The New York Herald Newspaper, June 11, 1854, Page 2

‘RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. Archbishop Hughes, Rep " 7 to General Cass {From the Courier and Enquirer.] Some persons oy that a high honor has been conferred on me by the importance assigned to my name in the great speech which General Cass has thought to peonounos in the Senate of the United that Genera] Cass should serve not — his conntey but his race in one order of life, and that it shoul ‘be my humble privilege to serve both in another. I trust that my purity of motives is not inferior to his. But whilst he has steered his prosperous bark on yielding tides and with (avoring winds as one of the approved and cherished great men of his country, it has been my lot, though a citize» of the same coun- try, to have been occupied in propelling the little skiff entrusted to my charge, in a direction gene- rally adverse to the current, whether of wind or tide. General Cass isa Senatyr—Lam, before the law, only a private citizen. I am also an ecclesiastic of the holy Catholic Church, even an unworthy prelate. The duties and speculations of our distinct depart- ments apperiain to such divergent relatjons, al- though intended to promote ultimately the same baer beneficial ends we have in view, that any con- versy in regard to them must necessarily appear to the American people and to the civilized world as an extraordinary eveat, especially under the consti- tational charter of our own beloved country, which has 80 benef for its circumstances, eliminated reli- gious questions trom the deliberations of Congress. That my name, or any views of mine in-an inci- dental letier should have attracted such serious at- tention on the part of General Casa, or to any other Senator, is to me rather a humiliation than a pride. The circumstance brings me, as @ citizen, into an apparent collision with a Senator. 1 am not dis- posed to waive either my rights as a citizen, or sac- rifice my principles as a patriot and a man, simply becanse the tide of American public opinion may be turned against me. N other hand, to say one word in mainta‘ning my po- sition, which, considering my age and r in the church, might give apparent sanction to that grow- ing irreverence which is becoming so prevalent in this age, whether as it relates to pre-eminence civil, ecclesiastical, social, domestic, or senatorial. To my utter astonishment, Gen, Cass thinks that his name was first brought into my letter without any cause or occasion having been presented on his part. Ishall perhaps ‘best discharge my duty in Teference to this by giving a brief statement of the circumstances which I thought warranted me in using the name of General Cass. The circum- stances were these: A man and his wife, named Madiai, had been arrested in Florence. They hai been tried ea to the laws of their country, and condemned to the penalty which the said laws had Bee against p 3 they had done. The report reached Neither am I prepared, on the weir the newspan*7s of England and An as, that thes nad been imprisoned merely for owning and reading their Bible. It was natural, and even honorable, that all men, whether Catholics or Protestants, should fecl and manifest their abhor- rence for the disproportion between tlic alleged crime and the positive pay A meeting of sympathy was convened and held in this city. The undersigned, with a view to learn the real facts of the case, attended that meeting. The speakers on the occasion vituperaied the Pope of Rome, the monks of Italy, the friars, the Jesuits, and the Catholics everywhere. The ouly person or party that was treated with a decent share of mode- | ration was the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Towards | tion complimentary to General Cass, as a bri articular star shining out from the dark heavens of juman nature, which the orators had been describ- ing, was proposed and carried by acclamation:— Resolved, 4. That this meeting firmly believes that it is the duty of the government of the United States to pro- tect all our citizens in their religious rights, whilst re- | siding or sojourning in fereign lands, approves in the | fullest manner of the noble attempt of a distinguished { Senator from Michigan, (Gen. Cass,) to cull the attention | of the government the public to this important sub- ject; and entertains the confident hope that this govern- ment will speedily secure to its citizens, by the expresa stipulations of international treaties, the right to wor. | ship God according to the dictates of their conscience, in every foreign land —J. }”. Zimes, Jan. 8, 1853. In view of the lampooning which all Catholics, from the Pope downwards, had received at the lips of the orators, it did strike me as somewhat strange that the above resolution should have been intro- duced. The question that arose in my mind was, | “How came it there?” The circumstance, however, to me to be a suflicient reason for re- ferring to General Cass, by name, in a letter which I wrote some time after. I have ascertained since that the Reverend Doctor Baird, who might be called the chief conductor of the Madiai meeting, was found ina short time afterwards periectly conversant with proceed- inge going on in the Senate touching religious mat- ters id. He is reported to have proclaimed in the Hall of the American Lustitute in Baltimore, on the 17th February, 1853, that Mr. Underwood, a Senator, bad done him the honor cf reading his | (Mr. Underwocd’s) report on the subject referred to, before reporting tt to the Senate, aad that he (Dr. Baird) approved of it. That report, if ever blished, I have not been able to fiud, bat I think it not improbable that such report would have been in consequence of the i pe the Maryland Baptist Union Association, General Cass had so cloquently recommended to the appropriate committee in a speech delivered Jan. 3, 14883, Just four days previous to the Mudiai meeting. The petition ulluded to bad reference especially to the condition of the Baptists under the Protestant overnment of Prussia. A reference to this subject is found ina senatorial document, published from the files of the Department of State, and designated Doc. 60. A letter from our Minister at Berlin, Mr. Barnard, dated Jan. 31, 1853, addressed to Mr. Everett, Secretary of State, gives an account of his Pugnere in attempting to obtain toleration for | ti fant subjects of the Protestant government to which he was accredited. Taking this document in connection with what has gone before, there would appear to be a perfect harmony of benevolent feelings among the distingnished persons connected with the eu! , namely: Mr. Barnard, Mr. Cass, Rev. Dr. Baird, and Mr. Underwood. The truth of facts, and the accuracy of memory among the parties, is not an; Rs =f of Prussia who are Baptists; Mr. Cass for the religious rights of Americans who go abroad; Dr. Baird, for international treaties, to secure such ; Mr. Casa, not for treaties, but for an amia- dle diplomatic, officions, and unofficial interference here in favor of American religious rights; and Mr. Underwood, as having covered the whole by previously reading his report to Dr. Baird, | who approved of it even betore it was submitted to te. I trust it will be, as it ever has been, the pleasing duty as well as right of the Executive Department of ernment, to interpose its kind and cour- teous ‘offices, with other State sovereignties in dis- suading from acts of oP ression likely to shock the of humanity at large. But for this purpose, I | fe castion im dlinecieaity: and, under the cir , L vastly prefer the form of policy pre- cumstances, sented at the Madiai meeting to that which General | Cass has broached in his senatorial place. The for- | mer goes for treaties, and 1 go for treaties, if any- thing is to be done inthe matter; the latter for our Ls here abroad with half- defined jes, semi-national, semt-religtous, semi- ‘benevolent, semi-humanitarian, and, if | may be al- owed the e: jon, semieverything, and yet ry definite. General Cass as a sufficient apology for my having dJatroduced his name into my létter. fa my letter, to which General Cass takes such exceptions, ! sated that, if our American Congress te itself in such questions to be seen to by our representatives abroad, I feared that such inter- ference would be regarded by foreign governments s drivelling. 1 was not then aware that what I an- a6 2 probable contingency, had already be- @me a historical fact. It appears from Mr. Bar- 's communication, that a letter addressed by to the K of Prussia, confided to a distin- jiehed hand, had been returned to him—the party Fein the responsibility of presenting it. Io- ween our minister and the King and the King's private secretary, subsequently took place; and {t is amusing to perceive with what amiabilty the King and his secretary lowered rican Minister. Diplomacy never em- an intruder. All this has been substan- ed by our Minister himself; and I can the correspondence in no other sense, , than as if the King and in courteous language well f ae i xy, an tlemen on both sides, had said to “Mr. American Minister, will you dness to mind your own business?” a citizen of the United States, I should be that our foreign representatives, by any legis- rule, should ever be oblized to leave it in the Se had royalty to lower them down in a ike tl Hi = H If ander the sincere profession of respect for the | character, services, and position of General Cass, which has been tendered, it should happen | that be said by me in this writing ap- at variance with that profession, I trast that knows me too well to believe for 4 moment that of saying one thing, and inten ting an- the reverse. Yet his «poech has im- the ion of speaking frankly, limits that courtesy prescribes. Cass, He has done me injustice— , of course, but yet he has done me He presented as the caption of to the Freeman's Journal, a caption which not mine at all. And this circumstance leads me te fear that time did not him to read atten- ive'y the document, ificant as it was, which och professes to review. Again, whenever ot quote my own identical words, but pry- i ence of a petition from | 4 which | means so perfect. Mr. Barnard pleads for | This, I trust, will be received’by | for the purpose of | and with refined manners, be- lcom- | ally. 3 these statement of mun negemeerily with the ons themselves; and I am placed by lication, before the American people sentiments and advocat as ponies which I abhor and despise. Again, eneral Cass must permit me to complain o him, | in that he suggests an immediate judgment against for the American people; but even a Senator of the United States ought not to attempt the extinguish- ment of nasal manhood in any citizen by wav- ing in his face the threat and danger of his incur- ring the frown of even the great American people. that I should incur the frown of either. But if cir- intimidate me, and to incur without a murmur, in included, are sometimes unable to escape difficul such as have sent the Madiai from Florence, accord- their dovecot in Charlestown, in Massachusetts, against law, into common banishment. General | Cass thinks that, inasmuch as the banishment of the Madiai was according to law in Tus- humble, but to me she was a great lady—nay, a vel | cany, and that of the Ursulines against law queen and empress. She was oho s +4 | and by violence, the com; | against opps and in our | the reverse. The laws of Tuscany had made known parece is wonderfully domestic conventicles for the purpose of proselytiz- ing the subjects of the Grand Duchy from lished religion, would be visited with the judicial de- cisions of the established courts, and would be fol- lowed, on conviction of parties, with the penalties which the law had in such cases provided. there was at least fair notice given beforehand. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on the other side, had proclaimed to all the inhabitants of the feited according to law and justice applicable to the case. The Madiai of Florence had not been de- ceived wy the laws of the coantry under which they lived. The nuns of Charlestown, in regard to the | laws of the country in which they had confided, were deceived. The latter, without having incurred | even a reprouch, much less an impeachment or trial | by j ry, or judicial sentence consequent on such | tnal, were driven from their own home in violation of law, their property destroyed—the very graves | of theirdeparted sisters desecrated. What then? | Oh, says Gen. Cass, “that was a mob.” My answer | is, “So much the worse for his side of the ‘compari- | son.” The State of Massachusetts ought not to have allowed those ladies to spend their money in building a house, and confiding their safety and pro- perty to the high promise of its sovereign protec- tion, if the State of Massachusetts felt itself inca- pable of protecting them. But although in any country in the world it may happen, as it has happened in nearly all, that a mob may have violated the laws, still, when order is | wrong cause to a pertect equality with a right | cause; an unjust cause to a perfect level with a tes. The providence of God has directed | me at the tribunal of what he calls the ‘nineteenth do, or died a century,” “the spirit of the age,” “public seati- | and his God, ment,” and above all, the opinion of the great Ame- | | rican public. This is not fair. I have great eeapect | For the purpoee of this argument it is not necessary fully dis; cumstances required it, I am quite prepared to meet even on this “ the issue with which the peers ery indirectly would dispute his testimony. But he speaks on the not fair. I made no accusations against thiscountry. ce; 1 merely suggested that civil governments, ourown = qi ing to law, and driven unprotected ladies from must, no doubt, have had; but he has made no allu- favor. I believe directly If she smiled approval on to all parties beforehand, that the establishment of proval, it seemed like a the estab- | compels me to enter my humble Here | which it is not necessary that I should adduce, I land that property, reputation and life woul be | safe under the shield of her sovereign protection, | ter or any cause, whether public or private. If God unless in the case that all or either should be for- | should ever permit the noble, but oftentimes per- him founded on motive. But stil! the Senator tla un tat the re o ection was performed ‘that man, b nominal, of faith, secured fae boa r death, place in @ consecrated ceme- j tery. From by Gen. Cass, the | obvious inference is, that the poor man either be- came sincerely a Catholic, which he had a right to rite, a traitor to his couscience thereby sacrificing his soul for sake of @ grave. think the Senator from Michigan has been still more unfortunate in his allusion to some distinguished reonage in! in, supposed to be a woman, f not a ie. Thope the public will excuse me for not refer- ring to his language, since he himself avows in the exordium of his reference, that it is ‘‘pain- sting.” In this Gen. Cass was not mis- taken. If he bad spoken as of hia own knowledge, infully disgusting” subject, no man authority of the London Times. ‘The editor of that regard to any question now discussed between us, pagers jowever, instead of giving utterance from the frown of any people, rather than incurthe frown human tongue to this assault upon woman, allowed and reproach of my own nce. it to pass into universal circulation from the leaden The onoyab! or has rer nted me as at- livs of his iron-hearted journal. Nor could he have tempting to ry n this country iibagined that ally inan, éap an American and the Grand Little Duchy of Tuscany. This was Senator, would repeat what published, ex- t under the pressure of some grave necessity, re- caring. that for ends of public yastion, the depravity of woman, as well as of man, should be made as public as ible. Such weighty reasons Gen. Cass sion to them. The first person whose this earth, was a woman, uaintance I made on ler pretensions were she was Ef | earliest friend, my visible, palpable guardian angel. me, it was as a ray from If she frowned disap- or total eclipse of the sun. Gratitude for all her kindness to me, lea and protest against any rash judgment de; ing to one of her sex, who has not the benetit of trial or self-defence. For this reason, as well as for others, Paradise shed on my heart. take the liberty ofsaying that I, for one, do not be- lieve the accusations of the London Times. That paper is the most powerful organ in the world of its own kind, either to destroy or build up any charac- verted capacities of the human intellect to elevate a just one; a false cause to an Souni witha true one; | such are the immense resources within its reach for rocuring, in regard to all causes, the very kind of | information from abroad which it desires, and such its gigantic powers in manipulating (if I can use the term) this terrible Anglo-Saxon tongue of ours, that the feat of destroying in the minds of its readers all distinction between right and wrong would be accomplished by the London Times. I do not say that it is more disposed to embrace a wrong cause instead of 2 right than any of its cotemporaries: I only suggest that its powers of maintaining a wrong cause are greater than theirs, and the temptations to do so will be graduated according to the scale of its powers. | It has been my pleasant duty when in Europe, at different times within the last fourteen or fifteen years, to defend, according to my feeble ability, not only our American institutions,but also our individual restored, such sovereign State having pledged statesmen, against the testimony of the London | the middle of the proceedings the following resolu- | itself to protect personal rights, ought to be Times. In its issue of February 7, 1842, it charges ; prepared to make such puny reparations as would be possible, with a view to vindicate its own charac- ter of rovereignty. Massachusetts has neither pro- | tected nor has’ she compensated. General Ga thinks that reparation should have been made. This shows the benevolence of his heart. But the outrage has been on record in the public annals of the coun- try and of the world for the last twenty years, and as I am aware, the secret of his kind sympathies to the poor Indies of Charlestown. Neither has any of the great men of Massachusetts, so far as has come | tomy knowledge, expressed publicly such sympa- thy jor them. Mr. Everett, or his great predecessor Mr. Webster, since the burning of the convent at Charlestown, has hardly been able to find himself in the Bunker Hill monument without having at the same time within the range of his vision the black walls and the ruins of Mount Benedict. | vague recollection that Mr. Everett did on one occa- sion many years ago, refer to the subject in language of regret, but if [am not mistaken in my memo- ry he alleged on that occasion that by fulse zeal been destroyed—thereby ignoring all distinction be- of its authority. it may be cnsily imagined with what greater | with my_ own principles of conviction in the a- Cass than points of di- nd | parently hostile views of Gen. A strange as it may | vergency or antogonism. app eur tosome, 1 am pers di een the distin; x veech, ‘ge portion of it is an assertion, or rather reite- jon of patriot nd liberal feelings with which ry true American is, as a matter of course, sup- ored to be imbued. Among his countrymen the Senator from Michigan has acquired an honorable eminence by his well known patriotism, benevo- lence of heart, zeal for the advancement of his country’s interests, and profound respect for reli- ‘ion, ail which have been generally acknowledged even General Cass had never before betrayed, 80 far | one of the latter with “ audacious unfairness of argu- | ment”—it charges that “to attempt to fight under false colors, to pervert and misrepresent with a kind | of bowing and scraping appearance of candor, is a characteristic of his composition.” It sneers at his | designating itself as a “‘high authority”—it does “not know whether most to admire at the eet of his misrepresentation or at the admirable cool- ness, the innocent, peaeamaay superiority with which he carries it off.’ In its issue of January 9th, 1846, it describes the same American statesman and his supporters as “the noisy demagogues of a fac- tion” —it hopes that “‘the republic of America is not sunk so low as to be driven into hostilities by such men as he.” In its issue of February 18, 1846, allu- sion is made to the same American statesman, a locality from which it would be possible to look on though his name is not mentioned, as “one who pan- ders to a sanguinary passion.” Now this American statesman is no other than Ihave a General Cass, And this is the testimony of his chosen witness against some unprotected female re- siding beyond the Pyrenées. If the authority is Vee against her, who can reject it as against the nator trom Michigan? 1 beg leave to reject it in- the convent had been raised, and by false zealithad dignantly as against both or either; but as it affects General Cass, he has cut himself off from the privi- tween acts loyally and honestly done in faith of pro- | lege of rejecting by having endorsed in the Senate of tection from the sovereignty of the State, and acts | the United States the testimony of a chosen witness, done in violation of the State’s laws and contempt | who has described his character in terms so little flattering. ‘The portions of General Cass’s speech with which pleasure’! shall be able to find points of agreement | Iam mest pleaved are his quotations from jurists, whether their names be In them there is no confusion of ideas, although Vattel complains of such confusion as beiug ove ot the diff. Puffendorf or Vattel. that there is n» | culties against which jurists aud publicists have to hed Senator aud | contend. Besides this, L could hardly desire bet: argumen*s to refute General Cass than he hims: has had the patience and industry to produce. Iftime pernitted, I should enjof asa pleasaut recreation | the privilege of aes the speech of the distin- guished Senator. I think it would be no difficult task by means of # critical distribution or rather classification of his arguments pro. and con.,to prove that the ill-digested parts of the complex subject which he had taken in hand, are on the whole so equally balanced, that if each could be logically ar- if not universally appreciated. His speech willbe ranged, under its own appropriate head, and either very much abridged if we put aside | said developing by implication these noble attri- | butes of his own eee feelings and character. Neither shall [ offer one word of spology for the real or supposed crimes insinuated in his speech | against foreign States, whether Catholic or Pro- | testant, for their want of decent hamanity | regarding the burial of the dead within their | limits. In all those States, I take it for grant- ed there are many things as well a3 this, which might be advantageously reformed. I would only observe, that Protestants sojourning in Catholic countries, can hardly claim privileges, which, if of- | fered in their own, they would not choose to ac- | cept. They do not believe in prayers for the dead, | and the attendance of Catholic clergymen at the | obsequies of the departed has invariable refereace | to that belief. Neither do they believe in what | Catholics call the consecration, by religious rites, of Catholic cemeteries. Hence, in their own coun- try they prefer to be interred in common ground not consecrated. reason for its being insisted on that they should be | buried in consecrated ground when they are abroad, that he has set off, acsording to its own weight and measure against its opposite, the several positions of this great production would be found so mutually effec- tive in their destruction of each other. that no oe tive result would remain, except that General Cass is, what everybody knows, a statesman of great be- nevolence, having a great respect for the American people, especially the majority. e Senator from Michigan maintains the suprem- acy of individual conscience, but he nallifies that su- premecy, according to his definition of conscience, by imiting the ya to follow its dictates,and subjecting that right to the prohibition of law, human or divine. Now if the conscience of the individual is supreme and the law of the land of any country is supreme also, which supremacy shall give way to the other? These are the premises laid down by General Cass, but unfortunately he has left the conclusions to be drawn from them, respectively to destroy or annihi- late each other. His idea of conscience fs not that it is a superior and indestructible, independent, moral 1 do not see, therefore, any eolid faculty inthe human soul,caabling every man to dis- tinguish and choose between what seems to him good and evil, but that couscience gives right to the indi- in Catholic countries, since the very idea of sucha vidual to act out or manifest in words or deeds thing never enters into their mind in their native laud. If the following exhibit a correct estimate of hat American Protestants believe Neath holics, one might infer that the former woul: have no desire to be interred among such pagans, either at home or ubroad:— THE PRESHYTERIANS V8. THE ROMAN CATHOLICS. The Presbyterian General Assembly, (new school,) sitting at Philadelphia, on Thursday, ad under consi deration a re Baptism.” ‘The report was read by ir. Hatfield. ‘The question submitted for the consideration of the commit- tee was as follows:— “Is the administration of what is denominatel bap- tism in the Roman Catholic Chureh to be recogaized as Christian ba ptism?”? ‘The committer eaid the dispensation of baptism by other than regular ordained ministers had been departed from by the Romish church. The committee concludes that the Romish church is no longer a church of Chri but a synagogue of Satan. The Pope is considered the anti-Clirist. The tendency of the Popish church is to establieh the power of the P'>pe in all parts of ths world, in opposition to the church and religion of Christ. Tho forms of the church of Rome were considered mamme- ties by the committee, The latter, in conclusion, aay+— (the ministers of the church of Home are By anihnr ines to administer the eacraments ordained by Chriat our Lord, in the gospel, and that the alministration of whet ix ‘cenominated ‘baptism in the Roman Catholic Chureh is not to be recognized as Christian baptism.” ‘The report was signed by Edwin F. Hatfield, D. D., and Sem]. H. Cox, the majority of the committee. Prof. Smith, the third member of the committee, aub. mitted a minority report, differing from the views of the majority, and taking the ground that Papal baptism is valid. ‘The arguments of the majority were reolied to 1n detail in the minority report. ‘The twinority dens im. politic to urge to extremity differences which will further ali-nate the Catholic from Protestaati+m The reports were accepted, and a debate ensued, upon a motion made by Dr. Waterbury, to adopt the re’ | port of the majority. At 12 e’elock, a motion ty indes- nitely postrone, negatived. ‘The Rev. Mr. Riley suomitted the following resolation ‘ran amendment to the motion to postpone the sub ject -— Resolved, That in view of the great diversity of opin- fon nnd of practice in the Presbyterian church, on the subject of Popish bapticm, and in view of previous action of the assembly, it will be inexpedient for the present as- sembly to take action in the case. R Rey. Dr. Brainbard opposed the adoption of the ma- jority report, ana hoped the matter would be left with ‘the con: « ences of those who wore to be benelitted ty it. Mr. To: /or, of Cleveland, durine a speech upon bap- tism, ste] Uhat if he was a mini e would teil his flock the whole truth, and that is, if they believed not upon the Lord Jesus Christ they would be damned. He did believe that baptism was essential to salvation ‘The debate was continued up to the hour of adjourn- ment.—V. VY. apres. for itself, | mast be permitted to say that Senator Cass has been ¢xceedingly infelicitous in one of the examples by which he would illustrate the hard- ships of American Protestants in Catholic countries in regard to this matter of Christian burial. He tells us of a Protestant who was atthe pointof both prevail in the same State. Then, if that be the death at Son Diego, and who was so anxious to be buried in 9 conseerated place of sepulture, that he consulted the American minister as to whether he plvwid Uvt mabe @ prylession of Catholicism with @ its interior dictates. On the other hand, he arms the civil authorities of all countries with the ac- knowledged right to contro! outward actions; so that | by confounding outward actions with conscience it- | self, he betrays and bands oyer that snered peiack. | ple to be judged of aud controlled by migistrates | | and civil governments. ort irom a special committee on ‘‘Popish oouutey, b Jhristi u His first ebulfition in favor | Of consctence is the proclamation that his purpose | is “not aw! to protect a Catholic in a Protestant | rotestant in a Catholic country, a Jew | in a jan country, bat an American in all countries.” General Cass professes to 8] and | | act in regard to this subject, on the ground of prin- | ciple. inciple is neither Catholic nor ant, Leaving the above specimen of liberality to speak | reignties are immediately in conflict, Which shall | when a man professes the American religion, which nor Jewish nor Christian—at which it has been employed by him. Principle, if | anything, is universal. And since General Cass has | attributed to what he calls an American, something | like a special prerogative, he ought to show some ands wh American, here classitied under the | head of religious denominations, should have any | special or exceptional preference. Four religious | denominations are mentioned, name! Catholic, Protestant, Jew and Christian. This nomenclature General € may explain. Its terms, theologically considered, are, at least, intelligible. But when he comes to rank an American as 4 representative of @ fifth sect, 1 really do not understand what he means. If an American, as such, has a right to protection in all countries, why not also a Enropean, an Asiatic, oran African? It -eems, according to him, that re- ligious denominations, in general, should be treated by condescension with kin iness in all countries; but t in the sense in | General Cass has not explained, such a man has a pre-eminent right to special protection everywhere —that whereever he appears in foreign lands the beet td of the State, in regard to all questions appertaining to religion, must fall back the moment he proclaims himself an American. And it shall be | understood that when he arrives on the shore of such | country, with a full measore of American atmos- | phere, American sunbeams, and American religion According to Mr. Cass, sufficient for his consumption doring the period of his through or sojourn- ing wea “ Ls ee shall have the right to | Say and do what he t proper, provided alwa, it be according to the dictates of Tid consctedee. is If this doctrine can obtain, several consequences | which Mr. Cass had tried to guard azainst in other | parts of his speech must necessarily follow. Every nation has the real or su element of sove- reignty within itgelf. Butt the rights of conscience | are supreme, and an American is to be protected | everywhere in acting out its dictates, then the sove- | reignty of such nation must give way to the sove- | reignty of his conscience. What then? Two eove- yield to the other? If the sovereignty of the State peed way to the sovereignty of the individual, rovided that individual be an American, then let foreign sovereign States hide their diminished heads, for it is obvious that two rival sovereignties cannot | ment did not attempt, and ca | this sup care, as the Senator seems to anticipate, let us pro- claim at once that all the nations of the earth tua that the evidence of the occasion are rospectively annexed to the United eaten | which to repeats tracts or public treaties it is a well known law that juires two or more parties to rae be within the recollection of General we had fixed a northwestern T a8 private con- party bad been obtained; and when the matter came toa bargain, we allowed the other any, to ‘our undefice our position, and to slide us off another two or three hundred miles chosen line to — of it. we been quite amused at the jaent denun- wicked pre! oO. ernments to control conscience, to aintcieor proseine to their his great opecch 1 Rave the pleasare to agree wick gre ve it him. It is probable, however, that he thought, ag many of bis readers will have thoucht, that he was denduneing Catholic principles. fact, however, is directly the reverse. The and the gov- ernments that fell under the real t of his cen- sure were of his own school. A bri ec of the condition of Europe, both previous to an the reformation, will make point clear. All the Btates of Europe had been Catholic. The eople of those States had but one religion. That religion was older than their civil govern- mente, ntly their civil governments never dictated to them what they should believe. And when Gen. Cass speaks of the arrogance and impiety of civil governments dictating to their ple what they shall believe, or what they shall not ‘lieve, he makes, without, perhaps, being aware of it, an exception in favor of Catholic governments, down, at least, to the period of the reformation. The civil laws of those countries were, in many re- spects, exclusive and intolerant. Bat, then, since all (for J might use the word all, though occasional ex- ceptions arose,) were of the same faith, and had no desire to change, the laws were snbstantially inno- cuous in the absence of objects on whom they “a be executed. Then came the reformation. e reformation resulted in the formation of States on the anti-Catholic or Protestant basis. In these the form of the new religion was determined on by the civil governments. I am not aware of a single Catholic State—except, perhaps, it be Spain—which has since passed any laws especially directed against Protestants. On the other hand,!I do not know asingle Protestant State in which the govern- | out by special laws, those very acts which Gene Cass so eloquently derounces. When General Cass finds jurists sus- | taining such pretended rights of the civil govern- ments, he may be sure that they do not belong tothe school of St. Thomas Aquinas, or Suarez, or the other great publicities that have been so numerous in the Catholic Church. of playing the tribune either towards their coun- trymen or their race. They were men wlio de- rived their principles of human law, of government, whether civil or ecclesiastical, from the same su- reme and eternal source. They flattered neither ings nor people. They feared God, and feared few besides. They were not the men who wrote of the divine right of kings. They held that government | is by divine right, but thatthe individual sovereign or ruler in such government is of human right. And if it had been possible for General Cass to have con- sulted their pages, he would have discovered that they maintained the rights and dignity of human poet from the highest to the lowest member of so- ciety. There is no difference between General Cass’s con- ception of conscience as a moral Cea and mine. He, however, betrays the rights and liberty of con- science, asI understand it, by identifying this mo- ral faculty with the outward actions which are sup- posed to manifest its dictates from within. Nocivil These were men who | never put on the ipiiloeopher's cloak with the view | government that ever existedhas or ever hadeither | the right or the power, physical or moral, to coerce or extinguish man’s conscience. It is beyond the reach of government. They might as well attempt to pass laws regulating the exercise of memory, as | regulating the decisions of man’s conscience. ‘This freedom of conscience, however, General Cass has _ identified with outward action, and on the other hand, by recognizing the a of civil government to control the outward actions of men, he has be- Taree conscience into the hands of the magistrate. Alfhuman law has for objects either persons or things, or acts; and beyond these human legislation | cannot go. Conscience, according to my distinction, does not come within the reach of law, but as un- derstood and represented by General Cass, he hands it over into the domain of civil government, and coniounds it with sobs over which that govern- ment has acknowled; rights and legitimate pow- er of interference. 1am ind. therefore to vindi- cate the liberty of conscience in reply to the dan- gerous doctrines of General Cass. When the early Christians appealed to the Roman Emperors through the Apologus of their Justins aud Turtullions, pleading tor liberty of conscience, they did not thereby claim the right to do all the giod in outward actions which their consciences would have approved. They™pleaded that they might not be compelled to do any act which the law of God and the law of their consciences had forbidden. At one time, for instance, some glorious con‘esror of the Christian name was called upon by the civil magistrate to offer sacrifice to the ee is. He refused, because he had a higher law in his conscience. What then’ He was put to death—he became a martyr. At ancther time, some tender Christian virgin was required to sacri- fice her chastity—she refused, and was sent to the wild beusts. in some instances, indeed, torture caused the Christian to fail, and to obey men rather than God. But in all this, which is an extreme case, had the whole sti jh of the Roman empire power to destroy the “rights of conscience,” ths “liberty of conscience,” the “freedom of :onscience” in the heart of either of these glorious martyrs, or ed apostate? Aassuredly not. General Cass thinks that if the ‘‘sentient ing” is exposed to physical sufferings, the freedom of conscience is in great danger, if not absolutely lost. Every one knows that this is an erroneous position. It is only when human weakness yields to suffering in suc! circumstances, that couscience asserts her highest purer The individual feels himself degrade1 in is own estimation. Conscience told him, at the mement of his yielding t) a sinful compliance, meking his declaration contrary to hers, that he was a base hypocrite; and that same conscience did not fail to vindicate the sovereignty by her con- tinued frowns and reproaches. General Cass bas not taken the pains to distin- guish the whole office of conscience. It may be ex- pressed in brief words: The whole duty of man is to“ avoid evil and to do good.” Now, although evil and good are relative terms, and not judged of at all times and in all places by the same standard, nevertheless, conscience is the faculty whereby the evn to a tan. He cannot do out sinning. oftnding God, and offending his own conscience. Anothe¥ thing may appear , and there is no obligation on him to do it, even though his con- science approve, unless the circumstances warrant its performance. The decalogue says, ‘‘ Honor thy father and thy mother.” This is an affirmative cept, which requires that, at proper times, an roper circumstances, we shail honor our parents, ut does not require that we should be always thus occupied. “ Thou shalt not steal.” This is a nega- tive precept, and there is no time, or place, or cir- cumstance in which it is lawful for us to steal. So, in the crder of negative precepts, a man may not do w thout sin any act which the voice of his conscience tells bim is wrong. He may, indeed, haye an crionecus conscience, and be mistaken as to the intrirsic morality of the act; but still, until his conscience shall have been enlightened, or, as Gererat Cass expresses it, “improved,” he must abire by its dictates, and avoid doing what it has ruled to be unlawful. Hence, if any Protestant, Anericen or not, who, travelling or sojourning in a Catholic State, should be called upon by the civil power to make a declaration or to do an act which his conscience condemns, he cannot br Let us suppose him to be required toawear that he believes in the Pope’s supremacy. Being a Protestant, his conscience will oblige him to refase. And if, in coneequence of this refusal, physical tor- ture be applicd, one of two things will happen—that he will suiier the torture and be loyal to conscience, or that be will betray conscience Lehrman 3 toa lie. If anything of this kind should be attempted in a Catholic couutry, or any act required which an; American's conscience lemned, General Cass will find me ready to vote for the employment of the American army and navy to punish that nation which would impiously dare to commit so unlawfal an outrage. Not because the man’s conscience had been violated, for that is impossible, but because the law of such country would have — beyond the boundaries of all human law, since these relate not to the faculties of the human soul, but to outwar. per- sons, things and acts. And as the person here sup- osed would have done no act bringing him under she law, his right of person would have been violat- ed, and it would become lawful for his country to inflict condign punishment on the nation or parties 80 violating it. But, while no civil government immoral act, it does not by avy means follow that governments are bound to it a man to a:t out- wardly what his conscience tells him is good. Inthe ore case his consvience decides for himselfalore; in the other care its dictates would promot him to de- cide for others, by doing what he supposes ood, whether it be suitable for others or n Here ci have @ 5 naw ane oy ‘Let us Fee ebout that.’ y have a rig! to refer to their lows as a rule for personal conduct. Ii the hy dividual stil! imagines his conscience req tires L.mtodo some act forbidden by the law, bur yet | ways capers upon its substantia) distinction {s made, A my orally Sea ; is PRs pr rf ‘ ghove olf earthly, powers Fle ae mon a one, science forthe individual, him do an evil act, and conscience dictating to Se or wie way thtak goods regard to , wherever he may find himself. be ol ciple wake Conant Aue Saneirennee ae ns of inaivianst zeal would become very ne ent. If a Mor- pen to be a Millerite, visiting Rome, it shall be privilege to pitch his tent in front of St. Peter's church, then and there, under the protection of Genera] Cass’s doctrine, to speak and act according to the dictates of his conscience. He will undertake to prove that the end of the world is at hand; and by applying ‘‘figures, which never lie,” to the ‘Book of Daniel, and to Revelations, and elucidating the subject still more by exhibiting Gime ings of the big horn and the little horns, with vari- ous references to the number of the beast, descrij tive of Anti-Christ, prove clearly that his doctrine right. In the meantime, it might happen that this supposed Anti-Christ, the Pope, would be | down from some window of the Vatican, unable to interfere lest his government should be understood as violating the ghts of American conscience a§ eneral Cass, 1pm not unmindful that General Cass has ascribed very high powers, anu, n my judgment, extrava- gant powers, to human governments, in a supposed ed of theirs to judge what is conscience and what is not. And in this he betra; the faculty of conscience as understood “It is not,” he says, ‘‘e vagary of the ination, nor every ebullition of feeling, nor a impulse of the ions, however honest the motive may be which can lay claim tothe rights of conscience.” Agiion “the humble legislator has the right to sepa- rate presumptions or unfounded pret ions at war with the just constitution of society, from conscien- tious dictates regulated and o; with- n their just ee ee Genoral takes away rom individual conscience the very rights whicl. he had claimed for it elsewhere, and he refers to the le- gislator, because he is a legislator, to determine whether a doctrine held by the conscience of a man is to be regarded as a of the imagination, or is consistent with thejust constitution of society. In other parts his position is, that there is no lord or fudge of aman’s conscience but God and the man imself. However, I find such mutual contradiction in the phrases of General Cass, as he touches now on one topic and now on another, that it may become necessary for me hereafter to examine his speech more in specific detail. As it is now spread out be- fore me in thirteen or fourteen columns of the Wash- ington Globe, its dimensions horizontally considered in the order of length and breadth, become abso- lately appalling. Its depth is by no means frightful —a child could wade through it. Its other dimen- sions would be its height, and in that sense it may be my duty to analyze this immense mountain of words; and if in song so { shall discover the smallest mound of sound logic, practical common sense or philosophical statesmanship, General Cass shall have the benefit of the discovery. I cannot,how- ever, close this communication, already too long, without raat | as in proof of my ition, to one of the historical illustrations adduced by Gen. Cass in support of his. He refers to epochs in the civil wars that resulted from the reformation in Germany and in France. And because the word liberty of conscience is said to have been granted to the Protestants in both countries by pheteresneaaye sovereigns, General Cass seems to think that my idea of liberty of con- science is refuted by its bavi been granted in trea- ties, according to General Cass’s quotation from “Universal History, Vol. 26, p. 303.” I am quite surprised that this very reference did not tend to clear up the confusion of ideas which prevails on the subject. The Protestants in Germany and the Hnguenots in France had freedom of conscience from the very beginning of their history. It was in tife exercise of that freedom that they left the Catho- lic church and became Protestants. General Cass willnot deny this—that freedom of conscience the; had f keg through all the civil wars which end- ed, for the time being, in the truce referred to by him. It was in the exercise of that freedom of con- science which was theirs, that they had taken up arms; and if it had been theirs during all this time, how can General Cass = it was only i fee to them by the sovereign in 1532 and in 15617 He knows the profound, but apparently simple maxim in law, Qucd meum est, amplius meum esse, non it y—— what is mine, cannot become more mine. For many years freedom of conscience was theirs already, and according to this maxim could not become more theirs. Now, if it was theirs already, I would ask with great respect for General Cass and “Universal History,” how could it become more theirs by the grant of others? Consequently General Cass and “ Umversal History” must mean something else than freedom of conscience. It must mean that they should be allowed to retain whatever advantage, ther of property or power, civil and religious, which they had secured during the progress of the dispute. Between the outward exercise of their freedom of conscience, against the laws of the State, and the pretensions of the State sovereignty to pre- serve order, the freedom of conscience was the pre- text on one side, the sovereignty of the State was the plea on the other. And this granting a liberty of conscience, referred to by Generv! Cass, reminds me of the alms given by a traveller, as mentioned in Gil Blas, to a poor man who had asked him for cha- rity in a very piteous tone, but who had his musket levelled at the same time. General Cass will no doubt criticise the comparison, as he has done other figurative language in my poor letter. So experi- enced an orator must cebu know that the value of a comparison is its suggestive property, which ee nt, but circumstantial difference as regards the thing to be illustrated. Omnis comparatis claudicat. General Cass must arin aware that the figure of an egg is not a comparison suited to the description of ano- ther egg, they are both so much alike; that to ae: ing gest the idea of a piece of chalk by coi with another piece of chalk, would” be entirely out of the rules of rhetoric. General Cass has taken ad- vantage of this even for the pu of argument, when ue assumed that Decates f spoke of the de- straction of property, whether in Boston or in Phila- delphia, as a violation of the rights of conscience in regard to those t whom such Property be- longed, I am to be understood literally, and there- fore as recognizing that conscience can be violated through the medium of outward violence. I did not mean any such thing. No outward violence can reach that fortress in the human soul, to which conscience can always retreat, and from which she can laugh to scorn the attempts of mento invade her stronghold. I do not admit that from the beginnin; the world up to this day there ever has been a violation of the rights, freedom, liberty, or divine sovereignty of the human conscience. ‘That is the portion of his nature which God placed beyond the reach of human power. His civil rights might be taken away, his property confiscated, his reputation rendered infamous, the life of his body sacrificed at the stake, or given to w.ld beasts at the ‘olisevm,; but the sovereignty of his conscience never in a single jn- stance been vanqiie.ca *Y the cruelty or injastice of his fellow beings. When, therefore, General Casa takes advantage of my using language in reference ‘to this subject, such as that the rights of conscience had been violated in Charlestown or in Philadelphia, he forgets that there is among men an order of lan- guage appropriate to the science of any subject, and another which accommodates itself to the confusion of ideas in the pom mind. Persons who per- fectly understand our solar system do not hesitate to speak of the rising and setting of the sun, at the | sume time that they, in a scientific point of view, would maintain that neither phenomenon ever oc- curs; that in reality the sun ig the centre of our em, and that all the planets, the earth included, rising and setting and revolving around the ccntre. “ J stated at the commencement of this reply that the necessity of finding myself in an apparent colli- sion with so distinguished aman as General Cass was less of a pride than of a humiliation. The cir- cumstances under which my letter was written have been referred to in the foregoing part of this com- munication. I never dreamed that that letter would attract the special attention of any one. It turned out otherwise, however. If General Cass had intimated to me, in any private manner, that there was one word in it disrespectfal to himself, I should have immediately, in the same manner, re- lied in vindication or in apology. If, on the other hand, he had signified to me, twelve or fourteen months ago, that he intended to make my letter the ound-work or m of his great speech, I Should have been with = materials to reply to it far more effectively than it has been pos- sible for me to do amidst incessant interruptions, and within the limited period that has been allowed me since his oration in the Senate. As it is, how- ever, I stand by my letter, and I shrink not from the explosion of the great mortar, which it has taken this experienced gunner so long a period to charge, as if he intended that it should not only kill my little sparrow of a letter, but also that it shonld frighten away all the birds of the neighborhood. I find my little nycticoraxy in domicilio not only chirping, but without a single featheret of its wing ruffled. ‘This letter is already too long, and I hope I may be pardoned if I make a few general remarks, bear- corm mere | ing more or less directly on the circumstances has a right to require that a man shall de asiafal or whic h directed it. The first remark is, that in this country, at least, no man is Ary in conse- quence of his religious belief, so long as he sabmits legally to the constitution and laws ip bey it is governed. And yet I regret to say that man of our citizens are hardly sati with is equal and common privilege, unless there be fur- nithed them, from time to time, occasions on which | they may giveevent to that lamentable intolerance which jurks in human nature everywhere, no less than in human governments in Ey , Asia, Afri- ca and America. How tame would be the proceed- ings of euch meetings as that, for purposes of aym- & Ei cor , thinks it would be the local laws were not violated; but rane ‘or my own » 1 think that as we Mave established mn at home, which, in our circu stances, I as & great benefit, so it might as well with us to deal with other nations pradent and modestly, just as we find them, until, little little, influenced by our beautiful th will be induced to imitate it. The of United States are too well qualified to duties for which they were elected to require slightest su; an, Tetras citi: as y should Parner to the mi ter which General Cass has ight before the He has Sypuesied to his fellow Senators that Lp nounced tl algerie a This was a mistakj I spoke of him alone, and of no other member ogress. If f tet be allowed to express an opinion, as humble ¢ » conscious of loyalty to the consti tion, obedience to the laws, for, and ben volence towards all my fellow citizens, without d tinction of creed, to give expression to my own se timents, I should sum them up not as re; h special topic, but as regards the general country, in a very few words. I ee i h the power, almost prepotency of the United Sts is admitted and acknowledged wherever I ha travelled in Europe, there is still a prevalent ide abroad that this greatness is rather detracted frot by acertain tone of self-complacency and of co temptuous reference towards other States. Th say that we are too great to stand in need of boas} ing—that we are too ahaa ap and too rich; to b under the necessity of acquiring a right to prope by fraudulent means. I do not pretend t udgi how far these epee are correct, but, for m own part, I would say that the honor and dignity q this great free nation are likely to be best and mo permanently sustained by ing to a princ which is ascribed to as true an American as eve lived, namely—We ask for nothing that is no strictly right, and will submit to nothing that wrong. . its ht Beane, rchbisho; lew York, New York, June 5, 1854, i New Patents Issued. * List of patents issued from the United Stat Patent Office, for the week ending June 6, 18 each that date :— Brown 8. Wood, of Buriville, R. I—For impro ment in knitting machines. Robert Waddell, of d.—For impro in balancing slide valves of steam engines, in rere be ip 27, 1853. A. H. Rauch, of , Pa.—For improve ment in machines for washing bottles. Charles F. Brown, of Warren, R. I.—For impro ment in instruments for taking deep sea sound Jos. de Palm, of New York, N. Y—For im ment in brick pottery kilns. Patented in Engl July 13, 1852; im France, August 13, 1852; in H land and gg, a September 15, 1852. Henry R. bell, of Lebanon, N. H.—For ii provement in the combination of a railroad t1 und wheels, Samuel McCormick, of Dublin, Ireland—For provement in ene the thread upon screw b Putented in England, March 22, 1853. Donald Taylor, of East Boston, Mass.—For kneel former. Henry Allen, of Norwich, Conn.—For impro machine for dressin; wag Gg, timber. Wn. Ballard, of New York, N. Y—For ment in bent timbers for ship frames.© Whitman Price, of Goldsborough, N. C.—For provement in cultivators. i Jared Pratt, of Taunton, Mass.—For impro \ in making seamless metal tubes. ‘Wn. W. Hill, of Greenport, N. ¥—For ment of dampers in rotary stoves. ‘Walter Westrup, of Wapping, England —For i bss waged in grain mills. Patented in sland jan 22, 1850. Math: nces. W. A. Flanders, of Sharon, Vt.—For moth killer, Ross Dugan, of New York, N. Y.—For improved| machine for cleaning and watering streets. Edward and James M. Wesel Lancaster, Pa.— For improvement in _—— Us.” ‘Smith Beers, of Naugatack, Conn.—For improved] may FA Went, iam proved device for operating cutter-heads of p bie Alfred Brady, of New York, N. gerne iy, 2 os , N. Y.—For improve-| ‘oah_ W. Speers, of Cincinnati, Ohio—For im- 3 Samer ke Whiosks of Boston, Mass—For improv-| le, , ed mechanism foro ati ps. ig Samuel H. Dudley, of Milton, Conn.—For im- provement in road scrapers. Edward P. Day, of New York, N. Y—For im- vement in machines to print subscribers names, Francis M- English, of Hopkinsville, Ky—For Spear ara icles, oma of a— edlubritator, | . Alexander B. Latta, of Cincinnati, Ohio—For t in geni rles F. Martine, of Boston, Mass—For im- provement {n sofa bedsteads. r Hymen L. Lipman, of Philadelphia, Pa—For im- proved eyelet machine. ‘lijah Phelps, of Hendersonville, Ill_—For im- provement in excavators. Wm. B. Johnson, of Staunton, Va—For improve- mipatrick Clgk, of Rahway, N. J—F improved . way, N. J.—For water level indicator for mam boilers, Deo. ‘Thos. and Saml. Champion, of Washi: —Waltmes Devnet Morgantown, Va.—For y near) a] im| wuts week Vietaee r ohn Sheffield, of Paltneyville, N. ¥-—For im provement in apparatus for saws. Robt. H. ta New York, N.Y.—Forimprove- ment in es anal gamators. t Isnac R. Shank, of Buffalo, Va—For improved ath machine. David Russell, of Drewersburg, Ind.—For improv- ed method of operating sawmill blocks. bean C. Clark, of Worcester, Mass.—For im- prove ie. Thos. Crossley, of Boston, Mass.—For improve- mv. Gano, of Black Tock, N. Y.—For cleaning Ym. in, oO \C) |. Y.—For bolts of flouring mills, 4 Edward Hai , of New Haven, Conn.—For im- provement in grinding mills. Jordon L. Mott, of New York, N.Y—For improve- ment in ig car upon axles, Edwin J. Green, of Cedarviile, N. ¥Y.—For im- ie Levi Dederick, of Albany, N. Y—For improve- ment in hay presses. das. J. 5A ory of be no oa James V. Can- nin, » " improvement ia ware. . Reed, of Mount Vernon, 0., and P.U; Satie were rx For improvement , of Rochester, N. Y., assigaor to Sam- a b4. place—For improvement im dry- oa, Wallace and Henry Bachreister (the latter now deceased), of Philadelphia, Pa.—For improved blowing fart. Dennis Donnovan, for himeelf, and as adminis trator of Witchell @. Hallman, deceased, now, and late of Philadelphia county, Pa., astignor to H. J. White, of Philadelphia, P'a.—For improvement in cooking range. Sr tern of Essen, Prnasia.—For improve- Alfred Krupp, ment in car and other wheel tires. A painfol accident ocenrred at Sing Si o Thursday last The wife, som, ana caughter of Dr. |, who re- side near that village, were thrown out of « carriage. ingly brui-ed—co seriously, ——. of De. that there is little hose of her recovery, The were less seriously hurt. Dr, Bacon is a Leonard Pacon, of New Haven.