g^taraggoaoaarcasacgaaGa esa 
 
 "library of congress. 
 
 I cha P ._3)h:5A%-. 
 
 $ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. $ 
 
WHAT Wi H. BURR 
 
 HAS TO SAY IN DEFENCE OF THE 
 
 LIBERTY LOVING THOMAS PAINE. 
 
 THE INTERGRITY OF JUNIUS. 
 
 WAS PAIKB JCKHISf 
 
 Another Weak and Painful Performance ! 
 
 SOME MOBB MISTAKES 
 
 BLUNDERING AND MUD-SLINGING. 
 
 Times Office, Seymour, April 105. 
 
 \ 
 
~H' 
 
The Integrity of Junius. 
 Washington, D. 0., April 18, '81. 
 Forty years ago after Junius 
 concluded his work, a new edition 
 of his letter was published, includ- 
 ing for the first time 63 private 
 letters to his publisher Woodfall, 
 10 private letters to John Wilkes, 
 and 101 so-called miscellaneous 
 letters of Junius under various 
 signatures. A few of the private 
 letters and most of the miscellane- 
 ous ones are certainly spurious. 
 £ We can judge of their authenticity 
 now just as well as the editor could 
 in 1812. Fifty-nine or sixty of the 
 private letters are dated conjectur- 
 ally by the editor, and many of the 
 miscellaneous letters rest their sole 
 claim on a coincidence between the 
 dates of publication and the dates 
 affixed to one or the other of the 
 private letters to H. S. Woodfall 
 (London Atheneum, 1852.) 
 
 One year after the publication 
 of those miscellaneous letters, J ohn 
 Taylor, one of the proxorietors of 
 the London Magazine, thought he 
 discovered that Philip Francis was 
 Junius, and in 1816 he published 
 a book attempting to prove it. 
 Whether anybody before him had 
 ever suspected Francis, I never 
 heard; but Taylor certainly was the 
 first who attempted to establish the 
 identity, and he did it almost 
 entirely on those unauthenticated 
 miscellaneous letters, beginnig 
 with April 1737, when Francis was 
 a clerk in the war office, only 26 
 years of age. 
 
 One of the arguments in favor 
 of Francis is, that "in the month 
 of January, 1772, the king remark- 
 ed to a friend in confidence, 'Jun- 
 ius is known and will write no 
 morec' '-'Such," says the writer, 
 
 Dr. Goodrich, "proved to be the 
 fact. His last TDerformance was 
 dated January 21, 1772. * * * 
 Within a eew months Sir Philip 
 Francis was appointed to one of 
 the higest stations of profit and 
 trust in India." Now the fact was, 
 that Francis, then a mere clerk, 31 
 years of age, was suddenly turned 
 out of office in March following, 
 and was not appointed to the office 
 of profit and trust in India until a 
 year and a half afterward. But if 
 that young war clerk was Junius, 
 then there is not among the dregs 
 of human nature a character so 
 false and vile as his: and Colonel 
 Ingersoll is right in calling him "a 
 coward, a calumniator and a sneak." 
 But I stand ready to vindicate the 
 stern integrity of Junius; and in 
 order to show how. he stood in the 
 estimation of unbiased critics be- 
 fore Philip Francis was suspected 
 to be Junius, I submit a few ex- 
 tracts from the preliminary essay 
 in Woodf all's edition, written and 
 published in 1812. 
 
 "In reality Junius, though a 
 severe satirist, was not in his gener- 
 al temper a malevolent writer nor 
 an ungenerous man. No one has 
 ever been more ready to admit teh 
 brilliant talents of Sir William 
 Blackstone than himself, or to ap- 
 ply to his commetaries for legal 
 information, while reprobating his 
 conduct in the unconstitutional 
 expulsion of Mr. Wilkes from the 
 house of commons." 
 
 "Yet there were statesmen whom 
 he believed to be truly honest and 
 upright, and for whom he felt a 
 personal as well as a political 
 reverence; and it is no small proof 
 of the keenness of his penetration 
 that the characters whom lie then 
 
singled out from the common mass 
 
 of pretenders to genuine patriotism 
 have been ever since growing in 
 lunation, and are now 
 justly looked back to as the pillars 
 and bulwarks of the English con- 
 stitution." 
 
 "Vaughan himself had so high 
 an opinion of our author's integrity, 
 though a total stranger to him, 
 that he entrusted him with' his 
 private papers upon the subject in 
 question, which Junius in return 
 took care to employ to Yaughan's 
 advantage." 
 
 ''Whether the writer of these 
 letters had any other and less 
 worthy object in view than that he 
 uniformly avowed, namely : a de- 
 sire to subserve the best political 
 interests of his country, it is im- 
 possible to ascertain with precision. 
 It is unquestionably no common 
 occurrence in history to behold a 
 man thus steadily, and almost in- 
 cessantly, for five years volunteer- 
 ing his services in the cause of the 
 people, amidst abuse and slander 
 from every party, exposed to uni- 
 versal resentment, unknown, and 
 not daring to be known, without 
 having any personal object to ac- 
 quire, any sinster motive of indi- 
 vidual aggrandisement or reward. 
 Yet nothing either in the public or 
 private letters affords us the re- 
 motest hint that he was thus actu- 
 ated. Throughout the whole, from 
 first to last, in the midst of all his 
 warmth and rancour, his argument 
 and his declamation, his appeals to 
 the public and his notes to his con- 
 fidential friend, he seems to have 
 been influenced by the stimulus of 
 sound and genuine patriotism 
 alone. With this he commenced 
 his career,, and with this he retired 
 
 from the field of action, retaining 
 at least a twelve-month afterwards, 
 (see private letter, January 19, 
 1773), the latest period in which 
 we aro able to catch a glimpse of 
 him, the same political sentiments 
 he had professed on his first ap- 
 pearance before the world, and still 
 ready to renew his efforts the mo- 
 ment he could perceive that they 
 had a chance of being attended 
 with benefit. Under these circum- 
 stances, therefore, however diffi- 
 cult it may be to acquit him alto- 
 gether of personal considerations, 
 it is still more difficult, and must 
 be altogether unjust, ungenerous 
 and illogical to suspect his in- 
 tegrity.'; 
 
 The justice and candor of this 
 writer is completely established by 
 the discovery that Paine was 
 Junius. "If I have anywhere ex- 
 pressed myself over-warmly," says 
 Paine, " 'tis from a fixed, immov- 
 able hatred I have and ever had to 
 cruel men and cruel measures." — 
 Crisis, No. 2, 1777. "I speak an 
 open disinterested language, dic- 
 tated by no passion but that of hu- 
 manity. To me, who have not only 
 refused offices because I thought 
 them improper, but have declined 
 rewards I might with reputation 
 have accepted, it is no wonder that 
 meanness and imposition appear 
 disgusting. Independence is my 
 happiness, and I view things as 
 they are, without regard to place 
 and person; my country is the 
 world and my religion is to do 
 good."— Eights of Man, 1792. ^ "In 
 a great affair, where the happiness 
 of man is at stake, I love to work 
 for nothing."— 1802. "I take neith- 
 er copyright nor profit from any 
 thing 1 publish."— 1807. "I have 
 
lived an honest and useful like to 
 mankind; my time lias been spent 
 in doing good, and I die in perfect 
 composure and resignation to the 
 will of my Creator God."— Will, 
 1809. W.H.Bubb. 
 
 ~«y«^>~ 
 
 For the Seymour Times. 
 
 WAS PAINS JUNIUS? 
 
 Another "Weak and Pameful Performance. 
 Washington, D. -a, April 23, '81. 
 The principal points presented by Mr. 
 Underwood, in his various articles on the 
 Junius question and the answers thereto, 
 are as follows : 
 
 1. "Paine says, the cause of America 
 xns.de me an author." 
 
 Answer : That cause crops out from 
 first to last in the J unius letters. 
 
 2. "Paine did not possess and was not 
 in a situation to obtain the knowledge of 
 persons and transactions necessary to ena- 
 ble him to write those letters." 
 
 Answer : Mr. Parton says Junius "was 
 not in the circle of the well-informed;" 
 and again, "Junius was nothing and 
 knew nothing." The private letters to 
 John Wilkes confirm the obscure position 
 of Junius; so does his private letter, to 
 Lord Chatham, quite recently brought to 
 light. Paine was a life-long worker in 
 se-cret. 
 
 3. "The style of Junius is more stud- 
 ied and polished than that of Paine." 
 
 Answer: The earlier work of an artist 
 always requires most labor and care. 
 Paine's later writings are far less polish- 
 ed than his earlier ones. Speaking of the 
 style of Junius and of "Common Sense," 
 Prof. Den slow, after arguing their identi- 
 ty, says: "We have no writer in America 
 to this day so practiced in the- har.dlbg 
 of pure and elegant English, or that could 
 have written either of the chapters of 
 "Common Sense?" Again, in regard to 
 Paine's scathing letter to General 
 Washington, in 1796, the Prof, says: "it 
 is so identical in style with portions of 
 Junius that we cite parallel passages for 
 comparison, though the unhesitating 
 conviction that Paine wrote Junius will 
 better result from the use of hundreds 
 of passages than of two <or three." 
 
 4. "Paine would hayj had no reason to 
 
 conceal the authorship during the last 
 thirty years of his life." 
 
 Answer: Had he broken his solemn 
 and deliberate promise, "I am the sole 
 depository of my own secret and it shall 
 perish with me," he would have been 
 worse than "a coward and a sneak." 
 
 5. "Did the poor exciseman write this? 
 'For the matter of assistance, be assured, 
 that if a question should arise upon any 
 writings of mine, you shall not want it. 
 
 [YOU SEE HOW THINGS GO, AND I FEAR 
 MY ASSISTANCE WOULD NOT AVAIL YOU 
 MUCH. * * * MY OWN WORKS YOU 
 SHALL CONSTANTLY HAVE, AND] in 
 
 point uf money be assured you shall nev- 
 er suffer." 
 
 Answer: Why did Mr. U. omit the 
 above words in brackets and insert only a 
 semicolon between the other two parts of 
 the quotation ? Did he garble the passage 
 himself, or borrow it from another garb- 
 ler ? Further quotations which I made 
 from the private letters show conclusive- 
 ly tb:it all the ssshtance Junius rendered 
 or could render, was the profits on his 
 own works, which were more than Wood- 
 fall wished to accept. 
 
 6. "January 1772 the king remarked to 
 a friend, Junius is known and will write 
 no more." - * * * Xot long after - 
 wards Francis was appointed to a posi- 
 tion of profit and trust." 
 
 Answer: It was a year and a half be- 
 fore Francis was appointed, and if he was 
 Junius he continued, as is claimed for 
 Francis, to write uuder the signature of 
 "Veteran" nearly three months longer, 
 and under other signatures still another 
 month. "Veteran's" fifth letter dated 
 March 23, announced that Mr. Francis 
 had been expelled from office by Lord 
 Barrington ; then follow three more let- 
 ters under other signatures continuing 
 the assault on Barrington, the last being 
 dated May 12, 1772. 
 
 7. "Lord Brougham wrote while Fran- 
 cis was alive; yet the essay called out no 
 contradiction from Francis." 
 
 Answer: Sir Philip Francis wrote to 
 the editor of the monthly magazine, July 
 1813: "Sir: — The great civility of your 
 letter induces me to answer it, which, 
 with reference merely to its subject mat- 
 ter, I should have declined. Whether 
 you will assist in giving currency to a 
 
4 
 
 sii.i.y M LUGS ! i K)D, is a 
 
 question for your own discretion. To 
 me it ia m matter of ; erfect indifference." 
 Mr. Burr utterly fails to reconcile 
 Junius 1 BU] , the right 
 
 to tax the American colonies, etc., with 
 Paine's known hatred of the monarchical 
 form of government, and his denuncia- 
 tions oi Britain's claims on the eoh 
 
 Answer: I proved by Paine's own 
 - that lie was a monarchist until one 
 year after Juni.itH ceased to write. And 
 though it is true that Junius maintained 
 the "speculative right" to tax the col- 
 what rational man will dispute 
 that right? But to show that Paine 
 never disputed it, I quote from Prof. 
 Denslow: "It is also noticeable how 
 small a figure the question of taxation 
 cuts in the declaration; and it will be 
 remembered that Junius at first advo- 
 cated the justice of taxing America, as 
 Paine, being an exciseman, would na- 
 turally have done, for an exciseman na- 
 turally adheres to a tax. Moreover, 
 Paine, out of contempt; for money, would 
 have looked upon rebellion against a tax 
 as mean." 
 
 9. "The miscellaneous letters are 
 death to the Paine theory. The genu- 
 ineness of these letters is admitted, as 
 Mr. Burr says, by Prof. Denslow." 
 
 Answer: If those unauthenticated let- 
 ters are death to the Paine theory, how 
 about the Francis theory ? Says the Pro- 
 fessor in his second essay: "Sackville is 
 also, one of the few claimants of the hon- 
 ors who could have been present as 
 Junius says he was, at the burning of 
 Busembaum, Suarez, Molena and a score 
 of other Jesuitical books in Paris, at the 
 hands of the common hangman, in 1714. 
 I: ia not claimed that Philip Francis 
 could then have been in Paris." Why 
 the professor should thus have befogged 
 d while seemingly maintain- 
 al Paine bad at least a hand in the 
 g of the letters, I cannot imagine. 
 to was signed "Bif- 
 rons," and dated April 23, l|C8. Will 
 the Franciscans claim that as genuine? 
 
 10. "Although Mr. Burr has fallen 
 into an error, 'misled' as he says 'by the 
 reviewer of the Nation,' I Bball i 
 
 call him a 'blunderer' nor devote half a 
 column to comments on this mistake." 
 
 Answer: How very considerate! Did 
 1 make a mistake? But even if I and 
 not the reviewer did, of what importance 
 was it? The space I have occupied in 
 this discussion is much less than that 
 taken by ray opponent, and if I devoted 
 half a column to a mistake of his it was 
 a very important one — nay, a vital one; 
 and bis tardy answer to it was, that he 
 wrote or intended to write inconclusive 
 for c inclusive. 
 
 11. "In his desperation to make a 
 point, Mr. Burr is ready to admit for 
 the moment that Paine slandered Silas 
 Dcane." 
 
 A nswer : I neither admitted nor denied 
 it. I referred to it as one of Paine's 
 anonymous assaults. Mr. U. replied by 
 saying that the charges were true, as Mr. 
 Burr knew. To that I replied that I did 
 not know T it, and that a very intelligent 
 old freethinker who had investigated the 
 matter told me*that Deane was innocent. 
 I also referred to other anonymous as- 
 saults by Paine, as "Casca." And I will 
 now add that ''Common Sense" which 
 denounced "the royal brute of Great 
 Britain" was published anonymously; 
 and so also were the 16 numbers of the 
 "Crisis," from 1777 to 1783, in which 
 Lord Howe and others were assailed in 
 the style of Junius. 
 
 12. "Mr. Burr's censorious spirit and 
 offensive personalties do not strengthen 
 his position. I will not baudy epithets 
 with him." 
 
 Answer! At the outset of this discussion 
 Mr. U. said: "Junius Unmasked is in my 
 opinion a weak performance. " x " * * 
 And the articles from the pen of Mr. 
 Burr, have not 1 think, given one fact 
 that goes/to.show that Paine wrote those 
 letters?' That was the first personality ; 
 and what did it imply but that I am either 
 a fool, a lunatic or a knave ? 
 
 13. "I am glad to know that Mr. Burr 
 is not the author [of "J. U.,"] * * * 
 for it reflects no credit on the judgment 
 or judicial candor of its author, who got 
 his wild theory. I understand, from the 
 spirit world," etc. 
 
 Answer: There is not a word about 
 spiritualism in the book, and I stated in 
 
 
the Investigator and the two leading 
 
 spiritual papers in January, 1872, that its 
 author assured me he was not a spiritual- 
 ist. Again, I made a similar statement 
 in the Times, Sept. 11, 1880, in reply to 
 an anonymous writer, who, nevertheless, 
 dogmatically asserted that the author 
 was a spiritualist. And recently Mr. XL 
 has repeated the same assertion in the 
 Investigator, after I had oo.ee more reit 
 erated my former statement. Am I 
 thus to be put in the attitude of a falsi- 
 fier? If the author of J. U. is, or ever 
 was, a spiritualist, I never heard of it ex- 
 cept through these two assailants. 
 
 14. "Jefferson was a liar ; John Adams 
 was a 'meaner' liar. Denslow is a calum- 
 niator, * * - and his [Mr. Burr's] 
 assailants are knaves or ignoramusus." 
 
 Answer : The lie that Jefferson, in his 
 dotage, told, I insist was nothing like as 
 mean as that of John Adams when he 
 claimed that Jefferson had stolen his 
 ideas from him to put into the declara- 
 tion. As to Prof. Denslow, I have proved 
 that he calumniated Paine in several in- 
 stances. And I have called one assailant 
 who, among other blunders, attributed to 
 Benjamin Franklin what his grandson 
 said, an ignoramus. But I have not call- 
 ed any adversary a knave. I prefer to 
 state and prove *iacts with as little com- 
 ment as possible. 
 
 15. "It is some consolation to know 
 that one great and honest man stands 
 erect amid the moral ruins of humanity, 
 and that man is " 
 
 Answer : Thank you, Mr. Underwood, 
 for refraining from' offensive personali- 
 ties, from bandying epithets, and for 
 your courtesy in general. 
 
 16. "The letter of Feb. .28," says Mr. 
 XL, containing his correction, inconclu- 
 sive for conclusive, "was delayed at the 
 Times office owing to the loss of two of 
 the sheets," &c. 
 
 Answer: Was the first sheet lost begin- 
 ning with the important correction? 
 That, anyhow, should have been inserted 
 at once. But in the next issue my sec- 
 ond notice of the untenable position ap- 
 peared, and another week passed with no 
 correction ; but in the fourth week, 
 March 19, appeared two letters from Mr. 
 U., one dated Feb. 28, and the other 
 March 8. both making the correction, and 
 
 the latter censuring me for "taking ad- 
 vantage of this error in two numbers of 
 the Times before it was possible for 
 
 HIM TO CORRECT IT!" How Could I SUS- 
 
 pect such an error when it is apparent to 
 everybody who has read Prof. Denslow's 
 two essays, (and Mr. U. said "essay" in 
 the singular), that the first is "conclu- 
 sive" and the second "inconclusive" on 
 the Junsus question ? Furthermore, Mr. 
 U's letter of March 8, explains his failure 
 to reply quickly to my articles by the 
 fact that the Times does not reach him 
 as early as it does me. Nothing there 
 about the loss of sheets — nothing till now. 
 
 17. "The little error into which I fell, 
 misled I repeat by Mr. Burr, was cor- 
 rected the moment I discovered it." 
 
 Answer: It was I that discovered and 
 exposed it. and when Mr. U. saw my ex- 
 posure in the T. S. he hastened to correct 
 it, but was too late for his article in the 
 Investigator. And I repeat, it is disin- 
 genuous to charge me with misleading 
 him, when in the first instance I neither 
 indorsed nor denied the statement so 
 positively made that Benjamin Franklin 
 said Jefferson drafted the declaration. Do 
 such "offensive personalities" strengthen 
 Mr. U's position ? 
 
 THE RANK AND FORTUNE OF JUNIUS. 
 
 18. "That Paine wrote of his rank and 
 fortune to hoodwink Woodfaii is a mere 
 assumption." 
 
 Answer : Did not Junius have to 
 hoodwink everybody? In explanation 
 of one of his substerfuges he says : "The 
 auxiliary part of philo Junius was in- 
 dispensably necessary. **■■,# The 
 fraud was innocent, and I always intend- 
 ed \o explain it." Nor did Junius cat- 
 egorically claim to be a man of rank 
 and fortune; the expression was equivocal 
 and susceptible of an irironical in terpre- 
 taion. But what rank and fortune had 
 Francis at the age of 28 ? And what 
 kind of a fellow was he to write to his 
 intimate friend and schoolmate: "I doubt 
 very much whether I shall ever have the 
 pleasure of knowing you?" Or this, 
 two years later : "I am persuaded you 
 are too honest a man to contribute in 
 any way to my destruction,' Act hon- 
 orably by me and at a proper time you 
 shall know me." But. a proper time 
 never come, and two or three months 
 
later Junius declared that his secret 
 
 should perish with him. 
 
 19. In answer to Mr. U's two columns 
 of testimonials in favor of the Franciscan 
 theory, and against Paine, I say: How 
 would he like to decide the question of 
 plenary inspiration by the weight of au- 
 thority? Or eve-; the doctrine of evolu- 
 tion, which Lamark BO ably maintained 
 fifty years before Darwin, and yet never 
 made an impression on the scientists of 
 his day? Or how would he like to -de- 
 cide the question of the revolution of the 
 sun around the earth by a vote of emi- 
 nent scholars during the life-time of Ga- 
 lilleo? There are many John Jaspers 
 even now among the ignorant who be- 
 lieve that "the sun do move." And 
 there are many scholars who are as yet 
 unwilling to admit the demonstration 
 that Paine was Junius. Mr. U. has ar- 
 rayed a score of them in the columns of 
 the Times. If any one of these savants 
 will adduce a single reason against the 
 identity of Paine as Junius, which I can- 
 not answer as readily as I have answered 
 all those hitherto presented, then let the 
 undersigned be everlastingly damned to 
 an orthodox hell ! W. H. Burr. 
 
 For the Seymour Times. 
 
 Some More Mistakes. 
 
 Washington, D. C., April 16, '81. 
 
 As Mrs. Chappellsmith says she 
 is "not certain that Burr cites 
 accurately" her letter of Dec. 31, 
 1874, Burr will now send Chap- 
 pellsmith the original. » 
 
 Chappellsmith further says: "I 
 told Burr * * * that I 
 thought that known facts made 
 against the probability 1 ' that Paine 
 was Junius. What she did say 
 was this: 
 
 "I think that Paine's position in life 
 and vocations could not have enabled 
 him to have the familiarity with the per- 
 sonages criticized in the Junius letters, 
 which the writer of those letters appears 
 to have had, and the style of those letters 
 indicates a greater exn- rience in writing 
 than Paine could have had in 17G9." 
 
 The first of these objections 
 te the only "reasonable" one raised 
 by Prof. JDenslow. It was repeat- 
 sd by Col. Ingersoll, but refuted 
 not only by James Parton, but by 
 the private letters of Junius, espe- 
 cially those written to John 
 Wilkes, and lastly by one written 
 to Lord Chatham. On the presen- 
 tation of these evidences by me, 
 Prof. Denslow gave up his only 
 "reasonable objection," but it was 
 afterwards again repeated substan- 
 iially by Mr. Underwood. 
 
 In regard to experience in writ- 
 ing, it is certain that Junius wrote 
 for Woodfali's paper nearly two 
 years before his first essay as Jun- 
 ius. And when the first of those 
 earlier letters appeared, Paine was 
 30 years of age, while Philip Fran- 
 cis was only 26. 
 
 If Paine was without experience 
 as a writer in 1776, how came he to 
 produce so remarkable a work as 
 "Common Sense.?" Of this per- 
 formance, Prof. Denslow says: 
 
 "In the very first sentences of 
 "Common Sense," all the polished 
 sarcasm, fine rhetorical antithesis, 
 and lofty blending of philosophic 
 calmness, with contemptuous dis- 
 dain for his adversaries, all the 
 tart crisp, pugnacious simplicity, 
 and hard clearness of statement; 
 in a word, every element of literary 
 force, political depth, and range of 
 thought which distinguish Junius, 
 reappear. 
 
 Again says Prof. D., after quot- 
 ing the paragraph about the slave 
 trade in the original draft of the 
 declaration of independence. "The 
 English language possesses no 
 clause more elaborate in its rhetor- 
 ic, and few so false in fact." 
 
 The alleged falsehoods, by the 
 
 
way, which Prof. D. attempts to 
 point out in the declaration are not 
 falsehoods at all. That George 
 III had "prostituted his negative 
 for suppressing every legislative 
 attempt to prohibit or restrain this 
 execrable commerce" in men, was 
 the subject of complaint in 1774, 
 and in October of that year, the 
 colonial congress unanimously 
 adopted a declaration, which they 
 sent to the king, containing among 
 other things this article: 
 
 "That we will neither import nor 
 purchase any slave imported after 
 the first day of December next, af- 
 ter which time we will wholly dis- 
 continue the slave trade." 
 
 And in August of, the same 
 year, Jefferson himself drew up a 
 resolution of instructions to the 
 deputies when assembled in con- 
 gress, in which he said that the 
 repeated attempts to stop the 
 slave trade had "been hitherto de- 
 eatecl by his majesty's negative." 
 
 Again Prof. D. says the declar- 
 ation of 1776 contains such false 
 counts as "abolishing the free sys- 
 tem of English laws in Canada," 
 and he quotes that blundering his- 
 torian, Bancraft, to prove it false. 
 Now the colonial declaration 01 
 Oct. 20, 1774, above referred to, 
 mentions, among other offensive 
 acts of parliament, "an act extend- 
 ing the province of Quebec, so as to 
 border on the western frontiers of 
 colonies, establishing an arbitrary 
 government therein and discourag- 
 ing the settlement of British sub- 
 jects in that wide extended coun- 
 try," &c. The whole clause of 
 1774, is reproduced quite literally 
 in the declaration of 1776. If, 
 therefore, these two complaints 
 were "false, in fact," as Prof. D. 
 
 asserts, they were repeatedly made 
 and attested by every colonial con- 
 gressman of 1774, and 1776. 
 
 Another absurd error of Prof. 
 Denslow's is the dogmatic denial 
 of the self-evident truth that all 
 men are created equal. Will he, 
 or anybody else, deny that I have 
 not an equal right with himself to 
 "life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
 happiness?" That is exactly the 
 meaning and the expression of the 
 declaration, and it is folly to deny 
 so self-evident a truth. 
 
 W. H. B. 
 
 For the Seymour Times. 
 
 Blundering' and Mud-slinging. 
 "Washington, D. C, April 30, 1881. 
 
 Mr. Underwood is unlucky, to 
 say the least, in regard to the dis- 
 covery of his mistakes. I always 
 happen to get a little ahead of him. 
 lie did not discover that he "wrote 
 or intended to write inconclusive for 
 conclusive" until 1 exposed the fal- 
 lacy of his position. He did not 
 discover the error about Franklin, 
 which he so eagerly embraced to 
 support the claim of Jefferson's au- 
 thorship of the declaration of in- 
 dependence, until I had looked up 
 the authority and detected the 
 blunder. And then he said the 
 error was corrected the moment he 
 discovered it ! As if he and not I 
 found it out. 
 
 And now again, writing at Sey- 
 mour, Incl., April 26, the very day 
 when I (and probably he) received 
 the Investigator containing my re- 
 iterated exposure of another persis- 
 tent error of his, namely, that the 
 author of J. XL, is or was a spirit- 
 ualist, he makes a half-way correc- 
 tion and apology for that. 
 
 He also takes great pains to hunt 
 up and reproduce what I had al- 
 
8 
 
 les two weeks 
 
 Lo! he leavesout 
 from bhe quota;' at proves 
 
 him b sserts 
 
 that "the conviction that Paine was 
 Jnniu i result of ac- 
 
 quaintance with the subject, based 
 I now quote a sin- 
 gle sentec m the hiatus of 
 Mr. U's partial quotation: "In 
 producing this work he [the author 
 of J. UJ has made a long and labor- 
 ious research." And a little further 
 on I say : "The next inquiry was one 
 involving great literary labor and 
 keen criticism. A thorough analy- 
 sis of Paine's political writings had 
 to be made, as well as of the let- 
 ters of Junius. At every step the 
 proof accumulated." Jn short, 
 more than two thirds of my article 
 of January 21, 1872 is made up 
 of proofs, taken from the book its- 
 elf, that Paine wrote the letters of 
 Junius and the declaration of inde- 
 pendence. But despite all this 
 Mr. U. insinuates that I have not 
 told the whole truth and audacious- 
 ly affirms that the "conviction that 
 Paine was Junius was not the re- 
 sult of acquaintance with the sub- 
 ject, based upon study!" 
 
 Mr. Underwood with his feet 
 fast in Franciscan mire has been 
 throwing mud at Junius and his 
 champions. And now "Don ( 
 ote" Coleman, a spiritualistic 
 knight has come to the help of the 
 rialistic chieftain. But alas, 
 D. Q. C. is also stuck fast in the mire 
 and can't sling much mud. W< >n't 
 somebody with longer legs and 
 stout kindly lift these two 
 
 slingers oat of the slough? 
 
 W. H. B. 
 
 I^OW EEADY 
 
 THE 
 
 ORIGIN « MAN; 
 
 OR, TESTIS 
 
 early reforms. 
 
 A TALE OF TAILS. 
 
 BY 
 
 J. R. MONROE, M; D, 
 
 Editor of the Seymour (Tnd.) Times. 
 
 Sixty pages, handsomely printed. Price 
 in paper 60 cents. Three cent stamps may 
 be remitted. 
 
 10 CENTS. 
 
 THE PICTURE OF THE 
 
 B I Bsl. E G O D, 
 
 with some chapters of nice reading for christians and 
 heathens. Just issued from the Seymour Times 
 publication office. 
 
 The contemplation of this beautiful picture cart- 
 not j'-u] to inspire devotion and love of god in the 
 Iders. Ten cents by mail. Dis- 
 count to the trade. Address, J. It. MONROE, 
 
 April 5, 103. Seymour Indiana. 
 
 DEL. MO] ie of Dramas and Poems— 
 
 a beautifully printed and bound volume of 190 
 pages— a few copie left. Price, by mail, $1.G0. 
 
 D 
 
 : („ King David. A short 
 "pome " i ents. 28-tf 
 
 State ^oenlai*ix;atioii. 
 
 Address of the Committee— Underwood, .Donslow 
 and Spencer— to the people of the United Statoi 
 Price, J. R. MONROE, 
 
 Jau. 8,'81.-tf. Seymour, 
 
 (> AWELY JIM, a thrilling Yankcestory •- I 
 J^~ the ounds the mighty, by Itev. Theo- 
 
 D.D. if. - 
 
 [dress, Dr. J. 11. Monroe, 
 Seymour, Ind, 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 020 661 517 5