Staunton Vindicator

The editors of the Spectator and ourselves must agree to differ on the question of the duty and responsibility of editors. - Nor do we perceive that the examples quoted of the editors of the National Intelligencer, and three exchanges, illustrate the question between us, even by precedent, (which is always a bad mode of argument in ethics, equally condemned by reason and scripture.) We suppose no one will deny that the editor is responsible for his own editorials. Nor do we understand that the Intelligencer and the other papers referred to having noticed the subject editorially, question their responsibility to the advocates of Camp-meetings, and to the public, for the sentiments they have seen fit to utter against the propriety of such meetings. Our proposition is, simply, that the editor of a newspaper, who admits into his columns an anonymous production, assailing individuals or communities (especially without comment,) is just as responsible for it as for his editorials, either legally or morally. That he is so legally no one who knows the law of slander or libel doubts, and it is proper that the press should be cognizant of the fact. That he should be held so morally, deeply concerns the purity of the press and the peace of society. Without such responsibility, the freedom of the press would degenerate into licentiousness, and the characters of the purest men, and the most innocent ad useful association, would be no protection from insult and abuse. The illustration put by the Spectator, showing its own course in reference to a piece signed "Justice," published in its columns the week before, contains no argument. It is a mere comparison of itself with itself - a justification of one by another - and we can only reaffirm the opinion, (not assailed by the illustration,) that the editor was just as responsible for that publication as if it had been his own. The question between us would be greatly simplified, by the separation of it from other questions, with which the Spectator continually confounds it. The question is of responsibility - not of propriety or of public necessity. We do not pretend to determine what an editor should or should not do--that is a matter for every free agent to decide for himself. We only affirm that for what he does he is and ought to be responsible. His paper being his, he must answer to individuals and the public for its contents.

As to the piece signed "Conservator," if we misconceived it, we did so after very careful perusal and while we would be very happy to believe the author meant no attack on the Methodist Church, we can only express the belief that ninety-nine of an hundred readers would be apt to fall into the same misconception that we did, and those of that church who did so misconceive it ought not to be held to the severe accountability that the Spectator visits on "Parnassus," and others, who have naturally written under a sense of injury. But these are matters that we have nothing to do with further than, with all good men, to desire an end of such strife.

"What could the 'Republicans' do in Kansas without a row?"

"In that case, every true Southerner, whose love of party does not over reach his patriotism, will be found on the side of the Constitution and the Union."

We have rarely, if ever, seen a finer mutton than was exhibited on Saturday last, at the stall of Messrs. Wm. F. Ast & Bro. It weighed about 130 lbs. and was so fat that a lean steak could hardly be found about it. We hazard nothing in saying that for fine Beef and Mutton the Staunton market cannot be beaten.