Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-11-20


where, such a sentiment; nor did | ever en-
tertain such a sentiment towards the Cleve-
land American, or any other anti.slavery pa
per. | must have been entirely misunder-
stood by Mr.. Brooke. / remember, upon
the occasion referred to, Mr.. Foster, in tho
catalogue Of charges made against the Liber-
ty party, had one in relation TO your paper,
that ii had misrepresented himself and assoc
%ciatos, perhaps in relation to a meeting they
had held in Unionville and that you had re-
fused to admit a communicated from him in
reply. | remarked that the affair was a per-
sonal one between Mr.. Foster and the editor
Of your paper; and respecting the merits Of
which the audience could not Judge, not hav-
ing yet heard your version of the natter
Mr.. r. then inquired whether | would sus-
tain a paper opposed to free discussion, &c.
&c. | intended throughout the discussion TO
give a direct answer to every question propo-
sed and remember answering all the ques-
tons upon this subject very decidedly in Ia
vor Of free discussion. insisted that your
paper had always while | had been acquain-
ted with II ii been cfthat character. | sugges-
ted that it was your right and duty TO regard
the phraseoloqy, the manner, and subject
matter of all communications, as you were
responsible for the paper. and the character
of which would otherwise be beyond your
control. | think Mr.. r. asked me if would
sustain a party | knew to be opposed TO free
dom Of the press, and were sustaining an ed
itor knowing him to be opposed to the free
DON Of the press; to which, | Of course, an
swcred in the negative-bu,, in none of my
remarks, conceded the business of MI. Fos-
ter's charges against the American, or any
other Of the Liberty papers.
! have written the Bugle, and presume
they will correct the statement Of Mr.. b. in
their paper.
Very respectfully, yours &c, &c.
NJ. SUTLIFF.
The foregoing letter l wrote when my
mind was for the first time called to the sub
jet after the discussions; and then gave my
best recollection Of the matter. | do not pre-
tend to have given the language used by Mr..
Foster, or myself; nor the substance in all
particulars but / do think the foregoing a
fair and substantially correct statement Of my
remarks in relation TO the Cleveland AmeIi-
can.
1t is idle for Mr.. Foster TO attempt to sus-
,ain Mr.. Brooke, by saying that he has a dis
hnct recollection Of hearing me cypress the sem
timent attributed to me. / know that | new
er entertained, or expressed the sentiment at
tributed to me by Mr.. Brooke and Mr.. Fos-
ter either hnOWs This, o. that MS mon statement
is entirely erroneous. Let US place the two
in juxtaposition
Nr. Brooke-"Roferting TO the remark that
the Liberty party was responsible for the
course and character of the Cleveland Amer
lean, Milton Sutliff said, IT | supposed the
Liberty party understood the character of that
paper and continued 10 support it, l would
abandon the party"
Dr.. Fos.er-'But, said I, the party s~ustains
MIR. Rice and enables him to carry on his
mean and cowardly warfare upon the Anti
Slavery cause, and you sustain the party
Mr.. S. did not dispute the facts alleged
against the American, nor the soundness of
the principles on which | had based my char
ges against the party, but suggested that the
party might be ignorant Of the facts, as he
had hitherto been, in which case it was not
responsible and he added that if he suppo-
sed they were generally known and the par
ty would still continue to support Mr.. Rice,
he would abandon it,"
Now can it be possible that Mr.. Foster, or
any other man seeing the two statements, that
Of Mr.. Brooke, representing me as attacking
the Cleveland American, and that of Mr.. Fos-
ter admitting that he himself brought the
charges against that paper, and that | merely
did not dispute the facts alleged by him, can
regard the two statements as similar. All
that Mr.. Foster charges me with, in relation
TO the American, is saying that if | though
the charges brought against it by him wer'
true, and generally kno,on, and the party thel
continued to support the American, l woul'
abandon the party.
As to the loss of honor by disclaiming hav
ing denounced the American, or lis editor
, intimated by Mr.. Foster, it seems to me I
have little to do with this controversy.
agree, however, with Mr.. F. that party ha
a strong biass upon any mind, and for thi
reason | would have preferred another man
statement to his own in deciding this mattel
g l have called upon Mr.. Powers, and Mr.. Tu
tie, attorneys Of this place, and members
The Democratic party, and of course indiffe
ent in feeling between US, to give their stat
ments of my remarks at Mecca. l have n
yet seen their statement, but promise to ser
it when obtained, and hope it may be publisI
ed. Mr.. Foster does me injustice to suppo!
| am peculiarly devoted to party. l an NJ
more particularly identified with party ths
himself. hold it the right of every persC
TO change his politics every election, and
religion every Sunday, if truth shall seem
require the change. Position is only a mea,
Truth the great object. So too of the liber
of the press, and free discussion; | am I
;. firm friend of both. | regard them as I
eyes Of our social intelligence and will nc
er patronize a paper that is opposed to Il
liberty ina large and liberal sense nor vii
Il stand connected with a party that oppo.
this liberty.