Year: 1860

ed communication OF Mr.. r. I. CarlIle,
in reply to some comments we made on
an article of that gentlemans, inserted in
the Enquirer on the lst inst, entitled
" Progress and Influence of Mechanical In
dustry." To the last communication there
is a preface, stating that said communication
was denied place in this paper. The
writer then proceeds to give what he repre-
sents to be the substance of conversation
he had with the Editor of this paper, when
the communication was returned to him.
Much of the language that Mr.. C.. recites
was used in the course of the conversation
alluded to, but there vas other larguage used
which really contained the spirit and true
reason of the refusal, and which Mr. c. fails
TO give. ....
When the communication was presented,
we made the following offer: That we
would publish the paper and others from the
same pen, if the Enquirer would agree to
publish an equal number of communica
rions written by any Republican we might
select-the editors of both papers of course
I having the right to make such editorial
comments as they might see proper. To
this Mr.. Carlile replied, with much apparent
surprise, that he had no control over the
| columns of the Enquirer, and had no power
to enter into such an agreement. We re-
piled that we and others understood that he
was one of the contributing editors of the
e.. I,,, -
rial articles for that paper, and was regarded
as one of its regular writers. lie denied
that he was one of the regular editors, and
said he was only an occasional contributor
remarking that occasionally, if the editor
of the Enquirer saw ct to endorse the
views Of any OF his articles, he pre-
sented them as editorial


A lengthy argument on the position OF
parties ensued, during which we declined
to publish the article unless on the condi-
tions above mentioned, on the ground that
Mr.. Carlle had allied himself to the Doug
las party, made common cause witA it, and
! favored a coalition between the Bell and
| Douglas parties, for the purpose of fusing
he two into one that he had made the
Enquirer his organ and ought to use it; that
it was the proper organ of those who favor
ed a coalition and that it would be unfair
to give the friends of the Bell Douglas CO.
alition access to the columns of the Journal
for the purpose of advancing their own
party views, unless the Republicans had the
privilege of writing through the columns OF
the Enquirer for the same object. These
were the reasons which prompted our rejec-
tion Of Mr.. C.s communication.


Mr.. c. gives his readers the impression
that be had before been refused the privilege
of communicating with the public through
the Journal. This is incorrect He has
meyer written anything before for this paper
that has not been published, since the pres
ent editor has had control of its columns.
When he returned from the South, early in
the spring, he sought an introduction to the
editors of the Enquirer for the purpose OF
becoming a contributor to its columns, not
even intimating to US any desire to write
for our paper. He became in due course of





tor to that paper and we had very great
deal OF trouble in getting him to -acknowl-
edge himself as the writer of certain articles
in the Enquirer. He deliberately chose that
paper as his organ, we suppose because its
opinions coincided with his party views
nearer than those of the Journal


Now it is nothing more than fair that he
should confne himself to his appropriate
medium of expression, while We do the
same. We are under no obligations to fur
nish our political opponents with a point
d dPpui-a vantage ground-from which
they may throw their poisonous missiles at
us and our comrades. Let them choose aud
attain their own ground, our position is
taken Let them present their best argu-
ments for the support of their cause; we
shall do the same. Let there be fair race,
and defeat take the hindmost. Mr.. G. can
present his views through the paper with
which be sympathizes-the Enquirer; we
make the Journal our medium. If the read
ers of our arguments can't see Mr.. C.'s,
neither eau the readers of the Enquirer see
ours, unless they take both papers. So
there is no inequality unless one paper has
more circulation than the other. If our
proposition had been accepted by the gen.
tlemen tavoring the Bell-Douglas coalition
we should all have been on equal terms,
ard very interesting controversy might
have been carried on.


Ia short time we shall take occasion to
reply to Mr.. CarliIes communication proper.