Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-06-25
NUMBER fS9.
From the Louisville Courier.
Professor Morse to Bishop Spalding.


"If ever the liberty Of the United States is d,
sroyed, u will be by Romish priests. ''--LArArRrrE.
PouoHKEErsrE, June 8, 1855.
TO Bishop M p. Spalding
SIR; The Courier, with your remarks of the 2eth
| of May, is before me. I was arrested for mo
ment In admring the opposite selection you have
made Of a text from Moliere .Si ie me defends
GO NEST 9u'en Yecaant" Although literally trans.
lated, "lf defend myself it is only in backing
out" the sentiment Off Is significantly expressed
in the well known ancient lines
" He that fights and runs away
May live to fight another day"
And SO, sir, you think you have cleyerly 5aekxd
out OF the controversy, by clubbing 1t "a ve,y
pretty quarrel as 1t stands, between Protestant
outside barbarians with which you have now mo-
thing to do but to stand by as spectator to rub
your hands and watch the vicissitudes of the con-
test. This ruse might perhaps have had some
chance OF success, $50 far merely as relieving you-
self from responsibility in the forgery part of the
controversy Is concerned) but that you have, un-
fortunately for yourself put the main issue on an
other and distinct basis--a basis ON which me-, {
you with pleasure.
Whether it will be necessary or not for me to
have any controversy with the editor of the CHI
cinnat Enquirer, is question in this new aspect
OF the case altogether premature, and indeed lrr J.
evant That question, moreover, is obviously 10
be settled between you and your aecompices, Cn
the one side, concoctng a tissue Of invisible aud
intangible authorities of most suspicious seeming,
and the public on the other--its credulity i'm
posed upon by means Of these same pretended at
thorties 1t is question, so far as am concerned,
sir, which may be better answered when you an,
have settled tccounts. It is for you and your at
thority, old Line" not for me, sir, to clear up
the houHy-increasing conviction, strengthened y
the delay to produce that book. thnt great fra d
and forgery have been perpetrated by your side of
the house; and for you, not TO, me, 10 snow, II ou
can how many, If any, of his alleged facts are tr, E.
You denied, and still deny, that Lafayette cou d
eoer haze entertained ach disparaging opinions
of Ron,ish priests as are indicated in the sent
ments Of the motto in question. ! have alreafy
met and defeated you on the question of fact,
whether he uttered not the words of that motto.
You challenged me to produce The testimon, of
epen American as to his having expressed 8, ch
a sentiment. Have you forgotten. air. this chaI-
enge twice repeated by you, In staring capitals to
draw to II a special attentonY | Dlel Jour cnsl-
lenge promptly. produced the witness. gave
his name. (not a man in mask, without my assu-
rafscs that his statement might be relied onl-a
veritatds name subscribed to his testimony--a
name venefated, honored for all that is upri, ht
ana n0uest, Wen Known, ouB hHo"H--tne hsue
Of one 30 highly respected for his prVbityand pniy
as to be offered by President Madison the CHI f
of / Q army Of th3 United States-a
man whose word would no more he doubted iD th q
than other mems oaths. gave you
the time when Lafayette uttered those words, ard
the circumstances under which he uttered VI, m.
And what, sir, is your reply? You have not mrde
even the slightest attempt to invadate this te H.
mony The motto stands proved on my par, IN
contradicted on yours. But you are 10th to lose
the benefit of Mr.. Old Lines dggings," and 20
you would still cling to the hope of making Il Q
public believe that If l. fayette said he also nn-
said IL. Well, sir, ! have proved that he said Il;
il Is for you not for me, to prove that he nnsaidit
There are facts enough already before the pub
lie for them to determine whether the evidence CT
forgery on an extended scale, by your side Of the
house. justi6es or not the suspicious that your ma
nnuvring has raised whether the fraud includes
the forgery of a book alleged to be published in
Paris, in 1885, and yet neither 70 be found there
by the most eminent bibliopolists, Hector Bosange
at their head, nor its name In the authentic cata-
logues that professedly include all works pub sh-
ed, not only in Paris, but in any part Of France;
or whether the forgesH sxfends only to the alleged
letter Of Lafayettes n bs nablc can put their own
construction upon tho@0 cphhetical manifestations
of anguish from your antkority, "0ld Line when
a sight Of that book is requested They can judge
whether that bod is Of public existence in tie
!" library Of the French gentleman near Cincinnati
H." or whether under the suspicious circum-
stances surrounding the matter library" ard
even the French gentleman" may not also bo
but ictions of Old Lines imagination. The public
can draw their own conclusions from the non-pro-
duction of the work, after eight months call for It
They can estimate at their value the various shfts
TO avoid It's exhibition and TO escape from respon-
sbility They can determine whether all this shuf
fling Is or Is not trick TO gain time for further
experiments on their creduty They can esti-
mate the character Of the betting proposal for
the good Of the orphans"
They can estimate the reliability of your anony-
nous voucher for the eristence Of q book and let
ter, (not to say their authority, Y in eSistenceO
which can be produced only at the risk the part
of him who asks IT, Of thousand dollars, and the
acknowledgment of being base fdLsifer r. seri-
ousy SIR ia this the kind Of authority on which you
rely for your historical data If 80, there are
those of your own faith, high-minded, honorable
men, lat least among the laity,) whose sense OF
honor and Justice will class your miscelanea where
they belong, in the index Of repudated and worth
less works. ] wait with patience the consumms-
ton Of these suspicious man9uverngs, and hasten
now TO meet you upon the basis you propose.
You have requested plain and crptien answers 70
eight questions, which, as they contain, in your
view, the gist Of this discussion" have examined
with attention. Your main argument then against
the motto, as containing the sentiments OF Lalay-
cite, which gather from your questions, Is rly
this You maintain that Lafayette, being Catho-
lie, passing for Catholic in France, praising he
Catholic piety Of his wife, and having Catholic
chapel in his chateau at Lagrange, therefore G
| could not say anything 20 doiogatory 70 the cha
acter Of Catholic priests as the motto sets forth
for IL he bad the priests would not have ohciated
In his chapel nor have assisted IN such large num-
bers at his funeral This is your argument.
| waive for the present any inquny as TO tho
sense in which you use the word Catholic, (oi you
are not ignorant that il Is used in various sens
| your conclusion, from your premises, is a 10 =
requitur, in whatever sense you use that terln If
can but show that Lafayette, in his public and
published speeches, did depoince Catholic priests
In terms as strong as any contained "a the motto.
II but this one fact is established 1t will lead TO the
irrsistble conclusion, according to yourown show
ing, that Lafayette was not Catholic IN any such
seIlse |; that he was not also Protestant in the
genuine sense Of the term. have no difficulty,
sir, in recouciling his hostility to Roman Catholic
priests, and his uniform antagonism TO your whole
system, with all the incidents which constisute
4 your premises without charging upon him, as you
seem prepared to do either Inconsistency or hy-
- q IL -.