New-York daily tribune., 1857-08-24
THE PRESS AND zHr p7ELAcE.
Letter FROM THE EDITOR OF TIE NEW
YORg TIMES TO ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
~.

1OSs IIhEo ~ AhCHBISHOP HUGHES.
NLw-YcRK, Aug %, 1851.
To Ia. Rr JofS EconEs. R'rc1 Catsot Arlbiqp orEey
Ick:
Fron the 50.h day Of May uniIl Thursday last,
wss absent from the United States. Upon my return
find that my personal character wts very vehement
y attacked during absence in two letters addressed
by YOU to the Editor OF The N. Y Tr;Jprs the first
published in that paper on the 22d OF July. undcr
your own familiar signature" tJohl, Archbishop Of
New.Yob," =" and the other published july ., sgced
X and pretending to be dsinerested defense Of the
preceding letter and Of your general style Of conduit,
rr the controversies irto wlich the meekest and most
pateu. Of prelates may be drawn By the scandals of
an evil world.
To the second of these interesting and remarkable
documents you cay there is question but tia, the
Archbishop Of New-York has felt himself bound, by
the very character of the attacks made on him,
more than once to style, not only the critics
above alluded to, but many others, have considered
pnaigp;fed and, If not justified 10y the OCCASION
"un,-orLly a minister Of God +" and you are frank
enough 70 add, that "m all this they are ,ot mis-
taken" You attempt to excuse these acknowledged
depsrtures from the path clerical dgaity by urging
that il is Only occasionally" that the Archbishop
feels bound thus to Sd defend himself and beat back
his sssailants and that he "does this in TIE mnnaer
which he thinks best calculated to accomplish his
purpose" Th- confession mey be ingenious, bu. it
is quite unnecessary. No reader Of your voluminous
contributions 10 the controversial literature of the last
few years doubtst the unscIupuoas fidelity with which
ycu have acted upon TIE maxim, which is only paro-
died in your confession, that the end iustes the
means" In the first Of the two letters referred to,
your purpose" was to damage my personal charac-
ter AID the "menneI' which you thought " best
nd
rlous defamation, based upon charges which you
knew 10 be untrue, and upon the pretense of suspl
cions which you did not for moment entertain Thst
your whole conduct in this instance was quite a.
auudion.fed" and " unworthy minister OF God, as
usual, [ Think viii be quite evident from simple
statement Of the circumstances Of the case.
On Thursday Jan. s, 1857, received package in
closing Communication signed "Equitas
dressed TO me as tie editor Of Tie TmcS. aud CON-
m,Dtinr upon an article you had then recently pub
iished upon "Tho Catholic Press" Accompanying
this communication was private note deeirlng that
te article might he published and the name OF the au-
thor kept secret u,ess its disclosure should be neces
saiy; this note wa signed, il | remember rightly
"Jobn McElroy Of st. Mary's Church, Boston" On
the evening of the 18th, two gestlemsa called upon
ne on behalf of Archbishop Hughes aud requested
the rsme of the writer Of the article answered THAI
l would Immediately apply to the WRITER Tor permls-
SION TO give it. The gentlemen insisted upon their
right TO have it without this formality, but finally
waived this, upon my assurance that would write at
once-thst an answer would undoubtedly reach New
York BIZ the time should return froC Washington,
whittier was obliged TO go toe next day, and that
would Immediately upon its receipt communicate
with the Archbishop. Upon this they Withdrew
having uttered no threat about legal consequences,
OF said or done any thing else unworthy OF them as
gentlemen or es ministers of God" at crce wrote
10 Dr. McElroy, whom supposed to be the author OF
the article stating that the Archbishop desired 10
know who was tine writer, and asking MS PERMISSION
10 give him his name. The next day, Jan Is, went
ynTn
found reply from DR.. McElroy, expressing great
surprise at the receipt of my ncte-saying that during
a long life he had never written an article lor any
Newspaper that lie had rever seen the COMMUNICATION
If which supposed him to be the author ana desH-
ue 10 know something Of what was to hun very
iii gular affair. at once that had been lui.
posed upon aid my chsgrn was probably quite equal
10 the Archbisbops Indignation. immediately "ro'e
10 the Archbishop note stating these circumstanc 81
expretsing my regret at having been thus haudaeatly
Induced 10 publish personal attack upon him. in
closing the private note 10 which Dr. McElroys name
bad been signed, ard also the Doctors note denying
all know ledge Of the article and expressing my desire
70 aid the Archbishop in any steps he might think
proper 10 take for the detection OF the writer. THIS
note, with lis rcosurez-all in one envelope ai-
rected TO him at bis residence No. 263 Mulberry street
and gave them 20 the lad then employed as messen
ger 10 ny Office for delivery. On Sunday, Jan. Is
II Think q gentleman called at iay house. aud
said the Archbishop was surprised at having
heard nothing from me upon the subject. |
III,
10 him all the circumstances OF the affair We
both agreed in thinking that the note must have been
accidentally mislad and that it wonld probably reach
The Archbishop very soon. assured this genuemt1
of nv regret al the Dusce which had been practiced
upon both the Archbishop and myself and desired hun
70 say to Bshop Hughes that if he would suggest any
method ct detecting the author OF the imposition,
would Gladly aid him in carrying II into elect lie OK
pessed his belief that the Archbishop weull comMa,
ncste with me on the subject aud sad he would make
further inquiry for the missing note. heard nothog
mere of this affair until the evening of MONDAY, the
l6,h of February-nearly u month atterWard anu
this proracted sileBce led me naturally TO lnfer that
the missing note had been received and that the Arch
bishop was prosecuting his pursuit of the author OF
the obnoxious article in his way, and probably to
his own satisfaction In the first of bis two letters to
The TRIBUNE the Archbishop says:
"From time time Mr. Raymond dunned for the name
of the author of the libel which he had pubhed He became
Ia, s.ued aud somewhat nervous on the o ne
kept shutting aud procrastin,ng AZ long as he could
In all this there is not one syllable OF truth. IL
is al serted by the Archbishop, because be considers Il
essential to the machinery which he thinks pest ca-
'culated TO accomplish his purpose. was LOT once
asked, or, to use the Archbishop. phrase, "dun9ed
for tie authors during the interval referred 10;
| had 10 cause for either "nervousness or aiarm,
partly because the Archbishops messengers had more
Of the instincts of gentlemen" than he hes gwen
them credit for aud never dealt IN menaces OF ahy
knd-and partly because no person had spoken 10 me-
a. all upon the subject from the 18th OF January until
the 10th of February, wheo the same two gentlemen
who had called on the 18th of January called again
and said that the Archbishop was surpred at having
from me concerning the communication of "Equitas.'
They assured me that the note had sent on the l7th
Of January had never beer received. Irepeated to
them all the circumstances Of the case-that had
been waiting to hear from the Archbishop response
TO the suggestion had made to the gentleman who
called at my house on Sunday, January lS that MS
Continued silence led to soppose that he dld no.
wish the matter pursued any further but that Il !.
bis wish, would immediately publish an eulo. ~ .s
statement, and place the original manuscript oil inc
communication In the Arohbishops hands. And the
next morning addressed aud sent to Archbishop
Hughes the following note:
DAILY TIsgs OFFICE, NEw YORK, FEB II, lS'L -,
DEAR Sk seatly surprised 70 learn last =,
you had received from any note IN % J>s of
IL EnntasN INes ".