Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-05-28
Reply Of lion, Horace Mann 10 Wendell Phil.
lips, Esq.
WEST NEwToN, May 9th, 1853.
w. l.. GARRIsoN, ESQ.,:

| w. L.. GARRISON, ESQ.,;
| Dean SIR.-
But MIR. Phillips now says: the only
charge ever mnde against him was for mis-.
conduct MS Secretary Very well, am al.
ways ready to to take nny revised edilnn oi
his calumnics. II wns, then, as Secrtidry
that never did anythiugin behalf of colorcd
children. Was not my instruction about
admitting colored pupils to the Normul
| School, on the same terms rs the white, given
in my capacity as Secretary? j. there q
shadow of pretencc for sayi ing IL was given
in any other capacity? Could have given
il in any otlier capacity And so of the le-
gal opinion given to the City Solicitor OF
Boston, when the main question about color
ed schools, then pending before the city att
thOrities, had been referred to him, and he
was preparing his official reply. Was that
no word given in behalf OF tho colored
children, and Of their cause and their friends ?
The same is true Of the two other points, but
| lorbcnr.
But MIR. Phillips 'iolt called on TO protest
agHinsr my serious mis- conduct in p ibiic Of
fee and, claiming to be impartial hc could
not suffer me to escape. My worthy success
sor, the Rev. DR.. Senrs, has been in the same
Office Tor five years. II he has ever said one
word, or done one thing, specially to break
ny colored schools, | have not heard of IT,.
Illus Mr.. Phillips ever felt called on to- mr.
rnigu him ms he did me or to revive nny old,
outlnwed calulnnies, aud publish them
anew?
Mr.. Phillips thinks that when was Sec
retnry aud had the work of three men 10 do,
] was bound specially TO help him; but that
he, gentleman OF leisure, and without om-
poynent or profession, was not bound to
help me. would leave such question as
this to Pharaoh
Though question might here he raised,
whether ] am not abont 10 violate the Consii-
tuition, 10y iulliciing n cruel aud unusual
punishment on Mr.. Phillips yet nm sure
the punishment only hcfits the offence, aud
therefore, shall administer it. IN his letter
of March 2lst, he accused me Of applying
the 'JesniIs' rule in constituting my oath. In
my reply of April 4th, collnted what | had
said, with his comments upon il, so that the
reader could see, nt glance. the flagitio,s.
ness of his charge. In his next, he assumes
tone of rcbukc; and after saying some
hard things on other topics. adds: should
speak still more strongly, if | spoke at oil, of
his attempt to evnde my remnrk on his Jes-
uticnl construction of an oath, thus again
charging me with Jesulisn,-nn iniputaIion
justly held to be one of the most offensive
that can possibly be made against m honor
able man. replied 10y ngain publishing my
text and his comment; go that the public
might see who the Jesuit was. In his last,
he has the following, in reference to the same
matter: . II any one will read my ichoie par
agrdph on that point the correctness or my
my criticism will bc apparent. Thus he
brings forward tho foul charge of Jesuitism
for the third time with an hisinunlion, all
the wny, that have been misrepresenting
him, and TINT he is an innoc mt, abused party.
Aud now for the 'crIiel aud unusual pun
islinent,'-not fire aud birthstone these
our ears are familiar with but foretnste oil
that wornl, which, in the absence of repent
nnce for offences, never dies. After citing
my original text, will give his iCtOie para
graph, italirising wlut quoted before, and
thus shoe him 10 himself!
Mr.. .Mnin's Remark. Il had supposed
that, as an oath nnkes God a party TO tho
transaction, it is binding in the sense ia which
lie knows the parry took il.
Mr. Phillips Comment. Il had affirmed
that an oath 10 tue people Of the United
States was binding in that sense in which he
who took il knew, nt the time, that the peo-
pie understood him To offer il. This famil-
iur principle is sHnctned 10y every Christian
moralsi, from halE Christian Cicero TO half
pagan Wuyland. MIR. Mann denies it lie
asserts that as an "oalh makes Cod party
to the transaction, it is binding in that sense
in which lie knew the party took IL! This
is virtually The Jesmis' rule, thai promises are
binding, mol as the parties understood them, but
as he ,promisor secretly intended. That is, a
man may slcedr 10 one thing and mean another,
and God juSiifes him! | do not so hold f;
neither will Mr.. Mann, when he thinks of il
second time.
Aud now | nsk, where, in my remark, is
there any trace or glimpse of thought about
promises mol being binding 'as the par
ties understood Them; or about fulfilling
PROMISES mol according 10 their meHuing, but
as The pronsor secretly intended; or any
thing thRt has aspect or color of the alroci-
ons doctrine that a ,nnn fnny swear 10 one
thing and mean another while God looks on
aud 'justilies him in his perjury! Where,
demand again, can any nnII, who has con
science, or any man without a conscience,
who has intellect enough to see the obvious
meaning of words, discover, in my language,
any form or hue, any index or expectation oi
any one of those dannable ideas which make
up the whole Of Mr.. Phillips comment.
He snys he made the grave cbnrge Of Sc
rious misconduct in public office 10 rebui
Mr. Mann's claim that before entering Con-
gress he had been so boldly and frankly anti
slavery as TO leave me no excuse for crilici-
sing his Congressional speeches, even if their
language seemed equyocal.' So far from
this being true, the readers of this controversy
have already seen that MIR. Phillips revived,
those stale calumnies, only because he could
not sustain bis original criticisms or attack
upon my Congressional speech Of August
last, and found it necessary TO change his
ground.
lie says, 'Mr. Mann thinks TO excite preju-
dice against US, by olusion to our rebuke Of