, 1870-05-22

mas Of faith which cannot, it must follow
that those doymaa Of. faith are no part
whatever Of the knowledge of God We
are inclined to think That when man
knows God, the finite mind grasping and
comprehending the infinite, he has learned
enough. But if any nann chooses to hold
that the Council of the Vatican can give
him some further lessons, We shall withhold
at present Our anathe1na- There il SO
much moro nec1 of healthy living than Of
hard cunsing in this troubled world that if we
do any of the latter it will be for some deep
er ptoyocation than the assumed mistakes
which our neighbors may make in the effort
to believe what they cannot understand.
THE MCFARLAND LETTERS.
The New York World, in a recent
number, denounced Mcfarland tsas ono
OF the meanest and most dcspicablo Of COW
ards, whose baseness in publishing his
wife's letters, after the trial Was over, dis
played an unusual depth Of degradation" ="
These letters, it will be remembered, are
published to neutralize the impression which
Mrs Richardson's account of the wretched
life she had silently endured for years, as
the wife Of lazy, brutal, drunken and vio-
lent husband, has made, and it Is assumed
that tho expressions Of affection they con-
thin, prove her statement TO be false. Now
let Us look at them with entire impartiality,
in the Light OF evidence, and see whether
the Norld is justified or not IN the strong
terms it uses We find them to be OF vari-
ous dates, from 1858 to 1868, and We find
them to be of totally differing tone, ac-
cording to the dates at which they werc
written. NcFarland, having purpose to
serve, has, Of course, out of all the mass of
letters at his disposal, made choice of those
most nbounding in expressions of affection,
as best serving that purpose. LII the early
letters, these expressions are frequent, and
are entirely in accordance with her nerra-
tive, TINT it was not till some time after
their marriage that she discovered his true
character, and her affection for him was
gradually destroyed. Accordingly, in the
later letters. the tone Is changed, md,
though there still remain those terms
of endearment which moan as muct,
as Dear sir" or "aIy dear SIR"
md Every truly yours, or "sincerely your
friend" in ordinary business letters between
Een, thero is marked absence usually of
the expressions Of affection and confidence
which characterize the earlier letters. ANY,
one who carefully and candidly reads tho
correspondence cannot fail to mark this
distinction. But there is still another point
which, if the World has observed, fully
justihes the terms with which it denounccs
Mcfarland Us tsmcan mud despicable COW
ard and miscreant to be despised aud
loathed." That wretch who could be
moved to murder for no stronger reason
than the fear that somebody else would gain
what he had already and forever lost, should
not stick at the lesser crime OF forgery is
not surprising; but it is virtually forgery to
which Mcfarland has resored, in the method
Of the publication of these letters, to make
ont his case. Thus he publishes extracts
from letter dated "Chelsea, Juno Is,
1885, relating to domestic affairs but in
which, except in the ordinary address, 'tAIy
dear husband, and the ordinary signature,
"Your loving wife, customary among peo-
pie preserving the usual habit of those liy-
ing together rs husband and wife, there
are no assurances or expressions OF affoc-
ton Immediately following this is another
letter dated "aIauchester, June 30,'' and
following that another dated Eat Home,
Tucsday evening, November 90" These
are full Of warmth and devotion, and tho
impression evidently intended 10 he con-
yeyed by their ju1taposition il that thoy
wereall written in the Same year-1s66-aud
subsequent to the time when, the wife says
IN her narrative, she had become complete
II nlicnated from her husband. But tho
bnng1er WIS not clover enough to cover
his tracks. Elsewhere he gives other lot
ters, by which, on comparison with those
in Which the date of year is not given,
md to which it is attempted, by ju1tapo-
sition, to ai6x false date, the actual time
when they were written is settled Mns-
Mcfarland writes from Manchester, as
these other letters show, in June and in
December, 1859, in one of which she
speaks Of ssSarah Gould, and in the other
says she is at @sMrs. Gou1ds." Now in the
letter dated Manchester, June 80" and
which follows that of "Chelsca, June 13,
1885," as if it was written that gear, she
says: II think shall 80 TO spend few
days with Sarah Gould tho last of this
week" It was then at Manchester, in
1S59-not in 16G6-that this letter was
written, and the expressions Of affection
and confidence contained in it we're natural
enough at that time and perfectly in ae-
cordance with her narrative. Again, in the
letter dated t'At Home, Tuesday evening,
November 90" which tho reader is ex-
pected to believe WIS written in 1866, in
speaking of picture he had sent her she
says: II do love tae darling, cunning
| little baby SO much. It looks little like
my little bird when she teas undytsstd at
her BATH This is an allusion to her
only daughter and first child, which vas
born early in 1859, and lived only few
months, and whose death was then fresh
and poignant SORROW This letter evidently
was also written in 1859, and not, as it is
made to appear, in 1866.
Now then the point we make is this: Mrs.
Richardson, to justify her own character
and conduct, and that Of her friends living
and dead, has written narrative Of her
married Life with Mcfarland, which, un-
doubtedly, has gone very far to remove the
| impression created by his counsel on the
trial, that she was lewd and wanton wom-
| Il III