The New York Herald Newspaper, May 17, 1875, Page 3

NEW YORK HERALD, MONDAY, MAY 17, 1875.—TRIPLE HEET, MECKLENBURG. Forcible Statements Concerning the “Original” Declaration. Charles R. Jones, of Charlotte, Reasons in Favor of the 20th. WELLING’S The President of Columbian University Be- | lieves Only in the Later “Resolves.” DR. STATEMENT. How the North Carolinians May | Have Been Deceived. | ©. RB. JONES’ ARGUMENT. i CHaRLorTe, N. C., May 7, 1875. To THe Epiror oF TAR HERALD :— I take pleasure in availing myself of the oppor- tunity afforded me, and through me to my peopie, of oftering some thonghts touching the validity of whe Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, which took place in the town of Charlotte, on the | 20th day of May, 1775, within a stone's throw of | the place in which {now write. Born and reared among the traditions of the past huncred years, 1t would, indeed, be treason to deny that such a declaration was made, and that, too, at the time | stated above, From that time to the present the | universal belief, with a few isolated exceptions, Is that Colonel Thomas Volk, then colonel of the militia of the county of Mecklenburg, called a couvention of the people of the county, in consequence of the generally disturbed condition 0! society, occastoned by the oppressions of the mother country, by and through the illegal exactions of the officers of the Britisn Urown, That Convention assembled in Charlotte on the 19% day Of May, 1775, and so great was the feeling on the part of the participators in the proceedings oi the Vouvention that the session was prolonged ‘unril the morning of the 20th, Later im the even- ing of the 19th an express messenger arrived with information of the battie of Lexington, Mass., bringing Intelligence that BLOOD HAD BEEN SPILT mm defence of American freedoin just one month before, and, 80 great was the feeling ol sympathy on the part of the actors of that immortal occa- sion, that those who had refraimed from actually committing themselves to an open declaration of indepenience no longer hesitated, but at once coimcided with such men as Dr. Ephraim Brevard. This is ail we claim, except that immediately alter that event, and long prior to the Declaration of Independence, which occurred at Philadelphia du 1776, ihe citizens of Mecklenburg county took wieps to put themselves on a war footing and made good their bold Declaration by taking an active and memorable part in the seven years’ struggle jor independence which followed the gen- €ral Geclarauon of war on the part of tne United Colonies, “ The citizens of the State of North Car: “na are making considerable preparations to } celebrate such an importaut epoch in the ar. pl their history on the occasion of the Centenp uwpniversary, which takes piace on the 20th iust., and it is due to us and the words of truth to say, that while there may be some who Goubt the gen- uineness of the Declaration, there exists no disbelief among our people, Inasmuch as there have been at different periods since 1820 occasional discussions a8 to the authenticity of the Meck- Jenburg Dectaration, it may not be out of place lor me to notice in extenso some of the arguments which have been brought forward to order that they tnay be properly aud duly answered wo the @alimaction of wiuy unprejudiced mind, WILEN THE DOUBTS AROSE. The first time the authenticity of this Deciara- ion was ever Couoted Was 1n 181% Ja that year, as a matter of information and interest, some Massachiusetcs paper—tue 5 think—pub- haved Declaration, with an intimation the part oi the ediror & believea it fo be genuine. respoudence with Mr. warded that gentleman @ copy of the paper con- taining the Leciaration, at tae same time stating ‘oat le (Mr. Adams) velleved it to be genuine, jn Mr. Jefferson’ reply treated the whole matter a8 an “unjustifiavle quiz.’’ ‘ne pudiication of this letter at thar time created considerable excitement in North Carolina, particularly among the descendants of he patriots ef the Revolution then living in Mecklenburg county, and measures were taken by the Legislature of North Carolina (asit had become a State matter) to coliect and arrange the documents relative to the Meckienourg Dec- Jaration, which were publisned in 1841, and by these und other publications which have subse- quently appeared, the authenticity of the Declara- oD is estabiisued beyond cavil or douvt. It is unnecessary jor at this late day, to calumniate the character of Mr. Jefferson, rest- ing @ 1% Goes on a more solid and enduring foundation than the simple writing of the Ameri- can Deciaration of independence at Philadelphia, but at the same time it ls both necessary and proper for us to vindicate and defend tue honors ‘whicn justly aod truly belong to MECKLENBURG AND HER SONS, At the time of whicn we write nearl, ceptury had passed since the veciaration made. Mr. Jedferson, from being a prominent mewber of the Contivental Congress, had gone on step by Sep im the path of fame, until he had reached, so to speak, the acme of human great- 88. io bave acknowledged that he had copied any portion Of bis immortal Declaration, wich was so solemnly aud formally adopted and signed | et rhiladelpnia on the 40 aay of July, 1776, ‘rom a set of “resolves”! adopted thirteen months belore by te patriots (who Were mostiy farmers, and mea then anknown to fame), of Meckienourg, oud ve to Top at least one Jewel from the dia- if a wem ‘bat had b awarded bim by the whoie American people. He accordingly denounced the whole thing as 8 “hoax,” and did what he could to make other peopie as incredulous as he nimseif was; but such un abundant array of evidence was presented as to nO longet leave any doubt about the whole mat- ter, 50 great was the feeling that im 1845 an im- mense celebration was held in Chariott din the processioD which took piace were not jess than seventy-ive old men, none of them iess than sev- enty-five each of mie “on a a ie tion. here Were living, trat contradicted, and men whose words could be contradicted, giving plain, unmistakable evidence, Wwuich could not be set aside. In addition to these witnesses, | may stace that (he common tradicdons the whole couniry sustain the ot of May Dec- on. THESE ARE FACTS which bave come down to us un ihe pages of his wry, Which are a3 \road as the earth itsel), which, When proof is demanded, are not suscepti- vie Of demousiration. Dr, Whately Wrote @ wook to prove that BO sucu person Bonaparte ever existed, aud Mr. Jer 2 bimseif dousted the existence of Jesus Ch and yer can any sane mind deny the exisience of either, not Making any refereace to tae religious beef neld by many op this subject. 1am not able at This day to produce stronger testimony than the traduous of & hundred years, among an inteiit- gent people, and ao stronger proofs should ve eatled ior, A part of the evidence which we arc avie tO submit, in addition to the cloud of testi- mony which caa be obtained, is the despatcn of Govervor Marun te lis government, in which he aeclares that “tm Tesoives of the peopie styung themselves ® committee for tne county of Mecklenburg, Most traitorously deciaring ue entire dissolution of the laws, government constitution of this country, setting up a fystom of ruie and reguiation repugnant to the iaWs and subversive of His Majesty’s goverument,’’ ‘qoally positive should be tae fact that on the tombstone of the Rey. Hezekiah J, Balch, oue of the signers of the Mecklenburg eciaration, at Poplar Tent churchyard, utar this piace, is in- scribed that be Was @ memoer of tast glorious bond thas Met at Charlotce om the woth aay of May, 1775, amd declared independence. Also the Ustoue of Rev, Humphrey Huater, buried at et @, Which bears the same in- ons people who {re- i to pay sueir devo- as to the weity ever presumed to doubt that fuese silent metmoriais were anytiing vut tue 1rUtQ, the who trata and nothmg bus the truth. ‘To Suppose anything eis@ would stamp their mem~ #F), dear to the peopiv Of the State, witu imfamy Bid “isgrace, t WHERE 18 THE ORIGINAL? There are thoas wio will be reaiy toexclaim, tho Declaration took place as 18 DOW asserted, tae original copy has not been pre- Tradition iniorms us that there were & reries of Writings held by the citizens oi the coun- Napoleon ty both anterior ana subsequent to the 20th of May, 4nd some bave even claimed that a set of res lutions, adopied on the Sist of May of the fuioe year, and Watch Were more conciliatory ia | returued, Weir Chpiacter bieu thyse denouuged by Governor Martin, was the only declaration ever made. In answer to the query 1 will state that the Secre- tary, John McKnitt Alexander, kept the oniy record of the proceedi which were known to be in existence in 1800, and that in April of that ed his mansion was destroyed by fire, and the ook containing the important Cede aye Was a burned, ‘The Declaration was prin the Cape Fear Mercury, one of the two papers then published im North Carolina, @ copy of which was sent to his government by Goveruvor Martin on the 30th of June of the same year, then a reiugee on One DI His Majesty’s ships | Of war in the Lower Cape Kear, and denounced by bim as avove quoted, Ia the year 1803 Colonel Jonn H, Wheeler, North Carolina’s most abie ms- torian, visited London, carrying with bim a lotier of introduction from the Hon, Z. B, Vance, then Governor of North Carolina, to the Hon, James Mason, then Commissioner of the Confederate | States'in England, with a view of gatnering up sucu evidence as might be attainable in regard to the coiomial history of North Carolina, He founa Many documents relating to the early history of Norch Carolina, both as @ colouy and as @ State, of Which he took copies, with a view of publisnin, them in a second editton of his ‘Historica! Sketches of North Carolina.” He found the cespaten of Governor Martin relating Ww the Declaration, but the copy of tne Cape Fear serevry, which waa said contained the Declaration referred to, was not | to be found, and 18 absence left room to douot either that it never existed or that it did not con- Lain the Declaration, a8 claimed by our people, A noie in pencil staied that it nad been taken out of the oillvce by Governor Audrew Stevenson, of Kentucky, then Minister of the United States to the Court 01 St. James, and thatit had never been Upon tue reiurn of Colonel Wheeler to the United States he addressed a letter to the Hon, Joho W, Stevenson, now United States Seua- tor irom Kentucky, and the son of the gendeman referred to, iniorming him that the missing paper had been lost and requesting his ald tp fluding it iit should be among any of his fatner’s papers, Mr. Stevenson ansWered that after due and dili- gent search among his Jather’s papers (his father being deau) the missing copy of the Cape Fear wercur'y could not be found, but that despatches and otier memoranda had Leen found which In- dicated that the paper had been in the possession of bis fata THE LOST LINK. Bad this little newspaper slip been found either in abe pr s810n Of the British Historical Society or in the hands of Mr. Stevensou or his heirs there would have been Mo poxssivle grounds ior any controversy or bad not the original copy, ta possession of Mr, Alexander, the secretary of the meeting, been destroyed, Mr. Goodloe and other doubters would not have come to the front with their peculiar and unnatural arguments to deny the Mecklenburg Declaration of the 2uth of May. But alter all the effort to obtain this paper ana the failure to do #0, in its absence we naturally inquire lor other evidence, aud we curn to that unerring tradition which can be substantiated in @ hundred families in the couaty of Mecklenourg to-day. Does the world doupt that Julius Cesar lived, and yet wuo could prove It to tne satisfac tion of a court of justice? Meckienburg tas pr duced two Presiuents of the United State: Andrew Jackson and James K, Polk, bota men of learning and emiuence, and both of woom in their lives gave unfesitating belief In the Declaration of Independence which was de- cared at Charlotte on the 20th May, 1775, and yet the existence of a few court records, land deeds, &c., Walch may be destroyed vy tire wituin the next twenty-four hours, are the only evidence, jegal of course, that We have that they ever formed part o! our community, and, with these pa- pers destroyed, a huudred years hence the world might safely doubt that either"gentieman ever lived at all, 1 may conclude this letter by saying that what- ever doubts may eXist on the part of the world at large in regard to tae Declaration which we claim, there ¢xisis none whatever on the part of the peo- ple of Mecklenburg, and although there is no substantial grounds Jor disbelief, in the name of my pegpie [thank the HeRaLp, tne greatest news paper Of the age, for its effort to unveil the truth of history, however obscure 1& may appear, satisfied a3 fam that the people of Mecklenburg, we descendants of the patriots of the Revolution, have mothing to iear irom the closest investigation into the trath or falsity of ourciaims, The name of Mecklenburg will ever adorn the pages Of tue history of our great coun- uy. Her acuon in the days of 76 was all that her most loving son to-day would have desired, But that is not enough; she sent forth her sons im the War O! 1812 a8 Wéil as in the days o1 the Revolution ia auswer vo ber country’s Call; and again in the war with Mexico there Were no truer defenders of the Stars and Stripes tham the sons of Meckien- ourg, and last, though not least, when the tecsin ‘ng throughout this country im 1861 the ‘riotte. ‘‘ilornets” made one company we first regiment which met the »% “Bethel,” the troops on the ‘ Conlewete 4 side being commanded vy General D. H. Hill, a citizen of Charlotte, and of the 116,900 troops from tnis State who went to the front un- der Lee, in the furiner struggle of that bitter cou- test—who met McDowell a¢ Manassas and Bui Rap and who surrendered to Grant at Appou tox four years later—Mecklenburg (urnisied con- siderably more tian her quota; and, knowing them asl do, | bave no hesitation im saying that they would be just as quick to answer a cal! of the government to-aay as they were iD 1776, 1 1512, i0 1846 oF in 1861, Pardon ine for thts digression from the main subject, and allow me only to add that the time as my command will pot allow me to coliate such asimignt be able todo vad i time; bat [ Will take pleasure tn referring you and your read- ers co ‘Jones’ Deience of Nor Skecches ot North Carolina,” Sketches of North Memos," Revolution, ' tien. lam, very respectiully, your obedient servan:, CHARLES kt, JO) WELLING'S LETTER. WASHINGTON, May 10, 1875. To rae Epivor OF THE HERALD:— 1 have the honor to acknowledge the recep- tion of your note, in which you ask me to prepare @ popular exposition of the “Declaration of Inde- J. pendence” purporting to have been adopted ana | promulgated by a portion of the people of Mecklep- burg county, in the State of North Carolina, on the | 20th of May, 1775. For the courtesy you have done me in this ap- plication I ani, it is presumed, indebted to the fact lication on this topic im the coiumns of the Na, | tonal Intelligencer, I have taken an bumble part in the historical controversy which bas so long | been wagea over this document, with regard alike to the genuineness of its authorship and the au- thenticity of its contents, As lnave been led by my investigations to con- trovert the traditional and pupular optmons heid in North Carolina on this topic it gives me pleasure to state that I have found nothing in these investigations which seems in the slightest degree to detract from the exalted patriotism of the Mecklenburg wortnies of 1775 or lower the Pious veneration in which they are weld vy their | descendants ofthe present day. On the coutrary, I suppose that the views which I have been com- pelled to adopt, in common with more learned historical critics, such as Mr. Baucrofy and the late Peter Force, are the only views which can be made consisteut with a loyal and intelligent ad- miration of the Mecklenburg heroes, as they are believed to be the only views which can stand the | ultimate scrutiny Of an impartial mind when a the facts of the case are put in erecora, [ attach the more importance to this statement, which I piace at the very threshold of my commu- nication, because I am unwilling to have it sup- posed, even for & moment, that | have proposed to myself the shallow pleasures of the mere icono- class im undertaking the work of research upon this question, and in snbsequentiy maxing public the results of that researcn. it is noped that even the cursory view to whica [ must be re- stricted im the present discussion will suffice to show that im vindicating the truth of history in | this matter It Is not necessary, in tne least degree, to detract from the hereditary renown ard pre- eminent patriotism of the stalwart and enlight- ened men who adorned the annals of Mecklenoarg county during the Revolutionary era, Certain it is that 1 provess myseit to be their fervent admires, | and in humbly wiping from their tombstones the lichens and moss of more than half # century [ confess as well to the reverent homage as to the painstaking zeal of an Vid Mortality. if the false Rimbus which has gathered around their brows from the mists of @local tradition must needs be dissipated it is that we may the betier adorn their venerable heads with an aureole oi brighter splendor and purer | e. The fame of these Hlustrious patriots has nothing to fear except from the indiscretion of those who prefer to view them through the distortions of jabie rather than in the “dry light of truth.” GOING BENEATH THE SURFacr, What is popularly known as the “Mecklenborg Declaration of Independence” was first published to the world in. the Raleign Register of April 30, 1819. The document, as then published, purported to be “a trae copy uf the papers” left on this sud- ject tn the Bands Of nis son of Joon McK nitt Alex- ander, au infuential citizen of Mecklenburg county, Who died In the year 1817. fis son, Dr. J McKaitt Alexander, in giving publicity to tne document, accompanied it with the following certificate :— ‘The foregoing is a true copy of the eubject, lettin my mands by Joho decease: book w aperson the above Knit Alexander, find it mentioned on file that the origina burned Apri! 1800; that 4 copy of the proceca- jogs yas Hen) oy Hoga Wihamsow. Wiel Wit A hii and other works that! could meu- — t since the year 1856, when I made my first pub- | tory of was sent to General MKS, The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence was thus published for the first tme and certified by Dr. J. McKnits Alexander with the suppression of his paternal name. Tue Declaration ished was accompanied with an historical narra- tive purporting to explain the circumstances ta which it origivated, and this Barrative proiesses, by the date placed at its head, to have been writ- ven on the 20th of May, 1775, This representation, however, Nas no joundation In fact, as the narra~ tye andertakes to recite events which occurred not only days, but eyen years, after that date. Sach @ mode of recording Veracious history 1s, to say the least, very ipartistic, thongn it is not necessary to impute any iraudulent design in the premises. The fuct that Dr, J, McKoitt Alexander, 800 of old Join MeKnitt Alexander, suppressed patronymic in certifying to the penaiueness of the copy he bad made from the papers of bis fatner, has been ciied in evidence as evincing a waat of candor on bis part, but his defenders at the pres- ent day plead im extenuation of this apparent concealmeut that he often omitied the suruame from his signature because of the commonness of tae name of Alexander im Meckieuburg couaty and its vicinage. ACCEPTING THE TRUTH OF THIS statement as entirely salisfuctory, tne bistorical critic of the present day, iu furtuer tracing tue re- la ons Of “J. MeKnitt” to the documents in ques+ ton, soon stumbles on a discovery which he ings it much more difficult to reconeile either with the fraukness which should be practised or else the accuracy which should be scrupulously ooserved in making a copy of such an lmaportant paper. Dr. J, McKnitt—we may so call hint sincé that is the name he preferred—had stated, as we have seen in the certificate attached to bis publication \n the year 1819, that nis fatuer appeared irom the record “on file” to have given a cops of the Meckiepbarg Declaration, smong other persons, to Gene al W. R. Davie, @ distinguisned citizen of North Carohna, Searca was mWstiuted tor this copy among the papers left by General Davie at Dis decease, and the document was tound in the Weil-known, and as we are ussured by competent testimony, iD tie UDMistakabie handwriting of the veneiable John McKnitt Alexander, This “Davie copy” of tue Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence was loog preserved im the archives ol the state Department of North Caro- lina at Raleigh, but was at length removed from that custody by the late Governor D. 8. Swain, while he was President of the North Carolina Uni- versity. Governor Swain had been appointed to the office of “Historical Agent’ of North Carolina, and in that capacity ae withdrew thts paper.trom the State depository, that he mignt have an op- ortunliy of subjecting it toa criucal inspection, have seen an autograpn letter of Governor Swain, addressed to the Hon, Henry 8. Randall, the biographer of Jefferson, in wiicti, under date of April 6, 1858, Governor Swain es that the “Davie copy” of the Mecklenvurg Deciaration of Indepensence was at that time in bis hands, Wheu this Davie copy” came to ve examined by Governor Swain he found that iv was accompanied by a certificate of John MeKnitt Alexander, which told an entirely diferent story irom the certificate with which Dr. “J, McKunits,” his son, had accom. panied the Orst publicauuon of the Deciaration in the year 1519 he tuil certificate appended by Joho McKnitt Alexander to the copy which ue had given to Governor Davie runs as follows :— Itmay be worthy of notice here to observe that the foregoing statewent, thouga fudamentally correct, muy not literally correspond with the original record of the tronur~ Hions of sand Delegation anit court af Inquiry. as ail the recovle and papere were burnt with the house on. April 180; but Previous to that time. of 180) a tui copy of aaid recorts, atthe request of Dr. Mugh Williamson, then of New York, but formerly a Repiesentative in Congress from this state. was forwarded to lim by Colunel Williain Volk, in order that those early transactions might ail | their proper place in a history of this Stace, thea wrung by said Dr, Williamson ia New York. Gertanied 4 da best oy muy recolection aud betty, this 31 day of September, 18.0. J. Mok, A! ANDER, Now, it 1s safe to say that if ¢his certificate had put im its appearance simuitaneousiy with toe frst publication made on the sade by “J, McKaniww” in tne year 1819, there could never have been any ground for the long contro- versy which has prevailed in regard to either tne genuineness or the anthen- ticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence on the 20th of May, 1775. In point of fact this certificate was not given to the world until the year 1853, when it was published in the North Carolina University Magaztne by the Rev. Prolessor Charles Poillips, a colieague of Governor Swain in the Chapel Hull University, and who made this publication uuder the Goveruor’s super- intendence. Professor Phillips still lives to Aen ticate the accuracy of his transcript, being at present a citizen of Mecklenburg county and @ Member of the Faculty of Davidson College. situ- ated witnin its borders. The “Davie copy” has | ttselt been lost or misiaid, THE TELL-TALE CERTIFICATE, In all respects, except im tie matter Of this cer- tileate and, perhaps, one other important varia- lion, the “Davie copy” of the Meckienovurg Declara- on Was found by Governor Swain and Professor Pauitps to be identical With the paper pudished by “J. MeKunitt” im the year 1319. The pertinent question, tien, arises, Woy did not “J. McKnitt’? give the certificate of uls father m tull? Why did he SO truncate the certificate as to conceal the fact that | the whole paper o! pis father purported, en ita | lace, to be notuing more than “ihe best recoliec- tion and belie!” of a man writing about events wien bad occurred twenty-six years agone, and Without a #ingie scrap of the original records wiih which to refresu lis memory. We can exculpaie nim from biame in the premises only by the char- iable om ge oe pe that ine paper whicn fell into | his hands bad received irom bis jather a less copious and rank certificate than was appended by the same haud to the “Davie copy” of tis doc- Nortn Hina, Aeris gardline and that a copy | | | ument. How there questions may best be answered Is a Matter ouly of private concern bet a Jobe oe ge Alexander, the father, aud * mivt,’? is ‘The unportant fact with whica the puo- he are concerned in this inquiry is the admutred Tact thas the Declaration oJ Independence, as puo~ lished by “J. McKnitt” in 1819, is identical ia 1s terms with the Deciaration of Indepenaence as | Containeu in the “Davie copy.” And ii tots latter | Was coniessed to be nothing more than the attempt of John Mckuitt Alexander reproduce a long string Of revolutions ana ofotber transactions, without the aid of any original rec- ords Whatsoever, It will oe seen that we have touched the bottom of this imvestigation only to find that were is nothing on waich to rest our feet. if the authenticity of this Deciaration be conceded—that is, Ui it be admitted that there may have been such a veclaration—the shape in whici we have itis ceriainiy hos genuine. Waler cannot | Tise above its level, and justas lirtle can the Mi lenburg Deciaravion of Independence, of May 2), 5, eVer hupe to rise higher than its source in tue | memory of Joon McKuitt Arexander, writing ous | mis best recollections of transactious and resolu- tons which had so far jaaed from uis ind that he 1s Irank to coniess " they nay not correspond Witte | the original records.” As itis supposed by our th Curouna frends that tie Meckienvurg Dec- ration oi Independence, Whatever may have been Its purport, Was the composiuion of Dr. bprar Brevard, a patriotic citizen of Meckienourg, in | 1775, aud as it is im evideuce that we bave today only so much of that Deciaration asJobn MeKuitt Alexander could recaliia the | year 1500, Without # line of the original text io gue Mmm, it follows that the absence of alt weLuiueness in the document must ve Ireely ad- mitted even by those who woula most like to be- heve in its authenticity, Tne reader will bear ia Muind (hat sue question Of genuineness in such a discussion as tus relates to tae authoraiup ol the | paper, and that the question oj its authentciuy relates to the veracity of Its contents. AN IMPORTANT CONSLDERATION. | Having suown on the testimony of its reporter that.ihe Mecklenburg Decio ration of ladepenuenee, as We LOW lave li, 1s not a genuine document, | bave nex to consider tue question of its authentic~ iy. Was there avy declarauiou of independence made by & portion of the peopie of Mecktenburg oa the 2vth of May, I77o? Did the patriots of | Meckienburg, on that day, formally and torever | “dissolVe the political bands which had connected them with the mother country, aod absolve them- elves irom all allegiance to the British Crown.’’ ge opessibunty of such & supposition | 1s negatived by & great he yh of moss | trrefragabie —proois derived ro} the | contemporaneous history of North Carolina, In | the first piace, | poimt to the iact toat tue sawe | Basriots Who, itis alleged, Cook part im Chis de | | | | ration of May 20, 17 are known irom Vocu- mentary evidence to have participated in # com- | Muittee Meeung of Meckienvurg coanty only eleven | days alterward, to wit, on the Jist of May, and at tual Meeting they adupted a set of resoruuons which, though in the big! degree creditavie to oe are, Devertheiess, | their revolutionary of such @ tenor as | these same men had only eleven days beiore r nounced their allegiance to the British Crown, unless, indeed, We are to believe that in spite uf | tne brave Words spoken by them on the 2th of May they were swift (o speak in words of ‘bated breath” alter the brief imerval of recunsidera- | ton that had befalien them, My 1 | these vero men, whose souis viensiy cast im we firmest mouids of forti- | tade as well a3 of courage, forbids me to eatertain such an mjurious Suspicion withous | And prooi were ts none | some proof of ti | except #ach a8 may be drawn from the assump- | Hoa that te Mecklendu geuaine document, Agatnat the “recollections” of Jona | MeKaitt Alexander, wheter re be had to | their substance or their form, I set th seuine verba of that Dec aration, whien these mea are | known to have published in Mecslenburg on tho | Ulse of May, 1776—a declaration wich Was printed at the time, Which we still have in the newWepapers | O1 that period, aud Which, whether the descend- | ants of these meno ta the year 1975 will near or forvear, | Make bold to characterize as 4 paper | infinitely more Worthy Of all homuge shan the document they bave selected to idolize, even if | the claims of tne latter to respect were not open | to exception, Which, a8 bas Deen seen, is Very jac | srom veing the case. ‘rhe Deciaration of May 31, to which we here | refer, does mount to 4 deflaitive declaration of Independence; Out, Assuming that the power of the British Crown bad virtualiy fallen into ruins, Its authors proceed to reconstruct a rem: work of civil govorament on the basis of thuse | | rune. STRONG POINTS FAVORING THE “RESOLVES.” { Now the same who are known to have adopted these r sions of May 31 are said to ave adopted the resoluuons declaring inde- pendence 0i Great Britain on the 20tu of May, 1 but the eighteenth resolution b later series expressly contemplates @ contingency on whica ail revoitionary measures wou! to the ground, and that contingency ts it the legisia- uve body of Great Britain resign its unjust and arbitrary pretensions With respect to America.’ z is ovvious, theresore, that if these men declared ia | paper subsequently | im Paiiad aocumentary evidence in the shape of an offictal | | 1775, amd | was no such decia tracted the Declaration eleven days Were they men of suca infirm purpose as this But the negative evidence does pot end here, A liitie More than three months ajter the date of May 20, 1776, when John McKuitt Alexander, ‘Thomas Poik aud otners are represented to have “declared indepencence,” we find these very lvaders sitting in the North Carolina Provinetal Congress, aud on the 23d of August, 177% we jurtier find them signing @ lest of loyalty, in “profession of their alle; ce to the King aud acknowledging the consututional execu- tive power ofgovernment,” Had these men de- clared indepenueace on the 20th of May, 1775? To suppose so 18 to load thetr names und memories wit Most terrible of iwputations, and | know of no! ing in thelr nonorabie afd manly cna ters which can jostily sucha tremenaous impeacn- ment of either their courave or their candor as we mustaliow to iic aguinst them if they pro- claimed themselves independent of Great Britata on the 20th of May, 1715, sod plighted their vows of allegiance @® littie more thau three months afterward! But this is not all. The velegates sitting in thia North Carolina Provincial Congress from Meckienburg, inclaving Jonn McKaitt Alex. ander, the sponsor of the so-called Dectaration of Independence, jomed with their colleagues ina unAUIMoNS address to the peeple of Great Britain. Jolin McKnits Alexander, with ail his colleagues from Mecklenburg county, united in this address ; for it 18 of record that tt was adopced unant mousy by the members of the Provincial Con- qos. Alist of absentees was kept by the Secre- ary of the Congress, ana the Mecklenburg dele- gates dv not appear to have been absent at its adoption, It remains, then, ior me to say that in very mercy to the patriots of Mecklenburg in 1775, as weil as in simpie justice to the truth of an- thentic history, we must hold that there netther was nor could have been any such Declaration as that which Join MeKnitt Alexander furvished up from memory after vbe lapse of more than @ quar. ter of a century. WAS IT ALL A MYTH ? Was, then, the Mecklenburg Deviaration of Inde- pendence of May 20, 1775, the pure and simple comage of Jonn McKnitt Alexander's brain? By no means. He wi jonestly trying to recall the events and declarations of May 31, 1775. The record of these events and declarations had been entirely lost from public sigat atter the date of their first publication in 1775. They were again brought to lignt by tne iate Peter Force, of Wash- ington, in the year 1338, On the 18th of Decem- ber in that year tiat veteran historical investi- gator announced their discovery througa the col ums of the National Intelligencer, and he recog- nized m them at once the authentic resolutions which John MeKnitt Alexander had sought to produce, but of Which he bad succeeded in making only @ feebie travesty, And in penching this con- clusion it ig more to the praise of Mr. Force’s his- toricat Sagacity, trained though he was tn sucn re- searches, that nt that thue—in lsss—he did not know, as we Know now, that Alexanders verston of the Meckienoarg resolution was confessedly | drawn from mis “best recollection and bellel.’? | ‘That significant fact was not sulfered to trauspice a North Carolina until the year 1893, though the comimittce of tiie North Carviina Legisiature, | charged in the year 1830 with the publication of | evidence IM suppore of the genuineness and an- thentictty O1 the su-cailed Declaration of May 20, hiust have had the “Davie copy’? of that docu- | meat in their bands, The certificate puviishea | under the superintendence of Governor Swain at alater date unfortunately escaped their notice, | otherwise it might have greatly moditied weir | concusions. } But it willbe said that there area doz more of witnesses who, speaking from their lections of whac they beard and saw im Meckien- barg during the year 1775, have Wndertaked to | corroborate the statements of John McKuibt Alex. | ander with regard to boin the facts and dates of | his story. All these men gave their tesumony after whe pubication of “J, McKuity had been made in 1819 and before the genuine and anthenuc | resolutions of May 21 had beea restored to wight. And yet, even in giving their evidence uncer this digaavantuge, several o| these wit- nesses make statements whicd prove undoubted!y | that they were thinking of Lhe resoives of May | for they make allusions to facts and declarations | found 1n those resolves alone. The memories of these men, as the memory o1 Joun Ncknitt Alex. ander belore them, Were reaching vack to the magnanimous puvilc manifesto, which hal marked an epoch in tue aunals of Mecklenburg. | ‘That Manifesto, as some of these Witnesses re | membered, vad voldly declared tbat “all laws und commissions confirmed vy or derived trom the authority of the King and Parliament were | annniied aad vaeated; that no iegisiative or ex- ecutive powers then existed in the colouies ex- cept those ordained vy the Provincial Congress of each Province uuder the direcuon ot the Great | Continental Congress; that any person Vhereafier receiviug oF exercising & com- | Mission from the Crown was to be “deemed | an eneiny to his country,” and that in support of these deciarations soldiers bad been raised, witu powder and lead and Mats, to Show that the men of what crisis bad full ur derstanding of their times and “meant business’? | in all toat iney so nobly spoke and bravely dia. If these witnesses sorgot the littie reservation | contained 4n p eighteenth resoiuuon of the | sertes—a resolution lvoking to the restorauon of | Yroyal prerogatives on the renunciation vy Great | britaiu of ber unjust and arbitrary preiensions Wita respect to America—it was simply because | the subsequent course of events had never given ang rvom for ihe occurrence 0/ this conungency. THESE RESOLUTIONS OF MAY 31, 17 | Were not, it is true, a formal declaration of inde- | pendence. i tuey had been, tue men who were Joremust ip giving them force and effect could not have suvsequentiy professed themselves to be | los al at heart toward the coustitutional rights of | tue British Crown. But the stand wuica they tuen | and there tok m muimrenance of their rights left | them in # practical ifnotin a theoretical attitude | 0+ tm ee us Towards the Hritish authority. ‘dhe Sturdy belt in the genuineness aud au- thenttcity of the manifesto of May 20, 1775, may bere saterpose with the remark that, notwith- | standing all these apparently infallible signs of ita | unbistorical character, we have the testimouy of | uoverhor stokes, given in 1830, that in tne year | 1793 Dr, Williamson exmbited to him, tn the city | ot New York, a copy of the Mecklenburg Declara- | don, in the handwriting of Jona McKuitt alexan- | der. This statement of Governor stokes is en- | tirely credible. Sut our Norta Carolina friends Seem to forget that the statement dues not at all | help the prereusions of the Meckienourg Deciara- | ou of Independence as now received and held | among them on the authority of John McKaite | Alexander, for we lave the coniession of Mr, | Alexander that the existing version of the Meck- lenourg Declaration of May 20, 1775, was writien hy | him, Jrom memory, in the year 1800, Hi, ia the year 1/93, Governor stokes saw # copy of the | Deciaratioa, i could noe have been the compiled by Mr. Alexan- ver trom his recollections, for at that time the original recoras of tue Mecklenburg committee | were sullin Mr. Alexander's possession. If we | could Mow recover the actual trauseript of these | originat records, as given by Mr. Alexander to Dr, Wiliainson, beture ius papers were burued, we should undoubtedly find it to be @ copy of the pro- | ceedings had on the sist of May, 1775. fi it should (arn oUt to be the true record of an earner meetuny, veally neid on tae 2018 of May, 1i7o, we are sure uc | least that it could contain potaiug which would be inconsistent with the grave and deliberate steps publicly taken by tiese same men vniy eleven days afterward. It ts proof evougi in de- rogation irom the trustworthiness of Mr. Alexan- er’s recollections in the year 1800 that they fy in tue face of documentary evidence kuoWn Lo Le DotA genuine and authentic, and that they involve the damaging reflections on the conduct and ters of the men to whom they relate, not ‘ptung himself, for he signed the ‘ies: 0! Loyalty” in the North Carolina Provincial Congress as late as April 4, 1776, only three Months belore the national Declaration of Indepeudeace made by (ue General Congre: . DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN. &. Where the documentary evidence is so con- clusive against the authenticity of the Alexander Version of the Mecklenburg proceeuings, it hardy need be said that all conieimporary and savsidiary | evidence S$ ip the Same uirection. For w- stance, it ted by many witnesses that the | Meckienbul proceedings o! May, it | may have been their purport or their precise date | in ‘that month, were despatctied by a messen- | ger to the Continental Congress, thea in session | nia. Well, we have convemporary | levter, written by Governor Martin—tne Colonial | Governor of North Carolinu—under date of June | 30, 1775, that it was tne resolutions of May 31 | which were sent, We have the asseveration of | Mr. Jefferson that the Alexander version of these proecedings wever came to wis knowledge | im Phiaceiphia, We have the same as- | severations from John Adama, accompanied ith tis reasons for holding it morally | impossible thas such a paper gould have come | to Puiladeiphta without his knowing the fact at | the time, We hsve documentary proof that tne | existence of anything gone tion of Inde- | pendence oo sne 2ou of May, was uaknown in the adjoining county of Rowan on the first day of June, \77% Tor on that day, twelve days after | tue date of the alieged Declaration, the commitvee vl Rowan county mvited their neighbors of Meck- jenburg to Gnite with them im prayers tor “the House of Hanover and its legal succession.” We have we Written statement of James Iredell, an eminent citizen of Norta Carolina, afterward an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court—@ statement made in the year 1777, wie bis memory of current eveuts in North Carolina must have been fresh—tnat urtil very near tue time of the National Declaration of July 4 1776, he “never heard @ man speak on she subject of Independence who did got speak of 1b with abhorrence aud = indignatiwa, and Fnac nd the hope of ail mis ieiicity in a appy aud honorable reconciliation with Great britain.” The reader aoes not need to be re- | minded that this was the common sentiment of all patriotic Americans in the eariy parts ol the year nat tMis sentiment prevailed at even a ti¥e deciaration of in- 1775, Im any pars of ine bistorical anachron- quire the most positive evi- dence to substantiate it against the antecedens force of tI ing against tt. Bus in this case ‘ouls conspire with the anteceaent prot to show that there jon a8 Ar. Alexauder con- cucted from his best recollections, RUMORS CREDITED WITHOUT INVESTIGATION. But, it may be said, how is it possible thas the Alexan tory of these proceedings, alleged to bet the 200h of May, 1775, shouid hold on the North Caroliva mind if jo response to sven a suggestion it 1s sufficient to say Lhat Lhese proceedings do have some foundation | in fact, wo wit, in the fact that there waa a most | | you then add | Lee | gated provinces. | the century, will be tae probabi Before that noteworthy Declaration had been recovered ihe Alexander version was put in cir- Cuation, aud 16 was entirely natur | that the people of North Suge men aes p proud of taeir virtuous ancestors, should atcach their faith to the story, coinciding as it did with the general drift of their local traditions respecting tue tran- scendent patriotism of the Invabitants of Meck- lenburg. Tne sincerity of their faith in the “Meck- Jenburg D-ciaration of {npenendence” is not to be questione: ‘They are the last peopie whe would make a claim which they do not believe to be weil jounded, itis their misfortane that they were called to pronounce on the merits of the Alexander version before they kuew that it was written from memory aloue, aod belore the text of the real declarations made on the Slst of May had been exhumed from the dnst of a transient oblivion, Tho patriotic traditions of a eopie are Heda’ dear to them. .The peopie of orth Carolina are not to be blamed for cilnging With so Much tenacity to the Meckienourg legend. Many among them do not care to inquire too aar- rowly into the grounds of the modera scepticism that has aimed to discredit the popular vetiet; but there are others among them who, renouncing their faith in the fable of Alexander, have planted the honor of the Mecklenburg beroes On (the mem. orable @eciarations of May 3L On that ground they are sufe irom assauit, and on that grouud they may challenge for whe Mecklenburg lathers the plous homage and reverent gratitude of the whole people of the United States, For the people of Mecklenburg were the first in all America, go far as am aware, to Solve the problem of local self-government, as that problem was presented to them in the year 1775, The laws of Great britain had fallen into prac- tical desuetuce irom the virtual overturow of the British power in North Carolina, Neither the Con- timental Congress ner the Provincial Congress of the colony had provided any substiiute for this lapse of civil government, With a@ (ateut lor con- structive politics which has no rival in any re- corded example of our Revolutionary history at that early day, the Committee of Meckienvurg bo.dly grappled witn this formidable diticaity—a aiMculty which wus then vexing the wisest minds on the Continent, Whiie othera were deuberating and crying aloud for beip irom the generai Cou- gress the men of Mecklenburg acted on the spot, aud delped themselves to @ wise and weil cousid- ered municipai government, which proved ade- quate to all the wants of civil society during tie transition period between monarecnicai authority and home ruie. lt, then, the patri and sages of Mecklenburg in 1775 were not the ‘able arcuitects of rain’ they have been alleged to be, they were certainly able arenitects of order. They brought civii order out of civit ruin, They kept the sacred caarities of home, 0: parents, culldren, iriends and neigh- bors under the mgis of law, and thus realized what Cicero Nas called the highest, as ic certainty is the huliest, juaciion of organized civil govern- ment, All bonor, then, to the Revolutionary heroes of Meckiensurg! We nave only to regret that their descendants should have failed to discern tue hivhest giory ot their aucestors, and that in their neediess anXiety to protect the reputation of the respectable men who tave borne subsequent wit- hess 10 tis disputed point on their annais, they Should have erected the {ullible recollections of John McKnitt Alexancer into & lactitious dignity, Which be Was care!ul to disclaim for them, [here is really no room ior controversy in this wole matter if tne paper of Mr, Alexander be taken at the value assigned to it py its autoor, and those who Would give to ti @ bigher authenticity must | Mot only assume to be wise avove What he has written, but must also ignore the most salieut facts c mposing the record in this case. JAMES GC, WELLING, NNIAL LOYALTY. SD TE ee ROBERT E, LEE AND JEFFERSON DAVIS COUN- SELLING ACCEPTANCE OF THE SITUATION. CENTE BRoapWAy, NEW YORK, May 15, 1875. ‘TO rue EpiToR oF THE HERALD:— In your issue of this morning, in an editorial alluding to the speech of Jeferson Davis the day before in Texas, you say:—‘We congratulate Jederson Davis upon his speech at Houston, Texas, in which he called upon the oid Confed- erate soldiers to give the same devotion to the Stars and Stripes that they nad shown to the fag of the lost cause, The imfuence of @ man Itke Jefferson Davis apon the people who once fol- lowed him, if properly exercised, will be of un- speakabie benefit in the pacification of the coun- try.” With unintended injustice to General Lee, We have always felt that it will be remembered to the discredit of General Lee that at the close of the war he sank intoa policy of apathy and silence, and did nothing to reconcile | terial respect from the outiime prejudices to keep them alienated) will renew the olden bonds of amity and reconsecrate the ori inal spirit of “liberty and union,” to remain for ever one and indivisible. W. H. PARSONS, Onited States Centennial Commi-soner for Texag THE HEBREW FAITH. CONTROVERSY IN A SYNAGOGUE ALOUT THE FORM OF WORSHIP. Tne Hebrew congregation of Bnai Jeshurak have been in a state of ferment for the past t years on account of @ difference of opinion be tween the members in regard to certain changes in the form of worship. Bnai Jeshurun 1s thé oldest Jewish congregation in New York city, have ing been founded anout forty years ago. The first synagogue was tn Elm street, where worship in accordance with ancient Jewish forms was carried on for several yeas, The edifice proving tod sma) the congregation removed to Broadway, and afterward to Greene street. Subsequently the Greene street property was solid and the proceeds devoted to tue purehasd of the present synagogue in West Tairty- fourth street, between Seventh avenue and Broadway. For nearly nine months, howe ever, the congregation have been without @ regular Rabbi. The last one, Rabbi Vidaver, wad agreat re‘ormer, and dissenstons arising among his flock be resigned bis charge in New York ant Went to San Francisco, where he accepted a caill from the Reformed Jewish churcn in that Clty The membership of Bnal Jeshurua for the past two years has been growing smailer by degrees, the progressive eciemeut feeling that @ biind ad- herence to unimportant forms and customs, which Were antagonistic to the spirit of ine age, was Cal~ culated to retard the growth and we'fare of the congregation, Tuey argued that certain kinds of Insti Unental Music Were au ald to devouon, and that the custom of arating the basband from bis wile or the brother from nis sister while in the Synagogue Was not only unnecessary, but arbi- trary. On the other hand, the conservanve ele~ ment claimed that innovations were dangerous = that the safest plan was to preserve the forms which had been handed down to them from pas ages. They were good enough for their tathers,, consequently they Must be good enough for them, These forms were opserved by ortnodox Jews the: world over; and, furthermore, that to permit the proposed so-called “reforms’? was contrary to the spirit and letter of the constitntion adopted at the founding of the congregation over forty years ago. The controversy grew to such dimei- sions @2d such serions consequences were threat- ened that about two months ago the Board o¢ ‘Trustees appointed two committees representing both sides of the question, Who Were instructed to prepare reports, Subsequently the following n0- tice Was issued, which expiatns itsell:— CONGREGATION BNAL JRsioRUN Naw York, May 7th, 1875. Sin—You are requested to attend a general mecting of the congregation at the synagogue chambers, Thirty~ fourth Street, on Sunday, May 16th inst. at hall-pase two P. M.. to consider and take action upon a plam recominended for adoptiun by @ Joint Committee aps ointed by the Board of trustees, relative to. the intros uctioM of an organ and the alteration of seats into ws, Ja connection with said proposed plan the folowing] ad ition to the by-laws wili be offered for aioption .— “Lv shall not be lawful to make, or adopt any turther: terations or changes of any kind or nature what« ever, in the ritual or mode of synagogue worshins | established by this congregation, except uot consent dw | at least three-toarths of the members present at a con~ gregational mevting specially convened tor that purs ose. , By order of the Board, E. DE YOUNG, ~ecretary. THE MEETING YESTERDAY. When the meeting was called to order, whiciy was shortly aiter the hour appoiuted, toe syna~ gogne chainber was crowded to excess With tho weaithy and :nfluential memoers of the congrega- tion. No representatives of the pri were mitted to be present, and tt was understood tbat as it was a “iamtly quarrel’? the members were pledged to the utm ecrecy. Mr. M. Stras~ burger occupied the chair, and an excited discus- sion, Which Justed irom balf-past two until sevem P. M., was at once inaugurated, The report of the “conservatives,” which did not differ ia any ma- iven above, was first presented, The revort of the progressives: showed the following facts:— The present number of members was 215. The value of seats Durcliased by meinbers in good standing, Was. as follows:—80 Kentlemens aeats at $24), em 7 the people he had commanded to the new order of | things. In vindication of tae truth of history, and to re- move the ‘discredit’? which you Intimate ts the only shadow on the otherwise imperisnabie fame of one of the most colossal characters of the late civil war, Iam coustrainea to ask you to pubdlisa the foliowing:—In his letter accepting the Presi- dency of Washington College, the late Robert E. \d:— I think it the duty of every citizen, in the prea- ent condition of the country, to do all in bis power to aid im the restoration of peace and harmony, aud in no way to Oppose the poiicy of the State ur general governments directed to that object. It particulariy incumbent on those chargea wita the instruction of the young to set them an exam- pie of submission to authority. The above memoravle and historic sentiment, which so effectually removes the imputation that “at the close of the war General Lee did nothing to reconcile the people he had commanded to tne new order of things,” is clipped trom his letter at the time of its publication im 1869, and has ever since been carmed in a memorandum book on my person, as I have treasured it in wy heart and sought to practise it im my life. Your editorial, so anintentionaily unjust to a great, memory, brought vividly to my mind Lee's actual counsel te “the people he had commanded,” my long treasured possession Of its words of wis- dom, and engendered an earnest wish for its re- production in your columns, to vindicate truth in history. ‘The sacred oracie hath declared that “he who ruleth his own spirit is greater than he who taketn acity.” If itmad been true that at the ciose of the war General Lee “sank into a policy of apathy and silence,” he would a left to fame the re- nown of a soldier witaout demonstrating tn nim- self, as he has, that in the domain of passion and prejudice there are loitier achtevements and uovler conquests than captive myriads or subju- But General Lee appropriateiy crowned @ fame that, a4# you intimate, would otherwise have been incomplete, by @ moral con- quest of himself im actaaily attempting what you averrea be did not—viz., “to reconcile the peopie be had commanded to the new order of things.” Why so few of bis former military followers, then, lacked the moral hervism to imitate his example in also counselling “submission to au- thority” in the acceptance of the three constitu- tional amendments, which were “the new order of thing: it were profitiess now to discuss, | since the late Indorsemeut and acceptance of the | new order of things by botu political pla forms, and which both parties are pledged to maintain inviolate. The support of the Balumore and Cincinnati platorm in 1872 by the men of the South, in which they “pledged” themselves “to oppose any reopening of the questions settled by the thirteenth, jourteentn and iitee: amend- ments to the constitution,” was a final settlement | of war balances, the erasure of all vital sectional issues, @ practical acquiescence in Lee's advice of “guomission to aathoritr,” and @ complete viudi- cation of the patriotism and wisdom oi those of Lee's followers Who had at am earlier day acied | upon his counsel by also accepting ‘sae situation” in order to paciticate the country. You eloquently and trathiaily add that “the de- feat of tne Confederacy Will attract the sympathy of millions who respect vaior aud mourn over misfortune.’ That which will not the less arrest the attention of the ages tnat are to follow is the council of the late Coafederate chieitains—tne one of “submission to authority” aud toe other of renewed “devotiow to tne Stars and Stripes,’ which Bad once fluated, the emblem of victory, over Nis oWa Mississippi ridemem on the piains of Buenas Vista. But the most august spectacle, that whicd will overshadow in moral grandear all other events of complete and voluntary extingvismment of the emoers of tue war during the Centennial celebrations of 1876, it 18 this great ‘act of the wonderful opportanity to be afforded during the Centennial year for ine fraternizatton of the men of the South and Nora who fougut aud by measuring strength have jearned to respect each otuer, whic should specially commend the Centennial celebration and Exposition to the enthusiastic support nos only of your great city, but the true men of ail the States, Assembling again aroand the once | COMMON altar Upon Which was lit the Orst fame of the American stru, for independence, wese men of the gray and dive (despite the politicians eHUCASe YR He BWLD Of May, A715, they Fer | MOEWErWN declaration IMAHE YN Wie Wet a Mau, Of VOIR SECKONN WHO Mave and Would sul) foster [de is | el | the only orthodox members, when, $12,500; 115 gontiemen's seats Ae) ats At $15), $10,500; 92 ladies’ seats at $125, $1505 20); less instalments unpaid Deceiver, 1, 1874, $5, amount due members, §49, The present yearly expenses of the congregation, tacitding salary of preacher, amount to about $18,000. ‘Should the pew sys~ vem pe adopted we estumate that the sac of pews will’ Feallze say $92,000; trom whieh deduct amoums due re ‘owners, about, $o00; which will fund of $40,000. ° This surpins pose invested ‘as a sinking ind, the interest thereot to be used toward defraying the ex: | penses of the cougregation. The estimated cost of alter- ations, including carpenter work, paiating and remak- ing and covering cushions, will Mor exceed $5,000; costi of new organ, $4500, (otal cost of alterations, $7.00. The pews to Dé rated according to location; the same toy range in price from $40 (o $1,250 each, or from $89 to. $28) for each seat, and to be sold by pre-emption to ther highest bidder, the amount realized trom pre-emptions to be used, the cost of seats fo receive Daid by them [or their present seats (pre-emption move not ineluded). which scrip or due bills will be receiv again to the amountof their face vaine in payment ot such seats or pews as the holler may c: Joose \o purchase, For the purpos: of equalim yearly contributions of membess and lessening the expenses of tose who . as (Me as Necessary, the proposed. alterations. scrip oF due bills tor the amoung pa sini rated according bim, withoat reference fo the seat or pew occu; to the number ‘of members at 15v) will realize, say. bers, first class, at $50 per annum, $4,100; 5) ene d class, at $40 per anuuln, 0 Lar I 300; rent of temporary seats during holidays, pts from other syurces, $1.00); there will re~ main sleucy of $6,300. Total, $1,000. To make up this deficiency we propose to levy" a pro roti asseasmens on the valuation of the pews or seats purchased by | members as (ollows:—For two seats, the full assessment on their valuation, and tor ail seats exceeding two in one-half the ass ssment on ai seats in such pews purchased, number in any single valuation of Cat ay us by a membe: supposing the valuition of a pew to de $1,000, the owner Will pay an Asvessment on value tion of two seats of $400, and one-half on $600, $00 | total. $700, or equal to seven-tenths of the vaiuation « | the entire pew. Assuming caat fifty percent of the en ber of seats purchased will be sub- i 0 8 rata assessment of one hait only, this will leave subject to full sesessmens WW), subject to hail assessment $22.40, or equal to An ase eut of ten per cent on this amount 1 7), more than sufficient required to make ce required to defray the on. It Was aloo sucwested that e be added to the bylaws, to read as fol- tahall not be lawral to make or adopt anv fur- ther alterations or cuauges of any kind or aacure what soever in the ritual or mode of syaagogue worship es. tablished by this <regation. except Apon consent of atleast (hree-tourchs of the niembers preseut at a oun grecational meeting specially convened for that pur- pose.” It was agreed that both reports should be voted npon together and when the roll was called it wae found that there were 34 in favor of adhering to the anotent customs, while 60 votes were cast in favor of the proposed reforms. Amid great exci! ment, however, severa: votes on both sides we: ienged, but when tne flual vote was taken the suove result was not materiatiy changed, GLENDENNING ON THE WARPATH. A FIERCE ATTACK ON THE OLD FOGIES OF THR CHURCH--H£ VINDICATES HIS THUBOLOGICAL OPINIONS. The attendance at the “Church of the Scandai,"™ in Jersey City, yesterday, Was not quite as large as on the previous Sunday, but those who at vended were treated to a philippte seidom heard from a pulpit. Mr. Glendeoning was in his seao at an eary hour, and the pulpit was deco- tated with bouquets, as on the three previous = Sunday: It was evident trom Mr. Glendenning’s earnestness in the open- ing prayer that war to the knife was to be declared against somebody. His text, taken in the abstract, Was simple, bat, appliea to bis par- pose, was scathing. It was from Proverbs, xiv., 1s—"(ne simple believeth every Word, but the prudent man looketh well to his gotug.” Vaking advantage of the charge of heresy preferred against him oy one of the elders of the church, Mr. Giencenning hit back im the following style :— jar better to awake to the direst confusion in our thinking than to repose mm ft@norance. Those inidexibie dogmas, in which So many find repose, must sooner or later give way to new developments in progress of haman thought, Th is somet! good in every item, and this good (rees trom Whatis impure and assimilates itself to good in other systems. 6 a is heat, What is impure ts transie: nus a hignest exprea- Ngiod 19 founded wht sion O1 trath, and ti ‘ain will in time give way as Loman taought progresses and new discovertes are made. Thus it is that the heresy of yesterday Lo ts comes the orthodoxy of to-day, inteliecwual progress are dau toought. Socrates was condemned latal cup because he instituted a reac’ of truth. Gallieo was because he estabiisned motion, At the presemt aay &® man Cannot stan. io she pulpit give expression to some new = hag ogee (ruth witnout being noonded ow nigh of & class of the laity that deem &) mselves in point of fact, they are iguorantly orthodox, (There was 4 slight Movement among the comgregaiiun at this re int, but HO one left the church.) The man who as aundounded contd in Ais er not the t a acl to this or thas propositio: or Rousseag that plunged France into the throes of infidel Fevointion, but it wus the condrmed scoptie the priesthood. (“tuat’s Wp-1op,”” remarked | plous-looking individual to ois nelghour, Ww ell give it co ’em,’ vat before bis Wish was & fed preacher closed auruntiv with “her oe