The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1869-05-14
!, WILLIAM TEE s1LnNT. .


livered II Frement, epti1ed " William The
Silent" and u pom the whole I must say /
was very fsvorably impressed by it. There
was in it, TO be sure, lWhat must have been
obvious to your readers,) an offensive as
sumption of superiority, which in no way
that / can discover is consistent with our
relation to each other as disputants or either
of our relations to the outside world. Ac-
cOuhtisg for this half patsonizins ain of the
gentleman, partly by pride of race and part
! ly by The influence Of Priestly office, It sp-
peals less 70 my Indignation than to my
sense OF the ridiculous. Aside from this
EsHpereiIiOus tone ESQ insepaFable fTOm the
priesthood, } Nv. Bower seems an smiabls
man, as well as clever writer. He writes
very easily and somewhat gracefully. Of
course, do not, in this, presume to tell Mr..
Bower anything he does not already know.
His commendatory references to his style,
prove that he is wildly conscious Of his lit
erary perfectiOns. Certainly, nothing iamy
tame way can add ought to bis self COM
placency on that point In dropping here
q word of praise, 1 do not mean to gild-re-
fined gold or attempt the impossible, but
simply to ssy the truth. acknowledge that
in temper and in the general tone, Il find this
replication of his decided Improvement
upon his original attack
In one respect, possibly owing to my
duller sensibilities, have decided advant.
age over Mr.. Bower. / am in no wise ''ss.
tonished" or confounded by hisreplication.
am not even surprised by its unreasonable
length. A writer who begins by commend
ing his own ''terseness" of style, exaltibg
his freedom from yerbosity, and magnifying
the reiterations of Others, may usually be
depended upon for long winded articles, hks
the one before me. My letter occupied only
about half column of your paper. This re-
plication, as it is called, covers nearly two
columns of your journal. The fact is, my
opponent has an evident liking for newspa-
per controversy, and derives pleasure from
it; while naturally shrink from it, and only
engage in it when can not we'll avoid it. ]
find some compensation for my misfortune
in this case, that so little is required from
me to call forth such abundance from my
assailant. Considering the pleasure it gives
him to write, it would hardly be amiable in
me to quit the contest without word 10 his
replication. err
l will begin with his beginning. Mr..
Bower is not only astonished, but dissp-
pointed. BE has made points and they have
not been 5nswered. He says. ss
81 utterly failed to see my structure an
swered. s i made two
points sgainst Mr.. DOuglass,-one against
his manner, and another againtt his state
ment. Mr.. Douglass has not touched The
first even remotely, and the second with a
virtual, may say literal acknowledgement
Of having been wrong Ta
Now, all this very much astonishes Mr..
Bower. Especially is he astonished by
what seems to him my strange omission to
answer his point so 'tersely' made against
me as to manner He cspitalizss it; calls at
tention to it; remarks upon it. In short, he
is astonished by it. ] can easily fancy him
walking the floor of mis- library, exclaiming
while SO doing. The 'n,aaRer!'the ma71lerI
Why does he not answer my 'tsrssly' stated
point as 20 thatG Aud, in tone of triumph,
at last hear him utter his written words,
there is no dasloer.'s fe5E f5s zl
= Now, strange as it may seem to Mr.,
Bower, I am not ashamed Of the omission to
which he so pOinteoly calls my attention.
Without affecting any undue humility or
amiability, must tell him I was restrained
from making any defense of myself at that
point by two considerations; Firstly, by
my modesty; and secondly, by my charity
for the erring. was too modest to defend
my own manners, and too charitable TO at
tack the manner of the other parties con-
.cerned. Nothing short of the cOmpulsiYe
force you have brought to bear upon me,
Mr.. Bower, could made me, las now mean
to d. disregard these considerations.
Not less than my learned critic, do 1 in
sist upon it, that public speaker is bound
to present his view 10 those who differ from
him, in manner as attrBctive and as little
offensive as possible. This is not more his
rule than mine, and if it was in any measure
departed from, in my lecture at Fremont,
Mr.. Bower must take portion of the blame
to himself and his particular friends. He
win remember that on that occasion, that
several persons, probably Catholics, for they
were the offended ones, without waiting to
hear the entire introduction of my address,
rose from their seats, in violation of deeOrum,
and ostentatiously and noisily left the Hall,
A people who show temper so irritable,
and bigotry SO intolerant Of opinions diff
ferent from their own, and who in public
meeting exhibit such contempt for good
manners, are scarcely entitled to treatment
less indignant than they received at my
hands. Had those ill-mannered people pos
sessed their souls in patiencs, and respected
the rights of others little longer, they
would have seen that was at least impartial,
and that was as little disposed 10 palliate
and excuse Protestant bigotry and psrsecu-
ton as Catholic. But no; as if to prove the
truth of what ! said, out they went, banging
down the stairs Of the Hall, as if resolved
neither TO hear themselves nor to allow
others to hear. That l was indignant at this
indecent behavior of part Of your flock,
freely admit. and that my voice and manner
partOOk Of this sentiment, l neither doubt nor
deny. So much for my manner.
In regard to the sTcOnd point--MT. Bower
is--disappOinted. He expected the lore Of
intricate citations from some inimical his
tory will not call this an unreasonable
expectation on the part of Mr.. Bower, for
probably no other reader of your Journal
knows better than he how easily 1 might
have burdened your columns with such lore,
or how readily it could have been answered
By the one word illimicaL; and because in
imicaI, not true, or at least probably, untrue.
That is an easy mode of disposing Of damag-
ing testimony, and my critic knows how to
use it. aa s
Mr., Bower tells your readers that l virtu-
ally, even literally admitted having been
wrong as to my statement that the Pope
blessed the parties to the assassination Of
William of Nassau. Here was the way 1
admitted this wrOng, if it can be called such;
asserted that this foul egg Of assassination
was hstched under the sacred hat Of Gard
inal GranYells, Cardinal who with all other