New-York daily tribune., 1857-08-24

| w, yOur OBJ diers ssrYGofr
| A-chbl,Aop HvsaEs HENRY J. RAYMOND.
This. Sir, is the Whole OF tkst ransaction. From
the date os that note Feb. a. 1857, never heard
syllable from yoU directly or indirectly on the subject
had done everything IN my power to remedy 81 IN
u,tice which lad been betrayed ntc doing you and
10 redress wrong practced quite ss much upon my
SELF as upon you. Each ore of the three gentlemen
who had ca led upon me your behalf. at various
tines in regard TO tie matter expressed bus own con-
y;cticn which they assured me you willy shared
II at had beer the victim OF mposlton, aud thas
had dore all in my power to set The matter 1ght.
You -ef even row compelled to sdnlt by thc
facts which you could not ois'or a. 10 evade the
admission tbat the pursued was calculated
10 win your cor orfdenoe and 10 maintain the character
for fsiiu ess and couIesy which al my previous inter-
course sih you had tended TO establish. bor over
fe months ycu rested this peactta frame ct mind.
During all that time not hint @ss given OF any dssat-
isfao.ion en- your part with what had done. lou
never asked any explanation et circumstances that
fright seem to need it, and long as was IN the
county you publicly INDUCED IN any suspicious
Of the sincerity prprey and fairness OF my conduc
But On the 22d of July you knew that was S,VoV
miles away, and that some weeks at all events must
elspse before could reply TO anything you might see
ht 10 publish upon the subject The sklu you nave
acquired by long practice in tie coaer departments OF
public controversy, suggested that vehement
Cnslaue eht upon my personal character issued with all
the Influence of your Archepscopal oice, diligently
circulated in quarters predsposed from other causes to
believe evil of me- and secured from reply or comment
my bsrds until the precise character OF It's specific
sladers should have been forgotten. and oil but their
general effect have passed from The public mind:
would be likely S II S,6T the and PSRSsS e1ssy
| which, according TO your second letter IN The
TRlBrEE the Archbishop carries into every enterprise
for the good Of religion you proceeded to carry thls
ingenious, though somewhat unsclu uuious ueVce lo'o
| practical effect.
You affect TO doubt whether ever sent the private
| note which accompanied the communication OF
Equas" with Dir. McElroys letter, for your
Inspection. After giving my note OF feb Il, which IS
| published above, you say:
note of this kind would be calculated to win the conh
dence cftae Atch6ishop ard ,as haa MSt Syt to ne
proceedings o Mr. Raymond which inexpcabe For in
ssGf t ls , That be- had set ths. note together with
private q his TO No 263 Moberry street Now a1y
bhop Whca N RaJmcn diva questioned this dscIeP.
he lime boy may have found the house bat to use
| heye slipped it under the door of arother"
The discrepancy you speak Of here seems to me
| purely q matter of the Afclopscopsl Imagination
ass erted that sent note addressed TO you at No.
263 Mulberry street; you say you never received IT,
as YOU certainly would have done, had 1t been hJt
there. To my imperfect vision there is no 50 discrep
arcy" between these two assertions. Ben may De
perfectly true did not say for 10 not know, that
The note was lett at No. 263 Mulberry street for dd
not accompany the messenger by whom it was dis.
patched. only know that sent him with it, and you
oply knCw that you did OF receive it. But to give color
to your pretended doubt OF my having sent 1t all you
say that pleaded, when ques.ioned on this dis
"crepar cy that the boy by whom was sent, would
abe still JoHhcom'ag" CnirckIy Tor me piansioh
! "forthcomng.' lie had delivered TO you the very
letter of which you acknowledged the receipt and in
which il i. distinctly stated that the former note was
| seLt "Jy Hs same lad rho Grings M's.' sent hin
| 10 you that You might question him concerning the
former note, and l have no doubt he told you pre-
cisely what he told me, that he "put the note under
| the door" Whether he told the truth OF not have
30 means of kr owing. You seem to have been qni'e
satisfied with his statement uu.i another startling
! discovery renewed your doubts
Ths Archbishop accepted for tn. time being this expna'
ton athoug circumstances would throw doubt upon
the 5 ps%s % Of Eqs asa a%y SS onc %s cam 5 S By S
pses AlGp Tss boy in no, ct
his & hg hSs & eSS s sre @.s
The dis,t lad who because a ston could not
No a5 MpbIry street from any other her house IN the
slipping communication under the most convenient door
You have no excuse for saying that I pretended to
have sent the trimmed portion OF tho hrst page OK
this manuscript; for in the note OF February IL, which
you did receive said expressly that the manuscript
came TO me accompanied by a Prirate note in the
same handwriting and il was thsuoe, written upon
asepa-ae sheet Of PaPcr wlch pa seni9, is h gh
| had forged the name of DR.. Mctlroy. Your insnua.
ton that "shufod" and procrasnated," and
finally "preterdcd" to have sent it, bat dd not DO so
| lest ven should ascertain who "Equitas really wa',
is met by the fact that soon as found the note had
not reached you, Iimmedtdtfy sent you me oTisin0f
manuscript u The article aSef. Did tais look IKE
"shufiiug or ryng to conceal anything that would
serve 10 Identify the author But the first page OF the
manuscript wa "tnmed;" and this strikes your fer
vd tarcy as particularly mysterious and "loexplca-
be-" Ten lines will explain the mystery TO the saus,
| faction certainly Of everybody except possibly an
| Archbishop who has "puipose, :" @@cecClnp.s@:
When the article reached me, it had no heading, and
wrote this upon the top Of the fret p'se-" Ihe
CatLolic Press-Repy to tie recent Arfictc OF Arch-
Jishop Hughes." When l sent you the manuscript,
cut or sc trimmed, this of-as it formed no parto the
original article, was not in the same Handwriting ana
could be of possible service to you in tracing the
authorship You received the manuscript precisely as
it reached menot a word nora syllable, more OF less
think il would be difficult for any perSoa less un-
SCI upulcus than yourself TO mpute 70 me, IN all THIS
trarsaction any offense more heinous than That OF
| having been imposed upon by the Forgery OF .o,nc
person who had purpose" to eject, ano WHO did IT
10 the manrer which he thought best calculated 10
accomplish it," and it seems to have been very dlf
cult for you, to find anything IN the efforts haa
| made TO redress the wong obnoxious to ceasIrs or
| suspicion. You obliged to fan back, even .or
your malice, upon the suggestions OF third patty;
| person whom you bandly introduce a. " mutual
friend srd who whispered your ear JUST n tlme 70
serve your purpose that although in all his former
intercourse with YOU " Mr.. Raymond had shown him.
self a courteous gentleman these appearances were
| deceitful-tbat he was
.drrssn nor bis oppotane. OF asocsiins with gentlemen
have been aJie supply innate and original deficiency
The embarrassed Archbishop seized the hint as q, an
essv ard delightful solution OF the difficulty lie us
carced instantly all the suggestions of nis own luug
nen and observation and fell back upon his friends
theory about the instincts of geut!ernsn'-s theory
which is sure to be most ostentatoualy paraded u
sueech bv these wortbies who have most absolutely
Gc,,aed II in practice But no escaped felOn could
aonrish il with more compacency than the venerable
Archbishop whom have the honor to address. You
must excuse me- Sir, if am little incredulous con-
| cerprg your friend" and bis claim to the di.clo-
surer concerning Mr. Raymonds character, for which
| YOU give bm credit You speak Of him as "mutHal
irie friend of Mr. RayHo ond well a! OF Arch.
bishop Hughes Ii this description Of him : correct,