Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-07-21
NUMBER 21l.
AMERICAN ORGAN.
From the Raleigh Star.
Important Letter.

4 AfoH tAo Asuic'kh
Important Letter.
Folly EXPOSED .--Thcir eye-teeth are out al last
they had TO yield them up after many awful con-
tortons OF face. Brownsoa's letter sustaining the
whole charge which the American party has pre-
| ierred against the Romish Hierarchy, has been
dragged out Of them, and they now stand exposed
TO the world rs having attempted an outrageous
fraud on the honest voters of this District! We
do not wish the public to forget the history of this
letter. At discussion in Warren county, between
Messrs. Shepard and Branch, the former charged
that the Papsts claim for the Pope Of Rome power
IN temporal matters, or such control over the con-
sciences Of the members of his Church, as IL in.
compatible with and dangerous to the freedom of
the State, and cited Brownsons Review {the ack-
nowledged organ Of Papacy in this country to sus-
tain his position Mr.. Branch, in reply produced
a paper in the form of a letter which he said
| would blow Mr.. Shepard "sky-high'--it was moth.
ing less than an original letter from the veritsbc
Mr.. Brownson himself addressed to a gentleman
in Warren county.
He read paragraph or two towards the begin.
ming of the letter, and contended that II amounted
TO a retraction Of all the obnoxious doctrines
which he had contended for In his Review. Mr..
Branch folded up the letter with an air Of triumph
But no, Mr.. Shepard desired to see the letter---it
was handed to hm--he examined It, in his reioin-
der to Mr.. b. read the tohole letter, and 40 unc-
quvocal and direct was the claim of powers over
the civil affairs of Kingdoms asserted that Mr. B's
adherents hung their heads in astonishn,ent and
chagrin. And how could 1t have been otherwiseY
Why did not Mr.. Branch read the entire letter?
Why did he attempt to keep back-to suppress
that very part which convicted his clients the Pa
pists Of the charge preferred against them? Did
not Mr.. Branch know the rule Of law, that the
whole OF what person says in particular con.
versaton, letter, or document, should be taken
into consideration to learn his meaning? Does he
/ mt ku0w that Othpr rula which hat
Pressio oeri is equivalent to the saggestio falsi
Would Mr.. Branch have continued to read F" gar
bed extracts" " from the letter had not Mr.. Shep.
ard exposed the mhoie Of its However this may
have been, the next day in the discussion at War
rcnton Mr.. B. repudiated his own wtness--Se.
nouncing both Brownson and his letter! To this
Mr.. s. very properly replied that he had no right
i TO discredt his own witness.
He had introduced him to prove that the Amer
lean party was Wrong, and he had proved that they
were right, and it might be very convenient to get
rid of the proof by assaling him. but 1t would not
do--he intended to hold Mr.. b. and his party to
what their friend, ally, and witness, Brownson
said, and called for the letter. He wanted Mr. B.
to give him up the original letter, or copy and
both were denied; but under the repeated demand.
which have been made for its publication, the
letter has made its appearance! II was tight
| squeezing, but II had TO come. II never would
have the light If the friends of the American
purity Dttn sHtnt Hitcr tle ulScuShlOn Ht w
| renton-neperi Let the letter be read and circu.
lated. 1t is the evidence produced by the oppo-
nents Of the American party. Ii was written to
an anti tiAmerican-called out by him-and given
! by him TO his candidate TO be used against us;
but 10! out of their own mouths are they convict
ed of being the open and acknowledged defenders
| OF the Papal power. The "Warrenton News
need not be alarmed. We shall not follow the
example Of Mr.. Branch, and "give garbled cx-
tracts from the letter." but "copy it entire and
as copied, II proves all we wish. Look at i'll
| Can any who reads mistake its meanings
Can such language as the following be misunder-
stood?
"The PoPE Is the proper authority to decide
for me, whether the Constitution of this country
is or IL NOT repugnant to the laws OF God. If he
decides that il Is not, then am bound In con.
science to obey" &c.
What Is this but the "hgher law" of Seward
and Sumner? What ia il but surrender Of the
conscience and judgment as to the constitution
and laws Of the country, to the will and Judgment
Of the Pope? Reverse the case. Suppose the
| Pope were TO say that the constitution or law
IL repugnant to the law Of God or the canons of
the church, would not Mr.. Brownson and those
| who think with him be bound to obey the Pope
and refuse obedience to that constitution and law
Most assuredly they would We ask again. should
men avowing such doctrines be trusted with Office
under our government II so, then let the de-
i
and let IL be conceded that as they believe hat a
"higher law" than the constitution, declares the
Fugitive Slave law wrong, and against the law Of
/ God they are not bound TO obey i'll Is the South
| prepared for such doctrinef We warn our peo-
| pie against those who have become the apologists
and defenders Of such doctrines as are maintained
4 by Brownson and his adhercnts He Ia the leader
and acknowledged organ OF the Romish church In
| this country. lie speaks from the record. VIII
| the Protestants Of North Carolina follow him
| But to the letter. We have tslicised parts Of II
to direct the readers attention 10 them Here Il Ia:
Bosros, June IL, 1855.
| Ny DEAR SIR: | have received this moment
| yours of the 7th instant, with its enclosure / am
little at a loss TO determine what course to take.
There are no numbers of my Review wherein /
have maintained the civil authority of the Pope In
this country; but there are several numbers In
which | have discussed the relations Of the two
orders-temporal and spiritual think | shall
| open the whole, best answer your wishes by send
| ing them | win therefore order my publisher 10
send you all the numbers Of 1853 and 1854.
| You will find in the articles entitled the /" Too
ORDERS" January, 1855, The Spiritual not for
/ Tie Tempordi", April and /" The Spiritual Su.
pre,ne," July, of the same year, the statement of
my doctrine on the subject and In " You 90 too
| Far" January, 1854 "7He Temporal Po,ssr of
| tie Popes," April, 1854, and " Uncle Jack NTH
his Nephe,r," for October, Of the same year, my
| explanations and defence ofmy doctrine.
NAV ask you TO read these articles In the order
In which have named thcmY IL you viii, al
though you will doubtless find much which, II
non.C Catholic, You win object to, you viii
| ind no such doctrine | am accused OF holding.
| The subject treat has been much obscured by
controversy, and | am liable TO misapprehenson
by those who have not studied il somewhat pro-
foundy from the Catholic point Of view. ] treat
the subject only under certain aspects and for
Catholics, and many Of The terms | use have In
Catholic theology technical sense, which those
not familiar with that theology may misapprehend.
/ cay this In excuse Of those who have misrepre-
sented me-
4 claim land never have denied for the Pope,
out Of the Ecclesiastical States Of which he IL the
temporal sovereign no temporal or civil Jurisdic-
ton. power, or authority properly so called. The
only power the Pope has in this country, is his
power over Catholics MS the spiritual bead OF the
church II IL purely spiritual power, and can be
exercised only for spiritual end, and even then
i hoIic tha Church doao noffu fudpo