ppt
down the mob, and said that 1 myself
ms cad OF condemDing them, rather
gave them praise. He took advantage
OF that opportunity, as it is the priyi-
lege or an Editor to do, and lifted and
isolated that paragraph and putting The
marks OF ellipsis after it instead of ruC-
ting the connecting words, which would
have modified and shown the force If
the statement made. And then Editor
Mitchell comments upon the SIMPLE iso-
ihteu paragraph and d oldes for the wri.
ter OF this article and also for his read
ers, that the writer "has given his case
away" But the writer does not sec
how or in what sense he had given his
case away. if the ellipsis had been filled
mp. which would have shown what he
meant when he said that he did not blame
those who tried to put down the mob
but rather praised them. / repeat that
do not see how 1 have in any sense
given away my case by such q state
ment, because my case isino5 what Edi-
tor Mitchell asserts it to be. He asserts
that proposition is condemnation Of him
for praising those who try to put down
the mobs, and to abate the violence,
which 1 repeat are not the facts in the
case, l also repeat that nowhere have
i condemned Editor Mitchell for such
praise but rather endorsed it.
A REFERENCE TO THE GOVERNOR.
When / said had no condemnation for
the Governor of Va. in sending IS compa-
MES Of the troops of Virginia to make
the white people of Roanoke obey the