Arkansas intelligencer., 1845-03-29
BISHOP oNDERDONK.


The case of this prelate has occupied large
share Of public attention for some time past. and.
now that the report Of the trial has appeared. We
suppose that conversation upon the whole subject
will be increased. Notwithstanding the nature of
tho details, the book tciH Be read and the people
seiR make up and express their opinion Of the guilt
or innocence Of the Bishop and Of the character OF
his sentence, from their impressions OF tho test.
mouy given before the tribunal which passed iudg.
mept on the case. We have no wish 10 start
controversy on this matter, but ia common with
others will take the liberty Of stating our own I'M
prcssons Of the case, derived from the reading Of
ihs substance Of the Report. Without going into
detas, the recital Of which would be useless, we
will simply express tie opinion that We are sur.
priscd iha, any man. much less one whose charac.
Ter has stood so fair that Of Bishop Onderdonk,
could be convicted on the evidence recited in the
Report II is certainly very confused, contra.
diciory and Inconsistent; and one would think that
the most unchortab Of those who sat in judg.
ment on the acc used would feel obliged to give him
the benefit of the doubts 10 which the natu re of the
testimony was certainly calculated to give rise.
We shall not dwell on the gIaring discrepancies
in the evidence OF persons teslifyIng in regart to
the same fact-or Of the singuiar forgettulness of
some of the witnesses, who could not remember
facts that might be Of advantage 10 the accused
It strikes US strange, however. that one of the
witnesses should consent to receive ordination at
the hands Of man who, the evening before the
ceremony, had grossly insuted his wiie-it seems
strange that that wife, who alleges that she left
the side of the Bishop because Of his rudeness.
should not remember whether she went back TO
sit with him after the insult and during the same
Journey. 1t is wonderful that young lady, who
had been insuIted by the Bishop. should tell her
sister Of her wrong, Immediately after ii vas done.
and send that sister to enlertain the insullcr--
more wonderful tha, that sister shoud 60 and en-.
tertain him-and mos, wonderful of Nil that he
should, three several times in one afternoon, COM
init acts Of rudeness toward the lady who was en-.
tertaining him. All this is not more wonderful
than the fact proven. Of another witness, and her
husband, who after being grossly insulted by the
Bishop, imporiuned him 10 come 10 their house
and dine.
But the most unac countable fact in oil this tes.
,mony is, that the mpropricles of the Bishop
were not accompanied by seductive words, or IN
fact anu kind of iroris, so far as ws have read
and oil this bad behavior Except perhaps on one
occason) is alleged 10 have taken place in cOnpa-
ny, and uhen the husbandsO or bro1hers Of lie injur
ed uere present. 1t wouldseem that carriages were
the chosen vehicles ofthe Bishop in which TO car.
ry on his rude proceedings. One Iady's husband
was in the carriage with her when she says he in
suited her-,hat was in the dusk Of the evening"
nnothor of the insultcd was in the carriage with
her husband, in daylight when abused-whiIe the
brothers of third were present or in an adjoin-
ing hall, and the doors open, when she suffered
from the Bishops rudeness. As slhey state il, the
Bishops conduct was utterly silly and without mo-
sive-for they do no, sny that his rudcness, in any
cnse, was either proceeded or foi'oued up by word
or deed which showed that he entertained crim.
nal designs.
Such being the gist Of the evidence, we repen'
that we are surprised at the Bishops convictions:
TO say the least. there is much room for doubt, Of
which his lrers should have given the advantage.
And we are free to say. that we believe Bishop
Onderdonk 10 be entirely innocent, both in deed
and in ,hought.-Pinsburg morning Post.