Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1870-05-18
For One Pair OF Eyes"
Our brief comment Of last week on John
sons letter to Mrs Mcfarland, has drawn
forth from him the following reply, which We
willingly publish al his request


New York, May 10, 1870.
10 hs Ehfor Of The Vermont Waterman ana
Jopynd
DEAR Sra The remarks in your last issue upon
my letter 10 Mrs Mcfarland seem 10 me grossly
unfair, and appeal TO your sense Of justice ior
permission TO speak a few words in your columns
in my own defence
The letter which You 50 severely condemn was
Ia pirate one, intended but for one pair Of eyes.
Il was written in haste, solely to fulfil promise
to send to Mrs Mcfarland a copy Of the two
widely known llnrdshell Baptist somons-the
d" Harp ola Thousand Strings, and the " Noun
tains Of 1lepsidam both which were written
by Methodist clergyman at the West. Any one
who has seen these sermons will readily under
stand why. in enclosing them to my friend, was
in Elections mood, and why ! was reminded Of
O. story then current in the newspapers, and over
which we had laughed together few weeks pre-
,iou.ly the story, namely, Of an illitemte man
/ who, speaking in religious meeting alluded 10
/ Gods compassion for sinners, adding, " Of whom
] am the chief among ten thousand, and the ono
altogether lovely" Over this story ! bad then
lately seen large company of evangelical minis
tiers conyulsed with laughter, and ! cannot see
that my parody of it, the origin Of which was
perfectly understood by Mrs. Mcfarland, was any
more irreyerent than their mirth. OF course, !
should not have written such letter for the pub
lie; but in writing thus 70 Christian woman,
who was in no danger Of misunderstanding either
my purpose or spirit, do not perceive that /
made myself obnoxious to the charge of irreycr-
cnce
with this explanation | should be willing to
abide the judgment Of even a council Of ministers
upon my hasty letter. Let ans man ask himself
whether his own private letters would bear public
scrutiny as well as this may, whether he has not
often, in the confidence Of private friendship,
written things which, if disclosed to the public,
would make a totally false and unjust impression.
( 4 candid answer to this question could not fail
to demonstrate the injustice Of your comments
upon my letter. Whether your studied conceal
ment of the fact that the letter was priraie was
either just or honorable, will leave your own
conscience to decide.
In printing my letter observe that You were
careful to suppress these few words " Before
this reaches you, Mrs. johnson will leave Shell
burue but am sure she will never cease 10 re-
member the summer spent there with You Ger
tainly am not likely to forget the few bright
days | spent there Dare you avow the purpose
for which you suppressed these few words from
my ray brief letter? Did you think that, by
conccalng from your readers the fact of my irif',
intimate acquaintance with Mrs Mcfarland. YOU
could induce your readers to infer that my rela.
ti1us with her involved something disgnceful
What oas your motive if it was not this? Ieay.
ing you 10 answer this question or not as you
choose, will add that Mrs. Richardson CORNER.
ly Mrs. Mctarland) WINS and is the dear and
trusted friend Of both Mrs. johnson and myself
Knowing her 10 be d noble Christian woman, If
spite OF one imprudent act we feel that we honor
ourselves in giving her our friendship in this houl
Of her great sorrow, when the shafts Of caumny
are hurting about her head, and Libertinc
press is Indignantly attempting to destroy her
peace.
, Your epthets whatever may be their enec
f upon persons who do not know me, and who d,
not stop to consider the circumstances under
which my letter was written, will fall harmless,
among those who have amy knowledge of my char
J acter Everybody who knows me at all, know,
that am not irreyerent, and that your mputa
tons Of 90 free love- as applied to me, are a.
false as they are foul.
OLIVER JOHNSON.
The letter Of Johnson's will be remember.
f ed by our readers, and we gave it our utter
disapproyal, because it applied to woman
who has been the central actor in one of the
most unhappy free love transactions of our
day, and who has been defended and houoreC
by the independent, the most characteristic,
and hsautiful phrases that have been appro
priated by Scripture to the Son of man.
Two points may perhaps be noticed il
, Johnson's defence. lie justfes bis lette
and its epthets, because they were intended
e for one pair Of eyes, We do not know
r how that which was intended for private pc
rusal alone, became public. 1t must have beer
furnished to the public either by the writel
or by his correspondent. Ia any case, aft9
its appearance in the press, it becomes publ,
and is subject to all legitimate criticism. w
have not made this private" matter public
= but when it became so by other than our owl
act it was open to our comments. Nor do W,
conceive that the fact that it was intended
only for one pair of eyes" essentially
changes its character. That would have beer
the same if it had been written for all mel
and women to read. One cannot Justify hi
. " private acts or words when they come t
be proclaimed on the housetop, by assuring
the world that they were not intended 70
publication One might be naturally unwil
ling to expose or reveal the private affairs o
another but when it is done, they are subjec
to the same criticism and Judgment as if the,
were intended to be made public. In fac
such things let US little nearer to the tru,
character and quality of the man. 1t is no
what a man does in full dress, on parade, tina
tells us what he is but what he does in un
dress, when he throws off his sense of respon
sibility to appear other OF better than he is
and acts and speaks out himself And when
man is so inadyertent as to let his private
transactions become public, instead Of cryinJ
out to the world to suspend or yield its judg
ment upon them, because they were intende
for one pair Of eyes" only; he would, if h
had any wisdom left, hold his tongue, and no
Il call the attention of the community to his fol
y or his wrong by sending over the countr
his deprccatory explanations, and intimatin
that his critics are neither fair nor honor
able in their studied concealment of the pri
yate character of his letters. And one wor
> as to the explanation that johnson gives. |
he can see no difference between an " illitC
rate man, speaking in religious meeting,
applying to himself incongruous scripture
phrases and himself takinp these vnr