Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up freeGazette Of The United States And Daily Evening Advertiser
Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
What is this article about?
A subscriber to the Gazette defends his prior observations on political resolutions against a splenetic reply, arguing that free discussion of differing sentiments benefits the public if conducted properly, and critiques the critic's disingenuous logic.
OCR Quality
Full Text
MR. Fenno,
WHEN the observations made by a subscriber, in your paper of Tuesday, were written, nothing was more distant from the intentions of the author, than engaging in a controversy which must ultimately prove of little utility and might only terminate in personal invective. His object was merely to expose the disgraceful subterfuges which many will resort to, when in want of a proper object to ground their censorious remarks. The free discussion of a political sentiment, however different it may be from the popular opinion, if conducted with propriety, is certainly subservient to the public good: but people are apt to forget that when they pursue methods for the attainment of their purpose which are incompatible either with truth or the importance of the subject, they frequently, instead of giving additional strength, weaken the cause they mean to defend.
As these observations, however, have occasioned a splenetic reply from your correspondent, it may not be improper to advert to one of his remarks, which will certainly place his candour in a very enviable situation. As the business of importance was irrelative to the resolutions, he infers by a new kind of logick that the resolutions must have been supposed to be of no consequence.
But as this implication proceeds from a question, mutilated to serve his purpose of introducing a witticism immediately subsequent, its preposterousness and disingenuity must appear glaringly obvious on perusing the sentence which gave rise to his comment: the business of importance, only, for 'which the society was convened' is there mentioned as having no relation to the subject of his animadversions.
Subscriber
What sub-type of article is it?
What themes does it cover?
What keywords are associated?
What entities or persons were involved?
Letter to Editor Details
Author
Subscriber
Recipient
Mr. Fenno
Main Argument
the author defends his original observations exposing disingenuous political critiques and argues that proper, truthful discussion of differing sentiments strengthens public discourse, while critiquing the reply's mutilated logic and lack of candor.
Notable Details