I suppose this is often caused by your selecting articles
with a view to connect remarks of your own with them, which afterward in
your haste you omit. Then we complain that each paper is not so nearly a
complete work in itself as it might be made, but that things are often
left at loose ends, and important matters broken off in the middle. I
assure you, that Brother Harriman is not the only one of the friends of
the _Liberator_ who grieves over your 'more anon' and 'more next
week'--which 'anon' and 'next week' never arrive.
"Then we complain that your editorials are too often wanting, or else
such, from apparent haste, as those who love your fame cannot wish to
see; that important topics, which you feel to be such, are too often
either entirely passed over or very cursorily treated, and important
moments like the present neglected....
"We have our suspicions, too, that good friends have been disaffected by
the neglect of their communications; but of this we can only speak by
conjecture. In short, it appears to those who are your warmest friends
and the stanchest supporters of the paper, that you might make the
_Liberator_ a more powerful and useful instrumentality than it is,
powerful and useful as it is, by additional exertions on your part. It
is very unpleasant to hear invidious comparisons drawn between the
_Liberator_ and _Emancipator_ with regard to the manner of getting it
up, and to have not to deny but to excuse them--and we knowing all the
time that you have all the tact and technical talent for getting up a
good newspaper that Leavitt has, with as much more, intellectual ability
as you have more moral honesty, and only wanting some of his (pardon me)
industry, application, and method.
Pages:
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358