Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1874-06-10
BR0WNL0W'S SECOND EPISTLE
TO BiRTLETT.
He Advises the Reverend Gentle
man 10 Keep Out of Politics,
Ana Makes some New Points Against
rhe Civtt Rights Bill.

EDITORS CHRONICLE: | wish,
through your columns, to notice let
ter which appeared in your issue OF
Saturday, from President Bartlett, OF
Maryville College, and which is intend
ed as a reply to my last letter on Civ
il Rights" and his attack upon me in
connection with my opposition to that
measure. / confess my surprise that
Mr.. Bartlett should attempt to make
any reply TO me at all, when he was
unable TO make more PLAUSIBLE or log
zeal one.
| can only account for the shallow
ness and sophistry of his two-column
letter, on the ground that he deems the
/" poor white trash " of East Tennes-
see incapable of discriminating between
chatf and wheat, between truth and
falsehood. There are just two features
of Mr. Bartlett's long letter. One a
begging of the question at issue, and
in military phrase, "a striking of his
colors and surrender. The other u
total misrepresentation and perversion
of the statements, made and imprepi-
Gus intended 10 be conveyed in his pub
lie address.
AS to the first of the two points in
his letter, Mr.. Bartlett says he had new
er read the Civil Rights Bill when he
delivered his address assailing me for
opposing it, and further, since reading
it, he says that he could not vote for
it without more light as to its bearing
upon otner constitutional rights
Every person who has read my letters
knows that distinctly disclaimed any
desire to interfere with or prevent the
co-education of the races in a school
like Maryville College where the mix.
ing of the races is voluntary. | said
explicitly that where IA white man
wished To send his children TO school
with the colored children, rs at Bart
lett's College, he should by all means
he allowed to do so. | characterized
the Civil Rights Bill as the sum of
villainies," because it cOapeHs the
mixing of the races in palpable viola.
ton of the domiciliary rights of the
people, and the plain violation of the
Constitutional rights of the people in
their purely domestic relations. Mr..
Bartlett endorses this view of the ques 70
ton, if his language means anything
where he says that he himself could
not vote for it without more light, as
To its bearings upon other constitutions
al rights And yet the greater portion
of his letter is maudlin sentimentality
upon the duties of Christian and
what he characterizes as unchris-
tan conduct in my denouncing the
Bill a. 4" the sum of viliainies.u Over
this expression he INDUCES in lugu.
brious walls and makes it the chief
ingredient, the most important item
of his criticism of my later. If Mr..
Bartlett will refer to Webster's or Wos-
ter's dictionary, he will see that evil
famous" or villainy," means that
which is wicked 4" OF" mischievOus. -
Mr.. Bartlett agrees with me that the
passage of this Bill is a viola
ton OF "other constitutional rights -
of the people. Does he mean to be
understood that il is not 1.-The sum OF
yillainies, " or that it is not wicked -
and mischievous in Congress to
pass q law which violates the consti-
tutional righ'7 Of the people? If not,
why does he arraign me for characters
izing a measure as 1.-The sum of vii.
lainies which he himself admits
disregart- the ilalienable rights of
people as secured in their organic or
constitutional law?
In view Of Mr., Bartlett's admission