The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-14
Mors mecklsnhnrg Letters.

Il seems nkely 20 De M ineKnaustlDle AZ tLe 4lOS-
ton respecting the authorship Of 'Junlus
4 We print to-day two new letters, one by ok
Governor Graham the other by Mr. A. Il.
I Spofford, the Librarian Of Congress. There ore
no remarks which il occurs 10 Us to make on
Governor Grlhlm's communication that
would not carry us nearer to the pith Of the
dispute than we care TO go, while surrender
ing 50 much Of our space to writer's whom We
have invited The attitude Of neutrality mich
We assume during The controversy restraints az
from going into the arena but does not pre-
olude US from making incidental observations
On minor points Of che argument on either
side when the advocates tall into errors OF
haste, or do not seem quite accurate in their
Interpretation OF what has been said on the
subject by others. Mr.. Spotford's letter is a
clear, skilful, methodical argument against
the claims Of the document Of May 90 and
we have no inclination 10 contest its logical
force But he has not quite escaped the
temptation which besets all writer's who take
a side in controverted question, of weaken
ing lis case by over-statement Aswe intend,
for the present, TO abstain from discussing the
main question on its merits, we will illustrate
our meaning by referring e Mr. Spoaora's
supplementary observations after the conclu-
sion Of his series Of points.
He claims that our principal historians Of
the Revolutionary period, naming Mr. Ban
croft and Mr.. Losing among the number,
give the weight Of their authority to the side
which he advocates The fact that Mr.. Spot
ford thinks so indicates that he reads these
authors through bias. II they had, in fact,
expressed the opinions which Mr. Spofford
thinks he finds in them, such opinions should
have great weight; for no two men living have
| devoted 50 much time and research to the
details Of ogr Revolutionary history. But Mr..
Losing, when he last wrote on the subject
looked with favor on the disputed Mecklen-
burg declaration; and as we have recent evil
dence that Mr.. Bancroft has not changed any
part OF the views he expressed in the seventh
volume of his history we think he cannot
fairly be counted with the side which denies
that there was meeting and declaration at
Charlotte on May 20 Mr.. Bancroft was one
of the first whose opinion on this point the
HERALD asked, and he replied by referring
our representative to his seventh volume for
statement Of his present views. Both Mr.
Bancroft and Mr.. Losing, as We read them,
lean to the side maintained by Governor
Graham. though cautious not to commit them
selves 70 i unequivocally.
IN Mr. Lossing's National History Of the
United States, later work than his Field
~ TIA RavaIutfan Ia ,n,taO 80, 40
800 the disputed AIecklenburg Declaration
entire and treats il Is genuine. These
resolutions" Mr.. Losing says, "embodying
d declaration Of independence and the first
adopted By any assemblage Of people IN
America, are too important, considered ia
their ultimate effect, to BE- passed by by Civ
ing merely the substance After inserting
the resolutions in full Mr. Losing goes On
to say that, Doubts having been ex-
pressed concerning the truth Of the alleged
Mecklenburg Convention aud its proceedings,
The author y this work wrote to Governor
Graham, making inquiry touching hi. posses
sion and tie authenticity Of the copy Of these
proceedings ale gcd to Be- in his custody IL
politely answered III the affirmative. Mr
Losing constructs his narrative on the theory
81 their authenticity, giving May - - the
date Of the assembling II the meeting al
Charlotte, and stating tho occurrences sub
santially a. they are rected by the cham
pions d the 10th 81 May Declaration Mr
Spofford i therefore incorrect in chasing
Tossing "a his side
His error Id regard q Mr Bancroft i not
s. palpable for lIr. Bancroft is studiousy
non-committal lie assigns the proceedings
to May, 1915, and carefully avoids giving i
specific date q Their earlier stages. His mar
"a i've . % constructed As T. imply that they
we're pro,nctcd through 4 considerable part
of the month, aud lac al last gives May 81 a.
the date of their completion. According to
Mr.. Bancroft the meeting al Charlotte
assembled "some time IN May and he
states that The news of the boodshed II Lox-
ington arrived during it. consultations, which
tGlles with tie account given BY the chau-
pions u tile Goth of May Declaration AIr
Bancroft seems y convey tn impression hat
Ephram Br,vrd framed his resolution sub
sequcnt 10 liz meeting BY which the substance
81 them Va, adopted, aud that they were at
last formally signed BY HIM and finally
adopted "a tie people % May 81 Before
lie month d May bad come to IN end, says
Bancroft ~the resolutions wore signed IL
Ephraim Brevard 4. clerk of tie committee.
and Ner, adopted Isl n people with letter
mined enthusiasm. NJ. Blncr1ns Nho.e
narrative implies thtt the proceedings mi
through considerable par 81 the mouth d
NAV. ana tina what took place pa tie 3ist was
moro FORMED naturalization 81 Whit hai
been done Al some previous meeting. That
previous meeting was is likely t. b. hold u.
May ~ - ~ any other day. At al events
thcrc il nothing ii ~. Bancroits pages IT.
CONSTANT with meeting and declaration at