Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

: ■ “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 : „•