Daily national Democrat., 1861-01-08
What Does it Amount to ]

letter heretofore published ever his sigma
ture, declaring the Papal Government one Of
the mildest and least despotical in the world,
says
AT least two Of our California journals. IN
their admiration for the poet, or the sent-
mects he was supposed to have expressed
throngh this letter, were induced to take up
his and their defense, and endeayor to main
tain as fact, against the combined argu
ments which history aud the times alike af-
ford, that the Papal power is not a despot-
ism, but quite model of an enlightened and
liberal Government One of these, the or
gan Of the Catholic Church. prompted by its
zeal as a defender of the faith pursued only
a course consistent with its religious instincts
add obligations But what shall we say of
the other Journal edited by gentleman who
makes occasional literary excursions to Par
nassus, and is supposed to breathe an air of
the most exalted, aye, of inspired freedom in
his double calling of poet and editor? The
| Marysyille Democrat, it Will be remembered.
on the appearance of Taylors pretended let
ter indorsng the Pope, hastened to the res
cue Of the author from the reproaches Of the
Union, assuming that if Taylor said Papacy
was no despotism, all the testimony of Other
writers and historians, all the "logic of
events" all the blood shed in the war now
pending, the whole intent and meaning of
Protestant civilization, in fact, must yield to
the word of brother poet. And growing
bolder still, in q subsequent number our Ma
rysville contemporary endeavors, on his own
account, to follow his patron in making out
q case favorable to the Popes Government
against the contrary evidence of q recent
English Catholic author, from whom we quo
| faH ufhi lar r,ttin . 10
admirer of Papacy nOw stand, after reading
the above letter from the real Bayard Tay-
lor declaring the other to be a forgery, and
the Papal Government to be zone of the very
worst in the world Will he meekly re-
tract and find pleasure in concurring with his
brother poet insisting still that Taylor hav-
! ing been to Rome, Taylor knows, or will he
still refuse to be convinced or to see any ev-
idence against the despotie character of the
Romish Government in the testimony of 9TH
er writers 2"
The Union is very short>sighted if it sup
poses that any sensible man, who has read
both the Union and Democrat, will imagine,
for moment, that the Union has any ad-
vantage over us in the matter under consd-
Grafton. The Union published the original
letter, thinking it was Taylor's and comment
ed upon it, So did we. If we were fooled
in the matter, so was the Union. Wherein
then lies its advantage?
The Union denounced Taylor for writing
the letter, and in order to show that he was
wrong, cited the remarks of certain writer
and certain Review, which in no wise con-
troverted anything that Taylor had said
AS for u.s. we said that we had confidence in
Mr.. Taylor's statements, and would as soon
believe him as any man in the world, upon
matters which had come under his personal
observation.
We relied upon the correctness of Mr..
Taylors statements, supposing that he made
them If he did not make them, of course
that is an end of the matter.
We must be permitted here, however, to
remind the Union that the authority referred
to by Mr.. Taylor, to wit: NJ. Edmund
About, is not exactly the best of authorities
in this or any other matter, and we are half
inclined to think that this second letter over
Iaylors signature is itself a forgery, for the
reason that an observer of men and things so
acute as Taylor would be apt to know some
thing of the status of such man as Edmund
About. The character of this person was
alluded to by the late Rev. Daniel Slatterv.
in manner which might have impressed it
self, we should think, upon the mind of the
Theological editor of the Union" with some
vividness But, lest forgetfulness of this
little point in the Unions tilt with Father
Slattery may have stolen over the conven-
iently oblivious mind of our cotemporarv,
we will just quote few lines from the Rev. |
Fathers first and second letters, in reply to
the Unions review of the work of Judge Bur-
nett. In his first letter, Mr. Slattery alluded
to the citation of Mons About as authority
against the Catholics, in the following terms:
"ln the name of common sense, why have
you cited, as an authority against us, such an
Infamous, unscrupulous hbeler as NJ. About is
well known to be? And what astonishes
me more is, that you should designate, as
member and defender of our Church, a man
who excels even yourself in abuse and Sian
der of everything Catholic. Why, his exagger.
ated, vituperatiye assertions are not deserv.
wing of even a passing notice. If you
look at the San Francesca Monitor of Octo-
Der 18th, 1859, you will see an article copied
from the Boston Daily Courier, a Protestant
secular journal, which ought to mantle your
cheek with shame, for having ever quoted
such an infamous libeler. AS intend in a
future communication to give the article in
full, will content myself at present with
few extracts.
Gwen among the profigate wits of Paris"
says the Courier, edmond About has lost
caste lie at one time became chronicler of
Figaro, justly described by q most accom-
plished writer in the North American Re-
view, 'as the lowest and vilest of those small
journals which gain livelihood in Paris by
revealing all the private scandal which they
can lay hands upon;' but even from this in
famous place he was expelled, and for time
was shut up in the precincts of the fe,tilletin
of the Moniteur Universal, which had been
wittily as we'll as truly called the Menteur
Universal. lie is one of those rare specimens
ofhuman nature who, perhaps, know, theo-
retically, the difference between truth and
| talsehood, but have natural preference for
the latter, and who always choose the latter,
except when they suppose the truth will pay
better" heartily wish you joy, sir, of such
distinguished acquaintance, and sincerely