New-York daily tribune., 1845-02-20
THE TRIBUNE.


THE TRIBUNE.
BISHOP HUGHES rs EDITOR BENNETT.
TO the Editor Of The Tfi1nDe:
The pon; put you by a Subscriber in relation 10 TINS
,,,o,abe case Is not think. question of the Liberty
Of the Press and this is phrase which may mean al
most any thing nothing remove it out of your way
mus, facilitate the answer the opinion, suppose you
neda,ng Tor your correspondent. The case seems to
,nrn upon two questions, somewhat definite and
pncit:
ls, Does or does not: the public announcement mads
and the free invitation gwen ali avail themselves of
preachers Instruction. imply surrender OF his discourse
10 Rnlited publicity? Tie affirmative, from the mere
condition Of the oral publication, would seem to have
been intended ray, more: from the nature OF his
object TO have been mainly desired II so. 1t Is nor easy
20 see how by merely CARRYING this his official design
obnoxious newspaper do the preacher Hrong
The other question isIas, not the Bishop been re-
ported correctly? Herein lie may, undoubtedly be wrong
ed l,crary and legally. But, being matter OF fact 1t
for the injured 10 show ii.
there has been ground for complaint In this part-
cuar am inclined believe. have CHANGED 10 read IN
Sunday Herald, few paragraphs Of the discourse III
question, Transubstantation. The Bishop undertook
reute the objections Of Philosophers with when tac-
cordng 10 the Reporer he seemed but cumsiy cehVcr-
SAINT. .
Discussing the principle of the endless divstiy" of
matter lie called II merely the "dirsbHt and plumpy
denied ito astonishmet, should suppose. of such oi
auditors not more largely gted with iah tan
reflection. Nor coad this have well been n inadverency
which s:i b,ameabe; IL repeated uniformly and
above dozen times perhaps In the argument.
Also, aludng tothe ultimate, or prmordia particles
into which is supposed rcsolvabe, the learned Lee
urr terms them the "monads, by evidently gross
nIsapIrehenson cf the latter doctrine In tne the arsu
ment seemed conclusive against himself than against
his unbeeving antagonlssthat Is AS far as 1t was, cor
was left by Reporter) visible through the cloud OF
'monals. atoms, "accdents. sulstrata. &c that
danced" through this part Of the Discourse III all the
mazes OF metaphNsici confusion.
Now without deeming Bishop Hughes more profound in
these proane than Bishop ought 10 be, ain sure
he has 100 much taste aud seli-esteem not TO have
canmed Of cram he Ins) more correctly for the occa
sion Unlike tile rival whom Bennett has given him. 10y
the hy with malicious archness that conveys satire at
upon both the Doctors the Bishop has the sense ana
sagaciy past decent disguise over the eretica vanity
Of scholarship. Y.
Remarks
We had mol proposed 10 give any opinion at all
on the matter discussed by "A Subscriber, but on
this second appeal we will say that there is gene
raj and fair presumption, when public teacher or
lecturer adverses that he will speak on specified
tepc that he is willing if not desrous that his views
should receive the widest publicity. On the strength
of that presumption, we usually feel at liberty TO
give synopsis or even an extended report OF any
public address But whenever speaker gives no.
tce that, for reasons satisfactory 10 himself, he
chooses not TO be reported, we feel bound TO res
pect his wishes
There was an English decision some two orthree
years ago to this effect that public Lecturer could
aot legally prevent reports OF his Lectures-that
they become public property by the act OF his de-
livering them. We deem this a most vicious deci-
aion, based upon the same error which has IN all
ages deprived authors OF their rights by giving them
copyright for limited term instead oi common
law protection for their property. The man who
whites a Poem has as clear natural right TO be-
qreath an enduring property in 1t to his children as
The man who builds mill or drains swamp has
TO leave that to his children But the law unusty
that the man who discovers, improves, constructs,
shall have perpetual property in the thing discov
cred improved, constructed, while ne who creates
work calculated to instruct and bless mankind
finds his right OF property in his own work restrict
ed both in time and space This should not be So
The scholar who gives his best years, his best et
forts, TO literary production, has perfect ma
iural right 10 read it as lectures, without al allIm-
nairing his right to publish 1t aerward in book
The law should correspond with this dictate OF JUS
tice. in the case of theological or any important
and difficult investigation, the reason why the
rule oi Law snoulu conform 10 tnat Oh hlsht, Is
strklngly shown. clergyman breaches dis
course explain and defend some important but
Inexperienced doctrine of his Church. news
paper reporter, utterly untitled by his total ignor
ance OF theologic science and even Of its terms to
report correctly such discourse, is sent in and
gives what he calls correct repor. of it But that
report will almost inevitably abound in grave er-
rors, obscurng and peUertiag the speakers mean
ing, and thus holding HIM up 10 the doctors OF his
sect as ulsound in faith and teacher OF heresy--
Worse than this, simple persons may be misled 10
believe and persist in error, believing that he has
taught it for truth We deem it in every way un.
lust thus 10 exhibit him. Give every man the lib
erty OF choosing his own mode and channel Of
communication with the public. Ed.
MuSc.--Atwin col broadway. has published a Sol
dies Lie, and 'Ncer lei the heart for sorrow greve.
he Onnra oC tho Rohemian