Newspaper Page Text
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA LIBRARY
VOLUME Ii:
ATHEN^EORGIA, THURSDAY MORNING. JULY 19, 1855.
NUMBER 1C
rUBLISUEO WEEKLY, J .
BY JOHN II. CHRISTY,
,J ' IDIT9B AND morRlETO*.
Terms of Subscription. , i
TWO DOLLARS por annum, if paid strictly in tut*
ance; otherwise,THREE DOLLARS will lie charged , J
(tCT In order that the price of the papei may nut be in
the way of a larse circulation, Clpbe will be.ifioolidd
at the followlnglow rates.
COPIES for - - - 910 )<= s>jw
»JSr'«i» •• for . . gi». «E5v
M tktitlow ratrm,lk*>C l uJiaiul accompany Ufordcj-. .
Rates of Advertising. ^
Transient advertisements will be inserted, at On?
Dollar persqnare for tile flrst.aud Fifty&euts persquare
for e icli subsequent insertion. ~ r
Lesral and yearlYutdrcrtisements at the osnal rates
Candidates will bo.charged $5 for announcements,
and obituary noticesntceeaingsix lines in length will
be charged ai advertisement*.
When the nuratajof insertions Isnotmarkednn and
advertisement, it.(rill be published till forbid
charged accordingly.
3&U5M nni ^rnfosMimalJaSs?
ff r^HRTSTYT^
PLAIX AMD FANCY
Book and Job Printer,
“Franklin Job Office,” Athens, Ga.
*% All work entrusted to his care faithfully, correctly
and punctually executed, at prices correspond-
. . From the N. Y.. Observer.
PROF. MQRSETO BISHOP SPALD-
». .. : . . ING.-. r e .....
_ We piiBtished, a few wpeks since, the
letter'of f’roP. Mdrse ’in - answer to the
L en tacky.
“ be re-
riginat-
ti paper,
t, of the
ited saying
ver the li-
.j&.destroyed,
s-.” A. wri-
nirer. styling
janlS
ing with the hardness of the times.
C. B. LOMBARD,
DENTIST,
ATIIEA’S, GEORGIA.
Ruomsover the Store of Wilson & Veal. Jan3
PITNER & ENGLAND,
Wholesale & Retail Dealersin
Groceries, Dry Goods,
E, SHOES AND BOOTS,
April 6
Athens, Ga.
MOORE & CARLTON,
DEALERS IV
SILK, FANCY AND STAPLE GOODS,
HAliD WARE AND CROCKERY.
April No. 3, Granite Row, Athens, Ga.
LUCAS & BILLUPS,
WHOLESALE AMD RETAIL DEALERS IX
DRY GOODS,
GROCERIES, HARDWARE, Ac. Ac.
No. 2, Broad Street, Athens.
WILLIAM G. DELONY,
ATTORNEY AT DAW,
Office over the store ol Wm M. Morton &. Son
Will attend promptly to all business entrust
ed to his care. Athens, Apiil 6
T. C. LANGSTON,
Attorney at Law,
CARNES VILLE, HA,
Ekfebotes.—C. Peeples, Esq. ) .
W. L. Mitchell, Esq. \ AtbcDf
Col. B.F.IIardcman, Lexington
'* - *T Samuel Freeman, Esq. Newnan,
Gabriel Nash, Esq. Daniels ville
Col. H. Holsey, Americus.
P. A. SUMMEY & BROTHER,
Wholesale and Retail Dealers in
Staple Goods, Hardware, Crockery,
AND ALL KINDS OF GROCERIES,
Corner of Wall and Broad streets, Athens.
attack of Bishop Spalding
The Bishop ^
ftollecii ‘
ed ii
durifl^Hn-’cm.llofBEXc
Igenuthmess of/tliettafte
jfttribuijRl toA^fe-Mlte,
berty of the jUnit;eaJ3ta
it will'he-'by* Rdmi*iT|
ter in the Ci'nctrijihti ’
imsdf“ OM-Lint*,.” goeA .further than
mere .denial of .-its-gcuqineness. he
arges on those whoquotc.it, not only
[cry of the motto, but, a .“-fidsifica-
iod” of jt, and to sbatarK* jii'm«elf, -he
affects to quote a work which he says
he obtained “ from the library of a
French gentleman in the vicinity ol
Cincinnati,” in which work he alleges
that he finds a letter of Lafayette con
tradicting the rnofto. Prof. Morse shows
ample reason for believing that in this
matter a most glaring attempt at forge
ry, and on an extensive scale, has been
made. Bishop Spalding is implicated
in the matter by having quoted this
pretended letter, and adopting it with
out hesitation as authority, persisting
in upholding it notwithstanding the
more than suspicious circumstances at
tending its appearance. His reply to
Prof Morse is an artful attempt to
escape from his unenviable position, by
charging that “ Old Line” and the Edi
tors of the Cincinnati Inquirer are Pro
testants, and therefore, he has nothing
to do with sifting out the trnth ef their
allegations; but in so doing he has shift
ed the basis of the main issue, and now
puts it on the ground that Lafayette,
being a Catholic, he, therefore, could
never havz denounced Catholic priests in
the manner indicated by the motto.
Prof. Morse meets him boldly on his
new ground. We give his letter from
the Louisville Courier.
[From the Louisville Courier]
“ If ever the liberty of the United
States is destroyed it will be by Romish
priests.”—Lafayette.
Poughkeepsie, June 8,1855.
Bishop M. J. Spalding—Sir: The
Courier, wilh your remarks of the 28th
of May, is before me. I was arrested
for a moment in admiring the apposite
selection you have made of a text from
Moliere : “ Si je defends, ce nestqu'en
reculant.” Although literally translat
ed, *‘ If I defend myself it is only in
backing out,” the sentiment of it is sig
nificantly expressed in the well known
ancient lines—
WILLIAM N. WHITE,
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL
BOOKSELLER AND STATIONER,
And Newspaper and Magazine Agent.
DEALER IN
MUSIC and MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
LAMPS, FINE CUTLERY, FANCY GOODS, AC.
No. 2, College Avenue, Newton House. Athens, Ga
sign of “ While’s University Book Store.”
Orders promptly filled at Augusta rates.
T. BISHOP & SON,
Wholesale and Retail Grocers,
April 6 No. 1, Broad street, Athens.
JAMES M. ROYAL,
HARNESS MAKER,
U AS removed his shop to Mitchell’s old
Tavcru, one door east of Grady Jt Nich
olson’s—where he keeps always on hand a*
geueral assortment of articles in his line, and
is always ready to fillordersinthe best style.
Jan 26 tf
LOOK HERE!
T IIE undersigned have on hand a general
assortment of
STAPLE DRY GOODS,
GROCERIES AND HARDWARE.
which they will sell low for cash or barter
Cull and examine.
April 13 P. A. SUMMEY & BEO.
Coach-Making and Repairing.
.JAMES bTbURPEE
A T the old stnnd recently occupied by R. S'
Schovenell, offers for salon lot of super!
or articles of his own manufacture, at redo
ced ^r’ e, ;!~-vonsisting of
Carriages, Buggies, &c.
Orders for anything in hislinethankfully
^received and promptly executed.
^S^Rcpairing done at shortnottceand on
reasonable terms.
“fflbthat fights and runs away
MayBiv
NOTICE.
T HE subscribers are prepared to fill orders
for all kinds of
Spokes for Carriages and Wagons,
Also, at the same establishment we manufac
turc all kinds of
BOBBINS,
commonly used in our cotton factories. All
done as good mil cheap as can be had from
the North. Address,
P. A. SUMMEY & BRO. Athens, Ga
who will attend to ull orders, and the ship
ping of the same. March, 1864.
SLOAN & OATMAN,
DEALERS Itr
Italian, Egyptian dk American
AND EAST TENNESSEE MARBLE.
Monuments, Tombs, Urns and Vases; Murbl
Mantels and Fuinisliuig Marbl-a
erAH orders promptly filled.
ATLANTA, GA.
•Refer to Mr, Ross Crane. jnneld
30
Sacks Flour for *tle by
April 2'itli Grady AN'icholson
live to fight another day.”
And so, sir, you think you have
cleverly backed out of the controversy,
by doubting it “ a very pretty quarrel
as it stands,” between Protestant out
side barbariaus, with which you have
now nothing to do but to stand by as
a spectator, to rub your hands and watch
the vicissitudes of the contest. This
ruse might perhaps have 'Lad some
chance of success (so far merely as re
lieving yourself from responsibility in
the forgery part of the controversy is
concerned), but that you have, unfor
tunately for yourself, put the main issue
on another and distinct basis—a basis
on which I meet you with pleasure.
Whether it be necessary or not for
me to have any controversy with the
editor of the Cincinnati Enquirer, is a
question in this new aspect of the case
altogether premature, and indeed irre
levant. That question, moreover, is
obviously to be settled between you and
your.accomplices on the one side con
cocting a tissue of invisible and intangi
ble authorities of most suspicious seem
ing, and the public on the other—its
credulity imposed upon by means of
these same pretended authorities. It is
a question, so far as I am concerned,
sir, which may be better answered
when you and I have settled accounts.
It is for you and your authority, “ Old
Line,” not for me, sir, to clear up the
hourly increasing conviction, strengthen
ed by the delay to produce that book,
thqt z great fraud and forgery have been
perpetrated by your side of the house ;
and for you, not for me, to show, if you
can, how many, if any, of his alleged
facts are true.
You denied, and still deny, that La
fayette could ever have entertained such
disparaging opinions of Romish priests
as are indicated in the sentiments of
the motto in question. I have already
met and defeated you on the question
of fact, whether he uttered or not the
words of that motto. You challenged
me to produce the testimony of even
one American as to having expressed
such a sentiment. Have you forgotten,
sir, this challege, twice repeated by
you in staring capitals, to draw to it a
special attention ? I met your challen-
? e promptly. 1 produced the witness;
gave his name (not a man in a mask,
with cnly my assurance that his state
ment might be relied on)—a veritable
name subscribed to his testimony—a
name venerated, honored for all that is
upright and honest; well known, long
known; the name of one so highly re
spected for his prpbity and piety as to
be offered by President Madison the
chief chaplaincy of the army of the
;United States—a map whose word
would no more be doubted in this com
munity than other men’s oaths. I gave
you the time when Lafayette uttered
these words, and ’he circumstances
upder which he uttered them. And
what, sic, is your rqply ? You have not
made even the slightest attempt to in
validate this testimony.^ The motto
stands proved on my part, uncontradict
ed on yours. But you are loth to lose
the benefit of Mr. Old Line’s ‘diggings,’
and so yon would still cling to the hope
of making the public believe that if
Lafayette said, he also unsaid it. Well,
sir, I have proved that he said it, it is
for you, not for me, to prove that he un
said it.
There are facts enough already be
fore the public for them to determine
whether the evidence of a forgery on
an extended scale, by your side of the
house, justifies or not- the suspicions
that your maneuvering has raised;
whether the fraud includes the forgery
of a book alleged to be published in
Paris in 1835, and yet neither to be
found there by the most eminent biblio-
polists, Hector Bosange at their head,
nor its name in the authentic catalogues
that professedly included all|works pub
lished not only in Paris but in any part
cf France; or whether the forgery ex
tends only to the alleged letter of Lafay
ette. The public can put their own
construction upon those epithetical
manifestations of anguish from your au
thority, “ Old Line,” when a sight of
that book is reqaested. They can judge
whether that book is of public existence
in the “ library of the French gentleman
near Cincinnati,” or whether, under
the suspicious circumstances surround
ing the matter, ‘the library,’ or even the
•‘ French gentleman” may not also be
but fictions of Old Line’s imagination.
The public can draw their own conclu
sions from the non-production of the
work after eight months call for it
They can estimate at their value the
the various shifts to avoid its exhibition
and to esespe from responsibility. They
can determine whether all this shuffling
is, or is not, a trick to gain time for fur
ther experiments on their credulity.
They can estimate the character of the
betting proposal - ‘ for the good of the
orphans !” They can estimate the re
liability of your anonymous voucher far
the existence of a book and letter, (not
to say that authority if in existence,)
which can be produced only at the risk,
on the part of him who asks it, of a
thousand dollars, and “ the acknowledg
ment of being a base falsifier 1” Serious
ly, sir, is this the kind of authority on
which you rely for your historical data!
If so, there are those of your own faith,
high-minded, honorable men (at least
among the laity,) whose sense of honor
and justice will class your miscellanea
where they belong, in the index of re
pudiated and worthless works. I wait
with patience the consummation of these
suspicious manoeuverings, and hasten
now to meet you upon the basis you
propose. You have requested plain
and explicit answers to eight questions,
which, as they contain, in your view,
" the j^gist of this discussion,” I have
examined with attention. Your main
argument then, against the motto, as
containing the sentiments of Lafayette,
which I gather from your questions, is
clearly this : You maintain that Lafay
ette, being a Catholic, passing for a
Catholic in France, praising the Ca
tholic piety of his wife, and having a
Catholic chapel in his chateau at La
grange, therefore he could not say any
thing so derogatory to the character of
the Catholic priests as the motto sets
forth ; for if he had, the priests would
not have officiated in his chapel nor
have assisted in such a large timber
at his funeral. This is your argument,
I waive for the present any inquiry as
to the sense in which you use the word
“ Catholic," (for you are not ignorant
that it is used in various senses ;) your
conclusion, from your premises, is
non-sequtur, in whatever sense you use
that term, if 1 can but show you that
Lafayette, in his public and published
speeches, did denounce Catholic priests
in terms as strong as any contained in
the motto. If but this one fact is es
tablished, it will lead to the irresistible
conclusion, according to your own
showing, that Lafayette was not a Ca
tholic in any such sense, that he was
not also a Protestant in the genuine
sense of the term. I have no difficulty,
sir, in reconciling his hostility to Ro
man Catholic priests, and his uniform
antagonism to your whole system, with
all the incidents which constitute your
premises, without charging upon him
as you seem prepared to do, either in
consistency or hypocrisy. This is not
now the point in issue.
All the side issues, sir, which you
have proposed, on none of which is there
any difficulty in answering you, may be
safely kept to be engulphed in the over
throw of your cencentrated and dis
tinctly proposed argument. Whether
my name is or is not mentioned in the
printed Memoirs of Lafayette; whether
1 was or was not remiss in complying
with his injunctions: whether the motto
in so many words is or is not recorded
in bis writings; whether I shall or shall
not have any dispute with the editor of
the Cincinnati Inquirer, are all ques
tions which may at present be waived.
I shall gather from the acknowledg
ed published writings of Lafayette the
sentiments he was known to entertain
towards the Papal system, towards
Protestantism, and especially towards
Romish priests.
If he exulttJ in the. temporary over,
throw of your clerical corporation, be.
cause of its disastrous influence on al
the best interests of society, because of
its insatiable avarice and extorion ; be
cause of its outrageous intolerance; be
cause of its brutal disregard of all the
natural and benevolent instincts of hu
manity, and so perseveringly labored
for the destruction of your corporation;
if against this bitter and sanguinary
intolerance of Romanism, he urged, and
with success, in a' country where your
corporation for centuries had uncon
trolled sway, the rights of Protestants to
a civil equality with Catholic priests ;
if it can be shown that he commended
to France the superiority ol the Protes
tant religion, as displayed in its benign
influence in the United States, and as in
contrast with the Romish religionif,
And whatsit, was the Christianity he
here commends to France? Was it
that misnamed Christianity which
knows not the name of equality; a
Christianity monopolized in a close cor
poration and despotically organized in
the interest of the most insatiable ava
rice and worldly ambition of the few
against the many ? Or was it the ex
pansive Protestant Christianity of the
United States, founded truly on the
primitive basis of solid equality, and of
whose benevolent effects he had such
recent experiencein his intercourse with
Washington, an experience which, as
he said to the venerable Dr. Vanpelt,
•‘ opened his eyes,” not only to the in
herent bigotry of that system of religion
in short, he denounced Romish priests in which he was educated, but to the
in terms as severe as those contained
in the motto; then, sir, will the conclu
sion which you have drawn against the
ge^uinness of the motto, because you
have chosen to call Lafayette a Catho
lic, be proved utterly fallacious.
Turn then, sir, to the volumes of the
Memoirs of Lafayette, and (if your edi
tion is the same with that which I con
sulted in the Astor Library,) you will
find the original of the following trans
lation in vol. 2, p. 536. In a speech
delivered in 1821 in the chambers, ani
madverting on the conduct of the old
government, whose overthrow some
members had affected to regret, Lafay
ette says, in answering the self-proposed
question, What have wo to regret?
“Then disappeared that clerical cor
poration, which, while it exercised
every species of influence, and refused
to pay any share of public contribu
tions, was incessantly increased. No
part of its imqgense wealth was ever
alienated, but all was distributed in its
own class, in an inverse ratio to labor.
The law was a party, in the exaction of
vows too often compulsory, and France
was covered with monastic orders devo
ted to foreign chiefs.* The clergy
levied at once contributions from the
rich and the poor, and in its secular or
ganization was so wholly given over to
worldly indolence that the laboring
ministers were but an insignificant
portion of what was called the first order
of the' State. * * *
* * * What, then, are we to regret?
Have we to regret the religious intoler
ance which doomed a great portion of
the population to a state of legal con
cubinage, tobastardism and 'disinherit
ance : or that violation of all the laws
contrasted tolerance and humanizing
influences of that which prevailed here ?
It appeared then that from 1788 to
1828. a period of forty years, to within
a few months at farthest, be it remark
ed) of the general date, 1829, (the date
of that pretended letter of Lafayette
which you have quoted from Mr. Old
Line,) General Lafayette maintained,
uniformly and consistently, sentiments
of opposition and a course of ’action in
accord with them, against the Romish
priesthood, as a class dangerous to the
peace and welfare of society. And you,
sir, seriously contend that in 1829 he
wrote a letter in direct and marked con
trast to the sentiments and action he
had till then maintained ; that he then
changed his views of determined opposi
tion to the Papacy, and all of a sudden
became its defender and apologist!
“ Well, sir, let us see then hoiv long
he remained a convert to the harmless
and beneficent influence of Romish
priests. Only two years after 1829,
that is to say on the 20th of September.
1831, in a speech before the Chambers,
he says, “ Italy aspires to its regenera
tion in full integrity. This is the object
our armies sought to accomplish, and
they successfully accomplished it. The
formation of the Cisalpine republic, and
subsequently of the kingdom of Italy
was its result * * * * * *
“ Behold the success with which we
abolished the system of robbery, which
has since been resumed with more auda
city, than ever. Robbery in fact will al
ways subsist in a country governed by
priests aNd aristocrats, enemies of
every liberal sentiment.”
But lest you may charge that I have
given a translation stronger than is
of nature atld morality,t which Louis j warranted by the text, I subjoin his own
XIY. established, and which the illus- language in the original French:
trious prelate Bossuet styled the work
worthy of his reign, the most assured
sign as well as the finest enactment of
his authority ? The Bishops in 1751
and 1752 demanded its execution by the
judgment of the Commandant, or In-
tendunt, without the form or semblance
of a trial. Such was the legal doctrine
from the period of the decree of the
Council of 1684, which debarred all
private persons from receiving into their
houses any sick person of the Protestant
religion, under the pretext of charity,
down to the decision of the Council ol
Louis XVI, when in opposition to the
advice of Turgot and Malesherbes, the
oath was taken to exterminate the here
tics. The condition'of the Protestants
was ameliorated by the edict of the
King in 1788. I remember it the more
distinctly, because, in the preceding
year, I had the honor of seeing adopted
in the committee, at which the brother
of the King presided, the first official
admission of their civil rights; but even
this half tolerance was considered a re
volutionary innovation. 1
Thus, sir, as early as 1783, Lafayette
incurred the enmity of your corpora
tion, while obtaining the prouff distinc
tion of striking the first blow for reli
gious liberty in France. For him was
reserved the noble gratification of con
coding the measures for rescuing Pro
testant Christianity from the bloody pro
scription and brum rule of an overbear
ing and corrupt priesthood. In resist
ing the “ intolerant spirit of the times,
sir, do you find Lafayette in league with
your corporation, or in open hostility to
it? Was he Catholic (in your applica
tion of the term) or Protestant in the
best sense of that term ?
Let us pass over a period of forty
years, and see if the illustrious man had
become less Protestant in his feelings
and views in that time.
You will find, sir, at page 409, vol. 2 ;
of his Memoirs, his speech delivered
June 23d, 1828, from which l make the
following extract:
“ Amidst the attacks of pretended
defenders of the altar, I am sorry to
observe that fanaticism which represents
as hostile to the rights and sentiments
of nations the Christianity of which
social equality is the principal
thus provoking a sort of reprisal of ani
madversion against opinions and prac
tices which, in themselves, havenothing
in common with worldly ambition. If
1 seek a solution of this most perplex
ing combination of the duties of the
priest, speaking both in the name
heaven and as the paid officer of the
State, I shall find it (at least in my own
opinion) only in a country where religi
ous sentiment is more general than in
France; where the ministers of the
gospel receive more respect; where
sects live in peace ; where their rites
and ceremonies inspire no alarm, but
where they are total strangers to the
civil government, and where religious
societies freely funned have ministers of
their own choice.”
Voyezile success avec lequel on ctait
parvenue ay detruieeleprigandage qui-
s’y tst relevce plus audaeious que lamais.
brigandage, en effet, subsistera
toujours dans unpays gouverne par des
pretres et des aristocrates, enemis de
toute idee generruse.”
Now, sir, we find that up to 1829,
Lafayette w. s an avowed, persevering,
active opponent of the Romish priest
hood. Somewhere in 1829 you con
tend he suddenly and entirely changed
his views; and your only authority is
that pretended letter of “ Old Line
dug up nobody knows whence but imme
diately after, in 1831, we find him
again the opponent of the Romish
priests, and in terms which make those
of the uiotto tame and spiritless, in the
comparison, denouncing the influence
of these same priests as necessarily pro
ductive of one of the most grievous
evils that can befall society. The organ
of credulity, sir, must have an unusual
development in the head of that man
who, with these facts before him, can
believe in the genuinenesss of that let
ter !
But pray, sir, how long is it since your
clerical corporation have become the
eulogists of Lafayette ? When did he
become exalted as “ a patriot” in your
eyes, and admired as “ the refined and
accomplished French Marquis,” and
lauded as the Catholic hero ?” Why
have you delayed so long in quoting him
as one of your adherents?
“ Did you prudently wait until the
Catholic hero had been dead twenty
years, that you might incur the less risk
of contradiction ? Is it that the prestige
of his name on American minds might
just now be of advantage in the schemes
for aggrandizement now so rife with
your corporation, if it could be shown
that he was a Catholic in your contract
ed sense of that term ? Did you hope
to blot out from our remembrance your
former vilifications of bis good name
your expressions of deep hatred and
abhorrence of his character; and your
invocations upon him of a bloody expia
tion of the crime of opposition to you '
How has he been esteemed by your cor
poration for more than sixty years
The Archbishop of Sens, who bitterly
opposed Lafayette and his efforts in
favor of religious tolerance, as was per
feclly natural, deelaied as far back as
1788, in the King’s council, that “ La
fayette was their most dangerous anta
gonist, because his logic consisted in
action
The New York Catholic Diary,,of
January 25th, 1834, under the superin
tendance and with the approval ot your
corporation, copies from an English
paper, The Age,” the following article,
endorsing and approving its sentiments
by the following heading : “ Truth told
in Tory Style:'
“ Louis Pbillippe was declared by that
old ass, Lafayette, the best of all possi
ble republicans, and all liberal Europe
uttered a dissonant bray ot applause. *
* * But, badinage, apart, it is inipbssi-
ble to think of those wretches without in
finite scorn. It is, however, pleasant to
reflect that they will not last long. We
wait with impatience for the crowning
of Henry V. in Rheims, and we hope
that he will come back with a full recol
lection of all that was done in his ab
sence, and a steady determination to
inflict adequate and unsparing punish
ment on all the guilty. If he returns
with an amnesty in bis hands, he per
ishes, and deserves to perish.”
The Boston Roman Catholic paper,
the Pilot, of April 16th, 1835, also un
der the direction of another of your cor
poration, condemns an article in the
North American Review, as “too it-
Bated, wi»h the undeserved and hyper
bolical encomiums on the negative vir
tues of Lafayette, on the imputed qua
lities of a man whose memory is abhor
red by all good and patriotic French
men 1
What sort of a Catholic sir, was La
fayette, in the estimation of your cor
poration, when they dared to put forth,
and endorse, before the American peo
ple too, such infamously scurrilous and
malevolent language as this, toward the
venerated and illustrious compeer of
Washington ?
And now, sir, how stands the case
between us? I have in previous letters
proved that Lafayette uttered that mot
to in the very words usually quoted,
which you denied and challenged me
to prove.
I have also given substantial, and as
yet wholly unrefuted reasons for believ
ing that the letter attributed to Lafay
ette contradicting that motto, the letter
quoted by you as genuine, and which
you still persist in considering genuine,
is a forgery, and that even the book,
from which it is pretended to be quoted,
is also a forgery.
I have also shown that, on the new
basis assumed by you, sir, to argue the
main issue, to-wit: that Lafayette was
a Catholic, (in some narrow sense of
your own,) and, therefore, could not
have held or expressed the sentiments
of that mi»tto, your conclusion is utter
ly fallacious. lie was not a Catholic in
any such sen-e as not to be openly and
uniformly opposed to Romish priests
I have shown, not only that he was
thus opposed to your corporation, but,
as might in such case be expected,
your corporation was bitterly opposed
to him.
With these facts substantiated, I leave
the public to judge whether the motto
in question is not completely proved to
to be Lafayette’s and if so, whether it
is wise to disregard the warning of it as
of no weight nor significance.
Respectfully, sir, your obedient ser
vant, Sam’l F. B. Morse
There are now two distinct issues, to
wit :
First, Has there been a forgery or
series of forgeries at Cincinnati, for the
purpose if invalidating the warning
given by Lafayette in the motto in ques-
tu n ?
And second, Do the motto and its
sentiments proved to have been uttered
by Lafayette, accord with his openly
avowed principles and action in regard
to the Romish priesthood ?
The second issue is the one argued
by Prof. Morse in the present letter, and
it is independent of the question of for
gery in the first issue. The first issui
is only important as showing clearly the
depths of deception to which wicked
men will descend to accomplish their
selfi--h ends.
1844, and all the conservative elements-
of the country rallied upon it.
That portion of the platform on the
lavery issues was constructed by him
self and a few others— the embodiment,
however, of the common thoughts of the
Southern delegations, and the national
conservatives. With the exception of
the threatening features of what is known
as the “Georgia Platform,” adopted by
a constitutional Convention of that State
a few years since, it is substantially the
same. For our part we regard our
selves standing upon both as one. Up
on them the South must concur, and the
only common party into which all the
old factions, Democrats, Whigs, and
States Rights men can come and unite
without jealousy or shame or inconsis
tency, and with pride and patriotism, is
the American party. Political demago-
gueism may kick against it, a petty
factious vanity may deter superficial
men. and local prejudices may for a lime
mislead, but the double urgency of good
sense and necessity will consummate tbit
proper fusion.
MR
* Lafayette seemed to entertain a Utile of
the Know Nothing feeling of the present day.
fThe famous decree for the revocation ol
the edict of Nantes.
JSarran.N. Y. edition, 1833 ; vol, ixp,
110.
JUDGE CONE.
The following notice of Judge Cone,
complimenting his course in the Phila
delphia Convention, we find in the
Charleston Evening News, the Editor
of which was also a member of the Con
vention :
Judge Cone of Georgia.—This
thorough man, of ripe experience, power
ful mind and honest heart, was the Chair
man oF the Platform Committee at Phil
adelphia, reported it to the Conven
tion, and both withini and without, sus
tained it with great ability. His speech
was the master effort in the body, calm,
searching, decided and complete, and
delivered with the earnest animation of
deep conviction. He is no ordinary man
either in mind, will or tone. It was his
privilege to close the debate, and eager
attention waited on every word, the
“words of wisdom and of truth.” By
that time the leakage of what transpired
in the body had been stopped; and the
interest of the speech became absorbed
in the intenser interest of the vote and
its important results. Hence little or no
mention had been made in the press of
his high services, and powerful argu
ment.
Judge Cone is one of Georgia’s noblest
sons, one of the leaders of her oldDoraoc
racy, and now one of the head and front
of the American Party. He also was
the statesman who reported in the De
mocratic Convention the platform on
which Polk was elected President; and
to which, if there had been adherence
the country would not now be in its
distracted condition. He would . have
this new platform engrafted on that ol
CALIIOUN A KNOW NOTH
ING.
The following is an extract from tiie
speech of Mr, Calhoun, deliv ered on the
occasion of admitting Michigan into ilie
Union. It is a full endorsement of the
principles of the American party, touch
ing Foreigners, and our Naturalization
laws.—Will any one say that John
Calhoun was not si reliable Southern
man1 Let it be read, and handed round,
by every friend to the Union.
In conferring the power to pass uni
form laws of naturalization, says Mr.
Calhoun, the frameisof the Constitution
must ltuve had two objects in view; one
toprevmj|corapelition.between the Stales
in hc^j^^But inducement for the emigra
tion oNW:igners, and the other to pre
vent their improper influence over the
General Government, through such
States as might naturalize foreigners, and
could confer on them the right of exer
cising the elective franchise, before they
could be sufficiently informed of the
nature of our institutions, or were in
terested in their preservation. Both- of
these objects would be defeated, if the
States may confer on aliens the right of
voting and the other privileges belonging
to citizens. On that supposition, it
would be almost impossible to conceive
what good could be obtained, or evil
prevented by conferring the power on
Congress. The powei would be perfect
'll nugatory. A State might hold out
every improper inducement to emigra
tion, as freely as if the power did not
exist, and might confer on the alien all
the political privileges belonging to a
native bprti cicizen ;—not only to the
great injury of the government of the
State, but to an improper control ovir
the Government of the Union. To.
illustrate what I have said,—suppose the
dominant party in New York, finding
political power about to depart front,
them, should, to maintain their ascendan
cy, extend the right of suffrage to the
thousands of aliens of every language
and from every, portion of the word that
annually pour into her emporium—hour
deeply might the destiny of the whule
Union be affected by such a measure..
It might, in fact, pla e the control over
the General Corcrn nmt in the hands of
those who Know Nothing of our instill-
tssue t( ons an( i are indifferini as to the interests
of our country. New York gives about
one-sixth of the electoral votes in tho :
choice of President and Vice President;
and it is well known that her polli'cil
institutions keep the State nearly Equally
divided into two great political patties.
The addition of a few thousand volts
either way might turn the Scale,, and.
the electors might, in /act, owe their
election, on the supposition, to the votes
of unnaturalized foreigners.— The Pre
sidential election might depend on the-
electoral vote of the Stale and a President
be chosen in reality by them; THAT
IS, THEY MIGHT GIVE US A
KING-—for, under the usurpations of
the present Chief Magistrate, £Gen.
Jackson,*] the President is in fact a king.’
ECCENTRICITIES OF COSTUMK.
There is no part of our costumo.enht-p-
male or female, which has no: already
passed from one extreme of absurdity ro
another, and been west admired at i's
highest point. Coats, have been worn
with volumninous skirts dangling aln-s-rr
tho wearer’s heels, a id with s -am v
lappels descending six inches below the ■
waist.—Coat sleeves at one time fi led
skin-tight; and mode than ome have
been so widens to sweep the ground.
Flapped waistcoats which in the time of
Georgia It reached nerrly to the stock-.-
ing, were soon cut so short ns to nearer '
the armpits than the thigh. The close-
fitting, tightly strapped trouser con
trasts ludicrusly enough with the taunk-
hose of the sixteenth century, Staffed,
out with five or six pounds of bran to ‘
such an extent that as a Uarleian manu-
scaipt tells us. alterations had to be made
in the Parliament House, so as to afford
additional accommodation for the mem
bers, seats. It is related that a fast
man of the time, on rising to conclude i\
visit of ceremony, had the misfortune io
damage his neither integument.- by a
protruding nail In bis chair ; so * by
the time he gained the door the escape
of bran was so rapid as to cause a col
lapse. It may have been that similar
mishaps caused the substitution of wool
or hair for bran, which afterward be
came common.