Newspaper of The New York Herald, January 28, 1845, Page 1

January 28, 1845 Tarihli The New York Herald Gazetesi Sayfa 1
Text content (automatically generated)

THE NEW rORK HERALD. Vol. XI., No. *47?Whole No. 3989. NEW YORK. TUESDAY MORNING. JANUARY 28, 1845. Prloo Two Contw Bishop Onderdonk's Statement. A STATEMENT or FACT8 AND CIRCUM8TANCE8 CONNECTED WITH THE RECENT Trial of the Bishop of New York. Statement of Facts, &s. On the first day of last October, I left home for the city of Philadelphia, to attend to my duties as a member of our General Ecclesiastical Conven tion, which was to meet in that city. The Con vention of my own diocese had just closed its an nual session. It had been unusually large, and dis tinguished by a very marked degree of unity and harmony. The circumstances under which it as sembled were such a6 to render its proceedings a very special proof of the kindest feelings of con fidence and affection on the part of the clergy and laity of the diocese toward their Bishop. The re ports laid before it, and there made to me, gave strong evidence of the divine goodness in blessing the diocese with a large measure of spiritual and temporal good. Rejoicing in' the consolation and encouragement thus afforded, I repaired to the General Conven tion, and gave myself to its duties in a spirit of humble and grateful devotion to the Church. Soon, however, it became manifest, from the deportment of several of my Right Reverend brethren, that they had somewhat against me. They said nothing. Not a word did 1 hear of any rumors or accusa tions against me; not a word of a brother's anxiety to be set right; not a word of fraternal warning, caution, or admonition. Cold, repulsive, diacou teous manner told a dark ana uncertain tale on which christian converse might and should have thrown light. Some six or seven days after the opening of the Convention, when the House of Bishops were about coming to order, Bishop Meade approached me, and suggested that I had better leave the - House- I expressed my sarprise, and asked why hp made the suggestion. He said he could not ezpwn the reasons, but again urged me to absent myself. On my repeating my surprise at a propo sition so dark and suspicious, and bo little com porting with the courtesy of a gentleman, the duty of 4 friend and brother, and the proprieties of a Christian, he Baid that it I continued in the House my feelings might be hurt. This increased my ,;surprise, and 1 demanded of him his reasons for . so strange a procedure. He hesitated about giving my explanation. I warmly expostulated with him >n the injustice and the wickedness of the course S was pursuing. At length, as if reluctantly com , ;lled, he said that there were reports unfavorable to my character, respecting which he wished to lake the counsel of the Bishops. I felt what I trust Was just indignation, and expressed myself to this effectNow my course is clear. I will not shrink. I will remain at my post. If any man has aujtfil against me, let him look me in the face and my what it is. I also spoke strongly of his un worthy design of inducing me to withdraw, that he might, in my absence, make my character and condnct the subject of discussion in the House of Bishops. He replied?Not in the House of Bishops, but before the Bishops informally ! This unholy evasion was the subject of severe remarks, but I trust not more severe than it deserved. I asked what were the charges against me. He said he was not at liberty to tell: and there our conversa tion ended. This was all I ever heard from this brother of his having aught against me until he was about to become one of my presenters for trial. Yet I have good evidence that Bishop Meade had, for years, been speaking against me, and contributing toward; public rumor to my pre judice. After some time, Bishop Meade came to me again, and said in substance?You were right. I will have nothing mere to do with the matter. They must attend to their own business. These last words satisfied me that he had been acting in concert with others. And when we consider the darkness and secrecy with which he acted his part, !v?? csji. jn honorable atyf christian raau think otherwise than mat fie was connected with a con spiracy against me 1 On, I think, Monday, Oatober 14th, the Pre siding Bishop, in his place in the House of Bishops, held in his hand a paper, of which a copy nad been previously sent to me, directed to him as President, which he asked if it was the pleasure of the House to have read. Ita purport was demanded by one of the Bishops. Bishop Chase, the Presiding Bishop, said that it re lated to the character and conduct of the Bishop of New York, and he asked me if 1 wished to retire. Of course, so extraordinary an inquiry, was an swered in the negative. Earnest remonstrance was made by several of the Bishops against the pro priety of such a paper having being brought into the House, and against its being received, opened, or reaH ; because it wasuocanonical ana disorderly to bring a Bishop's character under the official no tice of his brethren, except in the mode pointed out by law. The ultimate result was a refusal to receive the document, and its being returned uno pened to the persons who had presented it. I need hardly Bay, that I felt myself deeply injured by the Presiding Bishop in his allowing himself to be an agent in so irregular and unjust a procedure, as bringing such a document into the House. On or about Tnursday, Oct. 17th, I understood that a number of affidavits had been procured by the Rev. Jamee G. Richmond, of Rnode Island, injurious to my character, and were placed in the hands of BishoD Elliott. Ot Mr. Richmond it isunnecessary that 1 say much. His erratic peculiarities are well known. He had but a few weeks before, called on me, and express ed a warm desire, to return to my diocese, that he might be my friend aud stand by me in my troubles. I have since heard ot hi* having expressed himself of me in terms of hostility, for the letter which 1 wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury unfavora ble to his well known project of going as a volun teer Bishop to the Turks; and also for my not sanc tioning his desire to preach ia one of the public squares in this city. He was now employed for my destruction, and told a clerical brother, the Rev. Mr. Van Bokkelen, that his expenses were paid On Tuesday, October 22d, Bishop Ives informed nie that he had heard the affidavits read. I un derstood that certain of my friends had been very urgent for an opportunity being allowed them and me of either seeing or hearing them. This was sternly resisted until October 22d. Then, unknown me, ihey were read to three of my friends not de signated by myself. Here was certainly a piece of great injustice, that being denied either a sight or hearing of these affidavits, I should not even be allowed to choose the friends who should hear or see them in my behalf. From what Bishop Ives told me of his recollec tion of the affidavits, I said at once that they con tained misrepresentations and gross exaggerations. I tolU Bishop Ives, moreover, that I was confident that if I could have a conversation with Bishop Elliot, including an opportunity of seeing or hear ing the affidavits, I coald make such statemants and explanations as he would see to have a just claim upon his consideration in reference to the question, whether ihere was ground for present ment. I asked Bishop Ives to request oi Bishop Elliott, for me, such un interview. The request w.is made and refused. The most solemn assur ..nce and pledge of honor, however, were given by Bishop Elliott, that he would not become a pre senter until my friends and myself should have the opportunity which I asked I complained alter wards to Bishop Diane, ol what I thought the un just and ungenerous course of Bishop Elliott in re fusing me h sight or hearing ol the charges, and an opportunity of explanation. Bishop Doane sym pathised with my view of the case, and promised to speak to Bmhop Elliott. He did so, and the re sult was the same refusal tor the present, and the name promise and pledge that my request should be met before he (Bishop Elliott) would act as a pre senter. I was told, further, that besides the affidavits then in hand, n large number of others would be forthcoming by the following Friday morning, Oc My calls at home rendered it ne tober 26th. My calls at home rendered it neces sary for me to leave Philadelphia on the morning of Thursday, 24th. In New York, Bishop Ives, who had come on about the same time, observed to me that I need be under no apprehension of the presentment Keing made without my friends and myself having the desired opportunity of consi dering and commenting upon the charges, as Bishop Blliott was in honor bound to see that such opportunity should be given. Bishop Ives left New York on Friday 25th, the the day until which Bishop Elliott (with whom it was now understood Bishops Meade and Otey were united) was to wait for the expected large ad dition of affidavits. On Monday 28ih, 1 received a letter from Bishop Ives, dated hi Philadelphia on the 2fith. The promised new affidavits had not arrived. Bishop Ives had asked Bishop Elliott if he would be willing to be a presenter. That must depend, he said, upon evidence yet to be produced. It is believed that not a single additional affidavit was used lor the presentment. On Wednesday, October 80th, the Bishops met in the General Theological Seminary, New York, as its visitors. It had been told me a day or two before, on the authority, I think, of Bishop Otey, that the three Bishops would probably come to a determination on Friday, Nov. 1st. I afterwards learned from Bishop Doane, as the lesult of a con versation with them, that a presentment would pro bably be made on Friday or Saturday. It soou came to my knowledge that certain per sons?Mr. John Jay. of this city, and Mr. C.'G. Memminger, of Charleston, S. C., th _ ? - - . then in this city, being particularly named?were going about inves tigating rumors against me, and for that purpose calling on families where they had reason to nope they might hear something to my disadvantage. The three Bishops, meanwhile, waiting in readi ness to receive anything which might thus be brought to them. The expected Friday and Saturday passed with out my receiving a presentment. On Sunday. Nov. 3d, Bishop Kemper told me that he had, a day or two before, spokeu to the Senior Bishop on the subject; who told him that he had notified the the three Bishops that he should leave town the following Tuesday, previously to which he would be in readiness to receive any communication from them. On Monday 4th, Bishop Kemper told me that he had on that day seen Bishop Otey, who told him that the next day, Tuesday-fith, 10 o'clock A.M., had been fixed on as the time for bringing the matter to an issue. On the evening of that day, at about 10 o'clock, I received the fol lowing letter from the three Bishops:? " New York, Nov. 6,1844. Right Reverend and Dear Brother,? During the investigation of the painful charge*, which have been laid before us, affecting the purity of your ... .. clergy a conduct, a short pastoral address to the clergy and laity ot your diocese, has been handed us, which leads us to suppose that notwithstanding the-clear deftaition of the position in which we now stand in relation to yourself, made in your preaence in the House of Bishops, you mis understand that position, and assume it to be connected with persons and circumstances with which M has no concern whatever. Theae charges, you may remember, were laid beiore the House of Bishops in a memorial purporting to come from two highly respectable clergymen, and three equally respectable laymen of the Church, and all holding the responsible office of Trustees of the General Theological Seminary. Ot theae memorialista, two or three had been solemnly charged by the Diocese of South Carolina to in vestigate rumors affecting the welfare of the Seminary; and in the course of that investigation, these charges against your moral purity had come before them in such a responsible shape, that they felt compelled, by a sense of duty, to lay them before the House of Bishops as visi tors of the Seminary. You may remember likewise, that upon the appearance of that memorial, an excited discus sion was likely to arise respecting the right of the Bishops to receive sucn a paper coming in such a shape, when one of us, your brethren, and ill your presence, submitted certain question! determining the position of any three Bishops who might entertain for presentment the charges of the said memorialists. These questions laid over tor a whole day, during which the propositions of the Bishop item New York, respecting alterations in the Con of Western! stitution of the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Socie ty, ware discussed; and upon the next morning a full and free discussion was had in your presence, you your self taking part in the conversation, in whioh these points wero considered as combining the views of the House of Bishops. 1. That the three Bishopa presenting occupied very much th* position of a grand jury, who are to take care irevlden that thvevidenc* submitted to them was such as to maka out a prima facie case against the accused. 3. That theae JSishops should not be considered Justi fiable in presenting except upon the testimony of respon sible persons, delivered before themselves personally, or duly witnessed before some civil magistrate qualified to administer an oath. > 3. That the acts charged, or if constituting a sequence, some of them at least, should come within a period of time not barred by an equitable statute of limitations. Under these circumstances, and with these views, we, as your brethren, and with the purpose of shielding you from rumors which were deeply affecting your character, and preventing a public exposure of you upon ekparte Evidence, as wall as tor the protection of the House of Bishops against the imputation af refusing to lit ten to chatgas against any one of its body, have been pla sed in the painful position whioh we now occupy in relal ion to yourself. We can assure you that we nave noni other than the kindest feelings towards you as a man, an I trust in God that vou will be enabled to answer to the si tisfac tion of the House of Bishops the charges which w i shall feel bound, as thins? now appear, to present again it you to the Biahope of the Protestant Episcopal Church. From you pastoral, you seem to labor under ai other misapprehension, which we hasten to remove. Ai d that is. that there has been any secresy in this matter, o|r any hunting after evidence on our part. Every paper (recei ved by us in Philadelphia was frankly and freely read by one of our number to Bishop Ives, Dr. Wainwright, and Dr. Berrian, with the understanding that their contents should be communicated fully to yourself, and with th* promise which we now perform, that no final action should be had in this case, until you and your friends had been advised ot the same. Since onr arrival in New York, we have not been collecting, but receiving and sifting testimony ; and by this caution, have been enabled to clcer up, satisfactorily to ourselves, one of tbe most disa greeable of the charges which had been laid before us ? We are compelled, however, to state, that enough re mains, as will appear from tbe articles accompanying this communication, together with the names of the witnesses, to render it incumbent upon us to lay the matter before the House of Bishops, that you may, God helping you, forever put at rest these charge* against your moral puri ty, or else receive humbly the punishment which may be meted out to you in the premise*. We siDOerely trust that you will not misconceive our motives, nor misunderstand our course of action. Our desire is, we repeat it, for your sake and the church's sake, to bring out the truth and nothing but the truth, and to pray you to help us in it', that your character may stand before the world, as that of a Christian Bishop should, b.ameles* and spotless. We have delayed making this communication until we ascertained, satisfactorily to ourselves, that it was neces sary to trouble you at all upon this painful matter. And now, oommending you to God, we remain, Very sincerely and affectionately, Your brethren in the Episcopate, WILLIAM MEADE, D. D. JA H OTEY. 8TEPHEN ELLIOTT. Jr. The above letter was accompanied by a docu ment containing?not copies of the affidavits, which I had particulaily desired to see, and the granting ot the request to see which had been gua rantied by Bishop Elliott's promise and pledge, but?the charges intended to be embodied in the presentment; and a verbal message that they would receive any communication from me the next morning at ten o'clock.* This was the only redemption of Bishop Elliott's repeated pledge, that before the affidavits were used for the purpose of presentment, any request should be granted for my friendsand myself to see or hear them, with opportunity of offering to the presenters explanations er counter statements.? friends in this city were patiently and respectfully waiting, in sure expectation of an honorable re demption of the pledge, when I was told, at ten o'clock at night, that we were allowed until ten o'clock the next morning! I need not say how useless was this offer, and how utter the fallacy of any distinction that may be imagined between the sending of this letter and document, and the ser ving upon me at once of the presentment. Thus it appears, that although it had been boost fully vaunted, as early as about the middle of Oc tober, that proof of guilt was in possession sufficient for my official destruction, and was deposited with Bishop Elliott, with whom Bishops Mead and Otey were soon connected, yet wns it not until Nov. 5th, that I was apprised of their readiness to proceed Meanwhile, if 1 am rightly informed, they gained no new affidavit, nor could aught be found against me for a period more recent than nearly two years and a half. Ample opportunity, however, had thus been afforded to my enemies for prosecuting their designs. Nor was it unimproved by them. Every effort was made to ruin me in the estimation of the church and the world. The most bare-faced falsehoods were circulated verbally and through the press. Through the influence of the latter, my character and conduct were subjected to the most scurrilous abuse in all parts of the country; an evil which, it is obvions, pampering as it does the basest and most malignant, bat not on that account the least welcome, passions and affections of the natural heart, it is hard and toilsome for virtue and integrity to arrest. Such was the cruel treatment to which I was subjected by the delays of the presenters, and the abominable practices against me which those de lays encouraged; when, as appears by the issue, their work could have been as well done at least a fortnight earlier. No one need be told how much, through press and tongue, a fortnight may accom plish, in the work of evil speaking, lying, and slan dering, when an aggravated case is sought to be made out, and the ruin of aa obnoxious individual is the object. To the above letter of the three Bishops, I sent the following reply i? Toms Right Rstsbkno Bisiiom Mkaoc, Otst, asd Elliott. Bbsthssi* :? Your communication of yesterday was handed to me last evening. You are mistaken in supposing that in what I say of "plans, means, and efforts," in my short address to the clergy end people of my charge, I had any reference to yourselves. I referred ts what 1 (understood to be the ?At this time two of my presbyters cidled on the pre- ' sauting Bishops, and remonstrated with them on the shortness of the time allowed. They offered another day. So evident, however, was their haste to make up for past dhlay. end indeed so incompetent even the additionally el lowed time to answer the purpose originally designed by my request and Bishop Elliott's promise- seeing that my past ignorance ol the partionlarchargee had allowed me no oppottunity of preparation - that tho real character of the prooedure was not thus materially altered. movement* of the two clergymen and three laymen of whom you (peak, and of other* prompted by them; and especially the plana and effort* for obtaining the presence 1 and service* of the Rev. Jame* C Richmond, a brother who, for whatever erroneous course he may pursue, is probably more entitled to pity than blame; and who, I may observe here, not a month before the meeting of the Oeneral Convention, had called on me. and expressed a warm desire to return to my diocese, that he might stand by me in my troubles, and be my friend. Whether, hew ever, they who make use of such a one are tq'uily ex empt from blame, I leave to sound principle and correct feeling to determine. In what 1 say of not being allowed to see statements made against me, I frankly confess that I do refer, in part, to Bishop Elliott. He had the papers. He knew I wished to see them. He knew I asked to see them. He knew I desired an interview with him respecting them. He re fused both to let me see them, and to converse with me about them. 1 consider what was at length done in read Ing them to some of my friends by no means an equiva lent to the act of justice and brotherly regard wh'ch I asked. It was yielded, as I was told, not without difficul ty. Tho like was retused to others of my friends who earnestly sought it; and in the measure and mode in which it was conceded, I was not allowed the common justice of selecting the friends to whom that would be granted as a boon which was equitably due. I have no fault to find with the choice which was made; but I con tend that the choice should have been my own. In this mattrr of rpliuingjne a sight or hearing of the accusa tion* brought against me, and leaving me to gather a knowledge of them irom the impressions made on, and the recollections had by, friends not of my own choosing, Mr- Trapier, and those associated with bim, are connect ed in my mind with Bishop Elliott; and I am not aware in what exact measure they are respectively to be held responsible. Your view of the opinion expressed by the Bishops, touching the true character and relations of presenters, is, according to my recollection, not strictly accurate. It appears to me that it was generally understood that pre senting Bishops sustained a position differing in many im portant respects from presenters or prosecutors in civil cr criminal courts. While their relation to the church is that of jealous guardians of its purity, good repute, and interests, they should also sustain to the accused the re ' lation of friend and brother, bound to him by very near sympathies, and acting as a shield and defence for him against the malice of the world, and the persecutions of public rumor and accusation. Hence I certainly gathered it to be the general opinion of the Bishops, that the fra ternal rela* ions between the accused and those who may move in the matter of his presentment, were not to be sacrificed; but that be should expsct, and they should concede, all opportunity on his part to place his explana tions and counter-statements in the opposite scale to that in which the assertions of his accusers were cast, for such consideration as to those his episcopal brethren may seem right in the lull acting out of their solemn obligation so to minister discipline as not to forget mercy, and be so merciful as not to be too remiss. It is a matter of unfeigned surprise to me, that in your enumeration of the opinions of the Bishops, relative to the character, relations, and duties of presenters, you should have omitted an item oi very great importance, included in Bishop Elliott's able and clear remarks on the subject. I allude to malicious motive. He emphatically stated this as a matter to bs looked into belore any Bishops should consent to be presenters. I have heard it spoken of by brother Bishops as evidence ot his high, honorable, and just principles and views. How could you have omitted it 7 It necessarily supposes an opportunity to the accused of being heard In the present case, brethren, if the opportunity were given which Bishop Elliott's repeated pledge was justly deemed to secure, 1 assume that a clear case of malicious motive may be n ade out; that other views than regard for the purity ot the church may be shown as lying at the foundation of this movement; and that a well defined conspiracy, not, It is to be feared, falling short of our own house in its comprehensiveness, may be made manifest. Your expressions, brethren, of kindness and friendship, are very well. There are a practical ext:nt and opera tion, however, in these virtues, enforctd by sound morals and Christian principle, which require something more than worda as evidence of the truth and sincerity of the profession of them. Now, what evidence have I had in reference to yourselves 7 For the last few days of my continuance in Philadelphia, the conduet of each of you towards me was the reverse of fraternal, friendly, or courteoua ; and any thing but indicative of your being by the essentially just maxim of esteeming a governed , man innocent until he is proved guilty. It was very ob vious that you had prejudged my case, and secretly pro nounced me guilty. Oi Bishop Elliott 1 sought a brother ly interview, which he denied me. Since your arrival in this city, not one of you has been near me. Ytu have been among my people, preached to them, to a certain extent sought their money for your dioceses ; used the sanction wnich myself gave you for doing so ; and yet not paid me the ordinary official courtesy of a call at my residence. You have had your ears open to all the gossip and scandal which men reducing themselves to the low caste oi informers and pavders could seek out and scrape together for the use. oi my inveterate enemies It being thus known that there were bishops here who made it their business to receive, examine, and sift such testimo ny, has done more to bring public scandal on the church than all else connected with this business, and has given an intensity of malignant < ffbtt to men desperately sot upon my ruin. You bsve thus been tho means of crea ting the* public rumor which is, I understand, an assum ed ground of action ftr the defence aud purifying of the church. Thus hfv? you contributed to make me, and through me our office, our church, and our religion, a scoffing to the profane : and done Dot a little to aggravate my wretchedness, and help the purpose of my enemies to bring on my min. Contrast with all thi* what you say of friendly and Christian feelings towards me. You speak of having "been enabled to cl*?ar tip satis factorily one of the most disagreeable el the charge* which had been lain before" you. What thin is you say not. Report, before I left Philadelphia, and since I came home, haa aaid that you were in possesaien of an affidavit charging me with pretence in a house of ill fame. This report, as was to be expected, spread widely. As was also to be expected, it swelled in character until the act was magnified into a habit Aa my friends, you were bound to give me at once the name of my false accuser, that he might be summarily prosecuted lor his villainy. Is it possible that this la the "disagreeably thing to which vou to coollv advert 7 Had you allowed me the opportunity which Bishop Elliott's pledge made my right, 1 might have enabled you to clear up other charges against me. The subject of your professed kind and friendly feel ings toward me is inseparably connected In my mind with peculiar circumstances relating te two of your num ber. Of Bishop Meade, I was asked, two or three days ago, whether I considered him my friend. The question was put by a gentleman who had been in Virginia, and who said that his doubts on the subject were the result of what he had there heard, 1 think from the Bishop himself, f cannot but connect this with his present position, and particularly with his effort, at the late General Conven tion, to get rid of me, that he might in my absence, make mv character the subject of remark among my brethren. Of Bishop Otey, too, I sm compelled to sneak in this connection, though with great pain. At dMferent times an inmate of my family, much beloved and eateemed by them, he has not now called teaeena. He haa avoided all intercourse with me. He has, as one of vou, been ac cessible to all sorts ot stories against me, and snob as he must know my enemies design to nush to my ruin and degradation, and to the wretchedness and penury of my family. He can yet find it in hia heart to give me no chance of explanation, and still unite la professions of brotherly regard and christian kindness. Had Bishop Elliott's pledge, bnthren, been redeemed in its true spirit and meaning, I could have added varioua considerations not unreet to have been regarded by you in connection with the queation of presentment. So ob vious, however, is it that your minds are set, and your determination formed, that I cannot but regard snch con siderations as useless. I leave the whole matter in yonr hands, willing to meet any investigation which you may think (It to institute. Deeply grieved at what I cannot but think the unjust and ungenerous treatment which I have received at your hands, 1 still beg you to be assured of the continued pray ers for your individual welfare, and lor a blessing on your official functions, of Yonr brother in Christ. BENJAMIN T. ONDERDONK. New York, November 6,1944. - To this letter the following answer waa re ceived ?? New Yoaa, November 0,1844. Rioht Rev. afid Deas Brother :? Yours ot the sixth instant, received by us en the eve ning of the eighth, requires only a few words In reply. We consider the promise made by one of our number in Philadelphia, as fulfilled in letter and in spirit by our communication of the fifth initsnt. We reiterate what we stated in that communication, that we have acted throughout this whole matter, in a frank and generous manner to you and yourfrienda, and that there has been no secrecy, at any moment, in regard to onr position, or the evidence received by us. We regret fo perceive in your reply that the motives of our aotion are questioned ; but in this stage of the busineas we deem it inconsistent with our duty to enter upon any discussion of that matter. We trust that the conduct of the trial will be such as to satisfy yon that our singla desire la to bring out the truth, and nothing but the truth, and aattla these painfhl charges one way or the other. A? the case is now in the hands of the Presiding Bishop, we mint decline any fur ther correspondence upon these matters. Reciprocating your prayers and good wishes, We remain your brethren in the church, WILLIAM MEADE, JAMES H OTEY, SPEPHEN ELLIOTT, JR. On the ninth of November, the presentment, signed by the above-named Bishops, and the ca nonical summons to attend the trial, were served upon me. The presentment contains internal evidence of its having been the wish of the presenters not only to bring me to trial on specifications of misconduct for which I ought reasonably to be held account able, but also to make eut as bad a case as possi

ble, and to strengthen prejudice against me. what but this last desire could have induced them to frame the ninth article ! This specifies nothing. Ipmrrely charges sundry acts of impropriety du ring the space of the last seven years. None will deny that the promptness with which it wub thrown out by the court, was its bounden duty, and an act o! mere justice None appreciating the righte ous dealing which should characterise actions of this kind, will, 1 apprehend, justify such g charge. Will any doubt that it coula have been seen to have no other bearing than to strengthen pre judice against the accused in the minds ofhiu judges 1 The greater number of the specifications are un supported in the presentment by other affidavits than those of third parties, ana one of them, it i? believed, had no affidavit whatever in its sup port. Intemperance was one of the immoralities with which it was stated by the ostensible movers in this matter, in Philadelphia, I was charged by ru mor Ail that the presenters could lina available on this subject, was an allegation of my having been under the influence ot vinous or spiritous liquor, on one occasion, more than seven years before. How fairly the verdict of guilty was sus tained by the evidence, will appear when that is made public. The charging of an insulated act so many years betore, certainly looks very like a re solution and endeavor to blacken my character as much as possible. It appears by the presentment, as I have before observed, that notwithstanding the prying and un tiring vigilance of my enemies, the presenters could lay nothing to my charge alleged to have occurred within a less period than nearly two years and a half last past. With regard to the specifications generally, two remarks may be made. 1. They are assigned to periods of time so dis tant as to place the defence under peculiar disad vantages?a circumstance which, it I understand right, lies at the foundation of the just and righte ous principle that gave rise to statutes of limitation. This delay in seeking redress was needless, as ample canonical provision for it had all the while existed. 2. The matters charged were such as, in their very nature, to preclude direct countei-testimony. The defence is necessarily confined to circum stantial evidence, going to prove the improbability or impossibility of the charges, or defect in the credibility of the witnesses. My plea of not guilty was made with a good conscience, and is still sacredly adhered to * For its justification I must appeal to the testimony as it is to be laid betore the chnrch. Justice to myself, however, requires that 1 add thereto a few state ments and considerations. I will take up the Articles of the presentment in reversed order, be ginning with the seventh and eighth, which are essentially one. Much stress is laid in the argument ol the coun sel for the prosecution upon a supposed admis^on by me of the facts therein charged. This, it will be perceived, rests on the testimony of witnesses who stated their want of precise recollection of circumstances occurring so long ago,and rather on their inferences than on arecollection of words ? On this subject I submit, as the true one, the fol lowing statement: There was between Mr. Beare and myself,while he was a candidate for orders, a stronger and more affectionate attachment than usually exists between Bishops and their candidates. His visits to me were jrequent. He is the son ot an old and valued friend of mine long since deceased. His widowed mother made me repeated visits to thank me for my in terest m her son, and to commend him to my con tinued care, always adding assurances of his filial love and confidence towards me. His settlement at Little Neck was the rerult of arrangements made by me; and I gave him letters whicn secur ed him the friendship and confidence of the neigh boring clergy. When I was called on, as stated in the evidence, by four Reverend brethren, and in formed that the feelings of Mr. and Mrs. Beare had been wounded by me, my conscience acquit ted me of all just cause for censure, and I was hurt at the allegation. Mr. Muhlenbere's account of the particulars, as derived from Mr. Beare, was a very confused and indistinct one. It rather hinted at than described them. It conveyed to my mind, however, enough to satisfy me that there had been great exaggeration on the part of Mrs. Beare, or great misapprehension on his. I adverted to the unfavorable position of one thus accused,inasmuch as the very nature of the allegation precluded di rect counter-testimony, other than the asseveration of one interested party against that ot another. I expressed, however, my desire to see Mr. Beare, and my confidence that I could satisfy him that there must be misapprehension. This interview then closed with the understanding that Mr. Beare was to call on me the next day. The account,con aas*d and indistinct as 1 have said, given by Dr Muhlenberg, of the alleged particulars, was" all I ever had of them until I saw them detailed in the presentment. Had they been laid before me at this interview in the form given to them in that instru ment, truth would have required my denial to be v*f mnrp nocifivp On the following day, Mr. Beare called, accom panied by Drs. Mifnor, Muhlenberg, and Higbee. He was evidently in much distress on account ol the statements which he had heard respecting me It has often been laid to my charge, by both friends and foes, that I am too confiding, and too apt to be swayed by the professions, sensibilities, and feel ings of others. 1 will not now stop to say whether, notwithstanding the dear-bought experience which this h;>s cost me, I would preter to it a cold, suspi clone, and repulsive temperament. Whether it was a weakness or not, I frankly confess I was moved by seeing Mr Beare thus grieved at the idea of having been ill treated by myself. I saw a young man whom 1 loved with paternal affection,in tears because of supposed injuries inflicted by me. My own tears were drawn tortb in sympa'hy. I gave vent to the honest impulses of my heart in expres sions of deep regret that I should have been the occasion ot distress to him and his wife; but dis avowed all intention to be so, and any conduct which could he justly so regarded. In reference, 1 supposed, to my denial, on the preceding day, ot what I understood to be his wife s allegations, he asked me w hether I meant to impeach her veraci ty. Dr. Muhlenberg had said the day before, that Mrs. Beare had given her statement to her husband while under great excitement and agitation With this in my mind, I replied in substance, that I did not mean to impeach her veracity, tor that, under peculiar states of mind, imagination may often go beyond reality, memory prove treacherous, and erroneous impressions be conveyed, or erro neous statements given, without any pur pose of deception. I have no hesitation in avow ing that a prominent feeling in my mind was a de sire to soothe my young friend, and avoid what ever might tend to mar hit happiness, and there fore to put the most favorable construction on what 1 knew to be his wile's erroneous statements. In reference to this, I added that it would be little consolation to me to relieve my own distress by adding to that of others I do not remember that his question was repeated. If it was, I answered it in the same way. I was moved, by seeing his distress, to a repetition of my regret at having been, however unconsciously and unjustly, a source of pain to himself and hiB wile. I hesitated not to ask to be forgiven for it, and assilred him that the most scrupulous regard to their feelings, and en deavor to promote their happiness, should hereatter show the sincerity with which I now addressed him. These sentiments,perhaps repeated by me, I desired him to communicate to his wife. He said he was satisfied, and hoped that she would be. The visitors soon took leave, all shaking hands with me. Rejoicing in the appearance ol my young friend's having his mind relieved, and his wonted leelings of friendship for me restored, I pressed his arm with my hand as he left the door of the room. He took the hand in his, and return ed the pressure in a manner which tny heart did not fail to appreciate. Whatever weakness the above detail may seem to indicate on my part, and however the iBsue may show me to have been too confiding, what 1 have said is true. Let it go for what of right it should, in i the momentous question now at issue. The counsel for the prosecution said emphati cally, more than once, that il it could be made to appear that parties, who, in this suit, complained of having been seriously aggrieved, had since act ed towards the alleged aggressor in a manner in consistent with a sense of wrong and injury done them, this circumstance must go very far towatds casting suspicion upon their complaints, and upon the testimony brought to sustaiu them. The jus tice of this must be obvious. It was the ground of much of the testimony adduced on the part of the defence. By that testimony it was clearly shown that 1 had received attentions from Mr. and Mr*. Beare, since the. alleged outtage upon their feel ings, totally inconsistent with the ground now taken by them. To the evidence on this point, I have somewhat to add. When Mr. Beare was asked as a witness at the trial, how soon atter the circumstances alleged by him against me, he called on me 1 He said that it was a few months previous to his ordination as priest, thus naturally conveying the idea that the visit had a referenpe to that event. This is not so The subject of his ordination was introduced by him at a later day, in a letter. His first visit was some three or four months alter the time of the al leged insult,I having been, for the greater part of the intermediate period, out of the city. It was, to all * It ht? been rumored that in my address to the court, between conviction and sentenc I Bdmttted the truth ol the charges. The readers ol that document will, I thiuk, ?ee that thia wa* not the case. It ie evident, from the very object of that address, that it ought to havp been framed on the auppoaition of the sufficiency of the evi dence for the verdict which taed been found. Thie is the amount of the alleged admiseion. There will alio be lound in the addsese, proof that enquiry Into the evi dence was only waives, net abandoned. appearance, a friendly visit, having no special busi ness in view, not called for by any official etiquette, and therefore perfectly voluntary. It was, 1 confess, very grateful to me, as proof that his tnendly feel ings were entirely restored. Among the evidences of conduct towards me, on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Beare, inconsistent with the idea of their having had their feelings wounded by me, prominence is given in the evi dence, to an invitation to dine with them, and its being urged notwithstanding an invitation for me to dine, on the same day, with an highly valued friend, in whose family 1 had repeatedly been a kindly received, a hospitably entertained, and cer tainly a happy guest. The fact of my having had this Utter invitation seemed, by their testimony, to have been strangely forgotten by Mr. and Mrs. Beare. The readers of the evidence, however, will have no doubt that it was given, and was known by them to have been so. Additional evidence on this Bubject might have been brought before the court. I yielded, how ever, to the suggestion that the testimony of any of my own family might be considered objectionable. Appealing now to those whose heads and hearts will not suffer them to admit the objection, I hesi tate not to give the affidavit of my son. It is as follows:? "ClTT AND COUMTT Of NkW YORK, II. .* "Henry M. Ouderdouk, oI the city of New York, being duly sworn, doth depose nnd say, that cn Monday, the filth day of August., ia the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-lour, the Rev. Herry M. Beare, Rector of Zion'a Church, Little Neck, Long Island, came into deponent's bookstore, No. 2f> John street, in said city, at which time the following circumstances and con versation occurred : "The said Henry M. Beare, after being in the said store a few minutea, asked deponent if he were Bishop Onder donk's nephew, and upon being answered in the nega tive, and told that deponent was Bishop Onderdonk's son, the said Henry M. Beare extended his hand in a friendly and cordial manner, and inquired particularly after depo neat'sfather. The said Henrv M. Beare then examined and selected some books, inquiring at the same time how deponent's business succeeded A reply having been made, the said Henry M. Beare remarked that deponent's success was certain, as deponent's father had a numerous circle of friends, and thereupon promised to give depo nent the benefit of whatever business he, the said Beare, might have in the book line. The said Henry M. Beare then entered into a general conversation with deponent, in the course of which he made mention of the difficulties be had to contend with in his parish, in consequence of the lack of education and refinement among his parishioners, and of its being a con tinued source of annoyance to him, by jeaving him with out any society congenial to his taste. He also referred to the pleasure derived from occasional visits of acquain tances from the city, and spoke of deponent's father's visit to his parish at the time of his ordination. He also stated that deponent's father had dined with him at that time, and that he had with difficulty persuaded him (de ?ionent's father) to do so on account of a previous in vita ion given and accepted to dine elsewhere, and referred to that dinner with evident satisfaction and pleasure. The said Henry M. Bearo remained in deponent's store from one-half to three quarters of an hour, purchased some books, among which was a sermon written by deponent's lather, and upon leaving, shook hands and tendered the hospitalities ot his home on LoDg Island to deponent, and desired to be remembered to deponent's father. Deponent iurther saith, that in|gahout three or four weeks after the said fifth of August, the said Henry M. Beare, again came into deponent's store, inquiring as be fore, in the same friendly manner, alter deponent's father. Deponent further saith, that the substance oi this affi davit was, fo the best of his knowledge and belief, com municated to his father, before he heard or knew ot any difficulty or difference between him and the said Henry M. Beare, and that it was made voluntarily, and without a request from any person whatsoever. HENRY M. ONDERDONK. Sworn before me, the 2d day of January, 1B45. James. P. Howard, Commissioner of Deeds. From the above it appears that Mr. Beare not only knew ot my previous invitation, but was also gratified at my having, notwithstanding, accepted liis. The bearing of all this on the credibility of his testimony against me, is confidently left to the intelligent and christian-minded readers of that testimony. 1 he next specifications against me, in the retro grade order of time, are those numbered V and VI in the presentment. The circumstances are al leged to nave occurred in the same family and oil the same day, more than three years ana a half ago. Here, too, the parties claiming to have been aggrieved, acted towards me, at subsequent pe t riods. as it appeared by the evidence, in a munner which, the counsel for "the prosecution being judge, was totally inconsistent with the idea of their hav ing suffered indignity from me. Of the credit due to the evidence brought in support of their allega tions, the Church will be able to judge by Us peru sal. Regarding that evidence, however, I have a general remark to make which will be appreciated by every reader who brings to the subject a proper estimate of the principles and requirements of sound Christian morals. A defective view in a witness of the awful character and obligation of an oath, should, as with correctly thinking per sons, it always docs, detract from his credibility. The specifications now considered were founded on the affidavits of two sisters. The younger, Jane Rudderow, gives one of some length and mi nuteness. The elder, Helen, gives one occupying ! but a lew lines, in which she swears that every j word of her sister's oath is true. Jane's oath, how- j ever, contained many details of which Helen does j not prettnd to have been an eye witness. That ' she should have sworn unqualifiedly to the truth of I matters of which she had no personal knowledge, j manifests a carelessness on the subject which cer tainly detracts from the credibility of her testimo ny. The juxta position pf the two affidavits on the same sheet of paper, is among the reasons for receiving the two as the joint act of the sisters, a view of the case which will not be denied to be a true one The moral influence, therefore, of this careless swearing must be regarded as extending to the question of the credibility of both. But this is not all. A more mournful consideration still, is the fact that the instrument containing these affidavits is|tn the hand-writing ol a minister of the gospel, the Rev. James C. Richmond. Of whatever de tect of moral principle or moral sensibility this method of swearing shows to exist in them, the responsibility is certainly largely shared by him. I ought further to state that until my visit to Phi ladelphia in October last, I never received by word or otherwise, the least intimation of offence having been given to the complaining parties in this case. I now come to a period ol more than tour years, within which the presenters were not able to esta blish any thing to my disadvantage. More than seven nnd a half years ago, the circumstances are alleged to have occurred which are detailed in Ar ticles I and II ol the presentment. Of the second article, bringing against tne the charge?the only one of the kind?of having been intoxicated that length of time ago, and drawing down upon me conviction of feeing, on that account, guilty of im morality, and subjecting me to punisnment for the same, I have before spoken. I crave an unbiassed and just judgment of the evidence, ft is, however, perhane, no more than an act of justice to myself to ada, as illustrative of the opportunity there was for intoxication, and the probability of itsexistence. that I had, on that day. in the morning, instituted the Rector ol the parish, nnd preached on the oc casion; that alter dinner 1 had preached, adminis tered confirmation, and addressed the persons con firmed; and that after this service, as soon as ar rangements could be made, with a little delay owing to rain, we set out on our journey; the in terval having been spent with one of the most respectable tamalies in Ithaca. Of the subject matter of the first article, I ask an unbiassed consideration of the evidence, and of what I have further to add in relation to it. This case also presents a painful instance of in sensibility, on the part of a minister of the gospel, to the awlulness and sacredness of an oath. The Rev. Clement M. Butler swears to a statement, drawn up with great minuteness, of circumstances said to have occurred more than seven years before the affidavit was made out; of the greater number and most important of which he hail no per-onal cognizause; and with regard to which, although it was constantly within his power, he had not re freshed his memory during that whole period. What was the consequence 1 He swore to an un truth?afterwards acknowledged by himsell to be such. He swore that his wife told him what she never had told him, and what never occurred; and the point thus falsely sworn to constituted the most serious charge brought against me in the whole nresentment?a charge which has done me more injury than all the rest put together?a charge which was naturally regarded by the presenters as giving to his affidavit its chief claim to their no tice. But I have not yet done with this cruelly and most unjustifiably false accusation. Three diffe rent accounts of it are sworn to by Mr Butler and his wife. He swears to it, in His affidavit, as a fact communicated to him by his wift at the first stopping place on our journey. Having been af terwards told by his wife that this was not so, tor the circumsiance sworn to had never occurred, he swears in court that the mistake arose from some thing his wife said to him in the carriage. She -swears that she never said anV thing to him of the kind; hut that he must have derived his mistaken idea from some gesture of hers, designed to illus trate another matter. The published evidence will show other incon gruities also between the oaths of this clergymen and his wifo. | It ia confidently left to men of sound sense and Christian principle, to say how tar the claim of these oaths to implicit confidence ia thus qualified. I request those who may peruse the evidence to give heed also to the following extracts from a let ter, written under date of December 27, 1844, to a clerical brother, by the Ref. Henry Gregory, the present Rector of St. Paul's Church, Syracuse, a clergyman whose name, with all who know him. is synonymous with the best official and personal qualifications for the holy ministry. He had made enquiries of parishiontrs who were intimate with Mr. and Mrs Butler, and after stating the fact that she, Mrs Butler, was " not well at that time," the time ot her going to Ithaca?(a fact of which the readers of the evidence will not fail to see the connection with a pretence, therein set forth, of sickness as the conseonence of her journey lrom idflt)! Ithaca,)?he writes asibllows:? " After their arrival here"?at Syracuse on their return to Ithica?"Mra-Cooka saw Mrs Butler, and heard her speak of th? journey and the Bishop. She spoke particu larly of the kindness of the Bishop to her, and said she could scarcely have made the journey had she not had hia support, (she leaning on him in her weakness;) but not one word did she say to Mrs. Cooke, (an intimate lriend,) of any impropriety in the Bishop. " Mr. Peck's* mother-in-law (Mrs. Grilling, who is well acquainted with the Bishop) is eue of the communi cants in this church, and is now here Her daughter (Mrs. Peck) is dead. I called on her to-day. She recol lected the fact well, that Mr. Peck was driver on that oc casion I asked her if either he or Mrs. Peck ever said anything about any impropriety in the Bishop's conduct during that ride. 1 Nothing,' she said, ' that she ever knew.' She says he was always in the habit of closely observing things; had a nice sense of propriety, and was accustomed to speak freely oi things to his wife and to hor, when he came home. That after his return from Ithaca, he spoke oi the nice pleas mt ride they had, and particularly of the Bishop's kind attentions to Mrs. But ler, as though she were his child. Mrs. Grilling teels ve ry confident that if Mr. Peck had observed anything wrong, he would have mentioned it. Mr. Peck is prona Uy in South America. On the 37th ol October last, he wrote to Mrs. OntliDg that he expected that day to start.' Respecting this letter of Mr. Gregory, Bishop Ives states to me his recollection that the account I gave to him in Philadelphia, of this ride to Sara cuse, accorded exactly, in all material points, with that contained in the letter. It is right that I here correct Mr. Butler in a mat ter entirely irrelevant to the main point, in which he betrayed his desire to wound und injure me as much as possible. The reader of hisevidence will find a reference therein to circumstances connect ed with his ordination as Priest, directly calcula ted to prejudice my official character. I proceed to give the true account of the case; only premi sing that this is by no means the first time that my efforts to accommodate and favor others have been returned by ingratitude. In the year of this ordination, 1837, the diocese still comprised the whole Btate. The churches in Onondaga county were not, that year, to be visited by me in course. For the purpose of ordaining Mr. Butler, however, in his own Church, I made a spe cial appointment for Syracuse, naming the 24th of May as the day. On that day, accordingly, I was in the parish. Unfortunately, the necessary papers fa.? from the Standing Committee had not* arrived The ordination, therefore, could not take place. This was a great disappointment; it being much desired by Mr. Butler and his people that he should be ordained there. Anxious to accommodate them 1 made another appointment for June 2d, although I knew that I could meet it only by very special and wearisome exertion. I expressed, however, the willingness, which I sincerely felt, to sacrifice all personal considerations to an object which I tnougnt aesirnDie in useii.ana gratitying to a young brother, and his parish,whom I felt happy to serve. Accordingly, having passed the greater part of the preceding night in travelling thither, I arrived at Syracuse, at about ten o'clock, on the morning of June 2d. The hour of eleven had been appointed for the service. There was, therefore, but one hour for all the needed personal and other preparations for the expected solemnity. The examination of the candidate was yet to be held. I expressed to the clergy present my great gratification, consider ing the emergency, that the young brother to be or dained had, within less than a year, completed an extended and satisfactory course of preparation fsr the ministry, under my constant supervision as a Professor in the General Th? oiogicul Seminary of our Church, of which he had been admitted to the honorable rank ot an alumnus 1 mentioned this particularly to the Rev. Amos Pardee, the oldest presbyter present, to whom 1 looked for presenting 'he candidate, if he could conscientiously do so.? 1 farther reminded him that presentment was on the double ground ot enquiry and examination,and that the more satisfactory the enquiry, the less stringent need the examination be. Referring also to the urgency of the occasion, and my strong de sire to gratify Mr. Butler and his people, and far ther stating that his diaconnte had been speut use fully and successluliy, I putto him a few leading questions, but was compelled to leave him princi pally with Mr. Pardee and at least one other pres byter, to institute such examination as their sense j of duty might require, and the present emergency | allow. So much lor the matter of the ordination, which Mr Butler attempted to turn to my discredit and injury. In the present instance, too,l never had the least intimation of offence given, until last October, in Philadelphia ; that is, until more than seven years since it is alleged to have been given. There appears to have been, in the whole of the preparation tor subjecting me to the late trial, a singular, and certainly a most unchristian effort, to evade the possibility of tailing in that design, by not allowing the chance which our Divine Lord provides for his followers, of avoiding public dis cipline by the beneficial influence of private re monstrance. And surely not less singular and un christian is the disposition thus manifested, to re sist the Saviour's gracious purpose, in this blessed provision, of warding off scandal to His church.? Three of the prominent actors in this mntter, the Rev. Messrs. Paul Trupier, John B. Gallagher, and Clement M. Butler hnd been connected with me by the sacred tie of Christian instructor, and Chris tian pupils. Mot one of them ever uttered to me a word indicative of wounded feeling, ot kuowledge ot charges against me, or of solicitude for what might b" the consequence of evil report ou one who had ever treated them as a father and a friend The first that that father and friend knew that any of them had might against him, was his finding them, as his formal accusers, arrayed tor bringing down upon him the strong arm of the Discipline of the Church. How far their conduct admits, not of the excuse, (for there can be none,) but of the ex planation, that there were malignant promptings behind them, not yet fully brought to lignt, lawhat, in the providence of a just and righteous God, may hereafter more clearly appear. Had they adopted the course which was bounden upon them as chris tian men and christian ministers, it is morally cer tain that they had not been guilty of inflicting such wounds on the Church, and bringing such wicked scandal on its holy cause. Having been the means of producing excitement against me in a distant part of the country, heightened and rendered efficient by co-operation with enmity to my religious princi ples, they found willing co-adjutors in che work of stirring up strife within my own diocese. An agent from another distant State was employed, who, loudly proclaiming his work, in domestic cir cles, in places of public resort, among the masses congregated in travelling vehicles, any where and every where affording a hearing ear, spread the matter tar and wide, and set ten thousand tongues it work to spread it further. The press took it up. even in tf\e lowest ,,nd most malignant form and spirit in which that mighty eugine can do its work. Thus was there made a public rumor to which, three weeks fx tore, this diocese was an ut ter stranger, and which was assumed asgronnd tor instituting the trial, and pushing it to the convic tion and punishment said to be demanded by the inus disturbed community 1 was the victim whose mcntiee was to meet the demand. My original plea of not guilty is here solemnly renewed, ft respects both the purpose ot my heart und the misconduct alleged. But let me not be suspected of putting forth any proud claim to ex emption front frailty and sintullness. While .ruth would be sacrificed did I profess con sciousness of having justly incurred the ver dict which has been awarded me, God knows that I presume not to absence of guilt before Him, n the perpetual sinfulness of my heart,and in daily leaving undone what I ought to do, ana doing what i inight not to do. And God forbid that I should tot be humbled under a sense ot the too successful letrayments, in each of these classes ot omission ind commission, into which 1 am often thrown. They are perpetual calls for contrition, humility, md repentance. May 1 have grace not to sutler hem?God forgive me if I am wrong in the hum >le hope that 1 do not suflnr them?to pass un heeded ! ... It has pleased my Maker to give me?friends and ?nemies unite to tell me so?a heart inclined warmly to reciprocate friendly affection, to yield oils reality or appearance in olhors, and to be un *Mr. Peck, npoken of by Mr. Gregory as a "very res wrtable man," drove the carriage. Hi? name is omitted o the presentment It became first known to the defence fben mentioned in the teitimony in court. Meaauret .vera immediately adopted lor procuring lua attendance. Ho had left the country, and the letter ot Mr. (iregory ar rived too lata tor any ua? ot tta contents on the trial

Other newspapers of the same day