Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1872-11-05

Dr. sunderland to Mr.. Burr.
MIR. EDIToR: Your willingness TO see fair
play has, l really believe, brought uB into a
little palmer sailing on tho sabbath contro.
versy Please let me say through your col.
umns: Mr.. Burr, II have causelessly hurt your
IL there have been spltheis, let Us drop them
now. am as unwilling as yourself 10 engage
In more personal controversy. II Is very dlsa-
gteeable, isn't ~ Life is too short and the OBJ
iects Of life too great to have our time and
strength wasted in mere war Of words. But
whom man has been beset, as you know have
been, by all sorts Of "fellOwsntI mean no dis.
respect 10 anybody; use the word only for con.
yenience sake) and by all kinds Of ralllery, and
even misrepresent alton, simply because waited
TO have little more quiet In the streets on the
SsESiNi think you viii agree with me that lt i
was quite natural that should pay thom back
somewhat In their own coin. hope bear no
malice towards any Of them, but l. do think that
when we talk about Christian graces 10 the
premises we ought TO agree that they should
not be exercised all on one side. /, tor my part,
have never claimed 10 be inAlllble; am con.
SANITY liable to do foolish things, and perhaps
wrong things, but when they are clearly pointed
out hope am willing TO make all tho reparN-
am glad at last II we shall DO able to como
TO a better understanding, although really up
to this moment do not even know Mr.. Burr BY
sight. You think then that my statement IN
last weeks REPUBLICAN was personal attack,
Full Oi unchrlatlan calumny aud scuTrllous men
dacity," How II this fora man who expects me
to act the part Of an ambassador Of peace and
good. will to munT' However, II IL not worth
while to open this point again. Ifyou are salts
ned, let II rest.
But there are some points, Mr. Burr, In your
reply, about which, must confess, have some
cuflosityi not (you know to open the contro.
yersy again, but simply to sec whether have
been so much mistaken.
one thing Is, In regard to that edition Of Al.
ford, You profess to be willing to forfeit sl0b 10
tho WOmen'a Christian Home II you made an
error. am sorry that | have not slO0 10 give
to-day to that excellent Institution; but II you
have that sum TO spare In case It shall prove on
examination that you made the error, l have
this proposition TO make to yOu-that you shall
go to BillAntyne's and got the book; that Judge
Cartier shall examine the book and the retof.
TO It In our discussion as It originally ap.
poaTed In the ChroRteicS that you and shall
meet with hin and point out the passage; that
II shall DO certified by Mr.. Ballantyne to he the
same book which you consulted while the dlp-
cusson was In progrOss; aud u, In the oonclu.
sion, Judge Cartier pronounces in your favor,
will make n confession Of my mistake and an
apology tor II In the NATIONAL REPUBLICAN,.
hut VI the decision shall be found against you,
you shall then pay over the 800 to the wOmen's
Christian Home. Come now, that think, Is
perfectly fair.
TIE next poiut Ia about your beIug driven
from the Chronicle. Well, II you do not like that
phrase let us change Il then. We will simply
say that you lett me 10 have the last word In the
ChrOHicle.
The next point 10 about the pamphlet You
admit that you did not publish the discussion in
your phtnpnlet rs " Originally appeared In the
Chrohie'e. Well, perhaps l lsod rather strong
language in calling II "a swindle aud u cheat
| suppose, however, that this Is q matter Of In.
dlyidual opinion. When you publish a pam
phlet protesting to be the reproduction OF COZ.
troyerSy between yourself and others, and do
not publish II as II stands originally and then
10 addition to that you 20 on to add nearly twice
! az much more matter as originally entered into
the discussion and then come out and tell the
public that you "republshed the whole con-
troversy 10 pamphlet" what do you yourself
call such pamphlet and such a statement as
Nov, about convletlng me Of garbiInE from
0rotius, let US SEQ how that stands did mis-
quote him, that Is true, and IN my next CON.
municatiOn promptly corrected the nlisquotA.
ton and explained how came to do II, and that
Il was not Intentional. Now, l make dlstlno-
tlon between misquoting and garbllng. MIS-
quoting ls citing Incorrectly an authors words;
Varbling IL something more than this. It means
TO select and Gull out such parts OF an authors
writings as will suit given purpose while CIV
ing false impression Of the authors general
meaning. The results Of mlsquOtlng and Of
garbllng may be often similar but there IL q
distinction IN the procsss Nov, IN this case
what did dot Quitting arotius from memory,
l cited tho phrase a. II Il read, Medic Sabbaio
inter duo Sdbbdfa, =" whereas II should have bee n
"MsdiO tsmPoTs inter duo Sdbbaia" Here you
see used the word Aabbai0 instead Of trmpOrr, 1
did not select and Gull out the language. / sim
ply substituted the word SABBATH for the word
iemp0rc. Nor did quote the whole sentence
1t would have been stronger for mo II had. l
better you can call It garOiing. Soc how gener-
Gus the "trlekEter" Is with you, Mr. Burr!
Now about your republlshing the controversy
This you fully admit you did lust about In the
way that described Il. But Is II quite fair that
an Impression should 20 TO the public that would
place me 10 false position about III Dan you
blame me for not being willing that such az I'm.
preston should 90 any longer unoontrAdlctod
And when you got my letter why did you not an.
swer III Why did you not tell me then what was
going ont Why did you secretly (s0 far as was
cOncorned) carry on your work. DO you really
think now, upon sober reflection, that this was
the way to treat me7
And all this too when Mr. Pnlsbury had In
formed you that he " never know u priest who
would not dodge or escape In some dIabollcal WSy
the moment he saw defeat and discontinue IN
the distance !" Did the "prisst," In this in.
stance, try 10 eSeapo act as if he defeat ia
the distance Did not repeatedly propose 10 10
fully into the discussion with you 10 a private
correspOndence7 Is this what your friend MT.
pillseury calls dodging or escaping "ln some
diabollcal Way"
But enough for the present. bAyo said
"hUrsehy" and you have said "ROsinante."
Friend Plat, am told, says "Pegasus!'' Ought
we not now to be quit on epithetsG
As TO those portions OF your pamphlet on
which you rely so confidently In support OF your
opposition to the Christian sabbath, and which
deal with them in my own time and manner, or
not n all, as think best OF course you can.
not, after what has tTanspired, expect me TO
recognize you as disputant on the merits Of
the sabbath question. ! will only say In con.
clusiOn that have now collected extracts from
the very writer's whom you have quoted, as
we'll as from many others which, when pre.
dent, very different impression from that
which you have HOuU hit to produce