Wheeling Daily Intelligencer

Comments of the Editor of the Times on Our Report.—The Editor of the Times says that we always avail ourselves of an opportunity to caricature his remarks at public meetings, or elsewhere: that in our report of the little emeute between him and one of the delegates from the 1st Ward, in the Convention the other day, we conveyed an impression not warranted by the occurrence.

Now, to use our neighbor's own language, "however much we might dislike him personally," we would not be thought as willing to do him any injustice. The truth is, we don't dislike our impetuous neighbor half so bad as he thinks we do: we know he's a little rash—a little hasty; but we think he will come off all that, as the horse jockeys say. If our neighbor will point out when we have done him injustice, we are ready with the amende honorable. But we will leave it to any three members of that convention, to decide whether or not we did not report that little "scene" correct. Does our neighbor pretend to say that the "scene" did not occur?

The facts are just these: Mr. Vincent called the attention of the convention to an article in the Times of Monday, stating that the 1st Ward delegates were instructed. Mr. Vincent said that it was a mistake—for the meeting by which he had been appointed a delegate, had not issued any instructions. He proceeded (as we represented him at the time) to tell how the second meeting occurred. After Mr. Vincent got through, the Editor of the Times got up and detailed at length, the reports which had reached his ears. We gave the substance; perhaps we should say the creme de la creme of his remarks: and it amounted to an insinuation that the first meeting was an irregularity—a Peter Funk sort of a gouge—and that a delegate or delegates had been sent pledged—not only pledged, but suborned by the spoils, to vote for Mr. Dorsey.

That was just what we and everybody else in the Convention, we venture, understood the gentleman to say. Such would seem to have been Mr. Vincent's idea, for he came right over to where the editor of the Times was sitting, and he carried on a very animated and emphatic conversation with the said editor. It may have been "in the best possible spirit," perhaps, but judging from the contracted brow, and the impatient gesticulation of the aforesaid editor, we certainly thought it did not operate soothingly. That may be only a way of the Editor's, however. Mr. Vincent went to his seat, and in a few moments got up, evidently dissatisfied with the result of his position before the Convention, and in his place referred to the insinuations or charges made by the said editor— and then and there pronounced the said charges, so far as related to himself, a "black falsehood." Now, that's the long and short of the matter. When he (Vincent) so pronounced it, the before mentioned editor got excited, and said to Dr. Bates, in an excited but low tone, "tell the Convention that it was him (Vincent,) I meant."

Whereupon, Vincent, rising up and approaching the table, remarked: "it's false!" A little while after this, Mr. V. happened near us, and judging from some of his comments, he rather disagreed with our Monroe street "comrade in arms," that the "scene" "passed off in the best possible spirit."

So much for our neighbor's comments upon our report.