MR. EDITOR: DEAR SIR:—It is often much easier to cast discredit upon men, than to disprove their measures. It requires less mental effort to ridicule persons, than to refute principles. Sarcasm and contempt will often avail more against unpopular movement, than calm discussion and sound reasoning. And besides, there are those who find it much easier to write sarcastically than sensibly; who, then, can blame them if they are the only means that God and nature have put in their power? The above reflections were awakened by the perusal of an article contained in a late number of your paper, which article was, no doubt, intended to be a very severe criticism of the proceedings of the late Cleveland Convention; but which, aside from its unsupported assertions in regard to a few unimportant points, seems to have been written for the purpose of ridiculing rather than reasoning; hence it is only laughable, where it ought to have been logical. That the Cleveland Convention had its errors, both in means and ends, (what human endeavor has not?) its most sanguine supporters will not attempt to deny. But its faults must, indeed, be few, and its errors venial, if the reviewer has dragged forth to light the most prominent. Let us examine briefly in their order, these objections. First, the Cleveland Convention is charged with introducing "new men" into the arena of of public life. None of the mighty men of old—the sages of renown, were there, or if present, it was only as idle spectators. Admitting that the charge of "novi homines" is true, does it follow that the measures adopted were unwise, or the ends proposed, impracticable? It is a very easy, as well as a very ancient method of ratiocination to conclude that whatever has not yet received the sanction of those in high places, must be wrong. Eighteen hundred years ago, the same spirit prompted the enquiry, "Have any of the Rulers or the Pharisees believed
on him?" But, on the other hand, the men who were the prime movers in this matter, have long been before the public as tried and faithful laborers in behalf of our elevation. Again, and secondly, our reviewer calls it a "Convention of Pittsburghers," and says "Out of one hundred and forty persons present in the capacity of delegates, eighty were from Pittsburgh and vicinity." It seems a pity to spoil the force of a sentence so highly figurative, and rounded with such artistic skill; but the printed report of the proceedings gives only forty-seven delegates actually present from Pittsburgh and vicinity, and shows that ten other States, and the Province of Canada West, were represented by a delegation of fifty-four. Alas! it is to be feared that reviews as well as "State Papers," are sometimes "written in a dream, whilst dormant volition can exercise no control over errative fancy, nor the realities of actual life, bound in its vagaries." Mistakes in historic quotations may arise from the errors of authors. Mistakes in philosophy may result from incorrect premises, or insufficient data. Under such unfavorable circumstances, a writer may be "false in history, false in philosophy, and false in his logical conclusions," and yet stand partially excused; but the mistake that counts eighty units, where there are but forty seven, is—is—is quite another affair.

Of reviewer's third objection, more anon.

Yours truly,

F.