The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-05-19

i ol MS own proiessioh
II is not my purpose at this time TO comment on wha-
they say in regard 10 the spirit my letter and It's
Hesitation OF bad temper hostility to the clergy TO
religion am sure that fair-mnded man, in the Sem
ate elsewhere, after careful reading of my letter. will
assert that there s the evidence oY any such spirit in IT,
or any word that unooureous unknd TO any one
or disespeeni TO man. wanting in for God
believe that even the newspapers opposed 10 and
those who have assaqd most hereely upon all other
points have done and the Of truth the justice TO
admit that the language tone and spirit Of my letter. were
Courteous respectful, and reverentia submit the
question TO the Senate and TO the country and invite the
criticism Of all men friend and foe upon this point am
willing 10 abide the verdict OF the country and especially
OF the Christian community whether the assaults upon
me- my vindicatlon against those assaults eyince the
greatest degree of iorbearanee moderation charity and
Christian kindness.
ton of the Senate this that these gentlemen charge
me with having "AscRIBrD EXPRESSIONS CLERGY or
CHICAGO WHICH rHEY NEVER EMpLoyED,R
Again. in the communications
Mr DouoLAs ascribes to the Chicago clergy language
ieh they used, and then severely reprmand them for
employing It,"
Nou, Il is curious fact that uhat Judge Douglas charges
Me Chicago crgy cih doing just hat they Did not do.
ons to the New England protest. the Chicago clergy inter
poated to use his language in the New England protest the
name of Almighty God and dus amoaded adopted the
New England FORM thus avoiding entirely the alleged
May we not recprocas Judge Doualsss own Language in
reference to the New England clergy and suggest that he did
4 not KNOW What ne was writing about.
presume you win find in fifty places in the replies Of
the Chicago clergymen to me- the words "falsehood,
fraud" Misrepresentation" "wul Misrepresentation,
cunning trick and every other ephe that could be
ceyed with reference to the point that had not published
their protest truly Now sir, what is the yariance2 In
the protest. set out in my letter. and to which replied the
words "in the name OF Almighty God contained,
showing that they proessed TO speak in the of God
and by HIS authority In the remonstrance which they
have now sent to me those words omitted That is the
difference.
f,or .ao,,r ,lo aaro,. - -, u, l. - ocoa I o,.
to Chicago to ascertain how the mistake occurred Ny
letters inform that the facts these The meeting
held the day staedhe 27th of March, The proceed
ngs of the meeting furnished by the secretary the
Chicago Tribune the paper which they have selected
their organ They printed at the Tribune office
slips were sent to the other papers and the slip sent to
contained the proceedings of that meeting, furnished
by the secretary But after the publication and when the
community condemned the basphcy of the protest and
these eerymen found that their own congregations would
not submit to il of them called upon the editor took
back the proceedings alleged that there error in
them struck out those words and had the proceedings
published corrected but did send the republication
to me- and never knew Of il until Chicago for
the facts do not complain Of their Withdrawing the
preston referred to- am glad they didso am glad they
the which they had committed and corrected it.
But sir submit to you whether ii right for men, fair
minded men, whatever their profession after changing their
memorial to out and charge with fraud because
replied ii in the language in which they sent il TO
admit their right make disqualification Itwas their duty
to make that mobilization But why persevere in charge
running through five numbers of newspaper the
fasten fraud upon me when have evidence prove that
they published their memorial in the shape in which
swered it2 | received il from them in that shape /
swered it found ii and if they have discovered their
error and corrected il they ought to acknowledge the fact
instead Of charging fraud me make charge against
them am only vndicating myself But as far as can
the only change was in these words. Now, let go
little further and that these words in the
Of Almighty God, got into their memorial By mistake
why did they not call upon the editor Of their paper who
published IL 10 explain how that mistake occurred instead
! of charging il upon me .s.-
Again, sir IL there mistake in that memorial and
If they did that language is asserted in these
papers how 1t that find that they adopted the fourth
resolution, which have read That fourth resolution is
in these words;
That in the debate recently held in Uni
ted States upon the presentation Of the memorial of the clergy
Of New England greatly deplore the apparent
courtesy and towards God and manifested in
the speeches or THE ILLINOIS and Indiana
and we regard the whole tone and spirit Of the debate
outrage" &c.
Now sir what the tone and spirit Of the debate
far as was concerned upon that memorial made one
criticism upon it and but The criticism which made
that II affected 10 speak in the Of the Almighty
instead Of the memoriass speaking in their
men The Senate win bear witness that this the
point and the only point which made upon the
\ rial from New England These clergymen say, in
their reply 10 me- that having discovered that objection
being made they obvated IL by omttng the Objectionable
words in this memorial and thus avoided the offensive
preston. II they did they acknowledged that crn
cism upon the New England memorial was hlst; they
sanctioned il BY their actions they acted under my cr
osm and they therefore approved ofmy course II So why
did they pass resolution nt the meeting censuring
me for pointing out the objection which they acknowledge
I did exst2
Is II clear that this resolution must have been p-
serted in the proceedings BY mistake also Surely IL is
not to be presumed that they would condemn for point
ing objection which they acknowledge to have been
well taken and in obedience which they modified and
i regulated their aconl If the words "in the
Almighty God whereby the signers Of that protest were
made 10 speak in the name and by authority OF the
Deity were inserted by mistake and II the same words
stricken out in obedience my suggestion certainly
mendation instead Of censure When this correction shall
also have been made shall deem it my duty call their
attention 70 the first resolution which 20 have been
! adopted by them on the same occasion
- Resolrd That the ministry the divnely appointed IN
suon for the declaration and enforcement Of Gods will
upon all points Of moral and religious truth and that
SUCH u Is their duty to prove rebuke, and exhor with a
authority End doctrine"
Now sir II they did not claim the right 10 speak In h,
Of the Almighty If il slander 10 attribute any
such purpose TO them Is il not clear that this resolution
also mstake2 II Is here asserted that they were
diyncy appointed institution for the declaration aud en-
orcoment Of Gods willard that too with reference ht
4 Nebraska bill for II adopted ut On anti-Nebtnska
4 meeting. rH -
Sir It very clear that IL The expression alluded to wa
mistake IN the protest the mistake through
each and every of the resolutions But sir ID il nc
object Of mine TO investigate the point whether they mndt
mistake or not That to which wish TO call the aten
ton Of the Senate the fact that they charge with h
hlshcauon OF their proceedings, when show that they
were published in their organ published AZ their own
residence furnished by their own secretary la the very
form N which they were sent to me and that replied L
thom in the precise language in which received them n
fact cut the printed resolutions as they were sent I,
me and pasted them in the uannscript Of my ropv and
the letter as published, up in that way did no