IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 % 
 
 </ 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 K^^ 
 
 ^ ^ m. 
 ^'/. 
 
 1.0 
 
 l.i I'^l 
 
 IA£|Z8 |2.5 
 
 !^ "^ 12-2 
 •" - ""'2.0 
 
 IIL25 ill U 
 
 1.6 
 
 rilL^liU^ GLUiliLi 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STRFET 
 
 V^EBSTER.N.Y. US80 
 
 (716)872-4503 
 
 m 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 .■<f*. 
 
 
 %" 
 
 ■%^' 
 
tip M^.- 
 
 S 
 
 l/.A 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHIVI/ICIVIH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian In&titute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiq 
 
 ues 
 
 \ 
 
 ^ 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquas at bibliographiquas 
 
 Tha Instituta has attampted to obtain tha best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may altar any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagia 
 
 □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurie et/ou peliiculAe 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 □ Coloured maps/ 
 Cartas g^ographiquas mn couleur 
 
 □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encra de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 □ Coloured plates and/or illustraticns/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 □ Bound with other material/ 
 ReliA avec d'autres documants 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion 
 alorj interior margin/ 
 
 Lareiiura serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorsion la long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout«es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans la texte, 
 mais. lorsque cela «tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas iti filmAas. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl^mantaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur axemplaire 
 qu'il lui a iti possible de se procursr. Las details 
 de cet exempla<re qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger una 
 modification dans la m«thode normala de filmaga 
 sont indiquAs ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pag«s endom magmas 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages rsstauries et/ou pellicul^es 
 
 a Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d«color*es, tachet^es ou piquies 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages d^tachias 
 
 r~li Showthrough/ 
 l^ Transparanca 
 
 [~7f Quality of print varies/ 
 1^^ Quality in«gale de I'imp 
 
 □ Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprand du material suppl^mantaire 
 
 □ Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponibie 
 
 □ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Las pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuiilet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc.. ont *t* filmies d nouveau da facon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 impression 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 Ca document est film* au taux de reduction irdiqu* ci-dessous. 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 aox 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Douglas Library 
 Queen's University 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated Impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated Impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — »- (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 IV^aps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning \n the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grAce A la 
 g4n«roslt« de: 
 
 Douglas Library 
 Queen's University 
 
 Les images suivantes ont «t« reproduites avec ie 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at 
 de la nettet« de l'exemplaire fllm«. et en 
 conformit* avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires orlglnaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprlm«e sont filmte en commen^ant 
 par ie premier plat et en terminent soit par la 
 dernlAre pege qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'Impression ou d'Htustration, soit par Ie second 
 plat, salon Ie cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 orlglnaux sont filmte en commenpant par la 
 premldre pege qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'Impression ou d'iilustration et en terminent par 
 la dernldre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie 
 cas: Ie symboie — <»» signifie "A SUiVRE", Ie 
 symbols y signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 fiimis A des taux de reduction diffirents. 
 Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clichd, il est film6 A partir 
 de I'angle sup«rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de heut en bas. en prenant Ie nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diegrammes suivants 
 illustrent ie mithode. 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 S 
 
 6 
 
}ill 
 
 4j /n 
 
 COMESPONDENCE. 
 
 
7 
 
 L.r 
 
 r50lB /g7/^ ^S'-^^ 
 
 :«^ 
 
 .'^mMy:(Yimn\m 
 

 J 
 
 (PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL.) 
 
 
 Halifax, 2ftth Nov., 1870, 
 No. 18 Morris Street. 
 Sir,— I have before me your letter to a Baptist minister in the 
 western part of the province, dated Feb. 10th, 1870, from which I 
 extract the following : 
 
 •' You will see by the Messenger of this week, that our good 
 «' Baptist brother, Mr. Rand, has been expelled from the office of 
 " Superintendent of Education, The real cause is his opposition to 
 *' Roman Catholics. It was a plot in which Judge Johnston joined 
 "and helped remove Mr. Rand. Mr Rand opposes Separate 
 « Schools. Mr. Hunt has declared himself in favor of Separate 
 " Schools. So he will be a good tool in the hands of the govern- 
 •• ment in serving the Papists." 
 
 I beg to enquire on what grounds you made the imputation 
 respecting me, whi^h is conveyed in the extract I have quoted above. 
 
 I am your obedient servant, 
 
 T *t. n -r. ,, c, J. W. JOHKSTON. 
 
 To the Rev. E. M. SAUNDEH8, 
 
 (Granville St. Baptist Charch,) Halifax. 
 
 ft, 
 
 Halifax, Dec 2nd, 1870. 
 Sir,— Your letter of the 28th ult., has been received. In reply 
 I have only to say, that I do not consider that you have put youi-self 
 in a position consistently and legitimately to make the enquiry your 
 letter contains. I am. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient .<ervant, 
 
 _, „ - , E. M» Saundkrs. 
 
 To Hon. Judos Jouktson. 
 
 3. 
 
 Halifax, 18 Morris St., Tuesday morning, 
 6th Dec, 1870. 
 Sm,r— Last forenoon I received your letter of the 2nd inst. — in 
 which after acknowledging the receipt of my letter to you of the 
 28th ult-— you say J 
 
 "In reply I have only to say, that I do not consider tlmt you have put 
 yourself in a position consistently and legitimately to make the enquiry 
 "your letter contains." 
 
 The position I am in is merely that in which you have placed me 
 by disparaging me behind my back; the enquiry I made was 
 founded on the right which every man has to demand the grounds 
 on which an injurious imputation has been cast upon him ; and the 
 obligation rested on you to answer my enquiry, which rests on every 
 man who undertakes to circulate what is injurious to the reputation 
 
of another — nor is it in your option to defeat this ripht, or to escape 
 
 this oblif^atioii. by au unexplained ambiguous assertion made on 
 
 your own authority. 
 
 If any r<-a>oii does exist, I require you to let me know specifically 
 
 what it is that precludes my right con^i^tently and legitimately — to 
 
 use your own words — to demand from you on what giounds you 
 
 asserted as a fact that which reflected on my charaott r — what it is 
 
 that releases you from the obligation — an obligation which men of 
 
 manly and upright principles cheerfully acknowledge — of either 
 
 vindicating what you have publi>hed to my prejudice, or il that 
 
 cannot be done, of making repaiatiou by acknowledgement of the 
 
 wrong. I am, Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 J. W. Johnston. 
 The RcT. £. M. Savnokbs, Halifax. 
 
 Halifax, Dec, 1870. 
 Siu, — Your letter of tlie 6th inst., has been received. That I may- 
 be understood, and that your mind may be satisfied, I am convinced 
 that it be necessary for me to draw somewhat on your patience in 
 my reply, i. e. I must write more at length than I have done. This 
 would take more time than 1 could conveniently give to it just now, 
 as I need every moment tiiat I can get to prepare a lecture which I 
 am engaged to give in the country next Wednesday. As soon as 
 possible after my return from the country, I will give at length a 
 reply to your enquiries. 
 
 I am Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 E. M. Saunders. 
 To Hon. Judge Johnsion. 
 
 9. 
 
 18 MoREis Street, Saturday. 
 
 Sir, — Tn reply to your note stating that your engagements made 
 it inconvenient for you to answer my letter until you return from 
 the country, I beg to say I have no wish to put you to unnecessary 
 inconvenience, and shall wait your return before looking for a reply. 
 
 I am your obedient servant, 
 
 J. W. Johnston. 
 The Rev. E. M. Saunders.. 
 
 4». 
 
 Halifax, Dec. 20th, 1870. 
 
 Sir, — On reperusing your letter of the 6th inst., I find that it 
 does not require as lengthened a reply as at first appeared necessary. 
 
 You do not seem to see why you have not put yourself in a 
 position consistently and legitimately to make the enquiry contained 
 in your letter of the 28th ult. 
 
 Let me ask you to consider whether you ought not before making 
 that enquiry to have furnished me with the means of ascertaining 
 whether the letter from which you made your extract was genuine 
 or not? and whetlier you ought not to have stated that you had 
 no lot or part in the matter of Mr. Rand's dismissal ? 
 
Ton ceitniuly will admit tluit it is duo to me to know \vhetli(-r the 
 letter from whicii yoti qiinte was written I.y uie or not.— the which 
 I woidd bo imahlo t ) ulliruj or deny iruni any information I possess 
 at the present tim '. 
 
 It is, 1 trust, unnecessjiry for me to add, that when you shall have 
 
 satisfied me of the ^'enninencss of tlie letter fronj whieh your 
 
 quotation has been taken, and shall di-avow pariieipation in Mr. 
 
 Hand's removal from the ofliee of Superintendent of Edneation, I 
 
 shall not (referring to the language employed in vour letter) attempt 
 
 "to defeat th's right or to escape this obligation."— n right whii-h, 
 
 asitappears to me, you then may possess, and an obligoiion whieU 
 
 you then consistently and legitimnt-dy may regard as binding on me, 
 
 I am Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 _ -, . ^ E. M. Saunders. 
 
 To Hon. Judge Johnston. 
 
 ». 
 
 Halifax, 18 Morris Street, 
 Friday, 30th Dec, 1870. 
 Sir,— Hitherto in this correspondence! have exercised the utmost 
 forbearance. In my first letter, I merely put before you your own 
 language, and sought to know your grounds for the injurious impu- 
 tations it conveyed. So, in replying to your ambiguous and eva-ive 
 answer, I passed by its unworthy character, and contented myself 
 mth shewmgyou my right and your duty relatively as the aspcMved 
 and the aspersor. And had you regarded aright tlie plain truths inv 
 letter taught, your evasions would have ceased. You, however, 
 prefer to continue a course which now imposes on me the disaineeabie 
 task of exposing excuses which I canm)t but despise, and To do >^o 
 with a planless I would willingly have avoided. In your letter of 
 20th Dec, received on the afternoon of the 22nd. you gave the 
 reasons which you profess to think warn nt you in denying my right 
 to call for the grounds on which you had written prejudicially of me. 
 Thesereasons are two— First, I ought, you say, to have furnished 
 you with the means of ascertaining whether the letter I'rom which I 
 made my extract was genuine or not. This objection would not be 
 unreasonable provided you really had a doubt on the subject, h' 
 you have not a doubt, it is an evasion, the most disingenuous and 
 insignificant. Looking at the letter, its object, and the influence in 
 promoting that object which the calumnies were likely to exercise, it 
 would be degrading charity into unreasoning credulitv to believe that 
 you could fail to recognize the extract I placed before you. or to 
 recall your own production of which it formed part. Yet it is of 
 this you have not hesitated thus to write in your last note to me : 
 " You certainly will admit that it is due to me to know whether the 
 *'^ letter from which you quote was written by ine or not, the which 
 I would be unable to affirm or deny from any information I po>sp-s 
 *' at the present time." As your self-respect has not sufficed to 
 restram you from this reckless assertion, I will put the letter in 
 the hands of some gentleman to be shown to you and immediately 
 returned to me. The other excuse you assign is that I ought to have 
 stated that I Had no lot or part in the matter of Mr. Rand's dibmis.<al. 
 
 /;^of o/^ 
 
distinct and certain proof. If vm, 1 »,! c. k^ ^ c " '^"'""8 ^"^ 
 '/'^« it would at least have had the Wi^l ""'"7".' "''^'^'°" ' 
 
 Kave yourself c«ted for . JZl/Z IlT? "r"""*'"""^ ^°" 
 ym leller and to gi -e 8ecre7«,rreLv^r. f ^ "^ n»me..,to 
 choice ,„ reject the VSyTS y„t Vv ZZy"".- '""'i 
 
 honorable manner. "''''"» "^ "'"^'^ '" « °^«"ly and 
 
 I am your obedient servant, 
 To the Rev. E. M. Saundebs ^' ^' 'JOHNSTON. 
 
 (Gianville St. Baptist Church,) Hftlifax. 
 
 S. 
 
 o,„ TT ,, Halifax, Jan. 11th, 1871. 
 
 had written the letter or not Vf, '""=''"'''''« '» »»y whether I 
 
 am obliged to mZl7SleJZ'"'t^"-T^.^°''\''P*y- ' 
 Iiaye beln reanired of m. '-"V" '"' *''" P™"' "hich ought not to 
 
 fl«, le.er VouTd hate bre„^o protlhl,"^^^^^^^ '"r''* °' y°" 
 which I did not recolkVf j,.^ P'°'^i,"" correctness of an assertion 
 
 ..^.d. and did no. re^ch^rfe^ f^^^Z l^fl:^!^ 
 
for evnflinpf 
 u credit for 
 so insulting 
 onteinpt it 
 agsmvated 
 ome to my 
 >• It was 
 srtioti was 
 Johnston 
 I'our belief 
 ted actual 
 Eiking but 
 ice it now 
 deliberate 
 you had a 
 assertion ; 
 aving me 
 offence of 
 you have 
 can be if 
 evasions 
 It present 
 bility you 
 name into 
 .'our own 
 oration of 
 nbarrass- 
 Brence to 
 ; a frank 
 inly and 
 
 STON. 
 
 1871. 
 
 • reasons 
 ake the 
 J I con- 
 hed me 
 erred to 
 ether I 
 ■eply, I 
 t not to 
 3f your 
 ^sertion 
 y to do 
 er have 
 on you 
 
 ^^^'^"ZtS.l^ltjI^i^^^ ("^-"'^-e the 
 
 concealed what in you Cleiri , '^^ ,^°" *'^*'^' ^"^"^ «"<! 
 
 know. You c^me °o mr„si * ?^°" acknowled^.e I had a right tu 
 
 keeping back from me th^k?r.?^''" f ""'"'« «^" »" ">««Tlion, but 
 -hethe'r I had ^de th as tdo f o^^^'^l^ ' '"^"'^ «--« '"^-1^ 
 what ought to have been nn nL? ^^' V"" ""f"^«^'d "P0» 'n« 
 dealing It yourZuC In vouTLTT .!""'^-^''"^ f "^'^'"^ '"'^ 
 soundness of my position on thi, I'f «'»*^'' ^o" ncknowled«e the 
 ment you have recourse to« ^ T'"'' ^^"' '" '""^'"S »'»« «<^^kr.ow. 
 
 -est inwarrantrbirto j« Ige ^e CT^'r^V^^" "^«"'-"^ 
 doubting the truthfulness of wh!! T , ^'"''''''^ ^° ^''^^ expedient of 
 
 frank and unqualified SotMl,nuh?°"' ?'\''' ^'•"" ^^'"'^ ^^^ « 
 self to make your first inQu^v Tnf /°" '^^^ '"^^ ^"*^>'"^'^ y°"'- 
 when you imVach mHe adtv a^^^^^ 
 
 assertion/' your own words «tL3H """'"" *^ 'P«"l* ^^ " '"^-'cklesa 
 to your first^letter. Y?u1l et i^rhe' 'Th"' .""^ ^'°''.^^^*' ^"^" 
 grounds you made the imn !♦? ' • ^^^ *° enquire on what 
 
 i' the ex'tract 1 1 e quXuLi;^^^^^^^^^^^ "f "^'^*^ '^ -"-^^^ 
 " In my first letter I merelv nn^Ti ^°"'* ^^'' '^"«^' ^o" ^^^te, 
 
 "sought to know your /rounSs for r'.y?" y^"'*^ " l«n2"age, and 
 "veyed." Your imelWe o"-^^^^^ 'nputation it con- 
 
 thin^-the difTerencrbftw en ??e twoTr ^T ""^^'^" ^'^ "^ '"^^ 
 between light and darkness th: * T ^' -^""^ **' "''^"* «« *''»' 
 for the groLds upon S theTJf ^?"'' .""^^ '^ «"1' "?<>« "^e 
 You asked me on wZrg funds the imnu J' '^' " '''''''' " '''''^' 
 tained in certain lan<.uafe von a. oLlT . " /«^^P«^'""g JO" con- 
 i" your.first letter that tTieC^t./ ^' ^"''^* ^«" ^'^^ "°t ^ay 
 «Imt you had unjus fy sufed^ ""J"''' Y°" ^'^ °^^'^«y 
 
 you. Had you been^wroled imd t\ ""^ ""'""^ ^'^^ '^^^" ^'^"^ 
 unjust toward you and h«d In. k ^«"g"«ge in the extract been 
 
 wrong from wS you tCeSrnr''^'"^ '"'' " ^'^P^'""^''^" ^^ ^»'« 
 ficarcdy believe you would riH -•/''" T^ '"^"'•"^' ^ •^""^^ 
 disputing the correctness of ttr ^'^ '? ' ^* ^^^^ '^'^ "^t- Not 
 
 sa/ng tgat yo^fbrer n tred S^l^" I k' *' 'f "^*'" «1^ "°' 
 ledgment or amends of a wrinll not asking for any acknow- 
 
 would seem to be to karn Z^il !J°"'?^'^ ^^j^'^* of yow enquiry 
 for his assertion ' The^I^ay Ser J'/r '"^ ^'^ '"'^^^ ^^ '""^^^ 
 it a 8 gn of ignorance) thaf f^ , ^^ ^ '.^ "°* ^^'^ ^^^ c«» 
 thing "that yfu should dpnl k •\''^'°""^^'' ""'^ most proper 
 imposing upon any one the^hr' \"''"''? '^ V'« ««»ertion befL 
 w4h it re^s?r. If the Edkor nr °" °^ "^'I'^^ *''« S''^"^'^* o° 
 injurious to me, and I should LlV^'P"^ « ^^t«tement 
 
 for it, he would inform me »ji V"' ''"^ '^"'"^"^ '^'« «"thority 
 
 a^ot cistomar;!Vnt[raXii ' rt^^^^^^^^^ ^ s? T^^^* ^•"' 
 made by the person aflpptp,! r, f.J .^ . ^^^ ^' the statement was 
 
 plot, and hdpKLve Mr • pf "i V 't ''"^ *''«* ^^^^ J^^'^^^ in a 
 thus of you fo the Sev G n r ' '^'^ ^ '"^ '^^ P^''^^" ^'^o wrote 
 wrong, and not havin^do;. ; ^"""^ ^"P*''' minister-did you no 
 
 what'was n^ coS uTs ZJ7 ^'°"^' "'^ ''"^''"° " ^'"P"^^^ " 
 oi con ect, It IS hardly a proper or re««onable thing, 
 
tlint yoii should impose on him tlui obligaiion of giving you tho 
 grounds on wliicli thu ass'Ttion rcstcMl. 
 
 Returi.iM}» to your asHinnption nnd nxcroise of tho rijrht to jiid;.'^ 
 mo witi.mit diaiitv k-ciiu-t! of iliti rollovviii}i: stat'ini-nt in my h-tter, 
 '• WhrthiT tin* h-ttt-r from which you <|Unte was written by me or 
 not * * * * I would be unablH to allirm or deny from any iiitor- 
 mation T possess nt th« present time," I am compelled to say a lew 
 words. You certainly have hail a rare experience, if you are not 
 awure that it is quite possible for a person not only to fail to remem- 
 ber what ho never did, but also to be unable to recsiU what he may 
 actually have done. I told you truly that I was not able to recall 
 the writing of the lan;:unn;e in que>tion, and, as a christian <rentle- 
 man, you were bound to accept my statement. I told you further 
 that I was unable to deny that I had done so. I possessed informa- 
 tion from sources which I b<'lieved entirely reliable, which rendered 
 it impossible for me to say that I might not have written the letter ; 
 and which, I think, would warrant me in believing that you were 
 privy to steps taken to supersede Mr. Rand in the ofllce of Super- 
 intendent of Education, and did, in fact, yourself exert much influ- 
 ence in effecting that result. J was told that you recommended Dr. 
 Crawley as a suitable person to supersede Mr. Rand, aid that 
 although Dr. Crawley in declining the office so earnestly sought the 
 appointment of Mr. Rand's confidential Clerk, that he was led to say 
 in his recommendation of him what every one possessed of the 
 means of judging, knew to be not in accordance with facts, yet your 
 high recommendation of Mr. Hunt, secured the offer of the position 
 to him. Mr. Hunt has himself stated, more than once, that he, at 
 first, declined to assume the responsible duties of the office, but that 
 influenced by the urgent solicitations of his friends in Dartmouth, of 
 whom you were one, he finally consented to do so. He has also 
 expressed his opinion more than once to the effect, that if he had 
 declined to take the office, Mr. Rand would have been continued as 
 Superintendent. I was told that a member of your family stated 
 that he conversed with one or more members of the Government in 
 reference to superseding Mr. Rand, a short time previous to the act 
 being done. I was told that a very strong recommendation was 
 written by you, setting forth that Mr. Hunt was well qualified to fill 
 the place occupied by Mr. Rand, and that this paper with your 
 consent was presented to His Excellency in Council, expressly for 
 the purpose of furthering the determination of the Government 
 to dismiss Mr. Rand, and that covfessedly it did not fail of its 
 object. And you do not need to be informed that the late Superin- 
 tendent's dismissal came upon him, and indeed upon the whole 
 country as suddenly as the explosion of a mine. He had long 
 served his province with an ability and energy which had command- 
 ed the respect and confidence of the friends of education; and which 
 assuredly entitled him, as a faithful public officer, to every reasonable 
 consideration at the hands of the Government of his country. But 
 without any intimation of neglect of duty, and without any know- 
 ledge of the designs of the Government, they, a few persons being 
 
in tlH.ir <-M,ftr1o.u.c in fl.is n.atfn-. „f whom I «ns fold yon ^^■vrvono, 
 
 H mJ.m,m\1, «m„.i I.v M,. Il„n,. J „,„ ,„,,, „,„^ i„„„e,fiurtly alier 
 l..> M.t wa. < ,., ett-l. a rmMuher of your r„n.ily u.scl hi. inH.u.ncH 
 .., "event any m vn-.o critdsm hy a ,„ost inflnr-ntial portion of 
 
 Ut 7.ha^ ^ ""''"" "'"^ member, of the Gclvenunen 
 
 stated hat Mr unt was app.anted «hn..s, solely upon your recom- 
 iiien(latu)n^.nd that they had no personal knowied^e of his nualirt- 
 cnfons. W„h such knovvLd^e in my po..e.si,.n, of whid/ 1 at 
 already Riven Ks but a part, fron, sources 'whi.h F deem worth v of 
 conhdence, it was quue a possible supposition that I mi-ht have 
 wr.tt.n the letter „, question, even thou-d. I eould not affirm that I 
 
 mlt wlirr I ^"- ^^'"? '^'' ^^^rrec-tness of any important state- 
 men wlueh I have g. von, I am prepared to givo you my authority 
 or the same As J told you in my last lettcT, so I tell you now I 
 have no des.re to escape obligation. Tell me specilically as you 
 
 M. ind t) /'"'' vr 'YJ''' *""^ "° P»''* •" ^he removal 
 Ml. Rand, thatyou did not help remove him, ar.d I assure you that 
 in as ar as any obliga'ion may rest upon me, the ampl-t justice 
 shall be done you. I wish before closing this letter to call your 
 attention to a most unaccountable proceeding connected wit! fhe 
 conveyu,g of your last letter to me. Mr. J , who. a3 he said, at 
 your request became the bearer of the letter took it unsealed from 
 h.s pocket while in my study, and after putting it in an envelope 
 whn.h he had previously laid on my table, gave it unsealed to me. 
 No apology or explanation was made. You bring many heavy and 
 false charges against me in that letter, and crown all by aspersincr 
 me as a "malicious slanderer." Have I no rights ? You charge 
 me with slandering you. and before you give me the opportunity of 
 vindicating myself, have ycu not committed this offence against me ? 
 in conclusion let me say to you,that I am ready and willing to do you 
 he amplest justice. When you show me that I have any vvhere pub- 
 lished of you what I had no right to publish, then I will give you in 
 full the grounds I had for such publication ; and if they are not suffici- 
 ent to justify me, I shall most cheerfully do all in my power to make 
 amends for any injury inflicted on you. Show me that I have done 
 you a wrong, and no man lives, who would more readily or fully do 
 an in his power to make reparation. 
 
 I am sir, your obedient servant, 
 To Hon. JvDOE Johnston. ^' ^' Sounders. 
 
 o. 
 
 Halifax, 18 Morris St., 30th January, 1871. 
 
 Sir,— My engagements have prevented an earlier answer to vour 
 last letter. 
 
 It is repulsive to follow you in the disingenuous paths you have 
 
 The use you make of ray acknowledgement of your right to have, 
 it you required it, the production of your letter of 10th Feb., 70— 
 the insinuation of intentional concealment and withholding of the 
 
1 
 
 8 
 
 I^lti-r— Rnd the pretence of inconvenience or injury to }Oii from that 
 cause, are all in different modes disingenuous pervers ons of the 
 truth, which, as any intelligent person may perceive on reading tlie 
 correspondence, I ahall not condescend further to notice. 
 
 My di^belief of your assertion of forgetfulness as to the ^nuine* 
 ness or purport of that letter, I have already sulliciently vindicat- 
 ed. Were contirmaiion needed you have furnished it in your last 
 letter, from which it would seem that your memory serves you to 
 recall seven or eight fugitive reports with circumstantial details, 
 when that same memory, as you would have me believe, was unequal 
 to recall the fact that you had put in the more substantial form of a 
 letter what you say you might have written as the ground of these 
 very reports, and that too when a copious extract was in your hand. 
 To your renewed plea in behalf of nlanderers that they who take up 
 and circulate evil reports are priviledged to withhold the grounds of 
 their accusation unless the accused shall first condescend to vindicate 
 themselves to those who have undertaken to impugn them, I have 
 but to say, that if your sense of right is too weak to teach you 
 better, further arguments would be wasted on you. 
 
 I gather (if I rightly appi-ehend your meaning in some obscure 
 and involved sentences), that you draw eome argument from my 
 first note, not having charged in so many words that the imputation 
 you had made respecting me was false and injurious. Your moral 
 perception must be obtuse indeed if you could read my first note in 
 connexion with the language of the extract from y«ur letter, and 
 suppose that I alluded to the imputation as other than injurious ; 
 and your common sf je must have been greatly at fault if you 
 supposed that I would demand your ground, if I had not known the 
 imputation to be false. Again I lemind you that my first applica- 
 tion gave you the opportunity in the most favorable manner of 
 vindicating yourself. If the inoffensive tone of my letter misled 
 you it could only be because you chose to misconstrue, or were 
 incapable of appreciating aright my moderation and forbearance. 
 If you cast away the opportunity afforded you of vindication (if 
 you had any) it was because you preferred the crooked to the straight- 
 forward and manly course ; and it was time I should refuse to be 
 longer trifled with by unworthy evas'v'-.kis, such as you had twice laid 
 in the way of my just demand, to be informed of the grounds on 
 which you had impugned me ; and under these circumstances the 
 pretence that you were accused before opportunity of vindication 
 had been afforded, is but a bolder instance of the s:z:ple and direct 
 truth being .'sacrificed to sophistry. 
 
 Four attempt to convey to me the grounds on which you had 
 assailed me while withholding the admission that they were the 
 grounds, or that you had, in fact, written at all, is cunning of a very 
 low order— so weak and trr.nsparent that I shall treat the reports 
 you detail as being the grounds and all the grounds on which you 
 wrote, what, I shall take the liberty to assume, you did write, con- 
 
 I pregume if Mr. Rand's removal was a foregone conclusion of 
 
1 from that 
 ons of the 
 ending tlm 
 
 e ^nuine* 
 y vindicat- 
 I your last 
 I'es you to 
 ial details, 
 us unequal 
 form of f\ 
 i of tlieae 
 ^our hand, 
 ho take up 
 grounds of 
 ) vindicate 
 !in, I have 
 teach you 
 
 le obscure 
 from my 
 mputation 
 our moral 
 -st note in 
 letter, and 
 injurious ; 
 Lilt if you 
 known the 
 it applica- 
 manner of 
 ter misk^d 
 or were 
 rbearance. 
 icatlon (if 
 e straight- 
 use to be 
 twice laid 
 rounds on 
 ;ances the 
 indication 
 and direct 
 
 you had 
 were the 
 of a very 
 le reports 
 vhich you 
 rrite, con- 
 clusion of 
 
 the government with which I had no concern it could be no bu8ine8» 
 of his or yours whether I did or not recommend Dr. Crawley or 
 ]\Ir. Hunt, or assist in procuring the appointment of the latter. 
 But on that point the rumors themselves afford but scanty footing. 
 You were told that a member of my family conversed with one or 
 more members of the government in reference to superseding Mr. 
 Rand; that I was in the confidence of the government in the matter; 
 and that Mr. Hunt had expressed his opinion that if he had 
 declined the office^ Mr. Rand would have been continued. No man 
 of ordinary education and experience has failed to learn how unre- 
 liable are rumors, and that what truth they have is commonly too 
 exaggerated or distorted to be acted upon. But in this instance the 
 story was too imp'-obabie to challenge the belief of any man of 
 ordinary reflection. It was hardly credible that the government in 
 a mattei' of importance in itself, and in its present and future bear- 
 ing on themselves, would be influenced by any opinion of mine ; 
 and still more incredible that when they had so far advanced on 
 their 'decision to remove Mr. Rand, as twice to offer the office to 
 others as his successor, they would be turned aside in consequence of 
 rejection by Mr. Hunt. By rejecting what was thus Improbable 
 and some of the minor circumstances what remained was in its prin- 
 cipal featui^a brought into a reasonable and harmless connexion. 
 Assuming the government to have determined to dismiss Mr. Raud > 
 and supposing one or more of its members to have thought of Dr. 
 Crawley as his successor, to consult some person intimate with that 
 gentleman was a vfery likely thing to do — and if * a member of my 
 family * was the individual, the circura^ances would naturally come 
 tq my knowledge andequailly naturally would follow the recommenda- 
 tion first of Dr. Crawley and next of Mr. Hunt ;vith both of whom it 
 is well' knoVirn I have been in habits of close intimacy for years, and 
 the excellences of whose characters I ever have held in the highest 
 estimation. Thus there was a reasonable interpretation of your 
 ritmors without the improbable notiqn that I had exercised or could 
 exercise any influence over the government in a matter of this 
 im,iortance, or indeed in any matter beyond my testimony as regarded 
 ind yiduals after the vacancy had been decided on. Had you thus 
 interpreted what you say you heard, you woiild have shewn some 
 sense and integrity ; and moreover you would have reached the 
 truth as far as I had any concerrl in the matter. 1 hold the mirror 
 to you that you may behold your conduct in the rao>t favorable light 
 in which it can be preserited — and it shews you to have acted as a 
 weak or a malignant man, taking up ah evil report on evidence the 
 most flimsy or rather without evidence and contrary to all rational 
 probab* Ity, But unhappily the matter does not rest ht-re. He who 
 asserts positively as a fact what he does not know positively but 
 what he has taken up on repbrt is guilty of falsehood and practisfea 
 deception on those to whom he makes the communication, — ^irrespec- 
 tive of his own belief or of the truth or faUehoold of the tJEick ' 
 alleged. This rule ot moral action you grievously violated. "Judge 
 Jonnsyon '* with unirt'ushing boldness you po.-itively asserted "joined 
 
 '2 ' ; .■ ' 
 

 10 
 
 wa".t?suStlTe^MV hT'' ^•- ^""' " ""^^ "'« P'°* ^" »"«>«'tance 
 was 10 substitute Mr. Huni as being a su tahle tc ►! in the humi^ ^f 
 
 .ng. I have nothing ,o do wi.h the i„«„l. offer^ ,o m7 Hunt or 
 
 nor yn wjtn the childish spite of your unca led for attaot on n/ 
 Crawley „ man whose noble and truthful cha^cteJ is teyondfhe 
 ritnge of your appreciation. What I am dealina wilHs v„,,r 
 
 q-L;^ii"; ryorus t-fU-wh^rw^rt i' 
 
 trv"i-r' T'"' ^Z^^^ »^" '«d "*« giving to Sts a weight 
 they did not deserve, I should have accepted your aoXv howpfor 
 
 KdlotLk^ '''1""^^ r '"^^ ^^ «° insulting evLTon, and i 
 atl^t bv te^Hn^ T" *^^°"g^Pe"y a^-tifices, and to reach thi point 
 
 illvrL^K^var^^^^^^^ sophistries under which^ou 
 
 taush? thalTrl ?« ^'""^ '^' obligations of truth and justice-to be 
 
 JUZ^Zl!o:Z^'SS:Jr''^ *''^ correspondence its fruits will 
 
 I am your obedient servant, 
 Y> fi ^v^.,- , . J. W. Johnston. 
 
 deUveiV 5 my ffK nnacconntable proceeding h» the 
 
 of thi8%orrespSenJe to make " tonSfJlf if ?**''*' »i nothing in the relatioS 
 letter open while the hearer^PM «„ 3^°^*" *^ 'i??T ^^ ^ ^a^e sent you that 
 
 lO. 
 
 c,„ A. , February 28th, 1871. 
 
 re<^ J;7unfr «ni !;• °"^ ***^^ ^ *^'^ correspondence, I have 
 Tave saorifil7. ^ Jscourteous treatment at your hands. I may 
 unjust ani^turS-^'7 ^^ "'^ self-respect in silently bearing your 
 thTln^i'b^!^- r^^^^^ but I have been s4ngthened in 
 
 - _ __..i-,.^. 0^ ^u,. corjBiaeraiion that no decree of exi»ftirAn.»«i *f 
 chat^aeter has hitherto relieved other, frl tKce^ty „f ~,^' 
 u.g toward, you . long-suffering charity in thUre^F "^ "'"* 
 
in substance 
 be hands of 
 i«ih separate 
 >.ie " / was 
 t malignant 
 ay is want- 
 [r. Hunt, or 
 
 Catholics ; 
 tack on Dr. 
 bejond the 
 h is your 
 Isehood in 
 sumed the 
 -sas it was 
 
 me a man 
 lect for the 
 behind my 
 
 • 
 
 lanner that 
 I had no 
 ity enough 
 that under 
 > a weight 
 ', however 
 ive ended, 
 lion, and I 
 the p(Mnt 
 vhich you 
 
 ce — to be 
 ling; that 
 
 fruits will 
 
 It, 
 
 N8T0N. 
 
 ilng in the 
 he relation 
 It you that 
 have com« 
 9 you state 
 i delivered 
 
 1871. 
 
 , I have 
 I may 
 ring your 
 bened in 
 Hence of 
 ezercis- 
 
 .-^31 ma liiictly iticllcfi' 
 r Jil placccl It.'f'ore m 
 ..a(i bocn wriiicii by me, 
 (i givr yon tlx' ^couiids I 
 veycd l)v tlu; •> t^xfrnct." 
 
 n 
 
 8 course of this correspondenr«. 
 lotatioii from a letter which you allejjed 
 was in your possessir.n, and asked m« 
 wIiK'h I imputed to you what was con- 
 In rt ply, I reminded you that you had 
 
 not MH .y..u,.s.h ,„ a posumn in which you oould consistently and 
 legitunalily niiilvf? such an enquiry of me. 
 
 You srtimul not to apprehend tKe obvious import of my reolv 
 and required a specific statement f.«m me wher.i« I considered you 
 
 fiv«f M *^" 1 ''^ ^^"'"'1* '1, "'"'^^ '^^ ^**™«"d ««"^«'n«d in your 
 fiist letter. In answer, I called your attention to the fact (l)that 
 
 ii?p rr ^f7. "•" '''• "'"^l'"* ^^' ^^"^"'^g^ without furnishing me 
 
 1-^ n^r r^i! "^.T"""'"^ Z^'''^'''' ^ ^^^ "^^ »» ^- n«'' «"d which, 
 m pomt of fact, I was unable to determine from any inforn.ation m 
 
 coLTr'7' r^^^^ ^^^"' ^"" ^^^ "«' <Je«i^^he substantial 
 correc ness of what the extract imputed to you. I assured you that 
 when hese preliminary steps had been taken, I should acknowledge 
 the obligation which your first letter sought to impo,^ ^ 
 
 In response, while you were compelled to eeuoede the first pre- 
 hminary step, you thought it necessary to screen the unwillln- 
 hroSl^" ^ P^«:|'«S.°:e with evasion and reckiess assertion, and 
 broadly assuming the nghtto impeach my velocity without grounds. 
 But you declined to accede to the other preliminary step, altho . 
 
 Inl'! 1 T '" ^T P°T' *** ^"^ ^"^ ^^'^'^ ^'^' would have sutfice^i. 
 Jnstead of compliance, however, you rained invective upon me, pre- 
 judging and maligning me, and forwarded your letter unsealed. In 
 reply, I vindicated the justness of the 1st preliminary on its own 
 Sffi 7 ''*'"™''f ^"^ upon the ungracious way in which it had been 
 
 Sll""'?.^'^ ^u" *^*^ y^ '^°"^^ ^ «l°w to<5harge me with 
 reckless assertion when you were crediting your first letter with 
 language it did not contaia-and showed that it was reasonable and 
 proper to ask your compliance with the 2nd preliminary, since if 
 the imputation was true, no wrong had been done you, in which case 
 It would be unreasonable that you could impose on any one the obli- 
 gation in question. Having done this I deemed it proper to vindi- 
 nnir? assertion, so uncharitably impugned by you, that I was 
 unable from any information in my possession to affirm or deny 
 having used the language contained in the « extract "-unable to 
 affirm it because I could not recall having written the language 
 in question ; unable to deny it because I possessed information, from 
 
 with Mr. Rand s dismissal (an act I may remark of wron<r doine not 
 against an individual only, but against every citizen) which rendered 
 It impossible for me to say that I might not have done so— and I 
 gave you «a part" of that information that you might not further 
 presumuo impeach my veracity, with the pledge that, if the state- 
 
 ^! rr T^ T'^'^' y^" '^^^'^'^ ^^^^ *he names of the gentle- 
 men who had made them to me. I re-assured you, also, that I ua, 
 ready to do you the amplest justice if you could show me that I had 
 any where uttered ^hM was untrue respecting you. 
 
12 
 
 By way of reply, yon stigmatize what I said of the right and 
 necessity of compliance with the 1st preliminary as *' disingenuous 
 perversions of the truth," though you fail to adduce so much as a 
 ■word to justify such a bold assertion. You re-assert your unwar- 
 rantable judgment of my veracity, and intensify the offence by 
 irrelevant considerations respecting my ability to recall what, for the 
 pertinency of your remarks, you choose to style, incorrectly, " fugitive 
 reports." But you neglect to state by what power or authority you 
 assume to yourself the right to judge both the consciousness and the 
 conscience of another. 
 
 You plainly pervert what I have adduced in support of the rea- 
 sonableness and propriety of the 2nd preliminary into ' a plea for 
 slanderers ' — that ' the slandered shall first vindicate themselves to 
 those who impugn them.' You must know that compliance with the 
 2nd preliminary could in no way operate as a defence for slanderers, 
 but, on the contrary, as a powerful protection against the annoyance 
 whi«!h crafty and designing men might otherwise be privileged to 
 inflict upon those who had spoken unpalatable truth. You well 
 know that at bottom a stutument must be false as well as injurious to 
 morally justify the calling of its author a "slanderer." If a man 
 asks redress of another for saying what reflects upon another's char- 
 ai^ter, let him, at least, say that he is innocent of the imputation. 
 If he cannot do so, he will be unable to simulate further the atti- 
 tude of a wronged man, and will not have it in his power to molest 
 and malign as a s)anderer the person who had published of him 
 nothing but what was true. That would be the necessary operation 
 of the principle you treat with avowed contempt. You, of all men, 
 must see that it has the support of common-sense and openness, 
 !Now you have assumed toward me the attitude of a wronged man, 
 calling me a " slandeier," &c., &c., and asking reparation ; yet you 
 have persi>-;tently refused to comply with the 2nd preliminary, not- 
 withstanding that such compliance, if it could be truthfully yielded, 
 could not have prejudiced the right, and would have acceded to a 
 condition which you have known from the first I have regarded as 
 essential to qualify you to ask that reparation which you have all 
 along professed to be seeking. 
 
 I do not see the pertinency of that passage in your letter ^under 
 consideration in which you characterize an assertion of mine as 
 " evasion " and " pretence," and as a ' bold instance of the simple 
 and direct truth being sacrificed to sophistry.' You could not have 
 offered it as a compliance with the 2nd preliminary, since you had 
 but a moment before sneered at my ignorance, in urging the point, 
 and treated it with undisguised contempt. The same remark will 
 apply to a kindred instance in another part of your letter. That 
 you have, regardless of the dictates of sound judgment and the 
 exercise of common charity, hasted to fasten upon me your unjust 
 accusations, cannot fail, I think, to be evident to you on reflection. 
 
 You take it upon yourself to stigmatise my telling you that I waa 
 reliably informed, as 1 believed, of your confidential relations with 
 the governmeut respecting the displacing of Mr Band by another. 
 
 i( 
 
he right and 
 disingenuous 
 I ranch as a 
 your unwar- 
 i offence by 
 what, for the 
 ly, " fugitive 
 lUthority you 
 ness and the 
 
 t of the rea- 
 ' a plea for 
 lemselves to 
 ^.nce with the 
 )r slanderers^ 
 le annoyance 
 privileged to 
 . You well 
 9 injurious to 
 ' If a man 
 other's char- 
 imputation, 
 her the atti- 
 ver to molest 
 ished of him 
 iry operation 
 I, of all men, 
 nd openness^ 
 ronged man, 
 ion ; yet you 
 rainary, not- 
 fuUy yielded, 
 acceded to a 
 regarded aa 
 I'ou have all 
 
 letter ^under 
 1 of tiiine as 
 jf the simple 
 uld not have 
 nee you had 
 ig the point, 
 remark will 
 letter. That 
 lent and (he 
 3 your unjust 
 
 reflection. 
 )u that I waa 
 elations with 
 1 by another. 
 
 Id 
 
 and of your having uf^ed the powerful influence at your command 
 to effect It, as " cunning of a very low order." How can you in 
 honor say that ? You must forget the circumstances of the CHse. 
 Let me again recall them. Lawful means having failed you, you 
 deliberately resorted to unlawful means that you might, as you 
 forced me to believe, gratify your craving to impute falsehood to me. 
 You assumed and exercised the right to judge me in that which was 
 not a matter of objective evidence at all. You know this to be true, 
 and you know equally well that such an act~altho' you have re- 
 peated It— is not only without the sanction of the laws of intellig- 
 ence and morality, but a grievous offence against them. And when, 
 notwithstanding your insult to me, I condescended to vindicate my 
 veracity to you in respect of the statement about which you had 
 ventured to impeach it, you deem it your privilege to attribute to 
 me a motive and intention foreign both to that which I professed 
 and to that which your imputation of falsehood necessitated. Am I 
 not justified in saying that you did this, that you might have a pretext 
 to apply the stigma of 'low cunning,' and thus shield yourself from the 
 rebound of your own uncharitableness and folly ? If the character 
 of the statements called forth by your own rashness and presumption 
 in imputing falsehood to me, nec^esarilif revealed to you the fact that 
 your inability to meet the 2nd preliminnry was known to otherathan 
 yourselfandimmediate friends, that surely coUld not justify you in 
 wresting either my acts or my words, nor give you that unrestrained 
 liberty of asstimption which you have, sometimes avowedly and 
 sometimes silently, thought it necessary to indul^ie in. And I can, 
 not help remarking, by way of illustration of your methods, upca - 
 the manner in which ybu dea-l with the statements themselves. 
 They were simple, explicit, direct. What did you do with them ? 
 Did you deny a single one of them ? No, .you did not. Instead, 
 you set about making assumptions which the facts in your posses- 
 sion forbade and entered upon a long hypothetical discussion about 
 « rumors," reminding m< that they are often " unreliable," " exa'^-' 
 gerated" and " distorted" j that one of the stories " was too improba-, 
 able to challenge belief," and after moulding it to the liking of your 
 own imagination you succeeded in bringing its principal features into 
 a " harmless connection" with yourself. But your labor was all for 
 naught, since, as ycu knew all the whjle, you were not dealing with 
 unreliable, exaggerated, distorted ruWors at all. I told yow that 
 1 had the information which I gave you, ''from sources which I be- 
 lieved entirely reliable," and; " worthy of confidence," and that if you 
 impugned the correctness of any impdi-tanC statement, I was pre- 
 pared to give you my authority for* the same^ And you may rest 
 in the assurance, whi K T doubt not you possess, that thte names of 
 the gentlemen referrea t-. would be a sufficient answfer .to your in-' 
 sinuationa about idle rui!i!u)r&. You doubtllefls Hnew thi? and felt, 
 that every shred of consistency had been removed from vou, audi 
 you. prudently remained in a. position where you might still useyoujp! 
 jihqginationi in. weavia^ for yourself even' so nnicb ae a fli,o)*y? 
 and transparent covering. Why did you not ratliei? ch»U«i»giB.^. 
 
u 
 
 correctness of the statements themseIve^ or else arkno« le,!.r« ,!,„♦ 
 
 wood have been honorable, however painful. But such a course 
 would have obliged yo» to forego the linking of hvpothesis ?o hvno 
 thesis by way of exhibiting to .ne a n.odel of 'I-haritabJe in erpretaUon" 
 
 nty. Such a lesson might not have been lost upon m^, had vou not 
 forgotten that a charitable interpretation is not one' whicnoes 
 V olence to known facts, for charity cannot rejoice ?n in Jiuy but 
 xn the truth ; that " sen^e and integrity » forbid one to3i/Vrnm 
 assumptions which are false; and that yoSr peSence ?n nn« f 
 
 l/rarrhTdi"!^ IT'. ""^ ""'^^^"' Sm^enT^rs^e in^"^^^^^ 
 veracity had disqualified you to instruct another in resDel-t of 
 charitable interpretation. Truly you show a rare courL?n Tea in J 
 touLfh''"'' ^°"'*'1^- .F"«bla to challenge st^teSs TnvoTv n^ 
 you in the very^act of which you desire to he thou-ht innocent and 
 declmmg to confront their authors, you assume the°aTr of exul ;tion 
 and say; 'evidence the most flimsy, or rather no ev dln.p In^ 
 
 hnd a pretext for opening your floodgates of invective on me 
 
 fouTea'rl"?L7wh"^f°^^"''^ '' become%he channel roughihTch 
 you Jearned that what you supposed was a secret, was known by 
 
 men of high standing and character, you felt toward me IT m«^ 
 
 often feel toward the innocent bearer of evil tWingT ^haHsThe 
 
 patstflful' iXr rr "'^^' ' ^.^" r-."" '^- the tst^hJee' 
 ttetremblw:n;d yrtrS^^ ^f ^' 
 
 might reach the position t^o which you founS you could not clthC 
 the hai-d ascent of truth and faot Onoo ♦L« °""° ^y 
 
 3n the .. elanderervi- bt/° ™?r„^ ^k^l^Tr/S^ 
 
 Sde rLTld « ^ ™- J™ ™' '"« ""» yo" ""letting o"tC; 
 tide ot gall and wormwood upon ; he is purely a oi«ation of vZ. 
 
 aJIa t ™«,tnat I had at any time wronged you by word or 
 «a:j4trLira^d''Zko.er^5^^^^^^^ 
 
 ger«r„.pu3»it-sic---£tS 
 
 ^uJSlTih!.*^"''*?'^'' ^'^ y°"^ ^'^^ °»»»^ 'bat there are no !st 
 grounds tor what you have npAt^n.!-^ ♦« :-«:.* _• . « «" jutu 
 
 wiflA. hw HA aI..Jm-». -f *"i7 — '\7.^^ IuUkv, sioce were li other* 
 ISTt^'p^^ry'Sil"^"""'" '»«^'»«^ri"i-. light 
 
»v ledge thnt 
 •ess ? Thai 
 ch n course 
 iis to hypo- 
 terpretation, 
 ie and iiiteg- 
 liad you not 
 which does 
 aiquity, but 
 argue from 
 e in one of 
 secting my 
 
 respect of 
 B in dealing 
 s involviuor 
 locent, and 
 
 exultation 
 dence and 
 is that you 
 ''e on me. 
 ugh which 
 known by 
 le as men 
 'hat is the 
 
 last three 
 
 chain of 
 
 I that you 
 
 > climb by 
 your flood 
 'our part, 
 ^ out your 
 n of your 
 
 yourself, 
 at if you 
 ' word or 
 
 > amplest 
 l^ou have 
 imed the 
 tfusing to 
 lan this; 
 enow be- 
 >f violent 
 for great 
 )ufler at 
 ne in all 
 deration, 
 n obliga- 
 8 no just 
 k other* 
 iftlif^k 
 
 U 
 
 .-ss the or.e oP bo e^uU T o Trnpo Th^^^^^ ^^ ^''-'^ Po- 
 
 the legitimate assumption of rhcTbv vm T L ""'^ "' "''^^''^"''J' '^ 
 repeatedly sought your cLpliLce wf.h '/ "'^ courteously and 
 
 i-, each of which wJs manif^s^ Hhe L^^^^^^^ o'f '^f U ''f^'"^'' 
 iect accord with the imnuU^a Jl • "uerests of right and in per- 
 
 an „„g.aoro„s :^m;ZS^^1,r.KT but "h'- ^°" .^'"'«' 
 refused compliance with the ^ZIa *u u ^^^® persistently 
 
 nosatisfacto^eonsid:;l:t\t;pt '^ ""''^'^^ 
 
 refusal you deliberately shut off the verv Ivn^ T' ^^ y*"*^ ^"'^ 
 fessed to be seeking. ^ And with thLfL. f/""*'''°" ^^^ ''^^^ P'-O" 
 you venture to addrfss nTe as tZu.h 7 h^5 /?"?". ^°" ''' *^« «»<^e, 
 forts, and with a boldnesT that is s^bii^l-K^^^ '»'^''"» «f- 
 
 motive that dwells inTevn heart '^""*'"'' "^ "^^^ ^^-^^^^ «^«r/ 
 
 Face to face with the unimsear>hA<1 o«j . • 
 ments now before you, you h^JTilL?^ "njmpeachable state- 
 "insulting evasion," "pe^^JarXr-Cii^ g"''^>^ «f 
 
 &c., and designate me « a maliciouTsIand^^r •'« a 7,'?'^*"^'" •«^«» 
 "a man regardless alike of the restS of tr.f.K f "."' """' 
 respect for the reputation of anothpr^' a \'^^ ?"^ ""^ « J"8t 
 view of the whole'case must conv nee you if'tr'' J""^'^«' -* 
 viction, that this is theunri-hteousiudairn; / " *''® "^P^" *« '^o"" 
 pride. Such a review c"Snot fai IT ^ t?''''''''' «" ^ ^""'^^^^ 
 resting upon you to reverse your judiml^af h^"'' '^^ obligation 
 me. by exchanging that of rientment I^ ^""T y^""«^^ «"«! 
 entitled to resplctltha of trutrand soh-n ^^'''v ^^" *''« °"^^ <>"« 
 acknowledge that I do but See ?n f^*'^'".^*^- ^ou will, therefore, 
 adjudication and reveraal • andl^ 1 i "™°^ your decision for re- 
 that which must're'rn'in^He a^^^^^^^^^ ^-'^^ -^-- to 
 
 learn the obligations of truth and ju^tice^o h« Z ^^'i^'^^ ^"' **> 
 more wisdom in CandourthanL SnL thlVA^^A' *^'' *^^''« « 
 hold no companionship." ^"nnmg, that Artifice and Truth 
 
 I am sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 To the Hon. Judge JoHNiTox. ^' M. Sauudiks. 
 
(COLLATERAL.) 
 
 1. 
 
 Halifax, Jan. 13th, 1871. 
 ^ DkaR Sin,— Judge Johnston has just shewn me r letter from you 
 in which you say respecting the letter I delivered you a few days 
 Fmce, that Hook M umealed fr>om my pocket while in your study, 
 nnd after putting it in an envelope which I had previously laid on 
 your table, gave it unsealed to ym. 
 
 This is not the truth. 1 ou received the letter from my hand 
 precisely a8 I received it from the Judge's— in an envelope ; and the 
 letter was never out of th<j envelope in your study. 
 
 I am greatly surprised to find you making a statement for which 
 there 18 not a shadow of a foundation. 
 
 I am yours, j#**### 
 
 Rev. E. M. 8Atna>B»s. 
 
 *•" 
 
 ^ ^alifa:!^, Jan. 17th, 1871- 
 
 Dear SlRj— I received your letter late on Saturday evening. I 
 jras much surprised to find that you had been mistaken in any of tlie 
 details connected with the delivery of j'udge Johnston's letter tome. 
 1 entered into particulars that the Judge might see that ybu did not 
 conceal from me your knowledge of the letter being unsealed. 
 
 r recollect amon^ other things the following patticular^ of What 
 occurred. You spoke of the conveniencies of* my' study, rind df 
 arrangements made by yourself for a rooih o^ tli^ kind in your 6Wn 
 House. Ihis conversation dhen turned upon the HoHdayS, and th^ti' 
 ijMpon your late, dear mother and her great fondness for the Christian 
 ^e^'engen Ai this point our familijar chaUas interrupted by 
 yourseit. You assumed stern countenance, and lo<ikiW at mfe vou 
 L. ' K r% ^T ^^^^^ warrant." In reply I adk^d ^hat do you 
 mean by that ? You then rose from JTour seat and as you came 
 ^wards m6 you tooV letters from an envelope and handed them to 
 
 TfJ* r e^""""'/'.'^* -aint • they.' To this I made no replf. 
 It struck me that^taking advantage of oorlong and familiar acquaint- 
 once you were indulging in big jokes. When I had finiahe* readJrig 
 
 ipni: i T '"'^^i'^ .r" ''■ y*'" ^'°"'*^ «"ow "6 to copy them, you 
 replied "certainly." 'To expedite business,' you said, • I will cJpy 
 one. I finished copying one letter and then I corrected your copy. 
 1 then asked you what object you had in bringing the letters to me. 
 You made answer, ' I have no object, but I brought them at Judge 
 Johnston s request.' I also asked you where Judge Johnston got the 
 ieiters, and you said, you did not know. I asked you if Jud-e 
 Johnston wanted a report, you replied-" no," but you added 'I have 
 a letter from h,m to you.' You then took a letter from your pocket, 
 and looking around enquired for an envelope, as if you had laid one 
 
^n 
 
 3tli, 1871. 
 ter from you 
 I a few days 
 ifour study, 
 isly laid on 
 
 m my hand 
 pe ; and the 
 
 t for which 
 
 th, 1871- 
 evening. I 
 1 any of the 
 etter to me. 
 Y6\x did not 
 ftled. 
 
 irs of what 
 ay, Jind 6f 
 1 your bWii 
 I, arid then 
 
 Christian 
 rupted by 
 at nife you 
 lat do ybii 
 you came 
 d them to 
 ;hem from 
 , ybii said, 
 
 no reply, 
 * acquaint- 
 I'dreadJrig 
 ;hera, you 
 
 will copy 
 'our copy, 
 jrs to me. 
 at Judgf) 
 )n got the 
 
 if Judge 
 d *I have 
 ir pocket, 
 1 laidons 
 
 17 
 
 down flom..wl.oro. T tl.on nil.e,- pointed to one on m> tahl,., or v\»,. 
 hnndcd ,t to vo„ ^^u^^•e.•e standi,,. ,H....r eac. otlu-r. Yo„ r ..k 
 this ei.v,-lo: e and ,.uf fi.e h-tter int., it uhicli y,,,, l.a.i takei, In ,r, 
 yonr po, ket, and then you l.an.IH it to ,ne. Ti.ese tlui..r. wl.i. i. 
 tookplaco mmy .,udyl have ...latt.l as th.y appenrt-d to ,u. . 
 How you could have been .ui-taken or ho.v I co'ld l,ave be. „ 
 mistaken ,n any of these d.tails is „ ...att.-r that I cannot explain 
 
 What I comphun of is that th. l.tter eaine (o n,e un e.ded-M.at 
 Its contents were not kept within tlie hounds* of privacy 
 
 If yon will write ,ne that as far «. you know you'received the 
 etter sealed from Judge Johnston, and that you ..either saw nor 
 heard Its contents or any portion of them, and that as f.r as vou 
 know the letter remained sealed unt 1 you gave it to me, I -hall he 
 bound to accept your statements, and regard the delivery of the 
 letter unsealed as an inadveriency. ^ 
 
 ^ „ . '^''"'y jours, E. M. Saundkrs. 
 
 To Mr. 4 ■. 
 
 a. 
 
 _ Halifax, Jan. 26th, 1871. 
 
 Dkar SiR,--I would have replied to your's of the 17ih int 
 sooner, but have been absent from the city for a few days As '[ 
 have no inclination or purpose to enter into any fnrth.r c,>r,vs,.,n,- 
 dence with you please consider this as my last lettei- on the sul/ieet 
 
 You have again repeated in your letter to m-, i„ te.m. .-ven 
 more offensive than before, the untruthful .statement made to Jnd.'e 
 Johnston, viz: that I took the Judge's letter from my no. klu 
 without envelope or seal and putting it in an envelope 1 had 
 previously laid on your table delivered it to you unsealed 
 
 You have also mentioned certain other particulars which vou s;.v 
 occurred at our interview. Some of which took place, others are 
 as erroneously stated as the principal misstatement. As these do 
 not touch the point at issue I will say nothing of then, tjut will 
 mention some facts that do affect it. 
 
 I received from the Judge two envelopes with enclosures. On.- 
 addressed to you sealed-the other envelope unsealed containii.r 
 the letter and postscript from you to Mr. Cox. Ttle latter envelope 
 contained sorne such superscription as this. '* Mr. Sa.inder's letter 
 to Mr. Lox. I placed these envelopes with their enclosures in 
 separate pockets-and there they remained until take., our in v«,„- 
 study. 1 first took out the envelope «itli the Cox letter— Imndin^ 
 you the enclosures— and when you requested leave to take a oouy 
 laying the envelope upon your table, for the purpose of helni,;^ 
 you. After you returned the enclosures to me I replaced then, i.^ 
 the envelope, and put it back in my pocket. 
 
 I then for the first time took from my other pocket the Ju.Ves 
 letter which appeared to be and I believe was sealed and handid t 
 to you. As to these facts it is physically impossible I should he 
 mistaken for otherwise it would involve the necessity while on my 
 way M) your House, of my taking the Judge's letter t'.om my pocket 
 
18 
 
 -— brojtkiiiji I'r open, fakiiij: ilm li'tlir out, and putting it back in vnj 
 ptx-ket vvilliout ivplacinj; it in tli« envelope. 
 
 I am thus ixplicit as lo particulars Cor (liis purpose. They are 
 loo siinplo iind plain to have been forgotten by me, and therefore 
 plaee you in one of these positicjns — Either you have deliberately 
 Rtatrd what you knew to be false ; or else some eonfusion of ihe 
 moineni unaccountable to me — has rendered you oblivious of the real 
 fail-. 
 
 A'thoJijih I feel myself forced to adopt the latter as correct. I 
 ••ertainly >liould accept il with less hesitation were it not for the 
 closing parajrraph in your letter, which Bcems to give color to your 
 whole conduct in this matter. 
 
 'rhe>e are your worda. " If you will write me that as far as you 
 ♦• k low 3 ou received tlie letter sealed from Judge Jolmaton, and 
 " that you neither saw nor heard its contents or any portion of 
 " tilt in. and that as far as you know the letter remained sealed until 
 " you ;;ave it me, 1 shall be bound to accept your statments and 
 " regard the del. very of tiie leter unsealed as an inadvertency." 
 
 Oi this proposal 1 ha\e only two things to say — first that it is a 
 peoe of impertinence unworihy of you as a man and a christian. 
 I had already in tny la>t honestly told you '• that you received the 
 li'tter from my hands precisely as I received it from the Judge's— 
 in an envelope — and the letter was never out of the envelope in 
 your study." You say to me theielbre in effect *' although you have 
 asserted ilie letter was properly enclosed I don't believe you, but if 
 you conf' ss to niu you dont know anything of the contents of the 
 letter I will believe you." 
 
 Of what curM'ern is it to you whether or not I knew the contents 
 »)f the lettt-rr Assuming that I had read or heard it read what 
 has that to do with the untruthful charge that the letter was unsealed 
 and nut in an envelope. As it would be insolent in me to make 
 such a demand of you in respect to any letter of which you might 
 be the bearer to me, so is it equally insolent and unmanly for you 
 to make such a proposal the condition cf " accepting my statements." 
 
 It is also disingenuous, as my compliance with it could in no wise 
 correct there collection of either of us respecting the point at issue— 
 tlie proposal mu.-t have been made for some other and unavowed 
 ol)je( t 
 
 Say I am ignorant of what was in the letter — how can you as an 
 honest man maUe it the ground of " accepting my statements." 
 Much more, how can you honestly do so at the sacrifice of your 
 lecullectiou and conviction of the rea) facts ? 
 
 I am yours, j*#**### 
 
 Uev. E. M. SAVN»KR6k 
 
 4. 
 
 Halifax, Jan, 28th, 187L 
 
 Dear Sir. — I am pained and grieved by your letter of yesterdaypr 
 I am sure you not only do me injustice, but your self as wellr 
 And if jou will have the patience and kindness to read this letter, 
 ywu (an hardly fail to admit this to be bo. 
 
t9 
 
 <iU 
 
 
 
 'peak of Illy •• untruthful HtaKinent made to Ju«1p« 
 JohnHtone",— the principal fvniure of which wh!* tliat I received hi» 
 letter un.-ealed ; and again 30U say, " (he untrnthlul charge that the 
 letter was unseahd." You affirm iliat you leccivt-d the letter from 
 the Judge '* sealed ; " and once more, •• it appeared to be and I be- 
 lieve was sealed ; " of this as well as of other of your recollectiona 
 you say, " it is physically impossible that I should be mistaken." 
 
 But you are mistaken aud I have the means of convincing you 
 that you are. I have by me the envelope which enclosed the letter, 
 and a siniple in.-<pection of it will satisfy you that it has never b^en 
 sealed. The mucilage on the flap has not been moistened, and there 
 ha.^ not been adhesion beneath. You are free to examine the en- 
 velope whenever you wish. Be good enough to hear me a little 
 further. The Judge had used slanderous language of me in that 
 letter. You will certainly allow that it is fome 'concern of mine* 
 whether he published the same to you before the letter was placed 
 in my hands. You know that the sending of such a 'etter to mo 
 unsealed was an offence of the gravest kind. When, therefore, you 
 told me that I had misrepresented the matter to the Judge, and 
 affirmed that the offence had never been committed, 1 detailed quite 
 fully what took place in my study, that your memory might bo 
 refreshed, and that you might see that mine was not in any way 
 confused. That your recollection differed from mine you had dis- 
 tinctly affirmed, and I recognized this as a fact in the nature of the 
 request which I preferred to you. You characterize my request as 
 " a piece of impertinence and unworthy of a man and a christian," 
 arid as " disingenuous." Now, it was my duty to believe that your 
 representation of what took place in connexion with the delivery of 
 the letter was meant to be correct, although my recollection would 
 not allow me to receive it as correct, and 1 knew that the letter was 
 unsealed. When in view of this knowledge, 1 said that if you 
 could assure me that you were unacquainted with any of its contents 
 ■ — that for which the Judge was accountable tome — 1 should consider 
 myself bound " to regard the delivery of the letter unsealed as an 
 inadvertency." Could I have required less in order to free the Judge 
 from an intentional offence against myself? And you should not forget 
 that having imposed upon me the necessity of making such enquires 
 you are not at liberty to interpose your own sense of what is becoming 
 in me or otherwise in order to avert from Judge Johnston the conse- 
 quences of his act. You may deem the enquiry ♦• impertinent " and 
 " disingenuous," but a little consideration ought to convince you that it 
 was both pertinent and straightforward. From what I have now 
 written you must see that when I wrote you, in substance, that 
 although my recollections were such as prevented me receiving yours 
 as correct, yet I should freely accept your deliberate statement that 
 you were unacquainted with the contents of the letter, I uttered 
 nothing absurd or justly offensive. You had stated that I * received 
 the letter from your hands precisely as you received it from the 
 
 «l|]nlfft A. I IrnOVlr fnof \t vnaa %tnaim\M^A nr\(\ tliof 'vvi^n VM^ief Kav^ «/\ «>a- 
 
 ceived it from the Judge. But had you been able to say that you knew 
 
20 
 
 nothing nf its contents, 1 (Mrtainly could as " an hon»'»t mm," and 
 H .-('uwildi; «'liii tiiiti in.wi ncci'pt hui-Ii a sfatointMit >ih iil)-olviri<» tliu 
 >Ju<\<Hi t'roin tliu iiitentioiiitl piilitiiation of .slniidi-r u^fiiirtHt me vvitlxiiit 
 ut>ill rtHcrillcin'jr my " it'collfclion and corivi.'tioii of tlio real fiicti " 
 f<)i)nect(iil \vi»li till' iKitiijil (1 lii-ry of tlid l.tU'r. And a little r-M.-c- 
 >ioii cannot fail t(» xliiw yon ili'S. J niij^lit fairly complain ot ilio 
 lHn}:uaj»e and spirit oi your leittr, for I am 8ure ihey are quito un- 
 worthy of you. My inotivca have oertaiidy bi'i-n obvious enou^jh 
 pnd my doings plain cnoiijrh had you allowed yourself to look at 
 thorn simply. Truly yours. 
 
 r E. M. Saundebs. 
 
 J. *• *••*•••. Eiq. (To the above there was no reply.) 
 
 ». 
 
 Halifax, Feb. 2nd, 1871. 
 
 Dear Sir, — I havd a IcKor of yours in which you say that the 
 "Pryorcase" was the grand cause of the nxpulsion of Mr Rand 
 from the office of Superintendent of Education and thd appointmiiit 
 of Mr. Hunt in his place. 
 
 As Judge Johnston profepse.^ to have received from you some 
 papers on this subject, I may say that if you have furnished any 
 such papers, I shall regard myself at liberty to use your letter should 
 it be required. 
 
 Truly yours, E. M. Saunders. 
 
 Re?. 0. D. Cox. 
 
 HiLLSBURGii, Feb. 6th, 1871. 
 To Rev. E. M. Saunders. 
 
 Dear Sivy — I received u letter from you last week of a strange 
 nature, I must confess. 
 
 You say in it " that you have a letter of mine in possession, in 
 which I say that the " Pryor case " was the grand cause of the 
 expulsion of Mr. Rand from the office of Superintendent of Educa- 
 tion, and the appointment of Mr. Hunt in his place." 
 
 I suppose you have a letter Of mine in your possession, dated 
 Feb. 14th, 1870, in which I say, " Perhaps some of us who are 
 acquainted with that unhappy affair (I refer to the Pryor case) can 
 form some idea of the cause of all this ; thif« I have no doubt in my 
 own mind is the grand cause." I saved a c-.^, r of fhj letter which 
 I now hold in my possession. Is this sayirj^ tti t.» " Pryor ^-a ,e" 
 " was the grand cause of the expulsion of '1 ■. VLami from the office 
 of Superintendent, and the appointment of Mr. Hunt in his place," 
 as you affirm it does ? I say it does not. I am su prised at you. 
 Why did you say in your letter to me last winter, " that Mr. Hunt 
 had declared himself ia favour of Separate Schools, and that Judge 
 T ',h8ton was concerned in a plot to have Mr. Rand expelled from 
 '•% office of Superintendent of Education^ in favour of Roman 
 Catholics ? 
 
 I would just say that I have not furnished Judge Johnston with 
 any paper, or papers at any time sent to me by you or any otber 
 
 ■\ 
 
thIT„r"'^'!"'[!*,*^"r^'^"*'*' "°'' ^0 I w"h to meddle mysHf with 
 the matter. I had noth 112 to do with JVfr R.,n,i'. „ •"./'"^" w th 
 
 appointment of Mr. Hunt in his n7ac3 If MR «^P"'j»«"» ^r the 
 in thrt f»fflno T J 1 I V P ^' " *"• "'"'J '>ttd eont nued 
 
 ^Si^f;i^:u^zt^-:^ ,:Xt «... j 
 
 fn^kl S " ^°.r ?."'"' •^y y°" t° ™e. this I did at hisTques he 
 
 my consent. I hope the matter will be settled without my trouble. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 G. D. Cox. 
 f. 
 
 T^,rA»G,„ Tu . Halifax, Feb. 10th, 1871. 
 
 iV in Feb i770 «h! ^."h ''*^ T' '"""'' °^ ^''« ^'^ inst. Writ- 
 ing m j?eb., 1870, about the expulsion of Mr. Rand from the omo« 
 
 of Supenntendent of Education, and the appointment of Mr IIu„^ 
 
 m h,s place you said : '• We all think it a most stranT affair "' tITi. 
 
 ^ata . strange affair"? « Perhaps some of usToare acquaTn ed 
 
 " The cause of all this." Of JVhat? « ThJo " tu^ -d 
 
 import to have your own explanation of them. ^ ^ 
 
 »o.^g.ve your coasen.for him to lay befo« .e a„7;:pe*''brgbg 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 Bev. 0. D. Cox. ^' ^' Saundebs. 
 
 (No replj wftf over received.)