New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-10-21
An Examination Of Dir. Ph-ker's CARD

As YOU have published the card OF DIR.
p.pyrI which has also appeared in The Journal Of
Cormerce and in several other pspers. WI you 20 M
the favor TO give inserOn also 70 the following rearN'
in reply: .;-o
have 70 ssy that such letters were sent 70 by Prof.
STOWE. did not know OF their existence or tnat tnsy
ever had been written. They were oT7ined but not
b. PARKER falls into precisely similar omission, in
liz publication OF the documents OF this snT In me
OBs,yrfr Of Oct T. The letter of Mr.. Srows, % me,
1nd nv letter to Mrr STOWE in relation pectvey to
her card. and the substituted correspondence, were
both Of them omitted ia Dr. PARKERs series OF letters
The Gaze stsnGs then that there letters on boh
sides of which the other party was ignorant am 20
omitted TO publish; for do DR.. PARKER the justice TO
believe that he did not know of the existence OF the let
ters which he omitted. So
DIR P,RKyR besides the assertion that he did not give
ne any sort Of permission 10 publish the letter. ap
nends -four letters 20 hs card for the purpose OF show
ing that there il in them alusion 10 his having
signed or consented TO the publication OF these ,er
!. The first letter is his own to Dr. STOWE, written
few hours after interview. The only sentence IN
bearing upon the point il this But An hour before re-
ceiving il prof SrowE's letter. had friendly inter-
view with Rev H. w. BEEcHER-an interyie" whic a
seems to me to promise an amicsbie sdJu-tm@nt
DR. PARKERs silence as 20 approval o: these letters
IL a presumption that he did not approve them then ms
silence as 10 the rGy fat that such letters were
drawn up in his study Is presumption against thsr
existence This presumption OF silence, II proves
ANYTHING proves too much, in a letter which men
tons 10 details whatever but only the mere TACT oil
en- interview. $1,000.
IL As 20 Mr. BUrLFR's letter II may be remarked taat
il contains four points. !. cOrTOboraion oil my a,
count of the interview with him. distinct recosnl
ton If the fact that he understood t1at these letters
were for publication. 3 That be did not expect INC
letiers 10 be published until DR. PARKER had c0nierrei
with him respecting them l. But that ibis expectation
Of seeing DR. PARKER before publication did not arise
from ANYTHING IN conversation but from hs -ense Of
the propretes which exist between counsel aud
This head his language il decisive have no recolec
tion that YOU told that DR.. PARKER would consult
me on tic subject but my expectation tnai he would DO
30 was the necessary result of the relations OF client
end counsel existing between him and myselL
In Mr. Buffers position do not see how ne coull
have written amOre impartial or honorable letter, an
il j. entirely satisfactory TO me
ILL., Ny silence respecting DR.. Parker a.-ent, IN my
letter 70 Mr. STOWE, Is scarcely deserving remaI x
fince il is plain that such letter could have hai no eA
itence unless suppo.ed DR.. PARKER to have accepted
this core. poudcnce. II was ting taken Tor gran'e l.
and the letter persuasion OF Mr.. STOVES assent -
that which tie whole letter impe, Dr. PARKER had as,
,eIted TO The very idea Of -cning for her approval
letter. which Dr. PARKER did not Ike, and OF per qua l.
ing her 20 agree 10 documents which the other -de
/ might then reject is absurd. Mr. BUrLERs iiea was
reasonable enough viz That Dr. PARKER had as-en;ed
10 tic letter that Mrs STOVES consent was 70 be Oh
tanned and that then, formal signature was TO be e
iecied But DR. PARKERs view, viz Ihht he did not
like the letters that they were 10 be modined ana yet
that they were 20 be sent 10 Mr.. STOWE Tor her APP
provsl aud back for further changes after her
signature will not bear moments investigation.
HENRY WARD BEECHER