The New York herald., 1878-02-21
JOHN BROWN AND GERRTf SMITH
WAS THE GENTLE PHILANTHRoPIsr TIE Ac-
ooNPLIcR OF THE ANTI-sLAvERy FANATIC IN
DA IN


WAS THE GENTLE PHILANrHRoPIsT TIE Ac-
coNPLIcE OF THE ANTI-sLAvERy FANATIC IN
HIS RAID AT HAMPERS FERRY?
To THE EDiroR OF THE HERALp:-
John Browns raid At Harper's Ferry and death by
hanging In December, 1850. such striking incl
dents the later history OF the United States that
disclosure OF hrs accompces IL not too trivial mat
ter for notice. even al this distant day.
Tho recently published biography OF Gerrit smith
BY tho Rev. o. b. Frothingham comprises facts and
documents enough not TO be suppressed by any
honest bosraphsr TO convince the sagacious reader
that the armod invasion OF Virginia, in which John
Brown lost bis lie. known to and iurlhered by
Gerrit Smith, who escaped by tho public belief In the
truth Of his persistent denial OF such completely.
These, however, are but part Of the evidence
HORACE WHITES STATEMENT.
Horace White, the Iormer editor of the Chicago
T1tsn< during Gerrit Smith's lifetime, published IN
that journal his possession Of information enabling
him TO prove that ''Gsrrt Smith iuy advised Of
John Browns purpose TO make an armed Invasion or
raid upon Virginia for long time prior 10 such inva
sion raid mat the said Gerrit Smith assented
and co-opsrated In such invasion rad with ADVICE
money and counsel; that the plan contem-
plated not merely u method OF running on slaves,
but military occupation Of the country aud gen.
sra insurrection Of slaves accompanied by violence
and boodshed, and that Gerrt Smith knew It, as
and furnished money to carry itforward."
Gerrt Smith took great pains TO pretend, but, iact
to avoid, controversy with Nj. White and his
proois."
Mr. O. 3. rockingham, not denying Gerrit Smiths
completely with John Browns raid, aud admitting his
proIessed peace principles and his public persistent
denial aiterwsrd OF such completely, attempts
theess, 70 hero from general contempt us
. coward aud liar BY masterpiece OF ingenious
psychological apavss and invention, OF which, II ~
enough 70 say, the skin confesscs the necessity.
'Tne near relatives OF Gsrrit Smith, !" MS Horace
'should have had enough common sense 10 let the
matter rest whure you (Mr. Frothipgham) lett IT."
JOHN cocHRAXr RESCUE
But, with unrvaiied iatuity, Mr. John Cochrane
has lalely come before the public posturng as
sincere defender OF Gerrit Smiths innocencs both
Of the complciy and the talsehood. he selects Tor
attack the sufhcency OF the evidence contained
The reluctant admissions of q blographer's theory
organzea acQuit, II to blind the public the
signincancs OF his prayer to Horace White not 10
confront him with proofs organized 10 convict In
ono letter belaboring the geue and charitable biog
grapher for his renewal OF the charge" which, ~
iuct, he did but extenuate far and sKfully;
IN another letter pious defender OF Gerrt SMITHS
memory turns 10 MIN who made the charge who
still offers TO prove Il at the summons OF General
Cocbraue or any authorized person" snd says,
bandiy, "As have no controversy with Mr. White
shall not presume 10 trouble hni tor his evidence
| Mr. Cochrane, ike Gsrrit Smith, obviously dreads
nothing much the production OF Horace Whites
sworn testimony. That they never have dared hm
tho proof Is admission not only that Gsrrt Smith
~,
but admission also that his amy and Mr.. Cochrane
know the iact to be such. The same admission
I'm piled ut the timc when they "made away with the
documents" That Mr.. White does publish
mis- proofs and dcond Gerrlt smiths bographer from
the posturpg pretences Ut General Cochrane is mex
pcable unless Gerrit Smith exor tod from Mr. White
pledge Of reserve which would be another super
1ous admission that Gerrit Smith was acconplice
John Brown but denied IN order 10 hide the TACT
and escape It's consequence
| CHARGE AGAINST PRorHISGHAM.
Another point OF some public interest Is raised by
Mr.. CoGhrane's last letter. He charges that Mr.
Fr0thingLam, havrg use oil material for the charge"
against Gerrit Smitu, and having correspondence
with possossors, incurred TINS guito Wit, "the
lailuTc OF the biOgrapher 10 communcate 1t to the
person who had employed him to the life Of
iather, ana with whom he had previously consulted
But how, II this biography were authorized by Mr..
Smith's daus hter or family, or by Mr. C0chranc,
Mr. Smiths relative and deender, comes It TO contain
statements which they concur Ia dlsapprovinsf Is
It credible thai gentleman OF Mr.. Froth,ngnam's
cmiu pure character could violate q trustr
What the terms 0f the Understanding hau be-
tween the biographer and tho famlyY Did the family
crical test OF Gerrit Smhs substantial Gu
which the biographor consented tconscnt refused
! to consent? One chapter of the book ~non
to tho hrst question: Tho publication ol the book
| with presumabio assent OF the family answers
s,uo to the second question Yet how Is tho assault
otherwise expIainedr DID they suppose man ot let
ters like Mr. Frothlngham author of distinction,
tho biographer oi Thoodore Parker would consent
be selected by the family oi Gerrt smith his
telling the truth of hisoryY Mr. Cocbrane's imputa
ion implies etnor this absurd expectation else
belief that tney Gorrit Smiths family could and
would suppress'the truth OF history. But then how
came an "authorizod" biography 10 be published ~
all II the latter be tho cssef QUERISE