Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-07-22
Col. Fremont,s Defance q


Col. Fremont's Defence.
We presented, on yesterday, the statements
Of Col. Fremont's friends, made through the col
umns Of the New York Tribune, by letter from
\ member of Congress, protesting to explain
away the fact of his marriage by a Catholic
,priest-we unmasked the hypocrisy of that de-
fence, and exhibited the .talsehoods to which
his friends resorted, to screen him from the
charge Of Catholicism and we did this, not by
circumstantia eyidence--aot by oral proof,
but by the official certificate of the Clerk OF
the Court of Washington, giving the lie to the
main position taken by his friends, and Thus
wholly destroying the foundation Of that inge-
NOUS fabric, which these political Jesuits had
reared 4.
III witness, In court of justice, who, tes-
tfying on point material in the cause, know
ingly and wilfully swoars to what turns out to
be naked uatrvth, it destroys his credibiity
and wholly discredits him rs to any and all
other statements he may make, g Falsas III
ua0, falsus In omnibus" is the maxim Of the
law and the dictate of common sense. Apply
ing this rule to the representations made in the
publication of Col. Fremont's friends, in de-
fence Of the charges made against him, that
publication stands branded as utterly uuwor.
thy Of credit in all its parts.
Nor will it diminish the force of this gene
raj refutation Of that defence, to plead, that the
authors of Colonel's Fremont's defence were in
formed by him, or others, that the statements
which they put forth AZ facts were true. They
had no right to assert that marriage license
was "utterly unattainablen by him, without
first ascertaining at the clerks Office in Wash
ington, (where he was married) whether or not
a license had been issued or applied for. This
defence of Colonel Fremont was destined for
the widest circulation; it emanated from his
distinguished friends, and they were reckless
and faithless when they deceived the country
upon this question.
They can put in no plea which will excuse
them for palning off upon the country, as
truth, that which, II Is shown by the record
was falsehood, and especially when that rec
ord was within stones throw of the place
where the falsehood was indited Nor can
we understand how Colonel Fremont HIM
self, who, we suppose, must have seen the
defence set up for him published in the New
York Tribune, could have remained silent
when he kne,o that the statement made ky his
friends, that "a license was unattainable, !" was
I antrae, and when he himself had procsred a
license, and was married by the Catholic priest
under that licensel
These are points which Otol. Fremont and
his friends must meet in u ,e present canvass !;
and If they have the ~ gcnuity to meet them
successfully, we shat. record the triumphs of
their genius withc, ut one moments delay.
But the trier dis Of Col Fremont in the third
section Oh their defence, substantially state
that IS. Fremont was in her early youth a
press' terrain, but upon her marriage, to oblige
her husband, connected herself with his
church, the Episcopalian." They then pro
duce certificate from the Rev. Mr.. French, Of
the Church of the parish of Epiphany, Wash
ington, showing that in August, is4S, he bap
tired ttoo of Col Fremont's children in hi,
church, and in 1853 third, and in 1855 :
fourth child He Is
And this certificate is presented TO prove, IL
what faith, Col and Mrs. Fremont have rearet
their children" Now, the inference sought
by Col Fremont's friends, to be created BY
this certificate, is, that this was Col Fremont's
church, when IN truth, as we are authorized
to assert on the authority of gentleman who
had it from the Rev. Mr. French, himself thai
Mr.. French neoer soo Col fremont IA thai
church, eccept on the OCCASION ref the baptism
efhis children And observe, Col Fremont
was married in October, 1s4l, and nearly seeer
gears afterwards, too Of bis children were hap
tired on the sumo day in that; church! 4
Col, Fremont had been an EpiscopaIian, Il
his lady had, TO o5f,ge her Husband joiner
that church ''oa her masyiage.r fas his friends
assert, in their defence of him. lis itnst likely
no would have been scen by the Rector OF ths.
church, on some other occasion than when BIZ
children were baptized?
The whole statement on this point bears thc
stamp of improbsbility on its face. We shall