Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-05-14
SALEM, CoLUMBANA CO.. OHIO, MAY Ia, 1853

- ss--s
that tho mother was told that when the child
should nrriye at the admissible nge, il would
be received? And further, too, that seven
coored persons have been admitted to the
Institution since?
Such ia the first untrue answer to my first
dsproof which be accompanies, also, with n
retinue of other uniruths.s
9. The State Normal Schools, too, were
Public Institutions, supported and managed
wholly by the State. As n public officer OF
the State, | was one of the Visiting Commit
toe. My residence was in Boston, as Mr..
Phillips has indicated thnt he knew. Being
there, an express came to me from Bridge
water, as before said, to learn whether two
colored pupils could. be admitted to the school
the next day. My prompt aud express ans
/ wer was, Yes.
See how MIR. Phillips eyodes this I'll could
not know, aud surely was not bound to
know, all the conversations MIR. Mann was
holding in private,'-'in his parlor or private
rooms at Brdgewntcr.' lie never gave us
'One word in behalf of colored children.
Here he asks me If remember the fable
OF The vol aud lnmb,-representing himself
under this emblem of innocence. Yes; and
of the wolf in sleeps clothing, too.
9. Another disproof was, that mine years
ago, published articles aud arguments in
| my Common School Journal, vindicnting The
right of colorod children to attend school
with the white ones.
His reply in substance, is ns before 81
never saw or heard of tho articles in the
Common School Journal to which he refers
Therefore, he never gave us 'onc word
4. Being nm officer of the State, when the
question Of the colored chidrens rights was
referred to the City Solicitor of Boston,
wrote that gentleman an opinion i'm favor of
their legal right 10 attend the white schools,
aud against their being separated.
MIR. Phillips replies: That was a private
document, privately communicated to the
City Solicitor of Boston; calls il whisper
of legal opinion into the private ear of a
City Solicitor sc. Such nre tho fabricated
premises from which he draws his inference
that never gave them 'one word.' &c. lie
then goes OIL TO compare my conduct TO that
of Charles |. of England; and some of the
comparisons are, that I've broke bis coronation
oath,'-'gave up his people to merciless in
fiictions,' violated the articles of the Poti-
ton of Right &c. Is NJ this airocious?
5. averred that ] was consulted with in
regard to the law of 1916, which the Legs-
lnture believed would secure equal school
ilElNS W CDiOltu VI 0NNtC,
that | approved it, &c.
lie replies TINT that sincere word was not
'one word because the Supreme Court
subsequently construed the statute away.
q. | said that, in my Reports, uniformly
expounded the law as securing the same
rights to the colorcd children as TO the whites
that abored TO meke the practice conform
10 the theory, and when left the Secretary
ship, it had nearly done so.
MIR. Phillips replies - This is an evasion
And then, in making pretended quotation
from my Tenth Report, he is guilty of n sup
preston, which, il purposely' made, (aud,
after our experience of what ho is capable of
doing in mutilatng quotations., what charity
can suppose 1t was not y is bnse beyond the
power ol language to describe. Speaking of
Massachusetts, aud not of the nation at large,
MS | think the reader would suppose, from
the way he has put it,-after describing what
she had done for the children of the nborig-
ines, ! went on 10 sny, that when the equal,
NATURAL and constitutional rights OF THE OUT
CAST CHILDREN Of Africa were invaded, she
armed her courts of judicature with power
to punish the aggressors ;-thus showing by
the words which have capitalized, my con-
dennaton of tho wrong-doers and my sym
patty for the wronged. Those toonis he sup
presses, and represents me merely as talking
gibherish about tue equal, natural aud con-
sttutiann rights Of africa And ilIen he
declares the passage he has gnrbled 10 he a
total misrepresentation a gross misreprep-
resentation,' &c.
Mr.. Phillips cannot truthfiilly deny these
things. That he studied this Report, when it
first appeared, to find his pretence Tor carp
ing; that he had his part of it, at lenst, be-
fore him now that he was at The Libcraior
office up to the time his letter was printed,
and read the prcois or had chance to read
them, and then that he sent out this mutla-
ted, false quotation.
z. ! said that the statute of lSi5 did not
expressly mention colored children, aud
therefore, in codiiying the laws, added
commentary TO give it the true Interpretation
in favor of the colored children.
Mr.. Phillips replies;-' Any codifcdtion
must have been made after tho Supreme
Courts session, and so after my criticisms.
Of course, therefore, that does not belong 10 this
discussion.
Nov, the codifcation bears date Nov. 29lh,
I649. The session Of the Supreme Court at
which the decision in Roberts Us DUs;on;-
the colored child who sued for being exclud-
ed from white school, not held till
March, 1850. Yet, Mr.. Phillips says, Any
codfication must have been made after the
Supreme Courts session. That is, suppos-
ing his readers might not have the means of
detecting the misstatement, he tells them
was right, and MIR. Mann was wrong; for
November, Isi9, came after March, Is50'
8. said, always made il point, when
ever went TO visit schools ia any town or
city where a separation existed, to visit ,he
colored school.
MIR. Phillips replies-'or course he did,
1T was tho loymal routine cfhls Office Dir.
ssince my last letter, End that I did not
state the case in favor of myself no strongly -
l should. DIR. HOWE, the Director of the In
stitution, writes me - have searched the rec
ords, and 6nd the matter was brought before
ahn Trustaaa an nonaennnilce of an anplicafion