Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-05-18


citizens upon the dignity of the Senate, and upon
the claims of the divine name, word, and instilu-
tons, 10 which we owe our profonndest honor and
reverence" @
These resolutions We're passed with but one
dissenting voice. go
Il was further resolved that the above protest
should be published in the religious and secular
papers in the northwest and 10 accomplish this
opJect, that the editors of our city papei request
their exchanges TO reprint il.
The various ministers who may feel disposed 10
sign Inc protest, are requested 10 send their names
10 Phllo Carpenter, esq, Chicago, Illinois.
communications 10 be postpaid,
ILL A. M. STEWART, Chairman.
J. MCNAMARA, Secretary.
/ never dreamt that there was a variance
between their memorial as published and the
real memorial, or any mistake or error in it.
until after had published my letter and saw
replies, over the signature of .One Of the
Twenty-Five" written in the plural ",we, as If
speaking for the whole. These replies FIVE in
number, were published in the Chicago Daily
Tribune, being one of the same papers which
have exhibited to the Senate, as containing
the published proceedings in the precise form
TO which replied to them. In their rejoinder
speaking OF my letter. they say
"lt bears the marks of considerable care in its
preparation, and yet il abounds in errors of fact
II Is directed against expressions assembled 10 the
clergy Of Chicago iohfeA ttay nerer smpioyed! The
spirit manifested by the senator rs exceedingly OBJ
Jectonable, his letter breathing the most violent
hostility TO the ministry, and displaying most of
iensiye arrogance IN pronouncing upon its rights
and in prescribing lis duties and sphere OF action
while warmly repndiating similar alleged attempt
OF the clergy 10 interfere with the rights and duties
OF his own profession" .rass .cs#Ef& +
1t is not my purpose at this time to comment
on what they say in regard to the spirit of my
| letter and its manifestation of bad temper, or
hostility to the clergy or to religion. ! am
sure that no fair-minded man in the Senate or
| elsewhere, after careful reading of my letter,
| will assert that there is the evidence of any
| such spirit in it, or any word that was uncour-
| teous or unkind to any ore, or dsrespectful to
man, or wanting in reverence for God. be-
leve that even the newspapers opposed to me,
and those who have assailed me most fercely
upon all other points, havesdone me and the
cause of truth the justice to admit that the Ian
guage, tone, and spirit Of my letter, were cour-
teous, respectful and reverential. / now sub
NIT the question to the Senate and to the coun
try, and invite the criticism of all men, friend
and foe, upon this point. / am willing to
abide the verdict of the country, and especially
of the Christian community, whether the as
saults upon me, or my vindication against those
assaults, evince the greatest degree of forbear-
ance, moderation, charity, and Christian kind
ness. 4. rg.,. ...t fl
The point, however, to which | was inviting
the attention of the Senate was this: that these
gentlemen charge me with having "AscRIBED
EXPRESSIONS TO THE CLERGY OF CHICAGO WHICH
THEY NEVER EMPLOYED" s
Again, in the same communication:
Mr. DorGLAs ascribes to the Chicago clergy
language whieh they Negor used, and then severely
reprimsnds them for employing it.
Now. IL is a carious fact, tint acAat Judge
Douglas charges The Chicago clergy riM doing is
jfa schdt they did nor do. Alter reading the de-
bate, and seeing the ofthe objections 10 the
New England protest. the Chicago clergy inter
polated, 10 use his language, in the New England
protest the words as citizens ami omitted The
offensive phrase, in the name OF Almighty God
and thus amended adopted the New England form,
thus avoiding entirely the alleged of the first
remonsrance, and protesting IN their oacp names.
May we not recprocate Judge Douglass own Ian
suage IN reference 10 the New England clergy,
and suggest that he did not know what he was
wiring about q
presume you win find in fifty places, in the
replies of the Chicago clergymen to me, the
words falsehood,,' fraud I" misrepresenta-
tion, "wilfnl Misrepresentation "cunning
trick, and every other epithet that could be
| conceived with reference to the point that had
not published their protest truly. Now, sir,
| what is the variance? In the protest, set out
in my letter, and to which replied, the words
in the name of Almighty God were contained,
showing that they protested to speak in the
name of God, and by His authority. In the
remonstrance which they have now sent to me,
those words are omitted. That is the differ
| ence.
| After seeing the denials to which have re-
ferred, wrote to Chicago to ascertain how the
mistake occurred. My letters inform me that
the facts are these: The meeting was held on the
day stated, the 9th of March. The proceedings
OF the meeting were furnished blythe secretary to
the Chicago Tribune, the paper which they have
selected as theirorgan. They were printed at the
Tribune office; slips were sent to- the other pa
pers; and the slip sent to me contained the pro.
ceedings Of that meeting, as furnished by the
secretary. But after the publication, and
when the community condemned the BIAS
phemy OF the protest, and these clergymen
found that their own congregations would
not submit to it; one of them called upon
the editor, took back the proceedings, al
legged that there was an error in them, struck
out those words, and had the proceedings re-
| published as corrected, but did not send the
republication to me, and / never knew of it
until wrote to Chicago for the facts. do
not complain Of their Withdrawing the expires
sion referred to. ! am glad they did so. /
am glad they saw the error which thew had
committed. and corrected it. But, sir, sub
nit to you whether it was right for men. fair
minded men, whatever their profession, after
changing their memorial, to come out and
charge me with fraud, because replied to it in
the language in which they sent it to me. |
admit their right to make the modification. II
was their duty to make that modification. But
why persevere in charge running through FIVE
numbers of a newspaper over the signature Of
| "One of the twenty-five" endeavoring to fasten
fraud upon me, when / have evidence to prove
| that they published their memorial in the shape
| in which I answered it? ! received it from
them in that shape. / answered it as found
! it, and if they have discovered their error, and
corrected it, they ought to acknowledge the
fact, instead of charging fraud on me. Imake
no charge against them; am only vndicat-
-, xs,,,aIc P,yt 90 far aa T cap coo tho npl ~