Newspaper Page Text
: ■
“The ferment of a free, is preferable tn the torpor of a despotic, Government.”
voL. in.
ATHENS, GEORGIA, JUNE *, IS84*
NO. 12.
1!Hoetrfi*
FOR THE SOUTHERN BANNER.
Messrs. Editors,—The following lines were writ
ten several years ago, under severe afflictions, which,
n you think possess any merit, you are at liberty to
publish.
Why yet docs vain ambition burn.
And hops still linger o’er the urn '
Where thousands lie entombod ?
Why toil to save this feeble frarao
Secure from harm, aloof from pain,
To dissolution doomed ?
How strangely fraught with silent wo
Are all the joys I taste below;
How soon they fade and diet
Thus like the moteor’s sudden gloom.
Whose transient glow and sickly beam
Expire as they fly.
On Fate’s rough sea, whero storms unito
Tho dauntless bosom to affright,
Tim hopeless path I tread ;
Dut eie the port appears in sight,
The morning lowors into night,
And all its charms are fled.
No anxious friend to soothe my cares,
No gentle hand to dry the tears
Which o’er their mem’ry fall;
No parent’e hand to raise my head,
Nor sisters waiting round my bed,
To hear my plaintive call.
A howling wilderness my home,
A lonoly cot my humblo dome,
Mys elf my only friend.
Here on the Mississippi’s shore,
Where tempests rise and billows roar,
And gathering storms descend.
Thus like tho exile doomed to roam
In distant lands/without a home,
Or place to lay his head;
Whoso only hope is to endure
Until tho toils of life are o’er,
Then rest among tho doad;
1 view the pleasures onco so dear,
The objects of my youthful care—
Ilow sweet their mem’ry still—
Each grove, each hill, each verdant height,
Thoir mem’ry glows with pure delight,
“ And blooms on every hill.”
But ol»! my soul, those scenes are o’er,
Thou nover can’st enjoy them more,
Nor youth nor bliss recall;
Then cease to mourn departed joys.
Thy youthful plays and childish toys—
The vernal leaf must fall.
Thon let me triumph o’er my grief,
And give my aching heart relief.
While hope inspires my breast;
For .sorrow’s storms will soon tie o’er,
Their munu'ring sound bo heard no more,
Anil billows lulled to rest. M. S.
To the Editor oj the Georgia Constitutionalist.
1 feel very deeply tho mortification of appearing
again in the newspapers, in vindication of my char
acter. No one is more sensible than I am, that the
u flairs of an humble individual are unworthy of pub.
lie attention, and cannot be obtruded upon it with,
out presumption. My tastes and habits disqualify
mo for such a display, and lead me to snun such a
painful notoriety. It has not been permitted me,
however, to follow my own inclinations. As early
os December of the last year, a violent and simulta.
ncous attack was mndo upon my professional and
moral character in several of tho public journals of
Georgia, which has been kept up with few interrup.
lions until tho present time. I have hitherto made
no attempt to defend myself, with the exception of a
short explanation which appeared over my name in
the Southern Banner, and another in the Geo. Jour*
s.al. At the time of my leaving the State, my friends
also published, with my concurrence, a certificate
from a part of the faculty of Franklin College, con.
taining a refutation of 6omo of the charges which
had been alleged against me. Several persons, whose
opinions were entitled to my respect, urged the ne.
ecssity of my publishing a more fall and satisfactory
statement, in reference to the allegations and insinu.
ations which had been made by the anonymous
writers who had assailed me. I believe, however,
that the certificate of the faculty contained an ample
vindication of my professional conduct; and my
extreme reluctance to bo engaged in a personal con.
troverey, inclined mo to bear rather than exposo the
injustice which bad been inflicted upon my feelings
and reputation. Even after the attack made upon
me in a publ cation of tho 15th of February; sign,
cd by Tutor Mitchell, wliich I received in Raleigh, I
still resolved to keep aloof from the controversy,
and contented myself with writing to Doct. Fierce,
requesting him to publish, in inoffensive language
and, if possible without naming Mr. M. some brief
explanations touching the most flagitious of the
charges. I confess 1 hardly thought it necessary to
notice this publication, after the writer’s shamcli
avowal of his own character and conduct. I should
havo left, as I should still leave, his statements to
this corrective, but for my conviction that he has
only acted a part which has been assigned him. Dr.
Church’s letter of the 92d February, to the editor of
the Constitutionalist, through the unaccountable over,
eight of iny friends, has but lately retched me. This
publication gives the sanction of his name and high
office to some of the gravest accusations which have
appeared against me, and leaves me no alternative
but to submit to the disgrace which has been so in.
dustriously prepared for roe, or to appoal to the pub
lic against the injustice of enemies who have assail,
ed roe without provocation, and refuse to be uppea.
sed by my forbearance. All, I believe, will odmit
that if 1 havo any thing to say in my own defence,
it is time I should speak. This business has passed
the crisis when a scrupulous delicacy towards former
associated, and the official and confidential relations
which thsy have violated, should deter me from 'dm
ing justice to my own character. 1 will endeavor,
as far as possihlo, to avoid every topic which has not
already been pressed into the controversy, nor will
refer to put transactions beyond what is indispensa.
My necessary for my defence. .If I have private
grievances to complain of, I have too much respect
for myself, and too nnteh for the public, to cany them
before its tribunal. I shall be compelled, in a few
instances, to appeal to my late colleaguea, for the
confirmation of sotno of my. statements. I regret
this neoMsity, but I trust they will feel that it is due,
not more to a friend, whom they know to be unright*
eously asitiled, than to justice and human society,
that they should not, if appealed to, withhold their
testimony In a case where truth and character are so
deeply implicated. Of tho public I only oak a patient
bearing and an impartial judgment.
It may be necessary to remind the reader, that thie
controversy, which has become so exclusively perso
nal, originated in an article which appeared in the
Georgia Constitutionalist early in December, over
the signature of “Friends of Equal Rights.” The
professed object of that publication was to expose the
undue ascendency which, it was alleged, bad been
given to the Presbyterian denomination, and the in.
justice that had been dono to the other religious
sects, in filling the offices of instruction and govern,
ment in Franklin College. No allusion was made
to the interior administration of the institntion, nor
the characters, qualifications or fidelity of its officers.
Only general principles were discussed, and such
facts stated as were notorious, and accessible to all
who had the curiosity to inquire and the industry to
read. The authorship of this publication was impu
ted to me, and it became the pretext of a violent and
vindictive attack upon my feelings and character in
several newspapers. An editorial article imnwdi.
ateiy appeared in the Southern Banner, (Athens) as.
cribing tho obnoxious article to me in very offensive
language. I was denominated a “ religious gladia
tor,” dus. Another writer, who appeared in the
Constitutionalist over the signature of “The Friends
of Truth,” and who became the champion of that
side of the controversy, confirmed the statement
of tiro Banner, not directly, but by sach broad
and palpable insinuations, as were immediately and
generally understood. A third article signed Jus.
tice, appeared in the Banner, containing grave ac
cusations against me as a professor in Franklin
College. ^.It alleged that my office was a “ sinecure,
or the next thing to it, toy duties being perform,
od by other officers, that l neglected duties which
I was under solemn obligations to perform, and
that tiie Collego was never the better for my ser
vices.” I quoto from memory, but this is substan.
tially the language enployed. Another assailant ap
peared in tlie Georgia Journal of the 8th of January,
over tho signature of “ A Retired Observer." With
a singular felicity of inuendo and opulence of die.
tion, ho denominates me “ & Goth, a Vandal, a Par.
ricide, an Alien, a bold Agitator,”, &c. &c. He
charges me with hypocrisy, ingratitude and false,
hood, and with wishing to “ tear down a' college to
to rovongo a pique."
To these rude assaults, emanating from different
and remote points, and evincing both concert and
malice, I felt compelled to give such attention as
could properly be bestowed upon anonymous publi
cations. I wrote the brief explanations already men.
tioned to the Banner and Journal. In the first I
promised to answer any charges against my official
conduct which should be accompanied by a respon
sible name, and requested those who might be dis
posed to arraign me to grant me an early hearing,
as I expected to remove from tho State by the
end of January. In the latter I disclaimed the pub.
lication which had been imputed to me. In this
tho “ Friends of Equal Rights” bad already antici.
puted me by a note which appeared in the Constitu
tionalist. 1 likewise wrote to Professor Hull, requen.
ting him, with several other gentlemen of the facul
ty, whom I named, if they should fuel no objection,
to express their opinion pf my foithiblness as an offi.
cer of College. I asked for this testimonial as a
“ precautionary measure,” and stated that I might
need it in Virginia, where I was a stranger, and
where the statements of Justice and others like him
might lie propagated to the iujury of Uie Institution
with wliich I was to be connected ; and that even
in Georgia, I might lie reduced to the' mortifying
necessity of using the testimony' of my late col-
leagues against the injustice of malignant enemies.
The annexed certificate No. I, was forwarded to me.
The publication of “ A Retired Observer,” which
had not socn when 1 wrote to Dr. Hull, but which
was widely circulated through the State at the date
of the certificate together with other misrepresenta
tions which were propagated to my injury, rendered
it proper, in the judgment of my friends, that this
statement of my colleagues, who were manifestly
the most competent witnesses in the case, should be
given to the public. It was accordingly published
upon my leaving Georgia. This appeared to be
the least exceptionable, as well as the only practi
cable method of meeting the charges of anonymous
writers, nor could it have been anticipated that an
objection would be felt to this course, except by
those who were unwilling that any attempt riiould
be made to remove from the public mind the pre
judices which bad been excited against me. The
publication of this certificate has; however, been
regarded a new provocation, and it seems to be con
sidered very sufficient proof of my guilt under form,
or accusations. Tutor Mitchell, who had some re a.
sons to regret the appearance of such a document,
has made it the occasion of repeating his old
charges as well as of producing several new ones.
He says in his publication of the 15th of Febru.
ary, “ The most singular fact is that it was not
presented to the President of the University for
his subscription, nor to Professor Jackson, nor to
myself; evidently as I construe it, for the purpose
of koeping up the farce, that Presbyterians were
united to destroy Mr. Olin, and keep out of the
College every Methodist, be his claim never so su.
]>erior." In Dr. Church’s letter to Mr. Guieu of
February 22nd, he fully confirms in more cautious
language, this statement of Mr. Mitchell. His broad
ly insinuates that to this hostile movement against the
College, I have superadded the guilt < f violating the
claims of friendship and gratitude. He adroitly con.
nectn the publication^ the certificate with the Col-
lege controversy, and “ the apparent attempts to ar-
ray tiro different religious soots against each other,
and to prejudice some of them against the College,*
and thus gives the sanction of his official signature
to the persevering efforts which .have been made to
destroy my character. Mr. Mitchell has put it out
of my power to feel surprise at any thing be may
choose to publish, but I must confess Dr. Churches
letter filled me with profound astonishment. Others
may have a clue to its meaning which I do not pos
sess, hut I declare, with the deepest regret, that l am
utterly unable to reconcile his statements with can-
dor. It is well known to every member of the fac
ulty, and to many of the, citizens of Athens, that
between the Professor, whose name does not appear
on tiro certificate, and myself, there had been, for
more than eight months, an entire cessation of alt
friendljr intercourse. This, with the cause of it, was
perfectly known to Dr. Church, I could not, without
tiie grossest impropriety, have asked the signature of
this individual, and tiro meanness of asking a favor
where I had so title reason to expect one; and I doabt
not would have been pubtislied with my other faults.
I affirm that Dr. Church was well acquainted with
the circumstances which rendered it improper for
me-;e ask the signature of the Professor in question.
It is apart of my offence that no opportunity was
given to Mr. Mitchell to subscribe his name to the
certificate, the principal and avowed object of which
was the refutation of injurious charges of which he
was the propagator 1 In my letter to Dr. Hull, I as-
signed tiro publication of Justice as a.reason for ask.
ing the testimonial of the faculty, and I had satisfac
tory evidence that Mr Mitchell'was the writer. I
had been assured by saveral gentlemen from Athens,
that the offensive article was universally attributed
to him in that place, and I then felt no more doubt
upon the subject than 1 did after the editors of the
Banner had given me Ms name. What 1 fully be
lieved. Dr. Church unquestionably knew. He cer-
or TROTS.
“We believejxioo 7.
were more
him.”
tainly knew it, when he wrote his letter to tiro Con.
stitutionalist ofFeb.22d, for Mr. Mitchell had pub.
licly avowed tho authorship of Justice, Feb. flSth.
And yet, in bis zeal to injure me, Dr. Church founds
the gravest charges upon tiro fact that I omitted to
apply to this open and avowed defamer of my char-
actor, for a refutation of his own accusation^. I
think I shall hereafter be able to convince tiro rea.
der, that Mr. Mitchell’s publications, have-had the
benefit of something more than Dr.: Church’s ap
probation. Mr. Mitchell had published me as a neg
ligent and worthless officer. Does Dr. C. believe
that he would have subscribed a statement which af.
firms exactly the reverse ? ' So far from it, he
knows Mr. Mitchell had already intimated his dis
trust of the sincerity of those who signed it.
The certificate was “such an one as any body
could get, be his character good, bad, or indiffer
ent ? a mere “ complimentary farewell.” I am
aware Dr. Church uses cautious language. He says,
had I intimated to him “ on ray leaving the institu
tion,” that I wished for a certificate, he and every
other, officer of College would have .signed one. He
may possibly take refuge in a strict and literal con-
s traction of these words against- the. inevitable con.
sequences wMch result from his statement In its
most natural and obvious meaning. Such a con-
etruction, however, leaves all his charges against me that theE’ri
without even tho shadow of a pretext. For how can
it be. a matter of complaint, that I omitted to ask
the signature of men who were willing to subscribe
—not such a testimonial as the. rest of my col-
leagues believe my due, but another of a different
character—not at the time when tho malignity' of
unscrupulous foes, rendered such a defence necessa
ry, but three months before; when I neither needed
nor desired their testimony ? Besides, if Mr. Mitch,
ell states truly that his dishonorable espionage'oxer
my daily walk from August to November, had the
concurrence, or oven the connivance of “ one pro-
FE8S0R,” there were at least, two of my colleagues,
who could not have subscribed their names to any
document bearing the aspect of friendship to me,
without adding hypocrisy to treacheiy.
I will now give my reasons for not asking the
signature of Dr. Church, and I request the reader to
bear it in mind, that whether these may be thought
satisiactoiy or not, they did not lead me to do him
any injury. 1 merely did not ask a favor of him.
This was no violation of decorum or friendship. And
I wish it to be further remembered that I did not
publish my reasons,' till Dr. Church, by ascribing
to me such as are injurious, compelled me to as-
sign the tree.
I believe then that Dr. Church was concefn$d
in the unjust attempts which were made to, injure
my private and professional character.
The editorial article which appeared in the Bln
ner, and the strictures of Justice, published in Ath-
thens, under Dr. Church’s immediate notice, and
by his personal friends, afforded at least strong pre.
sumptive evidence in support of this opinion. Those
who are acquainted with tho relations which, sub.
sist between Dr. Church and Mr. Mitchell, will find affliction, &
it difficult to believe, that the latter would publish an were very
articlo bearing at so many points upon the inter- anxious to
ests of the College, without consulting the President, retain him
Apart from this probable and proaumod concur- •*» tho ASPl
rence in tho hostile movements of his friends, I had lege-’
good reason to believe that Dr. Church himself had
assailed me. The first article published In the
Constitutionalist over the signature of “ Friends of
Truth,” was universally ascribed to his pen. I nev
er heard a.dissenling opinion upon this subject The
first, as well as- the subsequent numbers, contained
the strongest internal evidence that he was the au.
thor. It evinced such an intimate acquaintance
with the administration < of the College, with the
measures, views, and conversations of Dr. Church
—amongst others, a private conversation with mo
—as clearly demonstrates that none but Dr. Church,
or some one who wrote under his immediate direc
tion, could .possibly be the antbor. I have taken
the usual course to obtain the name of this author,
but he still insists on being concealed. In his first
number, this writer ascribed the authorship of the
Friends of Equal Rights” tome—not directly, but
by such intelligible insinuations, as were generally
and easily understood. He spoke of the author
if already known, and as a person intimately acquain
ted with the internal operations of the College, inti,
mating at the same time, that his statements were
false, and proceeded from enmity to the College.
This I regarded a sufficient reason for not asking Dr.
Church’s signature to the certificate. He has since
given the most abundant confirmation to the opinions
which I was so early compelled to adopt. After it
had been distinctly announced by the “ Friends of
Equal Rights,” that I was not the author of their
publication, tiie “ Friends "of Truth” had not the
magnanimity to correct-tiro misstatements he had
made. He and Ms friends had given the desired
direction to public' prejudice, and he was not dis
posed to interfere with its operation. On the con.
tnry, when he could no longer, with any decency
pretend that I was the author, he spoke of the in.
formant of tho “ Friends of Equal Rights,” in
manner made so remarkable by his significant: italics
and frequent repetitions,, that after what ka.and bis
friends had done to render me an object ofsaspicion,
the public must necessarily look upon me as guilty
of some unlawful and treacherous intercourse with
these writers, who had not stated a.- single fact
which they might not have derived from a hundred
sources.
At the time when these efforts wore making to
injure me, Dr. Church utterly disbelieved that I was
either tbe author or abettor of the publication which
was made the pretext for so many unfounded char,
ges. Of this I havo tiro most undeniable proof in
a letter which he wrote to me Feb. 4, 1834.
should be at liberty to use the most confidential
communications of Dr. C. to defend myself against
his accusations,but tiro letter in question has no claim
to this character. • It is vulgar, insolent and abu
sive, nor can I conceive what motive could influ
ence Dr. Church to write to me such a letter un.
less it was a desire to insult me, and fix an impassa
ble barrier between us* tf he does not like the ac.
count given of his epistle, he can. easily rectify
misconception, by.publishing it-entire. The first
sontence of the letter will, I think, illustrate tiro at
tributes I have ascribed to at« and prove that Dr.
Church did not believe the statements to which to
wide a currency was given.
Athens, 4th February, 1631.
Rev. Stephen Olin,
Reverend Sir :—“I had supposed, for same time
after the attack was made upon Franklin College,
the false and illiberal charges and insinuations which
were published by your. friends, (as it now appears)
against me and some of my friends, that you -did not
give countenance to them. I am reluctantly con.
strained to change my opinion, as 1 have now the
most positivo evidence that you have token no little
pains to convince all within the sphere of your influ
ence that these charges and insinuations arc tree.”
I shall make Eoroe other extracts' from this letter,
as well as from Dr. Church’s and* Mr. Mitchell’s
published pieces, which will clearly demonstrate that
the latter is hut a plagiarist, and that Dr. Church is
entitled to all the honor of original authorship. The
reader cannot have forgotten the plot wMch Mr.
Mitchell’s love of learning induced him to form, to
counterwork tho “ alarming plot” which, with mi-
raculous sagacity, be foresaw t wbuld form,- four
mnatfas afterwards, “to destroy the college.” He
saya in the Banner of Feb. 15th—“1 mentioned my
anticipations to one pf the Professors, and showed
him a plan which I had formed for keeping a writ,
ten account of every duty performed as well as neg
lected by Mr. Olm, that I might make a correct es-
timate of the amount of service rendered by bun.
The following is the result of tiro account of tiro fall
tennoftwo and a half months. Mr. Olin foiled in
attending morning prayers seventy-four times, eve.
ning prayers forty-eight times,” Ic.
er was tbe projector of this acknowledged conspir
acy, Dr. Church was the author of the charges
against me which Accompanied its announcement to
tiro world. Tiro following table pf parallel passages
given in the order of time, will enable the reader. at a
rioglo glance, to trace the progress of thought from
ite-inception and first appearance in the composition
ox Ur. Cborcb, to its maturity and presentation to
the public ty Mr. Mitchell. The first extract con-
tains in emlryo, the fiction of my complaints against
the Board of Trustees,' and I presume the startling
italics shtdiw forth the $200 case.
THE FRIEND^DR. church’s LETTER. MR. MITCHELL.
Feb. 4th.—Ques. . - February 15. *
“ But has he been
.“In what have
of Trustees you been unjustly
treated by the Board
than kind «J of Trusteess ?”
generous U
treated badly by
them (the Board) as
he complains he
has?” * •
1 You certainly
your return from N.
E. inl831,youclai-
mod and received
§200for stepping in
to the examination
room about one
hour. I then thought
and still think you
bad no right to a sal
ary without, any ser
vice. 1. certainly
could have objected
to its payment, but
did not.”
We have “ So far as was
always un- in my - power you
derstood the were relieved fron
two formei all the duties whicl.
(Die. W. &, were calculated to
C.) treated injure your health.
‘He reached Ath-
do. know, that on ens just as the ex-
animations of the
fall term common,
ced, and' attended
about one hour on
the first .day, then
left and went, to
Milledgeville on a
visit to his' friends,
and claimed and re
ceived pay for this
hour's attendance to
the amount of
$200.”
And I cannot
but think that the
worst feature in his
character is, that of
attempting to de.
stray the College
Mr. Olin I know I preferred and injure Dr. C
with peculi- to hear your class
ar kindness, whenever .the' we a-
That they thcr should bo such
manifested as to endanger your
much sym- health by coming
pathy for out.”
him in his
who had been so
careful to assist Mm
when, unwell, and
who assured him he
would at any time
hear'his class when
ho could not attend.”
Repeated the.4th
time February 22d,
in his letter to Mr.
Guieu.'
I ask whether
during tbe whole of
“ He admits that
it is a common prac*
know is often done.”
“I certainly did
during the last half
of the year 1828,' in.
struct your class for Jackson heard this
you, though, it cost man’s class one
me one half of every
night to enable me
to do this duty, and tered the College,
and yet received his
full pay 1*
your connexion with tice in our Colleges
the College, for the for one Officer to
last two years, you perform the duties
ever heard a recita. of another, but did
tion for any other he ever hear a reci-
officer? This you tation for another in
Franklin College 1”
“ Now will the
public believe that
Messrs. Church &
whole term, during
which he never on-
the others which be-
letoged to my own
department. You
know weft you re.
ceived the full a.
mount of your sal.
aiy.” \
“You know, that “ He failed in at.
yon never have been tending examination
able to attend the 15 tunes, attending
public examinations only to examine Ms
except simply your own classes.”
own classes.”
At yon have de- “And from the
dared publicly, that position in which
what is contained in Mr. jOlra hits pla-
the first number 'of ced himself in the
The Friends of E. controversy, I feel
qual Rights (wiih called upon to make
the exception -ofsuchadditional state-
what relates to J. Pqments as will prove
Waddel). is true, his general delin-
will yon have the quency and fix upon
frankness to give a him tiro virtual au.
definite shape to the thorship of tbe plot.”
charges you have .
thus virtually made
against tbe College
and against myself.” ‘
These extracts nhed no comment. No human be.
ing competent to form a rational opinion upon such
a subject, can read them without feeling an irresisti
ble conviction thattbey have a common origin, and
that Dr. Church is theauther and prime instigator in
thin crusade against my character. Thera is not*
court of justice in the land which would not pronounce
him the principal and'Mr. Mitchell an accessary
and A tool. The PRESIDENT of Franklin CoU
■legs is exhibited as co-operating with a self convic*
ted SIT, to blast tbe rsputation of a colleague, be
tween inborn and himself be u had always believed
tbe most cordial friendship subsisted,” and to whose
“ ability as an officer; and faithfulness so far as his
health permitted,” he has borne his public testimony
Mr- Mitchell’s account of the conversation between
Dr. Church cud myself, in reference to my resigna
tion, is sufficient of itself to establish tho agency of
Dr. Church in his injurious publication. None but
-Dr. C. couldihave been the “ informant,” and surely
without his consent, his friend would not have pre-
sumed to publish a private conversation between col.
leagues in office l It is worthy of remark, that the
reason I am said to have assigned for not resigning
at commencement, is given as a quotation, “ He re.
plfrut he felt bad about it, there were so many folks
here.” I should be inclined to disclaim the childish
language herein imputed to me, if I were not aware
'toot at the time in question the “plan” was in opera-
tion and a “ written account” was kept of my move-
mentis- Dr. Church- would hardly havo ventured to
give from memory the precise words of a conversa
tion which took place six months before. Had he
too a “ plan” or was Mr. Mitchell genera] secretary
ter commencement. Dr. Hull, who was the only
witness of our conversation, understood him as I did.
“The impression-made upon his mind at the time*
was that the reasons assigned by me were regarded
by Dr. Chtirch perfectly satisfactory.** i will bnly
say further upon this subject, that the.frienda whom
I consulted, and they wtiro the best friends of the
College, agreed that no election could be made at
commencement, as no notice had been given, and
only one candidate was present. As. I was not to
leave my place till the end of the year, no harm
could accrae to'tho Colleger. I had reason to be.
lieve I should be less exposed to uncharitable.con.
structions by withholding my resignation iill after
the adjournment of the Board, and thns affording an
opportunity for giving the usual notice to candidates
through the public papers,'than I should be by re
signing at commencement. I even now may be per.
nutted to suspect that the joint ingenuity which haw
worked up a very hannlc*» act, and a private conversa
tion into a newspaper accusation, would have framed
at leastas plausible a fiction, had I, without previous
notice, sent in my resignation, in the absence of
all competitors to Judge Longstreet, when he and his
friends were on the spot, with favorable opportuni.
ties to concert pit ns, solicit, foe.
If any farther proof were needed to establish con.
cert between Dr, Church and Mr. Mitchell, it may be
found in their perfect agreement in an erroneous
s/otenieftt with regard to the $200. $200 was not
the amount I received,-as my receipt given to the
Treasurer will show. In explanation of this charge,
I offer the following statements. Upon being no;
tified of my appointment by. the Secretary of the
board in'the spring of i831, l wrote to him that I
would make my arrangements to ehter upon the dis.
chargo of my duties by the 1st of Jan. He wrote me
a second and I think a third letter, stating.that it
was much desired I should come o.n at an earlier pe
riod, if not by commencement, as soon afterwards as
I could.' I consented in obedience to what believed
was the wishes of the Board, to alter .my arrange;
ment, and accordingly left New England, August
17th, designing Jto reach Athens by a.circnitous and
expensive route through tbe interior, at an earlier
period than it would bo prudent to land in the low
country. The fatigues and exposure of the journey,
in the warm season, brought on a bilious attack, aud
I did not roach Athens till within a fortnight of the
close of the term. The classes were then all enga.
ged in preparing for examination. Whether, under
such circumstances, my salary ought to commence in
November, or not till January, I refer wholly to the
Treasurer. I am confident Mr. Hull will confirm
the- truth of this statement.
, The annexed certificate, marked No. 2. the names
of the parties concerned being omitted j con tains, the
opinions of my colleagues upon my “most wicked op.
pression exercised upon an inoffensive student.” Sev
en out of the oightmembere of the faculty,aniongthem
Dr. Church,did fully .unequivocally and rapeatedly-ex.
press their entire approbation of- my conduct in this
affair. Tutor Mitchell expressed his' approbation in
the' strongest language. 1 refer on this subject es.
pecially to Professor Shannon, who cannot fail to re.
member Mr. Mitchell’s zeal. Mr. M.’s assertion that
Dr. Ward refused to sign this certificate, “ which
! ohnreo of Jooow Uttlo roluo bo ©ooosiwtttJ thO DUO ho
did sign,” makes it necessary apd not indelicate for
me to say, that Dr. W.' expressed his entire concur
rence, In'eveiy thing, contained in the certificate,
and assigned a prudential reason for witholding his
name. I took no part in the measures of discipline
adopted in tbe case. This was distinctly stated to
tiie Board, by Dr. Church, as I was assured by sever-
ral Trustees. An attempt was made to injure mo by
reporting to several Trustees, as well as many other
persons, that I employed threats to influence the de.
cision of the faculty, when this subject was incident
ally before them. Professors Shannon and Hull, to
whom it was -alleged I had used this indecorous lan.
gunge, contradicted the statement promptly and Une
quivocally. This slander is folly methy the certifi
cate No. 1, Whicb-declares that-in.my “ intercourse
with the faculty, I was uniformly mild, courteous
and gentlemanly, in a high degree.”
With respect to my complaints against thd Board
of Trustees, Professor Lehmann certainly misunder
stood me, if liis note published by Mr. -Mitchell de
scribes the impression wMch my conversation left
Upon his mind. He says of me, “ He observed, he
bad not been treated well by the Trustees; dec” 1
think Mr. Lehmann will recollect, upon further con;
sideration, that I spoke, of individual trustees, and
not of the Board. I did say that several members of
the Board had made' unfavorable statements in Aih.
ens, and elsewhere, with regard to my conduct in the
cose just referred tor without asking or receiving any
explanation from me. Against the Board as such,
or any considerable part of it, 1 never had cause of
complaint, and I never complained. My relations
with these gentlemen, have'been of the most friend
ly character*
There is one more error in Professor L.’s recollec
tion. I could not have expressed any doqbt of the
truth of what. had been stated by .the Friends of
Equal Rights in reference to Mr J.JP. Waddel, for
I believe their statements,in this respect, to be strict,
ly true. With the exception of these errors, which
I do not doubt were unintentional, I admit the accu.
racy of Mr. Lehmann's note. I will offer a parsing
remark, however; upon the coarse wMch he has pur;
sued in this affair. He admits in Jus note, that our
conversation was “ confidential.” He had previously
admitted toa friend ofhis and mine, that it was friend,
ly as well as “ confidential,” and wholly of his own
Seeking; and more than, a month aflef our inter,
view be had not mentioned our conversation to any
person except Dr. Church, who asked him what I
thought of the proceedings of tbe Board. He can.
not have forgotten that I told him I could take no
part in snch a controversy, though I had no objection
to impart my opinion to him at bis request. I also
told him he was at liberty to mention my views if, on
any occasion, he might deem it proper. ! did not
wish to leave him under an erroneous impression,
that I felt bound to make a secret of my sentiments.
I submit ittohonorable men, ifitwRs not a singular
exercise of this discretion-over a part of a friendly
and “confidential” conversation,to report it in wri
ting to my open and bitter enemy, to be published^ in
the newspapers for the avowed purpose of injuring
my reputation* That this very amiable man could
have been persuaded to pursue such a coarse, is
an afflicting .proof of the strength ot that malign
influence, which publishes private conversations, be
trays official and confidential relations, and.violates
even more sacred obligations, in pursuit of a favor,
ite object. -
This note of Mr. Lehmann, in the opinion of Mr.
Mitchell, fixes upon me, the virtual authorship of the
plot, and according to Dr. Church, makes me respon.
Bible for-the statements of tho Friends of Equal
Rights. Now, I most solemnly protest against such
an inference. No man liana right to hold mo, re
sponsible to the.public for tbe opinion I may express
to roy friends. Such a doctrine would be fatal to all
the comforts and confidence of social life. I readily
admit, that “ within the circle of my private friends,”
I frequently expressed my opinions upon the College
controversy, and said I believed the statements of
the Friends of Equal Rights to be substantially true.
The opposing statements were on mJtiiy P?®* 8 ■
contradictory, and it was perfectly natural, from my
Dr. Church expressed his unqualified approbation — —j. — — — r—-j „ . .
,f my couduct, in postponing my resignation till at | known connexion with tho the College, ap
peal should frequently be. made to me. After the
most careful rtcollefctibfa. 1 am unable to call to mind
more than a single instate*) in wMch I introduced
the subject, hr expressed my opinion when it was not
directly asked. I was in Milledgeville and its imme
diate vicinity about a week, daring the pending of
Strickland’s bill. I had many acquaintances and sev
eral personal and religious friends in the Legislature,
yet I did not mention the controversy, except to one
individual, who knew the writers Of the Friends of
Equal Rights, and asked me in an incidental ques-
tion; not affecting the merits of the ease. I repeat
what I published in the Journsl, “ that I gave no ex.
ptession Of my sentiments beyond the circle of my
private frienda.” If any thing can be made to ap.
pear contrary to this assertion, it will only afford ev- :
idenco of which I have had more than enough, that
a man may believe he is in the midst of friend, when
he is indeed surrounded by people Of a very diflerdnf
description. Of the attack npon me, ite authors and'
their objects, I spoke more'freely. When they were
employing the mighty instrumentality of the press to
poison the the public mind Of a state against me, t
thought it right to m&ke some efforts to repel the in;
fection from the bosoms and firesides of my friends*
After making this simple statement of tiro course
which I actualty adopted, 1 took occasion to say;
that had I been the real and avowed author of thai
“ Frienda of Equal Rights,” this would not have
justified .an attack upon my character. It' might bd
thought presumptuous in so humble an individual;
to meddle with such grave matters—or indelicate
from iny connection with the College or imperti
nent, as I was about to leave the State ; but it is
the unquestionable right of eve'ry Citizen, to publish
his opinions on public, interests, and for the exercise!
of a right, none are at liberty to molest him. How
in the Home.of .reason shall freemen who believd
there may be errors Or mismanagement in public af
faire, proceed in the work of reform, if they may
not enlighten the genend-mlnd by newspaper djsi
cussion, and appeal' to their representatives ift thd
legislature 1 What other mothod so Open, sd
manly, so fatorablo to truth, to tho correction of
error, .misstatements and false reasoning, and to the
general welfare of society ? Are not the measures
and policy of the Board of Trustees fair subjects
of discussion? They manage a moat important
public interest. They disburse largo sums of public
money. They hold their offices during pleasure, fill
their own vacancies, and are, to a greater extent than
almost any other public servants, irresponsible. The
present incumbents certainly will not foy claim to in.
fallibility; and I much question if they frel them
selves highly complimented by the zeal Of cham-
pions who denounce as enemies to the Board and
the College; all who may happen to express a doubt
on the wisdom of some of their measures. ]
I cannot feel that I am justly liable to censure
for expressing to, my friends my honest opinions up
on statements put forth in the newspapers upon a
legitimate subject of discussion. I stand accused,
however, before the public, of having given cur
rency to falsehoods,, and though I strenuously ob
ject to the .legality of the arraignment; and tho juris*
diction of the court, it is due to myself to show, <
that I am nut guilty. Mr. Lehmann’s note has re*
r foreuce only io the nret number of uie" F»Un«b>of
Equal Rights.” The subsequent numbers are not be.
fore me, nor do I recollect all the statements, or
wiieiher they have been contradicted. ' Something
has however been said by Dr. Church about person-
al reflection aiid-“pitiful insinuations,” against him.
self and Dr. Waddel. As the first number contains
none of these, he probably discovered them in the
auhsequnnt ones. As he holds me responsible for
these ‘‘ insinuations,” as well as tho falsehoods of
the first number, I here declare that I have neither
published nor sanctioned the publication of personal
reflections or “ insinuations,pitiful,” or other against
Dr. Church, or "Dr. Waddel, or any other person-
If any have been, pnblished I know it was not upopi
my authority, nor with my concurrence* With this
disclaimer, I proceed, to tho first number of the
“ Friends pf Equal Rights,” to which I shall con-
fine myself. I have said, and I still believe, that ite
Statements ate substantially true. The main, propo
sition in that publication, to wMch the rest hold the
relations of proof br inference, is “ that an unjust
and dangerotis preponderance wae given to tho
Presbyterian Church in the organization of Franklin
College, which has been maintained for the most
part through its subsequent history.” in proof of
this position, it may be alleged that, with a single
-exception,'tdl the 'Presidents have been of that
Church, and Ro many of the subordinate officers,
that Presbyterians have usually constituted more
than Otto half of the Faculty; and have thfa had the
confrol of the College* How much this proposition
lacks of being proved, I am unable to see. Tbe
“ preponderance” is clearly established. People may
differ in their opinions about applying to it the epi
thets “ unjust and dangerous.” *
The next statement In the publication, upon which
I stand charged with falsehood, is the assertion that
I was twice opposed by Presbyterian dandidates.
This was contradicted positively and repeatedly by
The Friends of Truth. When enquired of upon this
subject, ! always stated what I learnsd from different
Trustees present at the elections, that the Rev. Mr.
Reiinte and Mr. B. B. Hopkins, both Presbyterians,
were candidates and voted for at tho time referred to.
As perhaps always occurs on similar occasions, I
was repeatedly told tbe number of votes given for
each of tbe candidates—who voted for them and who
for me. t did not and do not doubt the truth, of
what Was told me on the subject.
I frequently said that Mr. J. P. Waddel was a
Presbyterian. I knew he had been one for several
years, and that he was generally considered one by
the pnblic. I had never learned, though familiar
with bis nearest friends, that his connexion with the
Church had boen dissolved. I cannot think there
was any thing like falsehood in this statement, wheth
er considered in reference to me or the argument
With regard to Mr; Prcssly, I never failed to sty
when spoken to upon the subject tliat I understood
he was not.a regular Presbyterian, though I have al
ways believed that Associate Roformed, Presbyteri
ans and Congregationalists must in a state where
these distinctions are nearly unknown, be essentially
one in their influence, and that the difference there-
fore isi only in name.
I am not apprised that any' other essential fact •
alleged in thin publication, has been contradicted.
For ite arguments and inferences, lor its opinions
upon the comparative merits of canudater, and for
the various points brought out m the controversy,
none surely wUl hold mo accountable. They are
obviously matters, upon which men may very ho:*isU
ly entertain dilferent views. One tcptc, however, I
must notice, with regard to which Dr. Qhurch’s let.
ter of the 22d Feb., in Connexion with the accom.
panying certificate, is calculated to make a very er.
roneoun and a very injurious impression. This topic
is the sectarian tendency of the College. I take this
occasion to declare, that I never knew of any im
proper interference with tho religious opinions or
relations of * student by any Officer in Franklin
College. This I hCve uniformly asserted, as all my
friends, who ever heard me spaak ujion the subject,
will bear me witness. I know that I never ojeprea.
sed an opinion inconsistent with this statenror t. As
however T haw: been called upon to .make my
fence in this aa ttter, jp $ wey that induces
: „•