THE REPORTER.
"'TIS PLEASANT, THROUGH THE LOOP-HOLES OF RETREAT, TO PEEP AT SUCH A WORLD-- TO SEE THE STIR OF THE GREAT BABEL, AND NOT FEEL THE CROWD."
VOL. II. NO. 50	WASHINGTON, (PA.) MONDAY, MAY 7th, 1821.	WHOLE NO. 102.

      MR. EDITOR,

      In the conclusion of his 11th number,¹ Mr. C. proposes that you should "require each party, viz: (Mr. C. and myself) to publish their names in full." A modest request truly! Does Mr. C. think it fair, that he should have the power of regulating this matter as he pleases, and after writing 11 numbers under a false signature, then to come out with his real name, and compel his antagonist to do the same, or to quit the controversy? And for what purpose? Does he expect, that Timothy's name would, if known, detract from the force of his arguments, or is he so vain as to expect that his name could add weight to his side of the question? But he says "we should then see better?" If I thought this would really be the consequence, I should have no objection: for I should not be averse to any reasonable method of improving the vision of Mr. C. as it would render my task so much the easier.

      When I read in Mr. T's 10th No.² his declarations respecting the "insinuations and malevolence exhibited against" him by "all" his "opponents," and especially, when I found him further charging me with being "not altogether innocent in these respects," I was perfectly amazed, believing that stupidity itself could not construe any thing I had written, in such a way as to give rise to such a charge. This charge I have partly answered in my last number;³ and I shall only add here, that I consider the man who will, under the mask of any assumed signature, deal in insinuations against another, who writes under his own proper signature, as acting a most base and detestable part. And if his accusations have a tendency seriously to affect the reputation of the person he attacks, I consider him no better than the midnight assassin. The office of the anonymous slanderer, is in short so vile, so execrable, so indicative of a heart destitute of all correct moral feeling, that none but the basest of men will condescend to undertake it. As Mr. C. seems to think we have noot been "altogether innocent in these respects," let us see what right he has to such an opinion. In No. 12,⁴ he says "Mr. T. tells us that his object is the preservation of public morals." This Mr. C. considers to contain an insinuation against his character and views, as if we believed and wished the public to believe Mr. C. "an enemy to public moral" & that he "delights in immorality and wickedness." Now, we must assure Mr. C. that we really never meant to insinuate any thing like this, and with due deference, we must insist upon it, that the declaration quoted by Mr. C. contains no such insinuation. If we write from good motives; does it follow that Mr. C. writes from bad ones! May not his views be pure, while the doctrines contained in his numbers are of a bad tendency, as it respects public morals? What! Mr. C. is there no possibility, that you are mistaken in your opinions? Are your talents so "formidable" & your understanding so unclouded, as to preclude the possibility of falling into error? And, must we, for the future, even forbear to mention the word morality, lest we should be thought to insinuate something unfavorable to the character of Mr. Candidus? We informed M. C. when we first commenced our review of his arguments, that we would carefully abstain from every thing personal in our remarks, and that with his "motives and character we had nothing to do." We, however believed then, and we have seen nothing from the pen of Mr. C. calculated to destroy that belief, that the tenets and observations of Mr. C. as stated in his numbers, are calculated to do injury. Under the influence of this belief, we endeavored to expose them in a proper light. This is all we meant by the declaration, that our "object, was the preservation of public morals," and we must contend that Mr. C. has evinced no common shard of sagacity in smelling out innuendos, when he found in it an impeachment of his motives of so serious a nature, as to imply "that he aimed at the extirpation of all moral order, &c." However, Mr. C. has turned these few innocent words to very good account, as they afforded him a fine opportunity to introduce a very fine quotation from Virgil, a very fine classical poet; and of saying a great many things, not quite so fine, about the "perverse hearts" and "immoral efforts, cants, &c. of his opponents--things which he has contrived to make a most wonderful flourish. Had Mr. C. understood the declaration as we intended it, and according to its own proper import, he might have spared the introduction of the four beautiful sentences each beginning with, "is it not a defect in the understanding of any man," and a great many more things of this nature which fill up almost an entire column of your paper. The following sentence deserves particular notice. "And as defects of understanding are amongst the objects of human commiseration and not of resentment and disgust, it would be incompatible with my feelings to triumph over Timothy." Such a declaration succeeding two or three long paragraphs, containing not even the shadow of an argument, is calculated to give the reader some idea of the difficulty of the task we have undertaken, so far as it respects Mr. Candidus. But, to proceed: Mr. C. having stated that the law of '94 is partial as it consults the taste of genteelfolks in large cities, &c." while it would fine the poor farmer, &c. in reviewing his objection, we quoted the law itself in express terms; and then observed, that what Mr. C. had stated concerning the law, is "exactly contrary to truth." In this Mr. C. conceives, we intended to impeach his veracity, and this supposed innuendo gives him an opportunity to furnish matter for another column. If innuendos were living things, and Mr. C should ever be sent to the hospital, an appropriate employment would not be wanting--he would most assuredly be put to catching innuendos. But we must be patient, and keep him from going there if we can. A thing may be contrary to truth, as it respects the state of things out of the mind; or as it respects the state of things in the mind; the latter only is criminal & its appropriate name is a lie: the former is sometimes called a falsehood, an error, a mistake, &c. Jacob said respecting Joseph, "he is devoured of wild beasts." This was contrary to truth, but no lie. So Mr. C's statement concerning the law, we affirmed to be "contrary to truth," yet we did not thereby impeach his veracity. Wishing, on the contrary, to put the most favorable construction on his words, we imputed his misrepresentation, not to a want of veracity, nor yet to a want or "defect of understanding" but only to a want of care; as is evident from the following sentence, in which he was advised to be more careful in future. This, we conceive, to be manifesting a disposition far enough removed from an "eagerness to impeach the veracity of C." We must again tell Mr. C. that a thought of impeaching his veracity never entered our mind, nor, indeed of impeaching his moral character in any way. Had that been our design, we would not have been guilty of what, in that case, would be an act of baseness--assuming a fictitious signature. We scorn the meanness of employing our pen, or that of another, against the reputation of any man, without giving our real name to both him and the public; and whenever Mr. C. descends to do so, we shall close our accounts with him. Mr. C. may be a transgressor of the laws of veracity, or he may not, he may be a transgressor of the laws of honor or he may not; we have to do with him only as a transgressor of the laws of argument; and as, in this respect,

till we bring him to something like common sense and common decency, or finding him past cure, give him up as incorrigible. Mr. C. will have it, that we have mistaken his meaning in what he stated in regard to the laws consulting "the taste and voluptuousness of the genteel folks," &c. We had understood him, in these expressions, as referring to the rich as contrasted with the poor. But in this, it seems we were mistaken: for Mr. C. tells us he applied the term genteel folks, "ironically to both rich and poor," &c.

would understand Mr. C. & Mr. Flint better. Mr. F. composed a rapsody, some time ago,⁵ in honor of Mr. C. (containing something about "old Neptune" and "the sea dogs," &c. &c.) which we took for irony; when the writer was serious; and now, we have taken in earnest what Mr. C. meant for irony! But if Mr. C. did not mean to contrast the rich and the poor, but to include both in the term genteelfolks, what can he mean by the laws consulting their "tase & voluptuousness." We, in our simplicity, thought that "voluptuousness and taste") which in this connection ought to mean pampered taste) were vices of the rich and not of the poor: but, it seems, Mr. C. intended to apply the description "to both." We ask his pardon for this time; but, 'till we lose our senses, we cannot be certain we shall understand him better for the future. Mr. C. concludes his remarks on the subject of the genteelfolks by saying, "Perhaps, this indeed is the sentiment of Mr. T. and therefore in order to be genteel, he makes violent efforts to be rich!" Mr. Editor, this is rather discouraging; but I have not given him up yet; for, by comparing dates, I find, that when Mr. C. composed this his last number, the moon was at or near the full; and when these paroxysms subside he will be more docile and submissive. But passing this ebulition by, we present to Mr. C. our acknowledgement of another mistake. He had, in his objection to the law of '94, said, that it would "fine the poor farmer for saving his harvest." By saving his harvest I supposed he meant saving it from being carried away from a sudden inundation, or from being destroyed by the incursions of herds of cattle; and in this, I had supposed the law would not "fine him," as his conduct would fall under the provision of the law respecting what it terms "works of necessity."⁶ But in this, too, I now find, from Mr. C's remarks in his last number, that I was mistaken, and that by saving his harvest Mr. C. really meant nothing more than gathering it in--that is to say, saving it when it is in no danger. Supposing, as I did, however, that by saving his harvest Mr. C. meant securing it from some special danger, which in that case would bring it under the denomination of "works of necessity," expressly mentioned in the law, supposing this, I say, my argument was not, that the farmer might save his harvest "because the law says nothing about it"--that kind of logic we leave for C. but; that he might save his harvest, because the law does say something about it--does expressly provide for it, by allowing "works of necessity," But, as the argument now stands, since Mr C. has told us what he meant by the phraze, "saving his harvest," we have only to observe, that the objection is glaringly false. The objection is now, that the law is partial, favouring the inhabitants of cities and bearing hard upon those of the country. Why Mr C? Because it permits the genteelfolks (all inhabiting cities, where beggars and all) to eat, and forbids the poor farmer--to eat? No, but to work, to gather in his harvest. And if it permits the genteelfolks to buy milk it permits the inhabitant of the country to sell it. If it forbids the countryman to gather in his harvest; it also forbids the citizen to sell his goods. So that, in our view, the law is not partial, unless permitting "works of necessity and charity" & forbidding those that are not so, be partiality.

      The last column of Mr. C's 12th No. is taken up in constructing a dilemma, "between the horns of which he leaves Mr. T. and the law." If the moral obligation of the 4th commandment remains, the law of Pennsylvania on this subject, is worse than solemn mockery." This is one horn. And how rotten it is, the reader has already seen. For the principle of it, is, that the legislature of Pennsylvania should not enact any law at all on the subject of morals, unless they should enact laws as long and as broad as the divine law. And this principle has been already exposed. But again: we may, and all christians do hold to the binding force of the 4th commandment, and yet they consider its obligation as not extending to the particular and minute and burdensome observance of it, as required of the Jews. So that this dilemma of Mr. C. will not avail him, unless he chooses to deny the binding obligation of the 4th commandment entirely. We presume, that Mr. C. does not observe the Sabbath in every respect as it was enjoined upon the Jews. He has fire kindled in his house, for instance, on the Sabbath. Then we retort his dilemma thus: "If the moral obligation of the 4th commandment remains," his observance of the sabbath "is worse than a solemn mockery;" "and if this is not yet obligatory," he "has no business with it." What now becomes of the formidable argument of Mr. C. which was to "level" the whole edifice of Mr. T.?

      A word as to the consistency of Mr. C. in respect to style, and we have done with the present number. We had concluded an argument in a former number with the remark "Thus, we think, that the law of '94, when properly understood, is not liable to Mr. C's 2d objection.⁷ "This Mr. C. thinks, is "vaporing," "swaggering," and want of modesty. See his 11th No. But, when he talks of his own arguments, they are to "level" all before them. O yes! and to make his antagonists "retreat" before him, and to leave them "not even the shadow of an argument." So then Mr. C. it is insufferable impudence in us even to "think" that your arguments and objections have been removed, but quite modest in you and quite becoming, to swell and look big and to pronounce the arguments advanced against you to be nothing but "a puff of noisy breath--vox et preterea nihil"--a piece of melancholy whining, cant" &c. &c. We have in our last No. suggested some observations as to the mistake into which Mr. C. has fallen respecting the alarm which he seems to think his "formidable talents" have excited: here, we cannot but observe that he seems to be no less mistaken as to the degree of penetration possessed by that public for whose instruction he writes. Egregiously mistaken he must be, if he thinks they will be imposed upon by a style of gostering bravado instead sound argument.

[The Reporter, 7 May 1821, p. 1.]