The Litchfield County post. [volume] (Litchfield, Conn.) 1826-1829, 1826-12-19

That he has erred in several particulars APP
pears TO us most apparent.
First. He inslnuates that he was consulted
hut once, and that tut few DAYS previous To
his visiting N. L. We wish nothing further
to do away this insinuation than his own vol
untary declaration in the hearing Of uniln-
! peachabie testimony, which we are able to
produce. In the first interview with him he
| expressed Willingness to give Il course of LEG
tus.s on some subject, but wished few DAYS |
| to reflect before he defined what would be !
most agreeable to lecture upon. In the second |
interview our object was, to learn what sub |
ject we should attach TO his name.
eddy. He states that he expressly declined |
having any thing to do with the institution"
I If we had not already taken our present po-
sitiOn and excused his errors, our feelings at
| this declaration might be unmanageahle. Had
he stated that he declined giving a regular
course of lectures, at the second interview
with us, we should not have objected to it /; but
this is one thing, and having nothing to do with
the institution is quite another. Since this diff
ficuity has arisen, he las acknowledged in the
hearing of good evidence, what will altogeth
er overthrow this declaration. Indeed his first
notice alone is sufficient to do it away entirely,
for nEthat he only notifies, that he shall give not
regular course of lectures but he consented.
Fat the same time to fulfil what ks. Intended toy
Eexpress in the circular as stated In our expla-t
knation. And will he pretend to evade this bys
ssaying that it was g written principally by
us - Would he attempt to impose upon our
understanding. by insinuatng that he is not
| answerable for the fulflnlent or correctness OF
an instrument, to which he voluntarily affxes
his name, merely because that instrument
was written by a second or third per-
son! IF this principle could Stand, its con-
| sequences would be rninous indeed society
must cease to exist. It IS true that we express
sed decided edsapprobation of the first no. |
tice, to which he refars, and pointed to him
its improperly and incorrectness of which |
he appeared sensible. We also declared to
him that if he wished to withdraw his name,
| we should have no objection, only that it ought
to be done decently and correctly. Then at
| his particular request we composed a notice,
which he took and after reading, wrote anoth-
er, of different character, with his own hand
which he finally published and this is what he
calls principally written by u.s.
Thirdly. That part of his notice which re-
lates to his giving lectures, we win refer to
the explanation that has already been given,
land will only say that we think him little uni
kfair by reciting but a part of the circular that
has reference to himself Had he quoted the
whole, it would of itself have confuted his in |
situation.
The DIR. once more in the same paragraph |
asserts, as if at any rate we should now under |
stand him, that he ''declined in the most posi-
tive manner having his name connected with
| the institution" We regret extremely thatd
our ears were so dull of hearing, and we of9
| course SO unfortunate as not even to snspcctY
! that such declaration had been made. Wed
understood him, and we think clearly, to givee|
| the influence of his name. If he did not, w hereS
was the propriety or connection in saying ats
this time, and even a. afterwards, that he choses
nothing but his bare name inserted? Where
insaying that the influence of his name could !.
be given, if he did not givea regular course Of
lectures Where of engaging to call down oc- d
casionally, and make such remarks as appears
ed to him useful and correct? Does this looks
| like having "nothing to do with the institu-
| ton J" That he assented to these points we
have good evidence by bis own acknowledge
ment in the hearing of a substantial witness.
five received not the impression he nten-
ded to make, be it so but still we cannot
lfeel that he is justified in his statements or
conduct in this affair, even though h- intended
| that we should understand him differently
Had he conducted according to our sense Of
propriety, he would, when he felt dissatisfied, |
| have mentioned it to us, especially since we
| were together part oftwo days, after he had
| seen the circular. But instead ofthis, we had |
not the least suspicion that all was not agree
able, until very few hours before his notice
was published, indeed not until the first was
in type and the proof-sheet struck, and then
were indebted to friend for our information
We Immediately sought the DR.. and made
the reasonable request, that he would suspend
it for one week, that he might reflect more
| thoroughly before he should take such an un4
warrantable, and unnecessary step, which he
g declined in the most decided manner" We
then pointed to him the errors of his state
ment, in consequence Of which the alteration
was made.
AS for Mr.. Barnes he merely acted as Sec
| rotary, and the circumstance Of the Dr.'s not
having been consulted by Messrs. Brace and
Russell affords not even the semblance of IN |
excuse.
1t was principally out of politeness and good
| feeling to him that we made the proposal u |
we lament that our attentions have drawn |
down upon us his Indignation.
! Other facts might be adduced, but we spare |!
the DIR. and would neither give him nor his |
family the pain of perusal.
! With these remarks we shall dismiss the
subject entirely, and give the DIR. full liberty |
| to calumniate us in what manner and by what |
means he prefers, and when he is satisfied we |
will still forgive and only saw that it was an |