New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-02-21
VAS GERRIT SMITH a LIARf
MR. HORACE WHITE ONCE MORE.

II.
TO me Editor Of The TribHne.
SIR find in THE TRIBUNE of the 10th the
following words constituting part of editorial para
graph what may CALL for the sake OF breyiy, the
Cochrane- rockingham controversy:
We have not heard Of anxiety the part Of anybody
hut the author OF the charge mir. Frohnghdm as TO Mr.
Whites views. But Mr.. rockingham named him as
witness, and he very promptly named Frederick Doug
cation, saying FIRST that he believes the charge 10 be
untrue and secondly mat Joan brown hn ss, ,Se a
makes the Withdrawal oi the CHARGE or the PROOF oi IT,
necessity.
The clear inference FROM the foregoing is that after
letter was published. Mr Frederick Douglass there
upon" took issue with me- and denied something had
said He has done nothing of the kind. and he viii not
His letter was written before mine was.
Twill add for the information OF the curious that the
first witness examined III the case OF Gert smith agt
The Chicago Tribune Company was John Brown, Jr,
who testified TO facts within his own knowledge. and
particularly interviews between himself his father
John Brown) Gerrit Smith The next witness ex-
apined was Frederick Douglass, whose testimony GER
tainy did contradict that Of the previous witness
but corrOboraed 1t IN collateral points Al this june
information OF the dismissal OF the eut
by tue plaintiff and dessted from collecting farther
testimony. about cart-.oad OF which was " 10 slshh
Tue correctness OF Mr.. Frothinghains position.
Now return 20 tne case as between myself ana tue
Editor of The TRIBUNE claimed TO have evidence to
prove certain state OF facts, and said thai relied on
John Brown ana Sdn Sss or What D
had testified. Brown may have gone u certain inter
viz in Gerrit Smiths house, and Douglass IGay have
seen him go the house out of H. FOR augni
Won know or aught that said. Sir. Douglass las nor
disputed anything that said anu repeat tu" Ho VIII
not do So 49,. -. ,,,
W. upon what ground DO you repeat that this tNr.
oupasss letter. makes the Withdrawal OF the charge,
or lie proof OF it, necessty"i Ii was this allegation
in former issue Of THE TRIBUNE that led NE to say,
seem TO be called upon by THE TRIBUNE to produce
certain testimony" etc. II Mr. Douglass had disputed
ANYBODY h. had disputed me- You were mistaken IN as
sumiug that he had denied something. You have now
made that mistake second time, and added 10 II an nj
TEMPTED reDuke, because considered myself pointed
on y YOU as the one by Fred. Douglass
such was obvious purpOrt Of your language In both
instances. 49, ,,
Snu aIe further mistaken in calling me volunteer"
In tnis matter but let that pass remain sir your
obcdient servant, HORACE WHITE
Aer York, Feb. Is, 1873.
Most of this is unimportant, and some of it seems
frivolous. Mr.. White does not touch the real ques-
tion or in the least affect it, lie does not appear to
see that the public has concern whatever with
him In the matter, unless he should choose to come
forward to defend Mr.. Frothinghams statements
These statements have been impugned, first by the
family, and second by Mr.. Frederick Douglass one
of the very gentlemen named as witness Oh the
other side. Against them no evidence whatever has
vet been aduced Upon this state of facts there can
we think, be no diversity of opinion as to our orig
inal conclusion viz, that it is clearly incumbent
upon the biographer either to prove his charge
tract it. Meantime, however, it is understood that
the book has been suppressed. Is this to be taken
as the biographers mode of retraction f-Ld.I