New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-09-07
The >.u.york Observer and IT. l.


.-;cla f,oro T L on Prot. Bash and DAVIS
,.bcb re COPY unsolicited from the Ne'r- York %
.sr We presume this il the last Of the oontro-
49, and tia, our readers will generally be glad
- .ssit We should have given il al an earlier day
hit for the pressure Of Foreign Intelligence. 20
fsrs. il relates 70 Prof Bash and Dsvss DOCK We
have nothing % say. bat is statements with regard
N The Tribune demand passing notice
7, o,sns xitb the assertion that the winter -
q, ~. o,, n The Tribune The reader vii nsi1-
= 80, this Or some kisired article vas o. 4
- .. e, insertion bat nothing ike this Is the
E.. T 7 has written many articles or The /
-r1,,s often Of what seemed u Is unreasonable /
,.,,b and on themes that did not appear % 7s AZ
,-on5stely discussed after his fashion IN aaiiy
..r,,sner bat We think we never refused inser- +
no, 70 one Of them This complaint Of being shut /
IN, must be based wholly on oar remark accom- /
-, hi. ls,t pro,rscted and savage attack on
Prof Bash, as follows
st.if Prof Bush 81 % tender brief reply p it-
n irarufsfions Of n l. We VIII endearor t1 nlss-
roou iar IL. but iol any farther el-,I9. RI d..
~. orr voluntary connection w1th those msiter. 49,
over when bad Eiven jar 'y1ot ,' nc P-'F- ~
uroroirent features q DaViss loo.-
rroo, ,bis Prof Bush saw III 70 send ne q long
reoly instead Of the brief one preferred ard ~
published il. and we are very sure 4 L. had DO
donb. of the acceptance Of any article from his pen
m longer than the one copy today He came
>, on, office and read Proc Bash. article IN proof
,ii,s several DAYS before We were able % find room
for and then remarked that he might wish To re-.
s,ond briefly. 70 which We made 10 objection To
our partner he said nearly At the same time that
a I.lN.l ID
Davies book. he did not think he should pursue The
matter farther-The next Ne heard irlm him vas
through the column. Of the Observer as we copy
today.
One more point T l. closes by a fling al our
.impsrtisl columns complaining thst We allowed
Fisbbough and Prof Bush hearing 10 our columns
svear ago with regard 70 Davis sud biz hesmere
Lectures 50 we did But does be allow ms
readers 70 understand that We knew nothing Al me
time Of the theology and general driit OF these Leo
TIRES unless by vague report and that all ~e have
ever done in the premises Was % let our readers
know what all this noise was about by directing
ono os o,r Assistants 20 read the book soon az
nrin.ed and give an impartial summary Of ifs con-
teuts We did not mean that this review should
axceed three columns a. farthest but the reviewer
made II longer saving he must 80 90 or give no lsr
id.sa If what was in the book. m publishing ms
sr,nmary. we thought we were doing service 10
all parties who took interest in DAVIS, whether
they deemed him revealer. an imposteT or simply
q mesmeric youth speaking in trance. hanule's
might have bought the book IN Ignorance OF us
Theological bearings and been greatly revolted py
them but surely no one bought i after reading
our review without knowing IT'S character Inat
our Assistant may have spoken iavoraoiy Q. D"
manner is quite likely bot that lie utlmsted any
fai,L in Davis as a revelator spoke in commend
alton If hi. theology. we DO not find. Our Uniform
rule with regard to works on theological or kindred
topcss to state what they profess to set forth or
attempt to establish without affirming or denying
the soundness Of the doctrines adv anced but di'-
cussing literary characteristics only. We have
seen no reason to depart from this course win re-
gard to Daviss book .,
And now to the Neu York Obserrer. We VII
! begin by correcting mistake OF our own. Iha'
pauer asserts and we concede without seeing me
evidence that il has recently published favorable
account a, some length ofthe Orthodox Communis'
| establishment known as the German Ebenezel
Society We have long been acquainted win 'n'
Observer. and never saw an article IN It's column
fsvoring any form OF Socialism, but We are very
/ glad that one such has appeared there IL VIII .
those so fortunate as 10 ind IT, afford an onset "
the Editors conspicuous proclamations Of 90 r our
ierism Dying Out" founded on change I'D u'
constitution Of Social experiments that never "s''
nor pretended 70 be Fourierist.
| Bnttb Observer man. after declining % unit'
with ne in getting up tract which should set tort
in the brefest space the Pro and Con Of this foul
ierism 50 called talks efhis exposure. year az
Of the essential RIGHTEOUSNESS and inhdelity
Fourierism." which he says designs ' 70 make tn
animal passions the guide Of human conduct So
&c talk. Of The Tribanes zeal 10 circulate IN
; mesmerc bible OF Davis and some more Oose
yer pety and truthfulness Of like nature takes o
: our former statement that Prot Bush having bee
{ attacked in the Observer was refused a hearin
z in his own defence and thereuPon applied to u
and thus first involved The Tribune in this contr
. versy which it deals with as follows
The Editor q The Tribune knows, and Al the time
Whiting the above he knew, tasf the prec Sc opposite
Prot Bush as 10 i. called Prot asked column of Cd
paper for reply u was granted, aid be oceupied Two
This repeatedly stated the time. bug because We
ercsed the right which The Tribune does n shut
70 out CORES oudrli when be has 10 claims % iat
hearing The Tribune makes The statement above II Goa
not b. made b aug who nad sag OF moral lhi.
% iiol reu4-iuing
= Our only answer to this gentlemanly and Chr
o ten paragraph shan be the following ststeme
( from Prof Bush on which We cheen1iiy rest
q To tAs Editor OF The Tribusss
With view o. contribute truth ul ststemeniot .
feet. 10 respect TO the Mr. York Obsr1s high sssutn
= tons of Justice ard generosity In the matter OF puois
ina my srtice on Davis last Winter allow me 20 ssy m
ID PROT Lewis informed tbs; be hst prepared Tor
20 Obsrrsr communication rAignirg my paper 90
! subjeci which appeared Lille before 10 IL Irbr
= then inmsed ~ him thai this would Be unfair FOL
knew ron the policy OF tina, paper TIA, II would Dc l.
possible for 10 su; admission for fepy AZ tue
I. forious principle Of tne Esiior wherever man
e an opinion De pat down. 10 permit only one q
10 % heard that while was perfectly Indifferent "
Prot. Lewis or any one else might write, PROVIDE
e could reply - IL thought II wss unorotheriy
Ar him enter the columns OF paper from va
Z I should infslliby be excluded. Professor Lev
. saw the force OF inis and accordingly made con
dtOn Of the Of his rtce that shoald Pr
legged 10 reply. This was the ole ground 90 which
opportunity accorded 10 for which QUE SUI
thanks the Editor for after I'll he complained OF oe
s etter-d 10 his freedom and nothing but the eomput
o' Of his promise secured Insertion The sur
- anorare1 md to we'd 5y lOng i1lnl