North Branch democrat. [volume] (Tunkhannock, Pa.) 1854-1867, 1863-10-28

| Complaints have come 10 our knowledee on
account Of our allowance of so much of our
space for tie publication of correspondence
which .hithertohaa been poiptless, and aim
less, so FAR as any question is concerned IN
| which the public can;be expected to take an
interest. For this final repetition of the in
Fiction, in form still more Objectionable and
offensive than either of its predecessors, we
feel constrained to state our reasons. This
letter, it must be confessed, is, in point of
merit, of any sort, very far below anything
that we expected to publish when we con-
sented, upon the writers invitation, to opon
our columns to discussion of the Bible as
pect of the Slavery question. Had we antie-
ipated that this proposed discussion would so
speedily degenerate into mere personal al
tercation, bssianing on. part of the challenger
with accusations Of fatsehOod and s!ander, and
ending with boyish boasts, idle yaporings,
empty assertions, unworthy insinuations and
inuard5es, gegceEainly, would have politely
sy having commenced, We were unwilling to
afford to either party just ground OF complaint
that he had been denied hearing; and now,
as this thing must end somewhere (obviouly
the sooner the better) for reasons that will
be apparent to all fair minded men, we have
determined to allow to Mr.. Brownscombe the
last word. Nor do we believe that Mr. De-
witt will feel that he is injured by our action
in this behalf; for really. those who have
carefully perused the correspondence thus far
will not have failed 10 notice that his vindl.
cation of himself from Mr.. Brownscombes
reckless charge of .falsehoed and SANDER was
SO complete that it seems now to stand sub
stantiaIy confessed by that gentleman him.
SELF; while-the new matter introduced in this
number requires no notice at the hands of Mr..
Dewitt. In relation to the new issue of We
racity raised by the Rev'd correspondent
viz that involving his assertion that Bishop
Hopkins had ,misquoted scripture, it is pro-
per for US to say: lst. that TO apply the words
"pliant tools" to gentleman for no cause, 9TH
er than shat they have dared to testify to
their recollection Of angle. allegation Of the
Rev'd writer in sermon preached by him in
their presence, is unworthy geht1eman-un.
worthy the writer himself, Whose. "plant
tools" are those ".gentienen'' who did not
happen to remember the Objectionable word?
NE do not characterize them as "pIiant TOOLS"
nor stoop TO the insinuation that they are not
gentlemen" But does not the writer know
that these negative certificates upon which he
so plumes himself; are of very little value in
opposition to positive testimony His friends
may not have remembered single word of
his sermon ;.but that would not prove that
he preached no sermon. Nor would it prove
that Others WHO DID iieaiem ber certain points
of Che. Discourse, testify falsely in rslatfon TO
such points. 4 Those philosophers who have
most investigated the sources Of truth, as de
pendent 'upon' human testimony, all agree
that evidence Of this sort is of very little val
ge in opphsigsgt TO positive: testimony. Does
nndf Nj. Bfo1hseombe know that his charge
ofruisquoting scripture was matter Of. pub
lie notoriety many days before such charge
became matter, Of dispute betweenii4m and
Mr. Dewitt--that. meme went straightway
from his church to. their-Bibrs.te- see for
themselves whether the Bishop had fisquot-
ed, or the preacher had falsely accused 2
2nd. The Rev'd writer has much to say
aboot pettifoggfng = and his own con,mu
nications, certainly exhibit much familiarity,
on his part, with that process Of argument
that he so characterlzes. HIS criticism of IAN
guage employed by MFR. S. ". Little in his
affidavit, affords the most marked example of
pettifogging that now occurs TO us. Mr. L.
very properly declines TO state from memo
~, the very words" in which Mr. Brown
seombes charge of .inisquoting was expressed,
but declares his recollection distinct that
+ such charge was made This is the plain
meanlpg Of the, affidavit, and It is very PLAIN
ly and .correctIy expressed therein. Mr..
Brovhscombe should renepbcr that this
poor quibbng about words lsnever resoFted
to in good case, and is especially unbecom
ing dgnitary Of the church.
3rd. The writers excuse for resting his de-
NAL upon the unsworn certificates Of his
friends is plainly disingsnuous. In reference
to human testimony, the law has made an
oath one of the principal tests of truth, and
the public will believe, as we believe, that the
true reason why they were not sworn was
because they had no distinct recollection on
the subject or at least, not sufficiently dis
tlnct to warrant them in testifying to it upon
oath. We venture the assertion that neither
Of them would set up his gentitity as reason
why he should not be sworn to q fact Of which
he had distinct recollection. In the history
of this world it will be found that many men,
who were quite as good gentlemen" as Mr..
Brownscombes negative unsworn witnesses,
have verified their words by their oaths ,
and in no ,oise compromised their gentility by
doing so. The offensive ilnputation contained
in this excuse is certainly unworthy Of any