Newspaper Page Text
The ferment of a free, is preferable to the torpor of a despotic, Government.)’
VOS,. IIS.
ATHENS, GEORGIA, SEPTEMBER 27, 1834.
«um.
NO. 28*
From the Sarannah Georgian.
OFR UNION .SAFE FOB A’ THAT.
Ain—“ A man's a man far a' that."
tVlnt, tho’ thoj call us lories, slaves,
SuUmissionists, and a' that,
\Ve’!l still Ixi true—and no base knaves
.Shall change our hearts for a’ that—
Our F'tion safe we will maintain,
For a that, and a’ that.
We dearly have Colombia's plains,
Her daughters sweet, and a’ that.
Our headers brave, who never swerve
From freedom’s cause, and a’ that,
Oar hopes rest on—we’ll ever serve
With those who’ro good for a’ that—-
Our Union safe we will maintain, &c. See.
! midnight, aim the dagger at their neighbor’s
I heart, and apply the torch to his dwelling.
1 “ In this prejudice, to some extent, I acknowl
edge I participate—and 1 confess I have not
seen a man who could read Dr. Olio’s at
tempt to justify these worse than Vandal ef
forts to destroy a public institution of learning,
without stopping to express his indignation at
this sin against civilization—and I am dispo-
sed to believe that this prejudice belongs to
human nature, whenever it has attained to
any considerable purity.” As Dr. Olin has
such a high admiration for the lofty hearing
I “ of these individuals, I will leave him to ex
tol their noble virtues and honorable deeds in
the eanse of science and religion.” They
are, however sure of a fame as undying as
that of Ravaillac or of Caliph Omar. One
already canonized, and the rest will un
There’s Coprrr, man, of sweet Telfair,
Who’s honest, kind, and a’ that,
We'll place him where his virtues rare
Deserve to shine, for a’ that—
Our Union safe wo will maintain. See- See.
There’s O hanti.and, loo, of Haiti win true,
Who writes and speaks, and a’ that.
We'll place him with our favored few,
Who ne'er vote wrong, for a’ that—•
Our Union safe we will maintain, &.c. Sic.
There's Charley Haynes, of Hancock, great,
He's sage and old, ami a’that,
He shall adorn our wisdom’s seat,
At Washington for a’ that—
Our Union safe we will maintain, «.te. «Ac.
There’s Georiue Oweni, of Chatham dear,
A lawyer sound, and a’ that,
We'll :ix him where his judgment clear
Will rank him high, and a’ that—
Our Union safe we will maintain, &c. &c.
Then Wii.i.iam Schley, gay Richmond's son,
We tried before, and a’ that.
The name he has so nobly won,
He still shall keep for a’ that—
Our Union safe wo will maintain, &.C.
There’s Santoro John, who Baldwin hails,
We know him well, and a’ that;
We'll him support, as envy fails
"I'<» sully him, for ,r that—
Our Union safe wo will maintain, Ac. &c.
There's Terreki., James, that Franklin knows,
He’ll prove quite right, and a’ tli.it;
It's lut'e he may dread his foes,
Tlnv’ro few and we;!;, and a’ that—
(tor Union safe we will maintain, iVc. &c.
There’s also one, un moan Oeotje Towns,
Who Frji.hi.n loves, and a’ that ;
We’ll let them see, .b—pite of frowns,
He’ll he our choice for a’ that—
Our Union safe we will maintain, &.c, «kc.
Another pillar, noble Wayne,
Fair Georgia's hope, and a’ that,
Whose fame remains without a stain,
So pure and free and a’ that—
Our Union safe wo will maintain, &.c. &.C
So let us drink stteeess to those
Who’vc faithful b(jen, and a’ that;
In i.r.rf October may we choose
As worthy friends, and a’ that;
Our Union safe we will maintain,
•For a’ that, and a’ that ;
Wo dearly love Columbia’s plains,
llcr daughters sweet, and a’ that.
SM i 0 c r U r? u
From the Constitutionalist.
DR. ( Ill RCII’S REPLY TO DR. OI.TN.
JMit. (Jt'ir.r—Dear Sir: I must ask your
indulgence, while l comply with the request
of Dr. Olin, in his late strictures upon my re
ply to him. That the public are already dis
gusted with a mere personal controversy, I
do not doubt—and that many will feci suffi
cient interest, in what cither Dr. Olin ov mv.
.noIf may write, to induce them to read our
publications, I do not hope. And so far ns
original charges against mo are concerned, I
am willing to leave them with my first reply
to his attack. I know I have there “met”
i very important “position” which he has ta
ken : and as to “ the shaking of tiiose posi-
lions,” I am willing to abide by the decision
of the public—feeling fully assured that any
assertion of Dr. Olin, «that they have not
/ecu shaken” will not in the smallest degree
alter that derision. I cannot imagine what
could have been Dr. Olio’s motive in pub
lishing his late strictures, unless it were the
desire lbr the last word—the faint hope of
thus diverting the public mind from the main
subject, by irrelevant matter, and by broad
assertions, which lie hoped would remain un
answered. However unwilling I may be to
obtrude myself upon the notice of the public,
1 am still more unwilling that unfounded char
ges should remain unconlradictcd. And I
trust it will be recollected, that so far as I
am concerned, I have had no agency, direct
ly or indirectly, in producing this disgraceful
controversy—that 1 have never published or
advised the publication of a disrespectful word
against Dr. Olin, till since his direct attack
upon myself. From the mosPunfoundcd sus
picion ha supposed, or pretended to suppose,
that I was in concert with certain individuals,
who, he says, wore endeavoring to injure his
character; although I was probably lf>0
miles from these writers, when they wrote
their obnoxious pieces, and do not to this day
know who were the writers of one of the oth
er publications in which any thing disrespect
ful is said of him.
Whatever obligation I may feel for his
great kindness, in reminding me “ of the res.
ponsihilities which belong to me,” I must
still decline the honor “of breaking a lance ”
with “his /GENTLEMEN ” STRIKERS of “ high
character and virtue.” “ There is a prejudice,
posibly unjust, against ” assassins and incen
diaries, who, concealed by the darkness of
doubtedly receive cardinal hats at the next
grand council, as the rewards of their great
and disinterested exertions in the cause of sci
ence, and in the destruction of heresy.
In my reply to him, I said, “ let it be dis
tinctly understood that the first number of
The Friends of Equal Rrights was submitted
to him before it was committed to the press,
that he approved of its sentiments, declared
it contained nothing but the truth, and rccom.
mended its publication.” lie says “ this as.
serrion is groundless.” I will simply state
the facts. It was, when I wrote my reply,
understood, by general and uricontrudicted
report, that Dr. Olin had been consulted as
to the facts and the publication of that piece.
It was never denied that the writers of The
Friends of Equal Rights, and Dr. Olin, bad
conversed upon the subject before the pttbli-
cation, in such a manner as to leave no doubt
upon the public mind who were the writers.
Dr. Olin himself immediately defended the
piece—ded >rcd that it contained nothing hut
the truth—he authorized a gentleman who
was coming from Augusta to this place, to
say that this was his opinion—and in his at
tack upon me he goes into a labored defence
of this very pier?, as one for whose senti
ments he was accountable. If under such
circumstances I had not a right to say, let it
ho understood, 6cc.. &c. I submit to the can
did. But I would ask where ts the difference
after all, between the course pursued by him
and that which was attributed to him by com
mon report, and which even be himself dees
not deny? He lent his influence, his whole
influence, for the destruction of the University
—and he lent it too to men who had not the
moral courage to appear before the public! !
Dr. Olin came forward and publicly defend
ed a course which his cowardly allies were
ashamed to acknowledge ’ 1 lie calls upon
me to make good my assertion, that the
Board of Trustees refused to hear him con
cerning the case of discipline. I stated that
he was not permiited to carry this case .be
fore the Board, and that lie complained of
this decision of the Board. Dr. Olin says
“ it would not he possible to make a state
ment conflicting more directly with all the
facts of the case as I understood them to oc
cur.’ He denies ever having complained of
the Board—assures the public that though he
did make a written request to be heard, that
he afterwards withdrew it in consequence of
disclaimers made by gentlemen of the Board.
“ I withdrew my application at the sugges
tion of several Trustees who said, after the
unqualified disclaimer which had been made,
no vindication was necessary, and the discus
sion might lead to discord, which I was anx-
ions to prevent.” “ I wp.s told, when I with
drew iny application, in deference to the
opinion of my friends, that if l insisted upon
it they believed the permission would be
granted.” “ I never heard before Dr. C’s.
publication, that the Board did refuse to per
mit me to make a statement which they had
themselves invited.” „ I hope Dr. C. will
speak clearly and specifically on these points.
What part of this statement is inaccurate ?
What decision did the Trustees make, except
as to jurisdiction ? If they made no other, of
what decision ‘ of the Board as such ’ did I
complain ? Dr. C. it will be remembered
charges me with falsehood in my statements
upon this subject. I call upon him to make
good his charge.” Minute and circumstantial
as Dr. O. seems to be in his account of this
matter, it is wholly at variance with the his
tory of the case. And as he has warned the
public against putting confidence in my as
sertions, when they are net “ accompanied by
proof,” I will accommodate him with what I
trust will be to the public, if not to him,
satisfactory proof. And I will leave that
public to decide who has been guilty of what
lie so often charges me. In the first place
lie savs he never complained of the proceed-
ings of the Board—“he never had any rea.
son to complain ” ! Mr. Lehman says “ Mr.
Olin told me in Augusta, that he had not been
treated well by the Board.” Is the testimo
ny of this “ amiable man ” “ satisfactory
proof”? I stated that lie was not permitted
to bring the subject of the case of discipline
before the Board—that the Board refused to
hear him. He denies this—says, he « with
drew his application, and that at the sugges
tion of a number of friends in the Board,
who assured him at the lime he withdrew it,
that if he insisted upon it, they believed the
Board would grant the request.” The fol
lowing is the record of the Board of Trus
tees on the subject. “ Mr. laid before
the Board a letter from Professor Olin asking
permission to explain his conduct in relation
to the dismission of a student in regard to
which, Mr offered the following reso
lution which was adopted; to wit: A com-
-munication from Professor Olin requesting
that he may be permitted to make a statement
before the Board of Trustees in relation to
the case of a stuiL-nt who has been dismiss
ed by the Faculty ; and there being no
charge before the Board against the Profes
sor in relation thereto, be it Resolved, That
it is not expedient that any investigation should
he made by the Board in relation to the sub-
ject aforesaid ; or that any statement should
he made to the Board upon the subject.” Dr.
Olin will here learn what decision the Board
made besides as to jurisdiction—and the pub
lic will probably be able to decide whether
according to my assertion the Board did re
fuse to hear him 1! I hope here is “ satisfac
tory proof,” and that I have spoken « clearly
and specifically.” It is utterly astonishing
to me that Dr. Olin can make such statements
ns these!! I can account for it upon no oth
er principle, than that he supposed my patience
as well as that of the public was exhausted,
and that his statements would therefore re
main uncontradicted!!
' In my letter to Mr. Guicu of 22d of Feb
ruary, I observed, “ between Dr. Olin and
myself, I had always believed the most cor
dial friendship subsisted, and never to my re-
collection, except in one instance, and that a
mere interpretation of the laws, was there a
difference of sentiments on any subject con
nected with the institution.” In niy reply to
him in June I observed, that “I decidedly
disapproved of his conduct respecting the
young man.” In the former of these state
ments, says Dr. Olin, “ iu terms comprehen
sive and unambiguous as any that could be
chosen from an English dictionary, he flatly
contradicts himself, and goes much further to
clear me from all unfavorable imputations,
than the signers of the mendacious certifi
cate.” And again, “ It would seem that Dr.
Church has here pretty fully committed him
self with regard to my deportment as an offi
cer of College ! Is a man more worthy to
be believed iu February or June? Really
Dr.,Church ought not to expose himself in
such forlorn enterprises.” It must be ob.
served that the whole subject grew out of the
dismission of a young man—that the dismis
sion was founded upon a certain section of
the code of College laws ; and that a part of
the Faculty believed this law did not authorize
the dismission for the offence. I was one
who tints believed, and this was the point upon
which Dr. Olin and myself differed. In my
letter of February, 1 said there was but one
subject concerning which we had differed in
sentiment—In June I said, concerning this
very case, that I disapproved of Dr. Olin’s
conduct. The public will not expect me to
understand the English language well, as I
cannot write' a letter without using “ vulgar,
and insolent, and abusive ” epithets ; but still
I must confess if there bn any flat contradic
tion, between the two assertions, “ it requires
the practised eye of Dr. Olin to detect it.”
And this I confess is the first time I ever
heatd that, because a man docs not quarrel
with his neighbor, he necessarily approves of
his whole conduct. If my assertion that we
were on terms of friendship, implies on my
part a declaration that he had fully and faith
fully discharged all his duties as an officer
of College, I will confess that I do not under
stand the nature of Dr. Olin’s moral ther
mometer, and I apprehend no one but a gen
uine graduate of St. Omer’s would be able to
understand it. And since 1 am on the sub
ject of language, I will simply observe, that
so far as respects the classical quotation “tu
quoque Brute,” with which he says I height
ened my picture, he has given me credit for
a reflrement and accuracy of taste, to which
I am not entitled. Had I attempted « in lay
ing on my colours ” to heighten the picture,
I should in all probability have used the “vul
gar ” expression « et tu Brute.” I will also
acknowledge that in mv published copy of
that very vulgar letter which I wrote him, I
used Dear Sir, instead, of Reverend Sir, and
would say it was wholly a mistake, were I
not conscious that the alteration is so impor.
tant, I should not probably be believed.
Again, Dr. Olin assures the public “ that
the correctness of his statements have not
been questioned.” Perhaps it is that very
important one “ that iie was twice opposed
by Presbyterians.” And as he clearly inti
mates that I have been convicted of falsehood
in this matter, I will refer to it again. His
statement, as in the case of his application to
be heard by the Board is quite minute. He
says (concerning these elections,) “ as per-
haps always occurs on similar occasions, I
was repeatedly told the number of votes given
for each candidate, who voted for them and
who for me. I did not and do not doubt the
truth of what was told me on the subject.”
To any one acquainted with the mode of con
formed full service to the 20th of July, and re
signed my office, and of course my pay, early
in November; making little more than three
aud a half months. This is perhaps not more
time than Dr. Church employed during my
first term of service, in a tour of pleasure
through the northern States, receiving and I
believe in advance his full pay.” I would re-
fer to the above extract, as au instance, not
only of Dr. Olin’s “ proneness to exaggerate,”
but also to Jeslisticate, and to misstate. If
he intends any thing hV asserting that he re
signed his pay, it is evidently that lie did not
receive it—that he received his salary for on
ly three and a half months—when the truth
is he received a salary for six months and ten
days; a longer time than I had stated—and which
statement of mine, is “an evidence of rny
proneness to exaggerate.” Perhaps he may
not allow this statement of his to be an exag
geration, as it is an attempt to diminish a
stun which is possibly onerous ! ! But
whether it be -so considered “ exaggeration
or diminution, it will, I apprehend, he con
sidered no bad specimen of sophistication.
“ I> ut this, says he, was perhaps not more
time than was spent by Dr. Church in a tour
oi pleasure through the northern states, re
ceiving and I believe in advance his fall pay.”
I wish Dr. Olin had been kind enough to in
form the public how many recitations he heard
for me, and how much extra service he per-
formed on my account! I was absent from
College duties but little more than six weeks,
and that by express permission of the Board
ol Trustees, to visit a sick and aged parent.
I heard nty several classes that year in all
their studies, and was never assisted, by an
officer hearing a recitation for me, or an ex
tra recitation on mv account. I made an ar
rangement with the other officers to permit
me, by hearing an extra number of recitations
before I left, to advance my classes farther
than usual iu the studies of my department;
and on my return I had again more than my
usual service to perform. Whether 1 re
ceived a salary in advance, may tie learned
by the following note from the Treasurer—
I have no recollection that Dr. Church
ever received any salary before it came due,
unless for.the full term, after the duties of
College were closed—I have furnished no
information on the subject whatever, nor have
I ever heard of it till now.
ASBURY HULL.”
Dr. Olin says, “ he believes I received my
salary in advance.” He hud not the slight-
cst grounds for any such belief, and that cause
must surely not be the best which needs per
fectly gratuitious assertions, and those too
upon subjects so pitiful. On the subject of
money transactions I apprehend Dr. Olin lias
no laurels to win on the field of controversy.
And 1 could use his own language and say,
“ the most passive can be roused to resistance,
when forbearance is found to increase the ar
rogance and activity of the injurer.”
He says I have made no progress in clear
ing up the following difficulties ; viz :
1st. “ In the first number of the Friends of
Truth, Dr. Church by such insinuations as
were easily and generally understood, imputed
the author of the Friends of Equal Rights to
me.” He subsequently attempted to per
suade the public that I was the informant and
instigator of the plot, yet lie declared in his
letter to me of 4th of February, that he did
not believe these accusations true! ! *• Has
Dr. Olin forgotten the contents of this “ vul-
lettcr of the 4th ol* February ? or does he
moved without showing that I was not and nev-
er had been unfriendly to him. The only re.
maining subject to which I shall now allude is,
my assertion that he made in the Conference
unfriendly allusions to Franklin College, and
his denial of having made such allusions. It
was reported in this town that such allusions
were made by Dr. Olin. This informatiou
came from a Methodist xMinister, who was in
the Conference and heard the remarks of Dr.
Olin. lie mentioned these allusions of Dr.
Olin to different individuals in this place, and
did it without reserve. And he stated that it
was not the impression of his mind alone that
allusions had been made to Franklin College,
but that others understood the remarks in the
same manner, which he had. I then saw no
reason, and I see none now, why this disinter
ested individual should have voluntarily made
such assertions, if they were not true. He
could not have been mistaken as to his own
impressions—and I should suppose it very im
probable that he could have mistaken the im
pressions of his brother minister, who in an
swer to Dr. Olin inquired, where some of the
young ministers of the Conference had been
educated, and why their sentiments had not
been perverted. 1 did not hear the minister
make these remarks, but heard from others
that he had made them, and upon application*
to a gentleman who conversed with him, I
have received the following note, which I am
at liberty to publish, and the name of the wri
ter is with Mr. Guieu,*and will be made known
to any of Dr. Olin’s friends, who may desire
it. llis friends, however, in this place, all
know that the Clergyman alluded to, did not
hesitate when here, to speak his views.
mssmam
gar-
think the people of Georgia quite bereft of
memor\ r and common sense” ? “ Truly his
feelings carry him into painful extremes” ! !
Did I say in mv letter of the 4th of February,
that l did not believe these accusations ? Or
did I there say“Iam reluctantly constrained to
change my opinion, as I have the most posi-
tivc evidence that you have taken no little
pains to convince all within the sphere of
your influence, that the charges made against
me and some of my friends arc true”’ Would
not a “ secretary” be even useful to Dr. Olin?
If he can thus directly contradict public rec
ords not a year old and lett rs not three
months since published ! ! Does Dr. Olin
suppose the public have forgotten that in his
first attack upon me he brings forward
number of this same anonymous publication
as justifying an act which he had done before
its publication’ Is there in my reply to him
no clearing up of this subject ? No involving
him in the absurdity of making that which
did not exist, the causcof that which did ? And
did 1 not there shew that Dr. Olin’s assertion
of the authorship of the Friends of Truth, was
wholly gratuitous ? that he had once as posi
lively charged the authorsip of justice to an
individual who was not even in the State when
it was written ? And did I not in my reply
to him clearly show that this first number of
ducting the elections of the Board, this state- * Friends of Truth, does not contain the slight
nient will carry its own refutation. It will
not need to be “ questioned.” The Board
elect by ballot, and where the choice is not
unanimous, it is impossible for any one to
know for whom the members vote. There is
such a thing as giving too much proof. Mr.
Hopkins, however, did not oppose Mr. Olin,
and it was publicly stated by Mr. Hopkin’s
request, in the Board, that he did not wish to
oppose Mr. Olin. And as to Judge Craw
ford, if he djd dare to vote for any other man
than Mr. Olin, he will doubtless reeeivc his
reward for so traitorous an act 1!
Dr. Olin says, “as an instance of my
proneness to exaggerate, I stated that during
the last six months of his first term of service,
he did not enter College though he received
full pay. The truthi s, says Dr. Olin,” I per-
cst allusion to him as the aulhor of Equal
Rights.
“ 2d. Dr. Church in his published letter
of February 22d, imputes the most unworthy
designs to me—ho has given many reasons
for publishing his letter, but none for imputing
corrupt motives to me.” If I have made
no progress in clearing up this subject
I imagine it is because it is so plain -that it
cannot be madd plainer. If I have given no
reason for imputing corrupt motives on him in
that letter, it is because I never imputed them.
There is not in the letter the slightest impu
tation of unworthy motives to Dr. Olin. It
was intended for no other purpose than to
remove a very improper impression which
had been made by a publication of Hr. Olin’s
friends. That impression could not bo re.
August 15, 1834.
“ Dear Sir,—In compliance with your re-
quest, 1 state the following, relative to the in
formation had of Mr. Olin’s assertions in the
Conference in Washington. It had been, as
ts well known, declared openly and in all com-
panics (when Mr. Olin was the topic of con.
versation) by a gentleman of high standing in
our community, that he had been informed by
a Methodist Minister, that Mr. Olin was op
posed to this Institution, and had so expressed
himself in the Conference. It so happened
that a few weeks before your reply to Mr. Olin
was published I fell in company with the Meth
odist Minister above alluded to—I had known
him from childhood, and was always intimate
with him. He is a gentleman who stands high in
tite society where ho resides, respected by all
who know him. lie stated to me that Mr. Olin,
when advocating the interests of Randolph
Macon College, and asserting its claims to
the patronage and fostering care of the de
nomination, said that the 'Methodists nee
ded some institution of the kind, where the
principles of their young rnen could be pre
served pure, that neither the Baptists nor
Methodists could scud their sons to existing
seminaries without those principles being per
verted. I inquired of him if Mr. Olin named
this Institution- His answer was that he did
not, but that every one present knew which
Institution he meant—and that in'thc answers
made to hi-S speech, the questions put to the
Conference marked this thoroughly—that it
was particularly demanded in answer, where
had George Pierce, Archibald Mitchell. B.
Pope and others, (decidedly the most promis
ing young ministers in the Church) been ed
ucated ? That they had received all their in-
st ruction at Franklin College, and whence
came it that their principles had not been per
verted ? That to these questions no answers
had been made, and no disclaimer given of the
observations having been applied or intended
to be applied to this Institution—that there
was iu short not the smallest doubt in his mind,
and in that of other members of the Confer
ence with whom he conversed, that Franklin
College was the one against which they were
designed to act. This conversation was not
a confidential one, and was in the presence
of friends.” —•
I suppose the above will be sufficient to
show that whatever may he the facts concer
ning this matter, I am not guilty of slandering
Dr. Olin—that I had a right to mention what
had been publicly declared by a Minister who
was in the Conference. Dr. Olin’s friends
know perfectly well who this Minister is and
what he here said. But Dr. Olin says “ he
has been assured that I knew Bishop Andrew
had made a similar declaration” (in a letter
to a friend in Athens soon after the Confer
ence) to the one published by Dr. Olin, as
proof lhat ho made no allusions in the Confer
ence to Franklin College. In a private con
versation with one, and but one, individual, I
was told that Bishop Andrew had said Frank
lin College was not named by Dr. Olin in
the Conference. I was for a short time im
posed upon by the declaration, but when I
understood that though the name was not used,
there were still such allusions as to be clear-
ly^nderstood, I concluded that it might be a
part of the same system, which had framed the
very ingenious certificate which so triumphant
ly vindicated Dr. Olin’s conduct in the case of
discipline!! How Dr. Olin was so soon .ac
quainted with a private conversation I know
not. I hope he and his friends use no such
abominable instruments as “ spies” ! !—
“ There is a prejudice against them.” Dr. Olin
says, this is not the first time I have attemp
ted “ to excite jealousy and prejudice against
discussions alleged to have been entertained
by the Georgia Conference.”
I have never desired nor attempted to in
jure the Methodist Church. I j* avo nev ® r
called it, ns he has the Presbyterian Church,
“ a grasping and exclusive sect.” I en-
deavored to live in peace with all denotnin 11 *
tions of Christians—I have never attempted
to interfere with any man’s sentiments, upon
the subject of religion. So far as tho Col
lege is concerned, I have always given it as
nty opinion, that there should be, if possible,
officers from the different denominations. I
can appeal to every member of the Board of
rusteeo to say, whether I ever attempted to
in nonce one of them to vote for a candidate
of my own denomination or against a candi
date of a different denomination from myself.
I used all the influence 1 had to procure tho
last elfection of Dr. Olin and to retain him
’ It was at my own suggestion, I think, that Dr.
Hull became a candidate for his «hfllr, and
when I was appealed to in the Board of Trus
tees concerning his qualifications, 1 used all
mv influence to procure his election. I
pledged myself to the Board, if they would
elect him, that I would instruct the classes in
the higher branches of Mathematics and in
Astronomy, until such time as the Professor
should feel himself perfectly prepared to en
ter upon those departments. And I did for
two years after Dr. Hull’s election, instruct
his classes in astronomy, lie is a Methodist,
but was a man who, it was thought, would
make, (as experience has proved,) a valuable
and able professor. So far as the interests
of my own denomination of Christians are
concerned, I can, if it bo necessary, bring
ample proof, that I have for years past given
it as my opinion, that they would be much
more certainly and extensively advanced by
the few Ministers who belong to it, having no
connection with Colleges, or Acj^lcmics. -I
consider the University as a most important
State Institution, and so long as its officers
are Christian men and scientific men, it must
be a blessing to our citizens, without regard
to parties, political or religious.
It is possible that in the heat of party strife
and sectarian bigotry, enough enemies may
be raised up to crush it! ! It may be a proud
day to some when they shall seo it prostrated •
in the dust—but I envy not that man his feel
ings, who has stood in the relation to it which
Dr. Olin has sustained, and who like him can
raise the paricidal arm against an institution
which has nourished and cherished and hon
ored him ! 1 I know not what laurels he may
expect to reap in continuing a controversy of
this kind, but as he has been, so far as 1 am
concerned, the assailant, lie will not expect to
drive me from the field, while I have the wea
pons of truth to wield—and public records to
contradict his statements.
A. CHURCH.
September 10th, 1834.
Front the Washington Globe.
General Henry Leavenworth—whose
death occurred on the 21st of July last, at a
place called the Cross Timbers, in tho South
western region of the U. States—was con
nected with the military service and history
of the nation, in a distinguished degree.
He was a native of Vermont, but the prin
cipal portion of his early life was passed in
Delaware county, New York. There, he
completed his legal studies in the office of
General Root, and was the partner of that
gentleman in professional business, at the
time of his entering the Army.
In taking this step, he made sacrifices of
no trifling character. He abandoned a lu
crative practice, and flattering prospects of
civic distinction. But the impulses of an ar
dent patriotism stimulated him to this choice.
In the gloom)- period of 1812-13, when so
much discouragement was interposed to tho
prosecution of the war, he allowed his namo
to he offered, together with those of several
other young men from that part of the United
Slates, for a station in the military service.
He was known as a zealous supporter of tho
caust^of tho country, and admired for his
fearless and enterprising spirit. The offer
was readily accepted, and a Captain’s com
mission tendered him. Immediately- raising
in his county a company of as brave men as
ever faced the fire of an enemy, he hastened
to the American lines on the Canadian fron
tier. How he bore himself there, and sus
tained the high anticipations of his friends, is
shown by the reports of his commanding offi
cers, and the brevets conferred upon him for
meritorious conduct. At the battles of Chip-
pewa and Lundy’s Lane, in which it was' hi9
good fortune to be engaged, he nobly earned
both laurels and promotion.
In 1815, he retired on a furlough, for a
short period; but was immediately brought
again into the public service, in a different
sphere. His fellow citizens of Delaware
county, elected him as their Representative
to the Legislature of New York. He soon
became a leading member of the republican
party in the House of Assembly, and took a
prominent part in the debates and legislation
of the session.
For a time, Col. Leavenworth had charge
of the school for infantry practice at Jefferson
barracks; but his life, since tho close of tho
war, has been chiefly spent in tho perform.
ance~of more arduous service—in establish-
ln«y or maintaining our advanced posts up the
Mississippi anti Missouri, and more latterly
on tho Rctl river—in repressing hostilities
among the Indian tribes—and in punishing
their outrages upon our own citizens, as was
most signally done by him in a case of the
Sacs, and also of the Arikarees. Tho expe
dition against the Arikarees was got up and
conducted in ft style that indicated in Col*
Leavenworth, according to the judgment of
military men, the possession of qualities well
fitted for high coinugind. Before the Hggres*
]
riali
iV-flfrMailS&V;