Daily Richmond Whig

To The Editors of the Whig.

Gentlemen—You will confer a favour, by giving the following communication, addressed to the Editor of the Visitor and Telegraph, a place in your paper. It was not until about four months after the publication of "Candour's" communication, that Mr. Converse could be prevailed on to give up the name of the author, although he had been repeatedly solicited to do so. On learning his name and residence, no further doubts were entertained, of the persons and discourses to which he alluded. An anonymous attack of that kind directly, upon particular individuals, and by construction, upon a whole denomination of professing Christians, was considered wholly indefensible, be the alleged grounds of it, true or false. Our right to be heard in defence, through the same medium that furnished the means of attack, was considered unquestionable. With these views, the following reply was submitted to Mr. Converse. And although he did not consider the publication of Candour's communication wholly justifiable, and, (un'al corrected.) urged his absence in apology, yet he stubbornly refused to publish my reply, on the ground of its being too personal. To meet his views, as far as I understood them, it was agreed to omit the writer's real name and insert the title he had assumed. I was now informed, that the only condition on which my reply would be published, was, that he be at liberty to put it, (in effect,) in his own language. As I have yet to learn, that such is either the right or the privilege of an Editor, I feel compelled to look to others for favours, which in reason, can demand of the redoubtable Editor of the Visitor & Telegraph as sheer justice only. Of these facts you can form your own judgment. There is a tribunal, to which the would be irresponsible editors, and also their contributors, should be made to answer. And if you think with me on this subject, you will feel yourself fully justified in a compliance with my request.

And oblige

WILLIAM A. SMITH.

July 28th, 1829.

TO the EDITOR of the VISITOR AND TELEGRAPH.

Mr. Converse—In your paper of the 3d of January last, you published an article over the signature of "Candour." Of this piece you gave Jno. C. Reid of Lynchburgh as the author. Believing myself to be particularly alluded to by the writer, as the "certain preacher" who some short time previous had undertaken to explain the discipline of his church; and if so, knowing that my remarks were entirely misrepresented, I thought it my duty to communicate the same to him. This was done as early as possible, and as I conceive, in a respectful manner, first by mail, and afterwards through the agency of the Rev. Wm. J. Waller, and E. Cannon of Lynchburg. Mr. Reid however, apparently forgetful of the character of the Christian and the gentleman, in terms of the most sovereign contempt, and in the most uncourteous and vulgar manner, declined giving me any satisfaction whatever on the subject: assuring me in his reply, "that he would not turn on his heel to gratify me in a single iota," and when Messrs. Waller and Cannon called on him with a further communication from me, he positively refused to accept it, and treated them with a degree of rudeness, unknown in genteel life.

Under these circumstances, sir, as you have unfortunately given this invidious communication a place in your paper, I feel it incumbent on me, to bring the writer, (through the same medium) before the public, as responsible for the truth of it, with a statement of the reasons that induced the belief that I am therein particularly alluded to, and also the ground on which I shall rest the vindication of my remarks, from the representation he has given of them.

The explanatory remarks on the subject of discipline, in which, the writer states the "preacher" took a view of the discipline of sister churches, were made, to use his own language, by "a certain preacher, not long since in my neighbourhood." On the 21st of December last, I delivered a discourse in Lynchburg, on the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and for the purpose explanation I took a passing view of a few particular features of the system of discipline, adopted by the Baptist, the Presbyterian and the Episcopalian Churches, &c." Let it here be observed: Mr. R's communication bears date the 3d of January last. The discourse to which he alludes, he says, was delivered some short time before, and in his neighbourhood. My discourse was delivered on the 21st of the preceding month. Mr. Reid resides in Lynchburg. My discourse was delivered in Lynchburg, and not many doors from the house he occupied." Moreover, another discourse on that subject, it is believed, on good authority, that any thing of the kind had been delivered, within that period, in its vicinity.

These reasons were thought sufficient to justify the opinion, that if he had any in aim at all he intended the part of his communication, above alluded to, to apply particularly to me. Any honourable writer, it was conceived, who had maliciously assailed the reputation of any man, in so covert a way, would, either frankly acknowledge the character of his allusions, when applied to by the proper person, or cheerfully correct the mistake of one, who had made a premature application of them to himself. I regret however, that Mr. Reid has thought proper to act differently. It hence becomes my duty to state, that if he did design his remarks to apply to my discourse delivered in Lynchburg on the 21st of December last, (and that he did I must believe without good evidence to the contrary,) he has egregiously misrepresented every point on which he has thought proper to write. My discourse was in manuscript at the time it was delivered. It was examined by several reputable brethren before it was delivered. They also heard it delivered, and are prepared to testify, that it was done without any material alteration from the manuscript.

A reference to this manuscript will clearly shew that he has entirely misrepresented me. And if he shall think proper to call this statement in question, I shall then feel it my duty, to submit to the public, at least that part of it, referred to in his communication.

To the charge of being "illiterate, ignorant," &c. I must say, that I find much cause to regret my deficiency, and lament the loss of much time, that might have been employed in the acquisition of more useful information than I possess.

His communication was not designed to afflict me alone, but also that important branch of the Church of Christ, of which I am a member-the government of which he is pleased to represent as a system of ecclesiastical tyranny"- and which I hold, far more sacred, than the estimation," in which I may be held by this writer and his admirers. To do this Church, (as well as myself.) an essential injury, does appear to have been an important object with the writer.

It is chiefly in this point of view, that I regard his communication worthy of my slightest notice. I assure you Mr. Editor, I very much regret the necessity that has forced me to bring Mr. Reid before the public, particularly under terms of such severe reprehension. I have sought a different and more agreeable method of adjusting this matter-but in vain.

To conclude—If Mr. R. shall make it appear that his remarks were not designed to apply to me, and that they are founded in truth, I will then most cheerfully stand corrected.

WILLIAM A. SMITH.

Petersburg, July 30, 1829.