The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1888-09-01
Corresponding.
THE HENDERSON DEBATE.


ter, present at the Hsnson--Hall debate,
which among other things says:
81 am in receipt Of your kind favor Of a
recent date, containing clipping from
The UNIvERsALIsT, contributed by DR..
Clayton, concerning the Henderson de-
bate. That is too big q boo for such a
little colt. 1t is evidently an attempt to
keep up courage in q crushing defeat
The intelligent gentlemen Of Henderson
with whom he conversed, and from whom
he received the gist of many Of his state
ments which he Communicated to THE
UNIvERsALIsT, were doubtless myths of
his own brain; for the best Universalists
admitted to our brethren that the deb ate
was defeat to their cause. They said
that Hanson was not as strong as they
thought he was, and that you were much
stronger than they had expected.
The brethren told me there was but one
sentiment in the community among all
parties and that was that DR.. Hanson was
not only defeated, but routed, "foot, horse
and dragoon." 1 am not surprised at Dr.
Fl. trying to get out of having the debate
published as reported by Miss Potter. Its
circulation among his people is not edify-
ing"
1t was some time after the arrival of
the arkansas Baptist bearing this de-
structive missile to Henderson, that the
Universalists of that place heard Of it.
The people on whose behalf DR.. Inman
had crowed SO loudly, were as silent as if
hundred D. D. 3 had been piled on them
all at once, and when our brethren, after
receiving notice of it's publication in the
Baptist, began to try to procure copy
of the paper containing the letter, they
found the task almost as difficult as was
that Of Sisyphns.
They copied the letter and wrote out q
pointed denial of the statement therein
contsined that 1.-THE best informed Unit
versalists admitted to the Baptiats that
the debate was defeat to their cause"
To this denial number of them affixed
their names; and then sent their denial to
the Baptist, demanding it's publication as
a matter of justice to themselves. Bat
this act OF justice has been silently re-
fused, and their demand tire ated, SO far,
with contemptuous silence. Such, it is
presumable, is the idea of fair dealing
entertained by the writer Of that bragga.
docio letter, and of the editors OF the Ar
kansas Baptist
MIR. Hall, SO it appears from DR.. In
mans letter, informed that gentleman
that DR.. Hanson was "trying to get out
of having the debate published as report
ed by Miss Potter" o yes; and he SO in
formed his brethren about Henderson
else they have greatly misrepresented
him. The report was current about Hen
derson, that DR.. Hanson was trying to
get out OF it, but that MIR. Hall was per-
fectly satisfied with Miss Potter's report
of his speeches; and thai he was not 60
ing to let DR.. Hanson get out; bat was
determined to have Miss Potter's report
published, in spite of Dr.. Hsnson's pro-
testations OF inaccdracy In the report OF
his speeches. Twas even said by some
of the admirers of Mr.. Hall that he would
not debate the questions over with Dr..
Hanson, and that il the Universalists
wanted to debate it over again they must
get some one that could debate; that DR..
Hanson could not debate.
Thus matters went on swimmingly for
the Baptist cause, as Mr.. Hall had led
them in their honest simplicity to believe,
till about the last days of June,
But, all of a sudden Mr., Hall dashed
several gallons of cold water on the
heated imaginations of the more ardent
of his brethren about Henderson, when
letter from Mr.. Hall to Br. Thomas, of
that town informed him that Miss Potter
had failed 50 badly on her report of Mr..
Halls portion of the discussion, that it
would not do to publish; and that he had
proposed to DR.. Hanson to bold the de.
bate over, and have reporter that under
stands his business, OF words to that
effect.
Doctor Inmsn says that " the intelli-
gent gentleman in Henderson with whom
he the writer of these lines) converted,
and from whom he received the gist OF
many of his st atements which he commu-
nicated to THE UNIvERsALIsr, were doubt
less myths OF his own BRAIN"
What the victim Of your sarcastic criti-
cism did say, among other things, was,
that "a gentleman who occupied posi-
ton at Henderson that no man could oc.
cupy whose scholarship was not we'll at
tested, said, after hearing the first days
discu ssion, that for scholars, Mr.. Hall
had not made single argument" This
is quoted from memory, but it is believed
that, On comparison, you will find it to
be just alb out Uerbatim. barring some
omissions. Ia order that You, dear Doc
tor, may learn inst how great a myth that
gentleman was, and yet is, you are hereby
furnished with the name of Prof. r. J.
Hays. who was at the time at the discus
sion, Professor of ancient languages, as
I am informed, in Prof. Inman's High
School at Henderson. Prof. Hays is
co-believer with you and your dear Mr..
Hall in endless punishment.
But, allow me to inquire, dear Doctor,
may it not be just possible that there is
a slight tineture of the mythical in the