The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1853-10-15
Our correspondent M, and the Roman Catholic
Relig tOn.

upon selected paragraph, which appeared in
the outside columns of the Minnesotian few
months since. We felt indignant that writer
of so much intelligence and ability should at
tempt, as we then thought to sneak into our
columns and discuss tender and one of the
most exciting of subjects. in violation of the well
established rule that editors must have the
names Of their correspondents. Feeling this,
and knowing there are those in this cOmmu-
nifty, who watch our course like hawks,
stand ready to trap us upon the commission of
the least seeming indiscretion, and then skulk
from the responsibility of allowing themselves
to be known, We accompanied the communica-
ton with some rather unsavory remarks to the
writer. 1t now appears that the name of the
author did accompany the communication but
his private note was upon separate slip of pa
per, and must have become mislaid upon open
ing the envelope, for certain it is it never reach
ed our hands. Had we received the name, it
is needless to inform the writer.-between whom
and oursef the most friendly relations have ev-
cr existed, and we hope ever will-that the tone
of our remarks would have been of an entirely
different character.
Touching the issue in controversy, we have
only this to say: Had we thought the eX-
tract from the Albany Register contained any
thing whatever calculated to do wrong to the
religious feelings ofany one, it should not have
entered our columns. To do this was not the
object in publishing the extract A secular ed
itor should not set himself up to teach what is
true or what is false in matters of religion
We have nothing to DO with the course or teach
ings of any church, except when churches en-
the poltial actions of the community touching
governmcntalright and principles. We can then
come in. and approve or disapprove the action
of the clergy, just as our principles may die
tate
But, as our correspondent remarked, this be-
ing our first offence If it was an offence,
which, by the way, we do not acknowledged
strikes us it might have been overlooked. We
think our readers, universally. will bear testi-
mony, that our selections are made with great
care. We rarely insert an article from another
paper without first reading it carefully, and
! WI itS sCItiHlCHtS. tHC
consideration was selected in violation of this
rule, or tlatw we considered at the time that such
objections to it as have been raised by M.
were entirely groundlcss, is very evident
to us at this moment Thus much in cxplana-
ton, and by way of preface to the following,
which comes to us in reply to our former re-
marks
To TIE EDITOR OF THE MINNEsoTIAN,-SR -
In your number Of August 9th, you publish,
with commcnts--which | will not characterize
my remarks upon an article previously CO.
"stcr. | have something to add, finally, upon
that whole matter.
|. That article set forth that the Catholic re-
| ligiOn was false ':supcrstitiOus." .'f;lnat-
CAL" and "bigOtcd =; that it melted to the
wicked shedding of human blood that the hca-
then stood in accusation against it; that ma
ton protesting its creed held "punic faith"
and made "false pretension to honor, WAS
sinking in the scale of civilization. in rOnse-
quencc Of holding that religion, and that the
malcdction of heaven was descending upon her
for hoDing O5eyed its commands
| 2. You published these statements without a
syllable of dissent and you do not publish in
furious statements against any other Christian
denomination.
| Utlt tdpcl II III pau SiiSiuilsu ny NdtDc-
| lies. and circulatcs in a community where there
are many of that religion.
Your journal is either neutral with respect to
religious differences, or it is not If neutral.
the attack you copy violates that neutrality if
not neutral, the fact ought to be ayowed. You
profess, in your comments, to pursue courage
and opcnncss yourself; you will not then 1" sab
in the dark, nor :. assail hot ::prioafe cha
ractcr, but that of nations and the hume
| 60 e,cf@l ,>( f,;t
| SO much upon the original pont,-now a
word or two upon your comments. My article
was no infraction Of yonr editorial indcpen-
dcncc, as You impute. There arc Independent
readers and subscribers, rs well as "indepen-
dent editors" The press is not free solely for
the men who conduct it. nor only for one side,
nor only for purposes Of attack it is not free to
wander from its legitimate sphere. 1t is like
wise free for defence, to those who are assailed
by it. and it is subject to be resisted when it
plays the aggressor.
| What wrote was not an attack, as you quite
enormously intimatc,--it was a repIY to one
| add that do not value as highly as you seem
to do, The honor of an appearance in your CO.
| lumns.
With The communication before you, which
you could see and know, you wander into Sc
rics OF wild cOnjccturcs and imputations touch
ing the writer and his motives of which you
| n oNHH youiStii "iIoliy lgHOitiIt, lpT tHiS
random gucss-work you claim the quality of
"undoubtcdness." 1t is prerogative of an
Independent editor" that his guesses are
matters not to be 50 dOubtcd.'
In fact. my name and address accompanied
the communication, (as they do this onc,) and,
l doubt not, by accident escaped notice. You
style the absence of the name a "cowardly''
preceding Now men who are themselves
brave, do not easily impute 'cow9rdly" con-
duct to others.
My first structures contained nothing unf;,-
vorable to your Journal but. on the contrary,
more in its favor than could now say, since
yOu adopt (by not disclaiming) the false and
injurious aspersions taken from your Albany
contemporary, and since you maintain that it
is one of the rights of an independent editor -
of a secular newspaper to attack the religion of
a considerable portion of his subscribers.
d.
| EDUCATIONAL CoNvENTION-After consulting
the friends of education from different parts of
the Territory, it is thought advisable to call an