Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-06-05
NUMBER l72.
From the Louisville Courier.
Professor Morse's Reply to Bishop spald-
ing.

ing.
PouGHKEErsrE, IN. W May Q, 1855
II ever the liberties of the United States are de-
stroyed they will be by the Romish Priests. LA
FAYETTE.
To BIsHoP NJ. j. SrALDrSo--SIR: Your remarks
In the Courier of April l4th have been sent to me-
You will excuse the delay and my apparent neg
lect in noticing them, which, however, will be Of
no damage to The cause Of truth, since in the in
term, have neither been unmindful of you nor
remss, nor unsuccessful in my search for the
means Of gratifying your important inquiries. In
common with the rest of the intelligent public,
whose object is to arrive at the knowledge of an
historic truth, am under great obligations to you,
sir, for bringing this subject SO prominently and
distinctly before the American people.
The motto of Lafayette, which stands at the
head OF this letter, has been quoted to them for
some twenty years without its authenticity having
been questioned, unless indeed, your assertion be
correct that "some time ago." (which is n some
what indefinite date,) it was 30 called In question
by the Freoman's Journal If so, it has never till
now been brought to my knowledge, and is now
confined solely to your assertion of the fact
Whatever may be the nature of that notice in the
Freeman Journal is a matter, at present, Of very
little consequence since your denial of the au-
thentcity of the motto has been distinctly brought
to my knowledge, and / can settle the question
with you, once for all, and forever.
My letter from Poughkeepsie of March 10th, was
not, and could not be, the intended answer to your
"appsal," published in Louisville, March 10th.
Still for reasons best known to yourself you choose
to assume 1t to be my reply to your appeal. The
public will see, If you cannot that letter Of 10th
March, written and mailed four days distant from
Louisville, could not be consequent of an article
published in Louisville on the self-same day, what
ever may have been the accidental order of its pull
lication. They will also duly appreciate this arfcc
by which you assume triumph from my presumed
default. ! can, however, well afford to you this
brief season of sefgratulaton, of which the appa-
rent success Of this Jesutic ruse enables you to
avail yourself.
My own self.respect, as well as the respect due
70 the shrewd and rejecting minds by which you
are surrounded, will restrain me from any mere
personal retort, which the indecent personalities
in which you have indulged, would seem to pre-
woke. far more important question than the
comparative skill in personal disparagement is in
volved in this discussion.
The question whether the illustrious companion
Of Washington, the consiHent long tried, ever
viglant friend Of the republican liberties of the
United States, ever gave this significant faithful
just, and most important warning to the American
people is the point in dispute.
After twenty years circulation Of this pregnant
warning no one, to my knowledge, in all that tine
presuming to call II in question, after being fami
iarly quot d in books and pamphlets, and placed
in capitals as the perpetual motto Of some Journals,
you sir, at this late day have ventured to deny its
authenticity so
In your denial you have chosen to assail my tee-
limony in its favor, to cast suspicion on my We
racity, and unequivocally to pronounce my state
ment unreliable. | am, therefore, no volunteer in
this contest but am called out by you to defend
my position against your attacks. do not CON-
plain Of this, sir; | most cheerfully accept your
challenge
have for more than twenty years been person
ally knowing to the fact that the sentiments ofthe
motto are the sentiments of Lafayette, and when
first met with ii in print, / could youch for lie
truth, because it perfectly embodies the senti-
naents of the illustrious man, as often expressed
TO me.
And pray, sir what is your authority for denying
the authenticity Of the motto? That strict justice
may be done you, quote your remarks from your
pamphlet, called "Intolerant Spirit Of the Times"
At page 81, you say:
"To awake suspicion against the Catholic priest
hood the public prints have long been circulating
among the people the extraordinary assertion that
Lafayette warned American patriots against priest.
ly influence in the following language:
"Jf ever the liberty Of the United States is de-
stroyed Il win be by Romish priests"
The fact of such a declaration coming from one
who was Catholic himself IL he was any thing,
bears the stamp Of improbability, II not Of dowr.
right absurdty on It's very face yet II passed cut
rent for truth and was, we think, generally beev.
ed by the masses, who are prepared to devour any
absurdity provided IL initiate against Catholics
Now what will the impartial public think, when Il
Is ascertained that this charge, like most Others,
which have been lately circulated In the country
TO our disadvantage, Is not only utterly groundesF,
but is directly the reverse Of the truth
It makes the French patriot say, in fact, directly
the opposite Of what he did say Here Is the eI.
- 40
In New York, written from Paris, In 1929, shortly
after his return from his visit to the United Slater,
which letter no doubt gave occasion for concocting
the calumny:
"The friendly expressions Of regard for my
health and happiness conveyed in your kind letter
to me Of the 10th ultmo, beg you 70 be assured,
are grateful to my feelings and shall cherish tLo
recollection Of the many services and kindncsscs
towards me, on the part Of both yourself and lady
while was your guest in America, as among the
most pleasing "reminiscences connected with my
late visit TO the United States can
not but admire your noble sentiments Of devotion
and attachment to your country and institutions.
But must be permitted TO assure you that the
fears which, in your patriotic ZEAL you seem TO
entertain, that il euer The liberty Of tie United
States is destroyed IL ,ciH be by Ronish priests,
are certainly without any shadow Of foundation
whatever. An intimate acquaintance Of more than
half century with the prominent and influential
priests and members Of that church, both In Eng
land and America warrants me IN assuring you
that you need entertain no apprehension of danger
70 your republican institutions from that quarter"
You here, sir, not merely deny that General La.
fayette ever uttered such a sentiment, but, as /
have said you assert that he prote letter. hich
letter you quote, letter in which this very sent
ment and motto are recorded, and recorded for the
express purpose Of repndiating them. This, sir,
you charge upon Lafayette. You quote that letter
as genuine you rely upon Il as genuine you hint
not the slightest peradyenture Of its spuriousness;
you even persist in adopting it without doubt; you
deliberately announce that you have republished
Il in second edition Of your Miscellanea," and
this after being distinctly apprized that It's authen
ticty Is more than doubted; even when the charge
Of forgery is made against Il from many respecta-
BILE quarters On the strength Of that letter alone,
you affirm that Lafayette actually said "directly
the opposite Of what he did say" You pronounce
the motto I" calumny !" and you profess TO have
"no doubt" that this letter gave occasion for con.
cocting IL, that Is, Of inrenting themotto
II is not necessary, sir, 70 charge upon yoa the
forgery Of that spurious letter. II Is sufficient for
L.. Il