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

preston. If they did, they acknowledged that
my criticism upon the New England memorial
was just; they sanctioned it by their action;
they acted under my criticism and they there
fore approved of my course. If so, why did.
they pass resolution, at the same meeting,
censuring me for pointing out the objection,
which they acknowledge did exist? +
lis it not clear that this resolution-must have
been inserted in the proceedings by mistake
also? Surely it is not to be presumed that
they would condemn me for pointing out an
objection which they acknowledge to have
been well taken, and in obedience to which
they modified and regulated their own action!
1t the words, "in the name of Almighty God"
whereby the signers of that protest were made
to speak in the name and by authority of the
Deity, were inserted by mistake and if the
same words were stricken out, in obedience to
my suggestion, certainly the resolution must
have been intended as vote of commenda
ton instead of censures When this correction
shall also have been made, l shall deem it my
duty to call their attention to the first resolu-
ton, which seems to have been adopted by
them on the same occasion
g Resoiped, That the ministry is the divinely APP
pointed institution for the declaration and en-.
iorcement of Gods will upon all points of moral
duty 10 reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all au-
thorty and doctrine"
Now, sir, If they did not claim the right to
speak in the name of the Almighty, if it was a
slander to attribute any such purpose to them,
is it not clear that this resolution also was a
mistake? 1t is here asserted that they were a
diviney-appointed institution for the declara.
ton and enforcement of Gods will, and that,
too, with reference to the Nebraska bill, for it
was adopted at an anti-Nebraska meeting.
Sir, 1t is very clear that if the expression al.
luded to was mistake in the protest, the same
mistake runs through each and every one of the
resolutions. But, sir, it is no object of mine to
investigate the point whether they made mis-.
take or not. That to which wish to call the
attention of the Senate is, the fact that they
charge me with the Justification of their pro.
ceedings; when / show that they were pub.
lished in their own organ, published at their
own residence, furnished by their own secre-
tary, in the very form in which they we're sent
tNme; and that replied to them in the pre-,
cise language in which / received them In
fact | cut out the printed resolutions as they
were sent to me, and pasted them in the manu-
script of my reply, and the letter. as published,
was set up in that way. | did not suppose that
there was any error in their published proceed
lngs. IT there was, they, knowing it, should
have acknowledged it themselves, as fair men,
instead of charging fraud upon me.
Mr.. President, theyhav pursued this course
by multiplying the charge over and over again.
Referring to my letter, the replies say:
He says, abiding 10 the action OF the clerical
meeting, in reference 10 the Nebraska question,
these proceedings consist of protest in the name
OF Almighty God against the passage of the Ne
braska bill. Now, the fact is, they consist of no
smch thing"
Is that frank way of answering, when they
had taken back their proceedings and corrected
them, but had not sent me the correction? But
again:
/" The language actually used by the Chicago
clergy is, the undersigned, clergymen of the diff
ferent religious denominations i'm the northwestern
STATES as eatatas, and as ministers of the Gospel
OF Jesus Christ hereby do solemnly protest. &c.
Now, how are we TO regard the course Of The
senator in thus misrepresenting the course of the
Chicago clergy, and falsiiying their language
Wilt be said that no official report was in his
possession ofthe actual proceedings of the meet
ingk Then what right had he to review those
proceedings? But if an official report uas in his
possession, then he is guilty of fasifying the action
of the meeting Which horn of the dilemma will
we take?"
The same charge runs through all the pro-
ceedings and their replies to my letter. Now,
have shown that had their official proceed
ings, attested by twenty-five clergymen, with
that language in, certified by their president
and by their secretary. Iexhibt the authentic
copy in the paper Of that day to the Senate; and
still they charge me with having falsiGed their
proceedings. | submit, again, if this is the
kind of treatment that we are to expect from
fair-minded men? | speak not of ministers of
the Gospel, but of any fair-minded men.
Ifthey had said they had concluded to chan ee
their proceedings afterwards, if they had said
the printer had made mistake, that it was by
accident it was published and sent forth in that
way, / should at once have addressed note to
the public stating that had no doubt it was a
mere error, and that wished to do them the
justice of correcting it. But sir, I show that if
there was any error, it was theirs, and not mine.
If there was any fraud, it was theirs, not mine.
Whatever injustice was done, was done bythem
and not by me. / wish them to understand
that misrepresent no man knowingly; and
while am always ready and happy to make
the correction the instant discover that am
in error, do not permit any body Of men,
whatever their profession, to convert their own
blunders or mistakes into crimes, and then
charge them upon me, so long as / have the
means and evidence Of standardization, which,
~ Wis ihslanCe, lney nave fortunately placed
in my hands.
But sir, inasmuch as these gentleman have
made so prominent an issue upon that point
and have sent certificate to fasten the charge
upon me, and put il on the files of the Senate.
in which they repudiate the idea that they
would be guilty Of the blasphemy of speaking
in the name of the Almighty upon political
question: will read few extracts from ser
mon delivered by one of these twenty-five
preachers in the North Presbyterian church Of
Chicago, on Sunday, the 9Th day of March last,
in reference to this same Nebraska measure.
The sermon to which / refer, was delivered by
the Rev. R. II. Richardson, who is one of the
signers of the protest and participated in the
proceedings of the meeting, and is represented
by my informant as the person who withdrew
the proceedings, and made the changes and
notifications to which have referred, after
those proceedings had been published in the
daily papers of Chicago and sent to me in the
manner | have stated. The first extract is as
follows:
"TheaIospel minister has nothing to do person.
ally or officially in the actual conflicts of politi
al ma ti in pt,iat