A ^e-fc^ev c\^Ar^^^^6 "to 
 
 CinarUb K 
 
 \'n 
 
 \.L.33. 
 
 ITi Ov-n^we-r- 
 
 
 of !B\sV\op Xioc\^e, 
 
 A \ 
 
 Ov 
 
 y 
 
 J 
 
 A ^\.. 
 
 l^\0<iee>c\-n Cowven-tJo-n of H.-X 
 
&.S,0.IO 
 
 X tint ®too%tai & 
 
 g^ TJDTvrr'c'rrxivT ivt t ♦J 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 .* 
 
 Presented by /\, (j^, Q^^^ 
 
 Division rrO.A.s5.. J O O 
 &r//^;7 ... I).,<0.3 L- O 
 
A LETTER /^sTcf 
 
 ^ JUN.rl 1910 
 
 ADDBESSED TO — *" - 
 
 CHAELES KING, ESQ., LL.D., 
 
 PRESIDENT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE, NEW- YORK, 
 
 IN ANSWER TO HIS DEFENSE OF 
 
 BISHOP DOANE. 
 
 BY A LAY MEMBER OF THE DIOCESAN CONVENTION 
 OF NEW JERSEY. 
 
 PRINTED FOR THE PUBLISHER. 
 
 1852. 
 
<?. 9e , 16 
 
 A tint 2Jbwlo0tV«/ » 
 
 ^ PRINCETON, N. J. ^ 
 
 Presented by 0\ ,(3\ . O^V^rv (S/X-O Y^ "jTViTD 
 
 Division 
 Section 
 
NOTE. 
 
 In justice to the writer of the following, the Publisher feels 
 bound to add, that, owing to the temporary loss of a portion of 
 the manuscfript, before it came into his possession, its publication 
 has been unavoidably delayed. 
 
 April 8th, 1852. 
 
€n €^mln »ing, fsq., M. D., 
 
 President of Columbia College, New- York : 
 
 Sir — In common with many other of your friends, I have read with 
 equal astonishment and regret, your late publication in defense of 
 Bishop Doane — astonishment, at your rash interference in a contro- 
 versy in which you have no personal concern — and regret, that you 
 should have lent your name to uphold a cause maintained by the 
 Bishop, with so much passion, and virulent resentment against those 
 who have opposed him. Those of us, who have observed the chival- 
 rous propensities of your nature, make due allowance for your zealous, 
 and perhaps not unsolicited, interposition in behalf of one whom you 
 regard as a friend, and sympathize with as injured. But not the most 
 partial to you among us, can excuse your intemperate assault upon 
 those of his order, who in pursuance of their duty have sought to 
 promote inquiry into certain of his transactions, the very rumor of 
 which has brought scandal upon the Church of which he is a Chief 
 Minister, and which, if truly reported, prove him unworthy of his high 
 and holy office. 
 
 And on what grounds do you justify your favorite, and denounce the 
 " intervention of his brethren f As to the first, you rely upon a " unani- 
 mous vote" of the Convention of his Diocese in 1849, " rejecting a reso- 
 lution asking an investigation of rumors charging him with crime." Un- 
 der the circumstances of the case, this is worse, sir, than pleading autre- 
 fois acquit, as the lawyers call it, instead of non-guilt}', or taking refuge 
 In a technicality, instead of facing the merits of the cause ; for not 
 only was no charge preferred on that occasion, but inquiry even as to 
 the existence of a foundation for any, was refused. And upon what 
 ground ? Your own published report of the proceedings of that Con- 
 vention, of which you were a member, shows that the resolution in 
 
question was rejected only because the supposed offenses of the 
 Bishop rested " upon vague rumors, and what was called newspaper 
 publications" Well, sir, is not public rumor a canonical ground for 
 inquiry ? It is indeed possible that you, a layman, may not have 
 known — or, in your off-hand and impulsive inroad upon the subject 
 may have forgotten it ; but it is hardly to be presumed that the law- 
 men, Messrs, Dayton, Ogden and Gifford, or the clergymen, the Rev. 
 Messrs. Ogilby and Phillips, who supported your position, were not 
 ■aware that it was untenable ; nor is it to be supposed that they were 
 ignorant either of the general rule of criminal jurisprudence or the 
 existence of the canon [see Canons of 1832 — can. 37, sec. 2] of the 
 Church expressly recognizing public rumor as ground for inquiry. 
 
 But I am afraid, sir, that you cannot safely plead ignorance 
 in this matter; though that supposition is not easily reconcilable 
 with your native candor and ingenuousness ; for in the debate 
 which followed, you " urged, with great earnestness, the injustice and 
 enormity of putting any man upon his defense, and least of all, such 
 a man as Bishop Doane, upon vague rumors and newspaper publi- 
 cations." As I have already shown that public rumor — which must 
 always be " vague" — is sufficient for inquiry, and have not pretended 
 that it afforded ground for charge, or '• arraignment," as you have it 5 
 and as the resolution offered in 1849 proposed nothing beyond 
 inquiry, I shall merely observe, that I am not apprized of any claim 
 on the part of Bishop Doane to perfection, nor, as yet, to infallibility ; 
 nor, since benefit of clergy has been abolished, am I aware of any 
 privilege or dispensation enjoyed by Bishop Doane, or any other 
 Bishop, exempting him from the operation of general \a,\v?,, ecclesiasti- 
 cal or civil, applicable to all others subject to them, although both he 
 and you seem to entertain a different opinion. Neither, sir, have I 
 learned whether any discrimination should be made favorable or ad- 
 verse to " newspaper publications." I shall therefore leave that ques- 
 tion to be determined by your own judgment as an expert, and by 
 your practical experience on one memorable occasion, early in your 
 former editorial career. 
 
 I shall not follow you, either, in your exposition, by way of setoff, it 
 would seem, of the merits, services and sacrifices of Bishop Doane, 
 or inquire into the pecuniary benefits resulting to himself directly in 
 the shape of salary, perquisites and profits, or indirectly, and conse- 
 quently to the Church, from his schools. I must be permitted, how- 
 ever, to suggest that the increase and prosperity of the Church in t his 
 
Diocese during the seventeen years of his incumbency, may have been 
 in some measure owing to the increase of population and wealth 
 during that period ; to the influence of its liturgy and services upon 
 those of other denominations of Christians, who have witnessed the 
 administration of its ordinances, and, above all, to that Heavenly 
 aid vouchsafed to the Church by its Divine Founder, who 
 promised to be with it "always, even unto the end of the world." 
 That aid, we cannot suppose, would have been withheld from any 
 Bishop of spiritual disposition, pure life and conversation, and evan- 
 gelical character, though humbler in his aspirations, less ambitious of 
 distinction, though not of usefulness, and less versed in the manage- 
 ment of men and secular affairs, than Bishop Doane. Nor in that 
 case can we doubt that our Church would have been blessed with an 
 increase — if not numerically greater, yet of members at least as sin- 
 cere in their attachment to the vital principles of the Gospel — and of 
 heartfelt devotion to the Great Head of the Church Catholic, and his 
 WORD, equal to the external reverence of others to the ordinances of 
 man. 
 
 But after all, what would this evidence to the character of Bishop 
 Doane avail in exculpation of the offenses imputed to him, were the 
 rumors in question ripened into charges, and sustained by testimony 
 at his trial i Have never men in high stations, and previously unblem- 
 ished reputations, been guilty of crimes ? Was not the Earl of Ferrers 
 of as fair a character, and as elevated in social position as Bishop 
 Doane ? Or was Dr. Dodd less esteemed as a man — or approved as 
 a clergyman — when his embarrassments, of the same nature as the 
 Bishop's, tempted him to commit the forgery for which he was execu- 
 ted ? No, sir ; this plea is irrelevant to the case. Character is only 
 admitted to rebut the presumption of guilt, not the p-oof of it. But it 
 may afford you, and more especially your friend, some consolation 
 to know that it often serves to mitigate the punishment. 
 
 The next plea you interpose savors of the statute of limitations, or 
 of an estoppel. You say truly that " two subsequent Conventions 
 have met and dissolved without any word of censure, express or 
 implied, of their Bishop ;" but not without its being " ever alleged," as 
 you had previously asserted, " that any offense, real or imaginary, had 
 been committed by him since that time." This was indeed the case 
 at the Convention of 1850. Not so, however, in 1851 A memorial, 
 verified by tha oath of Michael Hays, the petitioner, charging the 
 Bishop with misrepresentation, deceit and fraud, in obtaining the 
 
indorsement of Hays upon his notes, which the petitioner had 
 eventually to pay, was about to be presented to the Convention, and 
 was only prevented by its unprecedented adjournment upon the first 
 day of its session. It is well known that the greater part of tjie busi- 
 ness of that body, and all calculated to provoke discussion, is deferred 
 to the second day of the session. Some matters indeed — such, for in- 
 stance, as the annual report of the Treasurer — is, by a standing order, re- 
 served for that day. But on this occasion, after some mysterious whis- 
 pering in and around the Chancel, and considerable bustle throughout 
 the Church, the word was passed, and a motion made, in the afternoon 
 of the first day, for an immediate adjournment, sine die. This motion 
 was received with surprise by those not in the secret, and they opposed 
 it, not only on the ground of its repugnancy to the order relating to 
 the Treasurer's report, but also in respect to the religious service ap- 
 pointed for the evening in furtherance of the interests of the Church 
 and its institutions. After some desultory conversation on these sub- 
 jects, it was stated by a member who opposed the adjournment, that 
 if the Treasurer was ready to present his report at that time, the 
 objection would be withdrawn ; to which that officer replied, that he 
 was neither ready with his report then, nor would he be the next day. 
 After some further expressions of surprise at the precipitancy of a 
 measure of which the cause was not generally understood, and the 
 sudden and mysterious introduction of which had excited suspicion, 
 as well as astonishment, the Convention adjourned. 
 
 Early the next morning Mr. Hays arrived, and his'petition was in 
 the hands of a member to be presented to the Convention, had they 
 met as usual on that day. Now, whether or not, the breaking up of 
 the Convention in such hot haste, was in consequence of some com- 
 munication to the Bishop, or any vigilant friend of his, respecting Mr. 
 Hays's petition — and was or was not intended to prevent its appear- 
 ance — still this unforeseen maneuver accounts for its not having been 
 presented at that session. But is there any breach of probability or 
 charity, in suspecting that this extraordinary Hegira might have been 
 prompted by a wish to avoid that inquiry, which the Bishop and his 
 partizans have so frequently professed their readiness to meet, and 
 have nevertheless as often contrived to elude ? And he e sir, I cannot 
 forbear expressing my opinion that the aspect of affairs in this Diocese 
 would have been very different from what it is at present, and much 
 more favorable both to the Church and the Bishop, had not you and 
 your coadjutors prevented the inquiry moved for in 1849. Had it 
 
9 
 
 then been fairly met — either the innocence of the Bishop would have 
 been rendered apparent, or his past conduct so far palliated by 
 the acknowledgments of his errors, as to insure his forgiveness, 
 while this salutary check might have arrested him in his ruinous 
 career ; or, on the other hand, his guilt would have been established 
 beyond doubt or cavil. In either case, the peace of the Diocese 
 might have been restored, and you, sir, saved from compromising 
 your respectability, by " intervening" in the affairs of a Diocese to 
 which you had ceased to belong. And you would have avoided 
 the heavy responsibility which rests mainly upon you, for prevent- 
 ing the restoration to it of confidence and harmony ; for it was 
 chiefly owing to the lead you took in stifling the inquiry, that it was 
 defeated. 
 
 Having thus shown your mistake, — as I am fain to consider it, — 
 and the misstatements of others in regard to the sufficiency of public 
 rumor to warrant an inquiry into the conduct of a Bishop, I now pro- 
 ceed to the performance of a more painful task — the consideration of 
 your own conduct towards the " three Bishops" — whom you accuse of 
 '* having in their hearts distilled and concentrated malice, such as is 
 exhibited in their letter," which you stigmatize as " the voice that 
 poisons while it beguiles, the Pharasaic hypocrisy which salutes its 
 victim with ' art thou in health, brother ?' — at the moment of aiming 
 the knife at his heart." Besides this overwhelming vituperation upon 
 the three collectively, you pour upon the head of Bishop Mcllvaine a 
 separate torrent from the phials of your wrath as if anxious to 
 exhaust the reservoir hitherto resorted to only by the amphibious race 
 that crowds the wharves and markets of your city. I must con- 
 fess, sir, I am at a loss to determine whether your use of such lan- 
 guage would excite most, indignation or grief, in one who had 
 cherished you as a friend. Is this vocabulary, then, so familiar 
 to one who values or affects the character of an educated Christian 
 gentleman, and should especiaUy illustrate it in his official position ? 
 Are such the lessons in rhetoric, and logical exercises given in Colum. 
 bia College ? Had those venerable fathers of the Church merited the 
 " railing accusations" you have brought against them, you would not 
 have been justified, even to yourself, in the use of such language, 
 though it were in self-defense ; much less are you excusable for de* 
 scending to it in defense of another who has shown himself abundantly 
 able to defend himself with the same weapons. You may have been 
 seduced by his example, or betrayed into it by proneness to venture 
 
10 
 
 more for others than for yourself; but you will hardly resort to such 
 an apology, and your best friends would think it insufficient. 
 
 And what have these truly reverend men — upon whom you seem 
 bent to confer martyrdom — done, to provoke this unmeasured abuse ? 
 They ventured to address a letter to Bishop Doane informing him that 
 they had received a communication from certain members of his 
 Church, calling upon them to perform the painful duty of inquiring 
 into the truth of reports in relation to him, which had been in circu- 
 lation for some years past, in order to determine as to the propriety of 
 instituting a trial according to a canon of the General Convention. 
 From the character and number of the charges specified in the docu- 
 ments presented to them, they say they did not feel themselves at 
 liberty to decline the call thus made upon them, unless the object of it 
 could be attained in some other way, satisfactory to the reasonable 
 demands of complainants in his own Diocese, and the Church at 
 large. To relieve themselves from a distressing duty, they appeal to 
 him in the hope that he would take prompt and efl'ectual measures to 
 render any further action on their part unnecessary, and, with this 
 view, they " advise and urge" him to call a special Convention of his 
 Diocese, for the purpose of a full investigation of all that had been > 
 or might be laid to his charge. They then earnestly endeavor to 
 impress it upon Ijis mind, that, from the nature of those charges, and 
 of similar reports long in circulation against him, nothing would 
 satisfy others, or relieve himself from suspicion, but the appointment 
 by the Convention of an impartial and intelligent Committee with in- 
 structions to make the fullest investigation of these evil reports. They 
 felt bound, however, to say, that no mere report of a Committee de- 
 claring a belief of his innocency would suffice ; and were persuaded 
 that nothing but such an investigation as they had described and 
 recommended, could satisfy either those whom he might deem unfriendly 
 to liim, or relieve the minds of many anxious and distressed friends. 
 And, in conclusion, they observe that if such a course as they had 
 pointed out should be pursued, and either a presentment made, or suffi- 
 cient reasons assigned to the contrary, they would be rejoiced to be 
 relieved from the most trying duty that could possibly be laid upon 
 them. 
 
 Now what is there in this, to call forth the bitter expressions of 
 your wrath and indignation, or the more venomous and vulgar abuse 
 of your friend — against this " triumvirate of tyrants," these " potential 
 Popes" — as he calls them, in one breath, and in the next " freely 
 
11 
 
 forgives for thus aggrieving" him ) and whose forgiveness he beseeches 
 
 in return ? These venerable " triumvirs" need no defense from me, nor 
 
 do I believe that they will condescend so far as to notice your liberal 
 
 aspersions, or the impotent and puerile ribaldry of their " humble and 
 
 affectionate" brother. But I ask, again, where is the " dictation" of 
 
 which he so loudly and dolefully complains ? It is not found in 
 
 the letter, and exists only in his own distempered imagination, or, as a 
 
 spectre raised by the cunning of his magic, to fright his lieges in and 
 
 out of the Convention, from their propriety — 
 
 " Making night hideous ; and those fools of nature 
 So horribly to shake their dispositions-" 
 
 Had the " triumviral papacy of Virginia, Maine and Ohio," instead 
 of addressing this letter to the ''independent" Diocesan of New Jer- 
 sey, immediately presented him, where would that pugnacious Prelate 
 and his conclave have found words to express their pious indignation ? 
 The original Greek of St. Peter's Epistle, from which he borrowed 
 the appellative introduced into his Protest, would have furnished none 
 adequate to such a purpose ; and, unless you had spared him one from 
 your vocabulary, he must have sought it in the " clouds" of Aristoph- 
 anes, among those Eifsa itTsfnvra which glanc^i from the panoply of 
 the Athenian Sage, and fell harmless at his feet. '^ 
 
 Against this letter, so fatal to the repose of Bishop Doane, you re- 
 echo his fulminations — proclaiming your " indignation against" it, as 
 a "cruel, unjust, unmanly and unchristian proceeding," and pronounce 
 your friend's " Reply" to the charges it transmitted, to b& " most 
 conclusive." I doubt, nevertheless, that this indorsement, or any other 
 you may have made for the Bishop, will benefit him so much as it 
 will injure you. 
 
 Since jour last " newspaper publication," the special Convention of 
 New Jersey has met and adjourned. And although the issue of their 
 labors was not difficult of anticipation, yet a determination to await 
 it, has hitherto delayed this letter. They have done precisely what 
 was expected, and have registered the decree of their Bishop against 
 his brethren, as implicitly as was once the custom of the French Par- 
 liaments, when their monarch summoned them to a " bed of justice." 
 They have in effect, though not in terms, confirmed his sentence of 
 condemnation against the obnoxious " triumvirate," and superadded 
 their indorsement of the character of Bishop Doane, to yours. 
 Whether it will revive his credit, remains to be seen ; but I think it al- 
 together probable it will extend the circulation of his name. 
 
12 
 
 This Convention, you know, was called neither for the object, nor 
 in pursuance of the recommendation of the three Bishops ; but was 
 summoned in defiance of them, by Bishop Doane, to denounce their 
 interference with him ; and faithfully have they performed the service 
 allotted to them. Not content with your tilt in advance, you left your 
 official post, and entered the lists at Burlington as a lobby member of 
 the Special Convention, and the champion of the Bishop ; as now, a 
 silent coadjutor, you must have thought to have benefitted him, merely 
 by the effulgence of your countenance. Had you been permitted to 
 speak, you would have been answered on the spot. But your literce 
 scripke manent and with your intrusion on that occasion, have pro- 
 voked this reply. The crisis must have been felt to be important, 
 as it induced Mr. Justice Ogden to descend from the Bench and ap- 
 pear as the Bishop's advocate; and Mr. Senator Miller to aban- 
 don, for the time, his seat in Congress, to defend him and assail 
 thosfc whom he chose to represent as persecutors. Another honorable 
 gentleman, Mr. ex-Justice Carpenter, was selected as the mover of 
 the first of a series of resolutions, reported by a committee of sym- 
 pathizers, approving of the Bishop's course, and declaring the " official 
 action of the Bishops of Virginia, Maine and Ohio," unwarranted by 
 any canon, law or usage of the Church. He supported his motion 
 by a speech, in which he accused the three Bishops of assuming the 
 guilt of Bishop Doane, and making that assumption the basis of their 
 action. " This idea of prima facie guilt," he contended, " pervaded 
 the whole letter, and determined its character." Upon this point, I 
 apprehend, the opinion of this honorable gentleman, as a Judge, would 
 be found to difler somewhat from his opinion as an advocate. Neither 
 he nor any other Judge of ordinary learning and integrity would ever 
 have ruled that the petition and affidavit of Michael Hays did not af- 
 ford such evidence as, if delivered orally to a Grand Jury, would have 
 compelled them, if they regarded their own oaths, to find a bill of in- 
 dictment against Bishop Doane. There is indeed good reason to be- 
 lieve that some fear was formerly' entertained that such would have 
 been the case ; but Mr. Hays was the more easily dissuaded from 
 making the complaint, as both he and his advisers preferred jjrocuring 
 the degradation of the Bishop from his office by an ecclesiastical tri- 
 bunal, to subjecting him to punishment in a secular Court. 
 
 The other resolutions were declaratory of the confidence of the 
 Convention in the uprightness and purity of the Bishop ; and after 
 premising that he had avowed his willingness to meet any investigation, 
 
13 
 
 and that the Convention had be^ ever ready to make it, concluded 
 nevertheless that the best interests of the church at large required no 
 such proceeding ; and this resolution was concurred in by some of the 
 very men who, with you, pledged themselves in 1849, "that if charges 
 specifying with reasonable precision the offenses imputed by rumor, 
 or any offense cognizable by the Convention, should be presented 
 against the Bishop, they would oppose no obstacle to the receiving, 
 referring, and investigating such charges." The last of these resolu- 
 tions is plainly at variance with a clause in the Constitution of the 
 Church in New Jersey, which confines the dehberations of a Special 
 Convention to the subject it was called to consider. This objection 
 was urged by the Rev. Mr. Starr, and a motion was made by Mr. Giffoi d 
 to postpone the consideration of the whole of the resolutions until the 
 regular meeting of the Convention in May next. This was strenuously 
 opposed by Mr. Miller, who was for prompt action, and reiterated the 
 stereotyped complaint of " dictation." Judge Ogden said little or 
 nothing on this subject. He probably did not wish to commit himself 
 by denying the correctnessjof Mr. Starr's objection. He was adroit 
 as usual at special pleading and raising difficulties on technical grounds, 
 especially as to the admission of a protest, to wmch I shall presently 
 refer. Upon the whole, however, he was moderate and conciliatory 
 in his language, though staunch as ever in support of the Bishop, by 
 his votes. 
 
 The most remarkable and portentous speech of the session was that 
 of the Rev. Mr. Rankin, of Morristown, who advocated the first reso- 
 lution especially, as it " maintained the independence of the Diocese of 
 New Jersey." He considered " the principle of Diocesan independ- 
 ence as a fundamental principle of the Church ;" in support of which 
 position, this learned pundit cited " the cases of Timothy at Ephesus, 
 Titus at Crete, and Epaphroditus at Philippi ; the apostolic canons 
 adopted in the second century, and those of the Councils of Nice, 
 Aries, Sardica, Constantinople and Ephesus ; besides those of the 
 Anglo-Saxon Church, of the Synod ofHertford." After this dive into 
 the dark ages for light to guide the present, he caught, in rising, at " the 
 constitution and canons of our own Church," which, he asserted, 
 " adopted and maintained this principle," and concluded by declaring, 
 as if ex-Cathedra Episcopi, that "the|action of the three Bishops was 
 against all these precedents andj canons." In his support of this 
 " principle," the Rev. gentleman in effect avowed himself a secessionist 
 from the General Convention, and a nullijier of the jurisdiction of the 
 
14 
 
 House of Bishops. But in his search through the records of antiquity 
 he failed, it seems, to discover that the Donatists of old, who held this 
 doctrine, were pronounced schismatics by the Councils of Aries, Mi- 
 lan and Carthage ; and he appears unconscious that the Doanetisis of 
 New Jersey are exposing themselves to the same sentence. 
 
 It is due to the Rev. Messrs. Thompson, of Paterson, and Boggs, 
 of Swedesborough, to mention that they had the courage to object 
 to the last clause of this first resolution, as passing judgment and con- 
 demnation upon the three Bishops. The last named gentleman moved 
 to strike it out, and substitute a protest against their conduct ; but 
 this amendment was rejected, and the resolutions, as reported, adopted 
 by a large majority of both orders. 
 
 In an interval of the proceedings, Mr. Rutherfrud, of Jersey City, 
 read and tendered a protest, signed by himself and others, against the 
 proposed acts of the Bishop and the Convention denouncing the con- 
 duct of the three Bishops. But its reception was objected to by 
 Judge Ogden as out of order at that time. After all other business 
 was finished, Mr. Rutherfurd again offered it for insertion in the jour- 
 nal, and Judge Ogden again objected. Some order was then made 
 for printing the journal, the gloria in excelsis was sung, and the con- 
 vention adjourned. 
 
 Thus ended this solemn mockery, and thus a portion of the season 
 set apart by the Church for penitence, self-denial, meditation and 
 prayer, was passed by the Bishop and Convention of New Jersey. 
 Henceforth, perhaps, the Burlington Lent will be classed with the Sicil- 
 ian vespers, and the matins of St. Bartholemew. But the matter ends 
 not here. This was but "the beginning of the end." Bishop Doane 
 will yet be presented and tried, unless indeed he prove contumacious 
 or recusant, and supported by a servile Convention, repudiates the 
 Constitution and Canons of the General Convention, defies the au- 
 thority of the House of Bishops, denies the power of three of his 
 brethren to present him, and the jurisdiction of the rest to try him- 
 Should it come to this. Sir, I cannot believe you would still adhere to 
 him, or that any arts or blandishments, any influence, foreign or do- 
 mestic, would induce you to defend him ; but that you would then, if 
 not sooner, regret your late attempt to interpose your shield for his 
 
protection, and point your lance at the hearts of his accusers, ag 
 derogatory to the conspicuous post you occupy^ and the venerated 
 nanfe you bear. 
 
 A LAY MEMBER OF THE CONVENTION. 
 
 Mabch 26th, 1852. 
 
 O 
 
 • • 
 
 # • • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • 
 

 ^ 
 
 >• 
 
 
 •»'. • 
 
GMLORO BROS. 
 
 MAKERS 
 
 SYRACUSE.- »-1