The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1852-11-04
MISTAKE CORRECTED.
he FIJoyofibe n YoyE T,.;buoe

10 the Edgor Of The N. York Tribune
| am informed by Mrs Stowe that mistake
exists in the last letter OF hers in the published
correspondence between her and Dr. Parker in
the independent of October 7 and also in the
NeU York Observer. The whole passage fol
lowing should be left out
My DEAR SIR: There are some few thing,
in this matter that you know perfectly we'll fnl
knOU that you were satisfied of them mt til,
time we had our interview In the first place
that the remark, a. published, was published
in no personal mkindness whatever-that il
was published AZ a sentiment to be replied t.
in u dramatic argument, for everybody knows
that that is the character of the article And
your name was given, SIMPLY as the name of IL
leading man who was known to have publicly
advanced that sentiment. had no possible
means OF knowing that the sentiment was not
yours, and the very strongest evidence for be-
lleying that 1t was since you had allowed it IN
silence TO become historical document. You
know, and | know, that Won have used Ian
guage which, when placed side by side with
what quoted, is such that not one man in ten
can be made 10 see any difference ka0w this
because have tried earnestly and sincerely to
explain to sensible men what you did mean by
the language which you admit that you used
and it has failed to produce any impression on
them, except this, that it is a jesuitical con-
struction of language by which either OF two
opposite assertions can be claimed ~ the
writer's sentiments, according TO emergencies
" ! can still publish the facts Of the case Just
as | wrote them--trst, what you did not say
second, what you did say third, the evidence
that you knew the construction which the
world was putting upon your language, and
yet you did not contradict it But | certainly
think that the whole matter IL in II more cred
liable torn to you now than if | should do so
" | have done what consider to be perfectly
honorable and fair to remove mn imputation for
which you have given too much occasion.
You know perfectly well, Mr. Parker, for
told you frankly, that did not consider my
self to have acted wrong in this matter, but
simply to have fallen into II mistake. which
your silence rendered unavoidable, and con
sdrr myself to have sand all that you can pos
sibly expect from me under the circumstances
Mrs Stowe gives the following explanation
Of the way in which the mistake occurred and
although tho letter is meant for me, and too
coOquial | prefer giving the correction in
Mrs Stoves language.
" In your expose my last letter to DR. Parker
has ono mistake which occurred in this way
Mrs. Hooker copied it for me, and Mr. Stowe
looked it over IN the copy which was sent to
DR. Parker. He desired me to have the en-.
closed omitted, AS he feared it might only tend
to produce unpleasant feeling, and do no good
Isabella omitted them in the copy sent 10 hiH,
and ! supposed, erased them from my copy
Never expecting to have them published | did
not notice 1t very particularly. When you
tclegraphed for the papers WAS in Brunswick
started next morning for Andoyer where the
papers were; got there about hafpast one !:
had only few moments to collect the papers
and be oil in the cars l(or Boston, ut o'clock
and put them in the afternoon mail had no
time to revise them, this accounts for the ms
take. Perhaps you had better, in this way
make this correction Immediately
This letter appears in the plblishcd cores
pondenco in the New York Observer, Just rs it
was in the hldc peHdcm The reason is that
DR.. Parker, having mislaid his copy of the let
ter applied to me for it, and was furnished
with it just ~ it had been sent to me-
BY Publishing this, you will perhaps save
some misapprehenslon.
HENRY WARD BEEcHER.
A Card deem it proper to say, in this
manner that it is not my design to enter into
newspaper controversy with Rev. Henry
Ward Beechcr The difficulties between me
by herself and her brother without nv knowl-
edge or consent, or that OF my legal counsel
For the unpleasant consequences that have fol-
lowed they only are responsible In respect to
Mr.. Beeoner account of the interview between
HIM and myself besides my assertion that I
did not give him any sort of permission To- pub
lish the letters, offer l. My letter to Profess
sOr Stowe, written two hours after Mr. Beccher
left my study, but omitted in MIR Becchcrs re-
port Of the correspondence; 2dly MIR Beechcr's
letter to Mrs Stowe, giving has account of the
interview 3dy, Mrs. Stoves letter 70 me, Civ
ing Dir. Becchcr'S account 10 her of tho inter
view and lthly Mr.. Buffers letter. giving
Mr.. Bcecher'S account to him of the interview
few minutes after it took place. In no one of
these four narratives is there any allusiOn to
my having signed ar consented 10 the publica-
ton of those letters. The terms in which MIR.
Beecher speaks of me in his letter 70 Mrs.
Stowe, and the explanation of his designs in
drawing up the letter for Mrs Stowe 10 sign,
sufficiently indicate MIR Bcechcrs intention IL
cannot be expected after this that | should
take any further steps toward the private set
Element Of the dispute but shall receive and
entertain with Kindness any proposition which
may be made in the spirit Of Professor Stoves
last communication to me- This communica-
tion which is Of material interest was also
omitted in Mr. Beocher's account Of the CORES
pondence in the Independent, but will be found
in the New York Observer Of October T.
subjoin the letters referred to above, and
request those papers which have printed Mr..
Bechers statement 10 copy this card, with the
appended communication. JOEL PARKER.
]. Ny letter 10 Professor Stowe.
New YoRK, Wednesday, June 9, 1852
DEAR SIR: Your very kind note of the 9TH