Harpers Ferry Free Press

TO "AN AMERICAN."

O Jack, Jack,

"Thy head is foul, fill'd with hyperbole."

Sir--In exposing the views which influenced you in pursuing perhaps a proper course, for the introduction of the "Lancasterian System of Education," it appears, that to have denied yourself the pleasure of expressing the following ill-timed opinion, would have been rejecting the highest pinnacle of your felicity.

You remark:

"A few individuals, whose standing in society gave to their assertions a weight to which they were not entitled, took advantage of the credulity of those who looked to them for correct information, and with a malicious activity CONTRIVED to excite the prejudices of many, to such a degree, that, on Mr. Lancaster's arrival here, his system was viewed by them as an imposition, and himself as a base impostor."

Upon this very objectionable sentence, it is scarcely necessary to remark. It may be well, however, to observe, that Mr. Lancaster was never viewed by the inhabitants of this place as an "impostor," neither was his system considered an "imposition"--but its introduction here has ever been thought inexpedient. Mr. Lancaster has been represented as a "benevolent man" as a man voluntarily subjecting himself to innumerable pecuniary difficulties, with a view to the common good of mankind--and as a man whose extraordinary capacity had claimed not only the attention of some of our most respectable state legislatures, but also the undivided countenance of Congress. All these representations have been indisputably received--each individual entertaining no disposition to question their truth. At length it is given out by a lover of expedients, that Mr. L. has arrived, and will give Lectures on his system of teaching--for twenty-five cents.

Now, for the first time, the inhabitants doubt, with propriety, Mr. L's. "benevolence," and agree, that if his private means were insufficient to defray the expenses which might be necessarily incurred by the delivery of unimportant Lectures, a respectable charge ought to be made--and conclude by doubting his extraordinary capacity, and the efficacy of his system.

But a question presents itself: If Mr. Lancaster has had the pleasure of being countenanced by so many respectable assemblies in Europe and in America, as is stated, and his system possesses so many superior advantages, why does he neglect the most populous cities, and propose its introduction in a place where, it is believed, not more than 100 pupils can possibly be procured? And if it requires eight or ten years to learn the principles necessary to put that system into proper operation, what teacher would be willing to undertake the management of an Institution of this cast, for a less sum than $700 or $800 per annum?

In another part of your communication, you have taken particular notice of a writer in the "Free Press" of the 15th inst. whom you hope to defeat by the use of unqualified assertions, and virulence of expression--which object, (if such language may be considered as composing solidity of argument) you will undoubtedly be enabled to effect. But, if considered otherwise, and the interposition of Truth permitted, then, truly, do your aspersions lead you against a fearful odds.

In discussing subjects, involving the interests of the community, writers should ever select that language which is dressed in the garb of simplicity and truth. Such language, distinguished by such traits, will never cease to obtain countenance--the opposite, contempt. When, therefore, you suffer your prejudices no longer to take advantage of your better reason, then will your essays be read with attention. But so long as you continue to pursue a contrary course, indulging in violence of invective, so long will you be considered destitute of that respect which one liberal minded opponent expects from another.

I cannot, sir, close this note, without noticing that part of your's, which denies that a certain young man had been ten years under Mr. Lancaster's "immediate tuition;" and this denial, in the ecstacy of the victorious moment, you accompany with a charge of the words quoted being a "sheer fabrication" of my own. In furtherance of your position, you have called the attention of the reader to Mr. L's. advertisement. Nothing could be better calculated to prove the accuracy of my statement than this very reference--for, although the precise words of Mr. L. were not used in my last, yet it will be found, on an impartial examination, that the words which he has chosen, convey the very meaning of those words objected to by you. I will ask, what material difference is there between the idea of being immediately instructed by Mr. L. and that of being taught under his own eye? Surely, sir, if you have any pretensions to candor, you will answer, there is but little, if any difference.

Some apology perhaps, sir, is due for having thus long engrossed your attention. But with this formality it is probable you will dispense. It is to be hoped, that in remarking upon this interesting topic, both of us will hereafter confine ourselves strictly to the subject, and consider decency of the utmost

CONSEQUENCE.