S^J<> *^'^^^„0. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1.1 1^128 12.5 150 ■"*■ lllflH 1^ ^ III 2.2 ^ lis lllllio 1.25 1.4 llllim ill 1.6 % 7] y^ v» Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 '^\^\ ^y:< ». ^ i\ f<> lA CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CiHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Irntitut Canadian de niicroreproductions historiques Tschnical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notas tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa Tha Instituta haa attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha reproduction, or which may significantly change tha uaual method of filming, ara chackad lialow. Q Coloured covera/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D D D D D n Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ at/ou pelliculAe Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque r~~| Coloured mapa/ Cartes giographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I — I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ D Planchaa at/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la diatorsion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appeer within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. maia, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pagea n'ont pas 6ti filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires; L'Institut a microfilmi le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a ttt possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-4tre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier uno imege reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithoda normaie de filmage sont indiqute ci-dessous. r**1 Coloured pagea/ n Pagee do couleur Pagee damaged/ Pagea endommag^s Pages restored and/oi Pages restauriaa at/ou pelliculAes Pagea discoloured, stained or foxei Pages d^colories, tacheties ou piquies Pages detached/ Pages ditachies Showthrough/ Transparence Quelity of prir Qualiti in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du material suppl^mentaire Only edition available/ Seuie Edition disponibie pn Pagee damaged/ n~| Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~7] Pagea discoloured, stained or foxed/ pn Pages detached/ rri Showthrough/ I I Quelity of print veries/ r~~l Includes supplementary material/ r~1 Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Lea pages totalement ou partieilement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure, etc., ont M filmies A nouveau de fapon i obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmi au taux de rMuction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X J 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmad h«r« has Immi raproduead thanks to tha ganaroaity of: Library of PariiMnant and tha National Library of Canada. L'axamplaira fiimi fut raproduit grica k la gAnArositi da: La Bibiiothiqua du Parlamant at la BibliotMqua national du Canada. Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha poaalbia conaldaring tha ecndltion of tha original copy and in kaaping filming eontraot apacificationa. quality lagibility tha Laa imagaa suh>antaa ont 4tA raproduitaa avac la plua grand soin, oompta tami da la condition at da la nattatA da I'aicampiaira fllm4. at tt conformiti avac laa condMona du eontrat da fllmaga. Original eopiaa in printad papar covars ara filmad baginning vwith tha front covar and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illustratad impraa> sion. or tha back covar whan appropri«;». All othar original eopiaa ara filmad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- aion, and ending on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraaaJon. Laa axamplairaa originaux dont la couvartura •$* papiar est imprim4a sont flimte an comman^nt par la pramlar plat at an tarminant soit par la damMra paga qui comporta una ampraima d'ImpraaaJon ou dlHuatration, soit par la sacond plat, aalon la eaa. Tous laa autras axamplairaa originaux sont filmis an commancant par la pramiAra paga qui comporta una ampralnta dimpraaaion ou dlNustration at an tarminant par la damlAra paga qui comporta una talla ampralnta. Tha laat racordad frama on aaeh microflcha shall contain tha symbol -"^ (maaning "CON- T1NUE0"). or tha symbol ▼ (maaning "END"), whiehavar appliaa. Un daa symbolaa suhrants apparaftra sur la damMra imaga da choqua microflcha, salon la caa: la symbola -^ signlfia "A SUIVRE". la symbola ▼ signifia "FIN". Mapa. plataa, charts, ate., may ba filmad at diffarant reduction ratioa. Thoaa too larga to ba antiraly inciudad In ona axpoaura ara filmad baginning in tha uppar laft hand comar, laft to right and top to bottom, aa many framao as required. Tha following diagrama illuatrata tha method: Laa cartaa. pianchae. tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre fllmde k dee taux do rMuction diffirents. Lorsqua la document eet trop grand pour 4tra raproduit en un saul cllchA. il eat film* i partir da Tangle supMaur gauchj. da gauche i droite. et da haut en baa. en prenarrt la nombre dlmagae ndceeaaira. Lea diagrammee suivants illuatrent la mithoda. 1 3 9 1 2 r • 9 '-'^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 8', ■t- I I I I 1 I I I I IS 'After iMtding tUa, plaaM oiionUto it avonf th* Taaoli^ of yow nngfab^uliood. DR. SANGSTER'S /ldd RESS fO THE PUBLIC ^n) THB sw^i'^S jnblit St|ool C(at|frs of #tttario : IK lOtPLY TO THE "GLOBE'S" SLANDEROUS ATTACK Oil HIS PRIVATE CHARACTER. !;' PRINTED BY HUNTER, ROSE & CO., KING STREET WEST. 1874. JV'Aftwiwdiif tUitplMMrtNflkte it among tksTtaokmi of faw arf|^bo«iluMd. s i (dontiiMud from page 32.) ! [8.S.] Statb of Illinois, County of Cook, City of Chicago, I, Daniel O'Hara, Clerk of the Recorder's Court, of the City of Chicago, in the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify the above and foregoing to be a true, perfect, and complete copy of a final decree of divorce, entered on record on the 22nd of JuW, 1870, in a certain case Sangster v. Sangster heretofore pending in said Court, on the Chancery side thereof. , * V In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed the Seal of said Court at Chicago, this 22nd day of July, A.D. , 1870. (Signed) Daniel O'Hara, Clerk. ( Seal < Recorder ( Court. ■•! United States of America, ) State of Illinois, j^ Office of Secretary of State. [S.S.] I, George H. Harlow, Secretary of the State of Illinois, hereby certify that Samuel O'Hara, Esq., who signed the foregoing certificate, was at the time of signing the same Clerk of the Recorder's Court of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, and State of Illinois, duly commissioned and qualified to office, with full powers, by the laws of this State, to issue Certificates as aforesaid, and that the said Certificate is in due form of law and by the proper officer, and that full faith and credit are due to his official attestations. In Witness Whereof, I hereby set my hand and affix /— '-— ^ the Great Feal of State, at the City of Springfield, ! Great ") this 22nd day of June, in the year of Our Lord, One Seal of > Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy-four, and of State. ) the Independence of the United States the Ninety- ^-^-^^ eighth. (Signed,) George H. Harlow, '■ Secretary of State. This is to certify, that Edwaid A. Galligan, of the City of Buffalo, in the State of New York, and Mary Sangster, of the City of Buffalo, in the State of New York, were by me joined together in Holy Matrimony on the First (1st) day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one (1871). P. G. Cooke, /xKT-i. \ ( Chas. N. CoBURN. Minister of the Gospel. (Witness) j j^jg^ Martin Helens. This certifies, that John H. Sangster, of Chicago, in the State of Illinois, and Caroline E. McCausland, of Woodstock, in Canada, were united in Holy Matrimony, by me, according to the ordinance of God, and the laws of the State of Michigan, at Detroit, on the Twenty-first day of SepCbmber, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one. /xKT'i \ i ^M' J* McCausland. (Witness; | YxsmTi McCausland. T. J. JOSLIN, Minister of the Gospel. I hereby certify I hare seen the documents above referred to, viz., the marriage certificate of the former Mrs). Sani^ster, in Buffalo on 1st February, 1871, and that of Dr. Sangster in Detriot, 2l8t Sept., 1871, and that the above are true copies. I also certify that I have seen the attestation of Hon. Geo. H. Harlow, Secretary of the State of Illinois, and that it has the Great Seal of State attached to it in due form, I give thfs attestation at Dr. Sangster's request. ToRKViUiB, June Mth, 1874. SALTERN GTVENS, Incumbent qf St. Pauls .o •"'/ \ »: J., TO THE PUBLIC AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS OF ONTARIO. Mt Candidature for the position of Public School Teachers' Representative in the Council of Public Instruction, has aroused the bitter and envenomed hostility of the Toronto Globe, which has now for some weeks past, bent all its energies towards securing my defeat. To accomplish that end its editor has resorted to means to which no honorable, much less Christian man, could stoop — means which have excited a universal feeling of honest indignation among people of all religious denominations ani political creeds. In its high-handed and unscrupulous attempt to crush me, in the interests of the Ring of self-seekers which is behind the attack, it has not hesitated to pervert truth, suppress facts, and assert falsehoods. The most trivial acts of my past life have been distorted and colored so as to appear heinous. The veriest gossip set afloat by my designing and spiteful detractors has been welcomed to the columns of this newspaper, and dressed up by its editor, and presented to the public in the garb of sacred truth. The veil of decercy, with which, for the sake of those near and dear to me, I had screened the sorrows of my past domestic life from public gaze, has, by this editorial vandal been torn aside, and the holiest feelings of those who compose my family have been ruthlessly trampled upon. And all this has been done with a cunning so specious that it seeks to blind the public to the fiendishness of its true motives, by a fussy and pretentious assumption of anxiety respecting public morals. History or THE Ckusade. .. i In the beginning of April last, the teachers of Waterloo, assembled in con- vention, unanimously nominated me as their representative to the Council. In n long editorial, strongly condemning the unmanly attack made on me, the Waterloo Chronicle, a staunch reform journal, thus fairly states the result of this nomination, " Hereupon the Globe threatened dreadful disclosures unless " Dr. Sangster at once refused the position. This brutal threat did all the ** mischief possible, for it left the victim no alternative. Had he published a " card in the Globe (at ten cents a line) declining the honor his fellow- *' teachers proffered him, the world would have said there must be something *' behind all this too horrible for mention." I was conscious of misfortune, but not of guilt, and accordingly I did not decline. With a view, however, to save my family from the bitter and unmerited anguish which, from what I knew of the animus and the tactics of the Globe, I suspected might be in store for them, I twice offered, once through the post, and once through a friend of Mr. Brown, to meet the editor and frankly and candidly enter into the merits of my case with him in private, and to show him the documents connected therewith, in order to satisfy him, if possible, of the rectitudd X' !■, DR. SANGSTER'S reply of my course. I have every reason to believe that in one instance, at leasts the offer reached its destination, but it was not accepted. Subseqtiently a similar offer and appeal was made by my father, through Mr. Dymond, whose reply, received after the shameless editorial of May Cth, simply stated that he had forwarded the letter to the Editor-in-Chief, but beyond doing so, he was powerless in the matter. In truth it was from the outset abundantly evi- dent that the object of the Glube was to crush — not to be convinced. It had for years past anxiously sought a chance to annihilate somebody connected, even remotely, with the Educational Department, and my unhappy domestic troubles furnished an opportunity far too preci(ni8 to be lightly lost. It remains to be seen whether the Globe has not grievously mistaken the temper and intelligence of the honorable body of men and women whom it is try- ing to influence -whether it will not find to its cost that it is appealing — not to a mass of ignorant political partizans — but to those who can see through empty pretence and specious sophistries as easily ao they can discriminate between blatant assertion and logical argument. Motives which have inspired the aitack. The Globe may assert, vigorously as it likes, that its attack on me has been inspired purely in the interests of morality. No one — not even its most ardent admirers believes it ; the bitter personal anlmris is too evident in every line it lias contained on the subject. It insults the intelligence of teachers, when by articles, every paragraph of which is steeped in hate, and sa- turated with malignity, — it strives to persuade them that it is not actuated by personal hatred, and an anxious desire to keep out of the Council an element not likely to be sufficiently subservient to the selfish schemes of Mr. George Brown and his book- publishing brother-in-law, Mr. Nelson. Ranged behind the editorial chair, and supplying the materiel of the attack, and even the editorials, in part, are certain second and third-rate educationists, who are insanely ambitious enough to aspire to the guidance of the educational ship of the future. Foremost among these is James A. McLellan, Senior High School Inspector, who owes his official position to my earnest and disinterested solicitations and advocacy. Emulating the grati- tude of Mr. Brown to Mr. Robert Baldwin, the individual in question, has persistently and systematically sought to cancel his obligations to me by using the position, to which I was mainly instrumental in raising him, to work me all the deadly mischief in his power. This delectable specimen of manhood and his two or three worthy associates have axes of their own to grind on the Council grindstone — have aspirations which would be simply ridiculous were it not for the support lent to them by the Globe. For some years past they have not only pulled the wires of the Ontario Teachers' Asso- ciation, but they have constituted the Globe's fountain of educational inspir- ation and rendered its editorials on Education the laughing-stock of all moderately well informed teachers. Still, upon the principle of giving a qtt.xd pro quo — even although the quo is of so wretched a quality as to excite contempt — the paper finds it necessary to support the ring. The clique re- ferred to, not only has no sympathies in common with Public School Teachers, its desire and aim is to subordinate Public Schools and Public School Teachers to other, and in some respects, adverse educational interests ; and it is because the members composing it hiow me to be fully alive to their plots and schemes, and thoroughly determined to thwart them and to guard the privileges and rights of Public School Teachers, that they are prepared with the Globe, to go to any extremes in order to keep me out of the Council. I rejoice to know, however, that no matter what may be the result of the ap- proaching election, so far as I am concerned, this unscrupulous knot of edu- cational conspirators are known to the great body of Public School Teachers and Inspectors, and that they will not escape in the future that just execra- tion they BO richly deserve. • ' TO THE GLOBES SLANDERS. "Olobb" Misstatements Refuted. The editorial cnisado commenced by invitina; every anonymous scribbler who had, or who thought he had, a stone to throw, to cast it through the columns of the Globe. While the veriest trash, if intended to tell against me, was welcomed, and communications of the required sort were concocted in the editorial sanctum when not otherwise forthcoming, but two letters, out of the scores sent in my defence, were inserted, and these only that they might furnish texts on wliich to found venomous editorials. The first effort of the editorial pen, however, besides the invitation referred to, contained two remarkable statements — one to the effect that " He (Dr. Sangster) has other text-books yet to be sanctioned by the Council," the other that " He (Dr. Sangster) is as much as any one responsible for the wretched system of mechanical routine in teaching prevalent in our schools." The former of these statements is simply false : I have not and never again intend to have a text-book to submit to the Council for its sanction. The latter state- ment contains, in the first place, a gratuitous insult to the whole body of Public School Teachers. I indignantly and emphatically deny that the work done in our Public Schools is more routine or mechanical in character than that done in our High Schools. 1 fearlessly and advisedly assert that it is equal, if not superior, in kind to the work done in the Public Schools of Great Britain, the United States, or any other country. I resent on behalf of my fellow-teachers, as I. believe they will resent this attempt to cast an unmerited slur upon a most efficient and ill appreciated body of earnest men and women. Our modes of instruction are not yet perfect, and were the Globe editor addressing an assemblage of teachers it would be proper for him to point out any faults that exist, and to suggest remedies. It is, however, quite another thing to assert to the public, throughout the length and breadth of the Li,iid, that our sch'^ol methods are characterized by a gross system of mechanical routine. The statement given above is moreover untrue in regard to the direction of the influence I have exerted on school methods of imparting instruction. The editor of the Globe asserts positively that I am and have been the advocate of a mechanical style of teaching, while there is not a student who ever heard me lecture in the Normal School, there is not one of the more than 4000 teachers who have attended my institutes i^ring the past year, uut recognizes me as the declared foe of routine, the ,, .aiai. apostle of intellectuality in teaching. Further Misstatements of the "Globe " Refuted. Besides a mass of epithets and inuendoes, the second eflfort of the Globe contains a principal assertion in the form of a question as to whether the teachers '* do not know that at the recent meeting of inspectors to nominate a candidate, Dr. Sangster's name was scouted toith indignation?" This is a specimen statement, and will serve to show the Globe's utter recklessness in making assertions. Out of the sixteen inspectors at the meeting eleven were prepared to support me in preference to all other candidates. Nine of them however met in caucus before the convention assembled and agreed that, " since I had freely stated that my sympathies were rather with the teachers than with the inspectors, and that I would prefer to seek election by the former," I should therefore be regarded as the teachers' candidate. When the Convention met, one of my friends, not present at the caucus, nominated me in a very complimentary speech ; another of my friends at once rose and explained that I wished to be the teachers' representative, and therefore asked that my name be withdrawn. This was done, and there the matter dropped. My friends present at- that meeting were Inspectors Alexander, Kelly, Kilgour, Smith, Miller, Carlyle, Reazin, Tilley, Scarlett, Mackintosh, and Johnston, and to any of these I refer inquirers as to whether my version or that of the Globe is the truthful one. DB. SANOSTER'S BEPLY These jarly editorials also sought to give color to the assertions made again and again by the Olobe^s correspondents, that I was dismissed from my position as Head Master of the Normal School, or that I was compelled to resign. This statement, repeated by the Globe in its very last editorial (that of June 22), is as malicious and as utterly without foundation as the others already examined. I shall deal with it subsequently. Thb "Globe's" Dastardly Invasion ov the Sanctities of Private Life. Then followed an editorial attacking my second marriage on its legal merits — an editorial full of the wildest assertions, the most specious sophistry, the cruelest distortion of facts, and so perfectly fiendish in its endeavors to destroy the domestic peace of a large family circle, that not a few of the Qlohe's once warm friends have declared it to be a lasting monument of that paper's infamy and disgrace. An intimate friend — almost as familiar with mv case as I am myself — wrote without mjr knowledge or consent to the Mail newspaper, over the signature '* Hastings," replying to this editorial. I give the letters of " Hastings " in full, in order that my fellow-teachers, observing how he replies to assertion with facts, to abuse with arguments, may appreciate properly the Globe's recent unblushing assertion, that not one statement made by it has had its furce turned aside. " Basting's "Tirst Letter in reply to the " Globe " Slander. To the Editor of the Mail. Sir, — Will you kindly allow me to occupy some portion of your valuable space in replying to a vilely scurrilous editorial in the Globe of the 6th inst. , anent the nomination of Dr. Sangster as a candidate for the Council of Public Instruction ? I shall be as brief as possible, and fortunately it will not require a very lengthy article to remove the cloud of dust which the Globe tries to throw in the eyes of the teachers of Ontario. In the article in question, an attempt, far more ingenious than ingenuous, is made to show that Dr. Sangster is morally disqualified for any public office ; and the Public School Teachers are lectured roundly on the fearful conse- quences that must follow, if they dare to exercise their own judgment, and elect a candidate against whom the Globe has thundered its terrible ipse dixit. In fact the Thunderer has mounted the high moral platform, and we all know pretty well what follows in such cases. We are treated to a pompous lecture on the imminent peril in which we should place " many of our social arrangements," '* some of our most time-hallowed ideas," " our national morals," &c.. «&c., by the election of such a man as Dr. Sangster. Nay more, this Pharisaical Globe editor, inwardly thanking God that he is not as other men are, speaks of the Public School Teachers' candidate as " a defiant law- breaker," speaks of his children as illegitimate — and has the brutality to assert that their mother is not recognised by the law of the land as married to Dr. Sangster. And all this is set off by the most specious sophistry and hair-splitting ingenuity, under the sorry pretence of its being " a grave and important question of public morality and law." Verily, there be more men than Baigent, of Tichborne-trial notoriety, who do and say strange things •' in the interests oi justice and morality." But let me briefly examine the facts of the case, and see what is Dr. Sang- ster's actual position at the present moment. And here let me give credit to the Globe for one small flash of decency — where it says, in alluding to the se- paration from his first wife, " We dwell Jiot on the darker features of the case." Neither shall I. It is not necessary to rake up all the painful facts of that sad tale of sin, and suffering, and shame ; and I am sure that it would be only with extreme reluctance that Dr. Sangster could be forced to publish TO THE GLOBE S SLANDERS. to th« world the full story of his wrongs. They were known to many of his friends, men of high character and position ; and in all the sorrow and pain surrounding him then, he had the proud satisfaction of knowing that not one friend, whose friendship was wurth hiiving, stood aloof from him in the hour of his distress. Many uf the public school teachers and inspectors knew — not upon any mere hearsay evidence, but upon the most ample and incontrovert- ible proofs, that, years before leaving Canada, Dr. Sangster could have obtained a divorce in England had he resided there, or in any Protestant country under the sun except Canada, where the issue of a divorce is determined not by even the clearest evidence of cdultery, but by the mere accident of whether, in addition to such evidence, there chances to be a majority of Roman Catho- lics or of Protestant members present in the Dominion House of Parliament when the bill comes up for its successive readings. Dr. Sangster's friends further know that his former wife, while living in the enjoyment of a competency generously secured to her by her divorced and deeply wronged husband, was again legally and properly married to a citizen of the United States, by the Rev. P. G. Cooke, of Buffalo, on the 1st Feb., 1871, six months before Dr. Sangster renigned the head mastership of the Normal School. They, therefore, know that when, against the strongly expressed and earnest wishes of the members of the Council of Public Instruc- tion, he threw up his position and removed to the United States, without the remotest intention of ever again returning to Canada, he was both morally and legally a free, a doubly free man, and had an undoubted right to marry again, and it will require more than Globe editorials, every line of which is full of the most deadly malice and unchristian hate, to convince the public school teach- ers of Ontario that a course of conduct which was right and moral on one side of the River Detroit, can be wholly wrong and immoral on the other. The only questitm with which I or the public have anything to do now, is the question of Dr. Sangster's actual position at the present moment. The legal question and the moral go together, and all that we have to deal with is summed up in this : Is he legally married to his second wife, or is he not ? Of the legality of this second marriage, according to the laws of the United States, where it was solemnized, there can be no question whatever, and even the Globe does not attempt to deny that it was and is legal and valid there. But how does its legality in the United States, where it is confessedly legal, affect its legality under English law ? Now, sir, I shall not follow the example of the Globe, and make a blunt assertion unsupported by any proof ; but I shall give an authority which will satisfy eveiy fair-minded teacher in the Province, whether it pleases the moralist of the Globe or not. In the case of Ruding v. t'mith, 2 Hogg. Consist., R. 371, Lord Stowell said : ** English decisions have established this rule, that a foreign marriage, valid according to the law of the place where celebrated, is good everywhere else." This is a broad, general principle of our law, clearly stated without any specious ex parte argument ; and it is in accordance with the whole tenor of English law on the subject. So jealously, in fact, does our law guard the validity of a marriage legally performed according to the lex loci, that it goes so far even as to establish that " the marriage abroad of a person civilly dead by attainder for crime committed in England, is valid in England, if it be valid in the country where it was performed." We have seen that Dr. Sang- ster's divorce was legal in the United States ; we have seen that his former wife was previously married again to a third party ; we have seen that his second marriage was legal and valid in the coimtry where it was performed ; we have seen that a foreign marriage, valid according to the law of the place where celebrated, is valid everywhere else, according to the established rule of our English law ; and from all this it follows that Dr. Sangster is legally married to his second wife, and the legitimacy of his children by that mar- riage is firmly established. In the face of such authority as I have quoted, it will require far more than the specious sophistry of the Globe writer to convince the teachers of Ontario of the truth of his wicked and malignant 8 DR. 8ANGSTER 8 REPLY charge ; and 1 much mistake the temper of my fellow-workora if we do not prove to that spurious moralist that we can and do resent his cowardly attempt to blind us to our real interest by such hair-splitting special pleading, and such cold-blooded, coarse brutality. And after all, what have we to do with all subtle disquisitions on nice points of law ? It is not our duty to set ourselves up as legal reformers. Our duty to the public is to do our work of teaching thoroughly and well. Our duty to ourselves is to see that our representative in the Council of Public Instruction shall be a man competent to understand and resolute to assert our rights. It is not necessary for me to speak of Dr. Sangster's (lualitications for the position of representative of the public school teachers. His merits are widely known and appreciated, and wo rest confident that there will be no man in the Council who will do more than Dr. Sangstor to break up that solid phalanx of self-seekers and educational obstructionists known to the profession as the *' Toronto Ring." Of his election there is not a doubt, and the last foul attack of the Olohe will recoil with redoubled force upon the ring by whom it was inspired. The teachers are not (children to be frightened from their determination by the bugbear of the Globe, and they will rally to the support of their candidate with all the more determination to put him in triumphantly, now they have seen what unscrupulous means are being taken to keep him out. Permit me, before closing, to make a remark in connection with this case. While strongly deprecating the introductitm of anything like laxity in regard to divorce, it is becoming generally felt that the sooner our divorce laws are assimilated to the English law, the better for private happinens and public morality. When the marriage compact has been clearly and indisputably violated so as to be null and void in the eyes of God, and by the letter of the Bible, there ought to be here, as in England, a sure, prompt, and inexpensive remedy. Until that is seciired, recourse will be had to the United States, or to the fearful expedient of suicide, or the still more criminal one of murder, in order to sever bonds which are no longer endurable. It is the opinion of many observant persons tiiat both these crimes result from our divorce laws to an extent little dreamed of by the general public. Allow me to thank you for the use of your columns. With the heroism of endurance and forbearance which has marked him in the past. Dr. Sangster still remains silent, and it is time for some of his friends to speak. I have written without consulting him or asking his permission. I could not resist the impulse to enter a protest against the Globe^s vile attack on the character and position of an estimable lady, and its fiendish etl'ort to destroy the best friend of the Public School Teachers of Ontario. I am, &c., Hastinos. May 7th, 1874. In reply to this, the following day's Globe gave a cohimn and a-half of scurrility, inuendoes, and reckless assertions — one of the most positive of the latter being a declaration that "we (Globe) can prove that 'Hastings' is Dr. Sangster," which imaginary discovery afforded the editor an opportunity for letting off a vast amount of spurious indignation. I have already exposed several gross misstatements, and my fellow-teacliers will not, therefore, be surprised to learn that this assertion likewise is utterly without foundation. Not only am I not "Hastings," but the letters over that signature were, both of them, written and sent to the Mail without consulting me, or asking my concurrence. Several of my friends had asked my permission to reply to the slanders of the Globe, by stating the facts of the case ; but I again and again refused, in the hope that the antecedents of the misguided being who had wrecked my life might not be paraded in the public prints. TO THE OLOBE's SLANDERS. In addition to the editorial in question, the Globe contained what purported to be an opinion of a *' learned and eminent (Queen's Counsel." This opinion was without signature, and, therefore, on the face of it, valueless, and, as one of the leading Jonmals of tho CDuntry remarked, gave evidence of the fact that "either the Globe was ashamed of its Queen's Counsel, or its Queen's Counsel was ashamed of his opinion." Still, on the strength of this bogus " opiniim," the Globe, and some of the lesser iournalistic luminaries of the Province, which shine only by the Glohe^a reflected light, have again and again a.sserted that my second marria.:^e is not lawful, and that I am liable at any moment to be prosecuted for bigamy. In answer to the Globe, a really eminent Queen's Counsel— Edward Carter, Esq., of Montreal, Professor of Criminal Law in McGill University, and, certainly, the highest legal authority in the Provincial bar — wrote over his own name to the Mail, unsolicited by me, and from pure love of fair play, a '* legal opinion " so incontrovertible that the Globe and its satellites found the position they had taken against my second marriage, on its legal merits, altogether untenable, and they there- fore at once shifted their ground, and assailed me on its moral aspects. More than one of the leading newspapers of the country have endeavoured to get the Globe to give the name of the " eminent Queen's Counsel" from whom this opinion it thus paraded was obtained, and have even freely ex- Stressed the decided conviction that the " opinion," like many of its letters I'om correspundents, was manufactured in the Globe ofhce ; but the managers of that paper have been discreetly silent on the subject. The following is Mr. Carter s succinct and lucid exposition of the law of divorce as touching my case : — Mr. Carter's Letter on the legality of mt marriaob. To the Editor of the Mail. Sir, — The Globe of the 20th instant contains an editorial censuring Dr. Sangster in strong language, and intimating that he is liable to a prosecution for bigamy. What surprises me is that this denunciation is made upon the authority of the opinion of a learned Queen's Counsel which is published. I am a stranger to Dr. Sangster, and take no interest in the controversy which prompted the attack, but simply in the legal question, and I am prepared to establish that the opinion referred to is entirely erroneous. Two questions were propounded : Ist. If a person married in Canada obtain a divorce in the United States, would such person be liable for bigamy in this country ? 2nd. Could a person who married a second time in the United States, even if the divorce were no good here (?), be tried for bigamy at all in this country ; would not the offence have to be tried in the United States, having been committed there ? Both questions must be taken together, as it is not stated in the first where the second marriage took place ; and in the second it is very gravely asked, should not the offence be tried in the United States, as if the American courts, where the divorce was granted, could afterwards punish for bigamy. The legal proposition in intelligible language is : Can a person married in Canada, who obtains a divorce in the United States, and marries a second time there during the lifetime of his first wife, be tried for bigamy by our Canadian Courts i The learned Queen's Counsel answers the question in the affirmative. He refers to the case of Rex v. Lolley, and the statute 1 Jas. 1, upon which it was decided, as a case analogous to the one supposed, and the exception in that statute as in substance the same as the exception in our Dominion Act. This is a mistake. LoUey's second marriage took place in England, and not in a foreign juris- diction ; whereas the case of Dr. Sangster, as put, is the case of a second marriage in the foreign jurisdiction where the divorce is obtained and recog- 10 DR. SANGSTER's reply nized as valid. Moreover, the operation and legal effect of the Englisli Sta- tute, and the exception it contained, were wholly different from our own. The statute ot James was limited to offences committed within " England and Wales ;" and hence it has been held that if the first marriage was in Eng- land, and the second in Ireland, no offence had been committed punishable by the law of England, upon the principle that the second marriage which alone could constitute the offence, was an ac;^ done within another jurisdiction, and not cognizable as a crime by the rule of the common law — 1 Hale, 692 ; 1 East. P. C, 466. Then again, the exception is restricted by the words "Ecclesiastical Court" to divorces rendered by the Court thus indicated ; whereas our statute contains words so comprehensive as to protect persons divorced by any " Court of competent jurisdiction," even Courts foreign to the place of the first marriage. The wh<^»le ouestion turns upon the interpretation to be given to the words " Court of competent jurisdiction," in the exception provided by our statute. If they are necessarily restricted in their application, as the learned Queen's Counsel says, to Courts "within the limits of the Dominion," then he is right and I am wrong. But why, and upon ^ hat principle of law should we thus restrict their application ? Used as they are in an exception to a sta- tutory provision creating a felony, they should receive the largest and m-^st liberal interpretation. Adopting this undoubted principle of law, the Com s in England held, under the exception made in the statut of James, that tl \ word " divorced" shielded those contracting a second marriage after a judi cial separation from bed and board ; alao those remarrying pending an appeal from a divorce d vinculo matrimoiiii, though the appeal suspends and may possibly repeal the sentence. 1 East P. C, 467. If we adopt the theory of the learned Queen's Counsel, we will at once see to what absurd conseqtiences it would lead. Thus, A, married in Eng- land, obtains a divorce there, and comes oi-t to Canada, where he marries a second time. He is arrested and tried for bigamy under our Dominion stn-tute, and must be convicted because the Queen's Counsel, says: "Ad- mitting the principle laid down in Lolley's case as law, I think there is no avoiding coming to the conclusion that the ' Court of competent jurisdiction' means a Court within the limits to which the statute extends, namely, the limits of the Dominion." It is an admitted principle of public law that the right of punishing crime is incident to the exercise of the Sovereign power ; and will the learned Queen's Counsel explain how, in the supposed case, if A could lawfully marry a second time in England, he should, because he removed to Canada, and married there, be punished for bigamy, because the sentence of divorce was not of a Court " within the limits of the Dominion ?" If A re-marries in England, he commits no oft'ence ; but if he re-marries in Canada, (accord- ing to the theory of the karned Queen's Counsel,) he commits a crime, al- though the Sovereign authority in both places is the same. Another error committed by the learned Queen's Counsel was, to assume that the principle laid down by the twelve Judges in Xolley's case, that no sentence or Act of any foreign country or State could dissolve an English marriage d vinrulo matrimonii for a ground on which it is not liable to be dissolved in England, is undoubted law. In so far as it adopted that prin- ciple, that case has been in several cases wholly disregarded by all the Judges of Scotland ; it has been questioned by Lord Eldon in several cases, and amongst others in Ross v. Ross in the House of Lords in 1830 ; and finally in 1834, expressly over-ruled (in so far as it adopted the above principle) by the House of Lords, Warrendar v. Warrander, 9 Bligh, 89. Lord Lyndhurst, reviewing Lolley's case, refers to several decisions of the Scotch Courts, where that case was discussed, and adverting to one of them, the Edminston case, says : " The fifteen Judges were unanimously of opinion that, according to the law of Scotland and a long and uniform course of de- TO THE globe's SLANDERS. 11 cisions, it was competent for the Courts of Scotland to pronounce a sentence of divorce d vinculo matrimonii, whatever the country in which the marriage might have taken place, and without reference to tlie remedies for adultery in auch country." ***** "The decisions of the Courts of Scotland are uniform. I have traced them from 1696 down to the present time. It appears, indeed, that the decision in Lolley's case, did for the moment in- troduce a doubt in some quarters, but it was soon, and I think effectually re- moved by the decision of the fifteen Judges of Scotland in the case of Edminston." Lord Br. ugham's judgment in the same case was more elaborate, and is a most learned discussion of the whole question. He conchuled by saying : " I think I need scarcely add that this current of judicial authority, and still more the uniform practice of the Scotch Courts, unquestioned even since the Reformation, establishes clearly the proposition in its general sense, that the Scotch Courts have jurisdiction to divorce, when a formal domicile has been acquired by a temporary residence, without regard to the native country of the parties, the place of their ordinary residence, or the country where the marriage may have been had." This judgment is referred to approvingly by Story, Con. of Laws, sec. 226 ; p. 246 ; sec. 230, p. 264 ; and he holds that a divorce in a foreign country confers upon the parties all the rights arising from a lawful dissolution. The general principle of public law is, that when a judgment is pronounced by a court having lawful jurisdiction over the cause, other nations ought to respect it . To this rule there is an exception. No country where the Ro- man Catholic religion is the religion of the State could admit the validity of a divorce of its Roman Catholic subjects under any circumstances, because the iiidissolubility of marriage is an essential part of the public law of those countries. In the Province of Quebec, as affecting civil rights, this doctrine prevails, being the law before the conquest ; but as the English criminal law was secured to us, I have no doubt a different rule would obtain on the crim- inal side, if a case in point should arise, and that the doctrine laid down by the House of Lords in Warrender v. Warrender, would be applied, to give effect to the exception contained in our statute, in favour of persons divorced by the judgment of a foreign tribunal. . The conclusion to which I arrive is that in Lolley's case, viewed as it should be solely as a prosecution for a violation of the statute of James, the convic- tion was sustainable, for the simple reason that the statute was limited in its operation to England and Wales, and the exception restricted by the words " Ecclesiastical Court" to divorces pronounced by that court only ; and therefore that case was not within the .exception. Whereas our law is not limited, but made general in its operation by the words " or elsewhere ;'* and the exception as to divorces is so gentral — " Court of competent juris- diction" — that according to the authorities I have cited, it would include a sentence of divorce by a foreign tribunal having competent jurisdiction ac- cording to the law where that remedy is exercised. The clause in our Dominion Act is the reproduction of anterior legislation in Canada, copied from the Imp. Act, 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 22 ; and I will ven- ture to say that if Lolley's case had occurred after that statute was passed, no lawyer wovJd contend that he could have been convicted of bigamy. In the LANGUAGE OF LoRD BROUGHAM, I WOULD SAY THAT A SECOND MARRIAGE (after DIVORCE OBTAINED IN A FOREIGN TRIBUNAL) EITHER IN ENGLAND, Canada, or the United States, could not be held invalid and felon- ious, WITHOUT assuming THAT THE DIVORCE WAS VOID EVEN IN THE FOREIGN jurisdiction WHERE IT WAS PRONOUNCED. Mr. Clarke, in his C L. of Canada, refers to the case of one McQuiggan, as establisliing that a person married in Canada, marrying a second time in the United States, his first wife being alive, could be convicted of bigamy. I am familiar with that case, having been present at the trial, which took place at j^ilontreal, in 1852. TJ^ere was no question there of a divorce obtained prior 12 DR. SANGSTER'S reply M to the second marriage. Besides objecting to the sufficiency of the indictmont, the prisoner's counsel, Mr. Kerr, Q. C, urged that the word "elsewhere" must be interpreted to mean " elsewhere within her Majesty's Dominions," — as unless the context clearly established the reverse, the statute must be so interpreted by the rule of the common law, which holds crime to be essen- tially local, and takes no cognizance of acts done ultra territorium, — it being also an incontestable rule of public law — extra territorium jus Jicenti impune nonparetar. But this point was not formally decided, the prisoner having been discharged for a defect in the indictment — not setting forth that the prisoner was " a subject of her Majesty's, resident in Canada." I remain, Sir, yours, &c., EDWARD CARTER, Q.C. Montreal, 25th May, 1874. Hon. J. HiLLYARD Cameron's Opinion. It will be observed that Mr. Carter establishes the complete validity and law- fulness of my second marriage, provided it is a le^al marriage in the United States. Before I married my second wife in Michigan, I obtained an opinion from the most eminent lawyer in Detroit, to the effect that my divorce though issued in Illinois, was, by decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, absolutely valid in every State of the Union, and that therefore my marriage in Detroit would be a perfectly legal and bitidi'Pkg act. I have recently submitted the divorce and the whole series of documents to the Hon. John Hillyard Cameron, asking him for a short, non -technical opinion, which teachers could understand, of the validity of my divorce, and the legality of my second marriage, both in the United States and here in Canada. The follow- ing is Mr. Cameron opinion : — In re Sangster. According to the law in the State of Illinois, and the principles generally acted on in the Courts of the United States, the marriage which took place in Upper Canada, in December 1851, was dissolved by the sentence of divorce pronounced in July 1870, and the subsequent marriage of Dr. Sangster in the State of Michigan, was therefore a valid marriage, and undoubtedly recog- nizable in the United States. And the decree of divorce of July 1870, being regular according to the law of Illinois, and the second marriage being valid in the United States, it is also valid in Canada. (Signed,) J. HILLYARD CAMERON. Romain Buildings, I5th June, 1874. Although two or three labored editorials of the Globe, previous to the issue of Mr. Carter's letter, were filled with assertions about the illegality of my marriage, and my liability to punishment, the editor has since had nothing to say upon the subject. He had not the manliness to admit that he was mistaken, or that he sought to mislead the Public School Teachers ; but feeling that he had burnt his fingers, he has become very reticent with regard to the bearing of the law on my case. Some of his further sophistries and unbluship" falsehoods are very clearly exposed in " Hastings'" second lettor, which 1 give in full, for the reason already assigned : — Second Letter of " Hastings," in Reply to the Globe's Slandbrs. To the Editor of the Mail. Sir, — The moralist of the Globe appears to be wonderfully exercised over the effect produced by an innocent little letter of mine, which you were kind TO THE GLOBES SLANDEBS. 18 enough to insert in your cohimns under the above caption a fortnight since ; and sweating uiider the exposure of his wretched sophistry, he again and again returns to the attack with a virulence and mahgnity worthy of even a worse cause than that in which he has embarked. Mounting his pulpit, and charging his pen with the blackest juice of the cuttle fish, this high-toned Pharisee in- dites his homilies io the public school teachers still under the sanctimonious garb of a laborer *' in the interests of justice and morality." But before entering on his congenial task of vilification and one-sided special pleading, he seeks to annihilate me for daring to expose his pitiful quibbles ; and searching through his copious vocabulary of choice Billingsgate for an expression suf- ficiently forcible to convey his meaning;, he at last hits upon a brilliant idea, and at once gratifies his hatred and tries to mislead his readers by declaring that I "can be proved to be Dr. Sangster himself." Now, sir, T am absolutely at a loss to conjecture how the personality of ** Hastings " could be proved, unless the great moralist intends to hint that he purposes committing petty larceny by abstiacting my letter from your office. Professional moralists do strange things sometimes, so that it might be as well for you to be careful in any case. But you know, sir, that in this case even letter-stealing would not serve the purpose, for my letter would prove not only that 1 am not Dr. Sangster, but that I do not even reside with- in a hundred miles of Toronto. However, even that is a trifle nearer than the Glube moralist generally gets to the truth. But it is evident that the notorious " Toronto ring " will stick at nothing, provided only that they can blind the teachers of the Province and induce them to cast their votes against Dr. Sangster ; and it must be allowed that they have been singularly fortunate in their choice of an unscrupulous, cold- blooded literary hack to do the necessary dirty work. No Grub-street slan- derers of the olden time could surpass him in recklessness and malignity, or in the gratuitous insolence with which he sows his unfounded insiniiations and accusations broadcast. He has a plentiful supply of foiil-mouthed ribaldry, and he uses it unsparingly and without remorse in the interests of the ring, of which he is the mouthpiece. And so Dr. Sangster's friends, that is, the vast majority of the teachers of Ontario, are denounced as advocates of Free Love doctrines, who don't bother themselves much with the laws of the Bible," &c. , &c. Well, at all events, " insults are not arguments," and the teachers will ■how by their votes that they resent the insults of the ring, and the shameless attempt of the Globe to cajole them into espousing the cause of a bad woman against her outraged and divorced husband. I have neither the wish nor the ability to enter into a contest of ribaldry with such a master of the art as the Olobe moralist has proved himself to be ; but I shall, as briefly as possible, strip the ca^ of the cloud of sophistry in which he has endeavoured to shroud it, and show what a treacherous guide is this man who presumes to dictate to the teachers. Coming out as the champion of the first Mrs. Sangster, and Writing in a burst of moral indignation so grand that it makes him oblivious of the grammatical requirements of his periods, he says " that man must be unmanly in the very last degree who would, by word, or look, or gesture, even . hint at the last insult and infamy by which any woman can be visited unless on the clearest and most irrefragable evidence. Has this been Dr. Sangster's course ? Notoriously the very reverse." Very clearly, these sentences are in- tended to imply exactly the reverse of what they assert. Or is it, perhaps, a sneaking attempt of the moralist to save his conscience at the expense of his literary reputation 1 Certainly it would have spoken far more highly both for his morals and his grammatical accuracy if he had meant to say what he actually does say ; for notoriously neither has Dr. Sangster nor "Hastings" nor any other friend of Dr. Sangster said one word, unsupported by the clearest and most irrefragable evidence, against the unhappy woman whose cause is so en- ergetically defended by her friend in the Olube office. Nor would one word ever have been said against her were it not for the indecent attack made upon the reputation and position of Dr. Sangster and his present wife by the first 14 DR. SANGSTBR'S reply Mrs. Sangster's friends and admirers in the slanderous Toronto Ring. Verily, if ever a woman had reason to complain in the bitterness of her heart, ** Heaven protect me from my friends," that woman is the unhappy one whose deeds are being forced into the light by the obstinate malignancy of her outraged husbands opponents. "Curses come home to roost," and the first Mrs. Sangster may thank herself that the clique whose hands she did so much to strengthen against her husband, are adopting acourse which compels his friends in self-defence to state the grounds on which their charges against her were made. Not one of them, says the Olobe, *' has the first tittle of evidence." Well, we shall see ; and I can assure you that all the evidence in this case has not fallen into the hands of the Ring. About a fortnight since, the Globe asked me did I know that there were letters in existence in which Dr. Sang- ster discussed the grounds of a separation with his first wife, without men- tioning adultery as one of them ? And I may say, in reply, that I do not profess to be so deeply read in the secrets and intrigues of that wretched woman as her morality-preaching friend in the Globe office appears to be, I did not know, nor do I know now, what ex parte statements she may have made, and what documents she may have placed in the hands of the Ring, in support of that statement, but I can very readily understand how a man, the father of sons, and especially of daughters, might shrink from publishing to the world or to his children the story of all their mother's shame, and might be willing to save them from her polluting presence by a separation obtained on grounds even less strong than adultery — and unfor- tunately for her and her friends such grounds were only too abundantly supplied. She may have furnished the Globe with one or two letters in which the grossest of her offences was not alluded to by her too-indulgent husband. I do not know whether she has or not ; but this I do know, that as a friend and supporter of Dr. Sangster, I am perfectly willing to rest the whole case on the complete series of letters and documents which passed between them. It was the bounden duty of the Globe not to undertake the advocacy of such a woman, without being first put in possession of every letter and document in her keeping ; and if she has furnished the full series, and the Globe is will- ing to publish them in extenso, I am quite willing to let the whole case rest there. If the full series were given to the public — not one or two isolated letters, but the full series — I know that without any further evidence, the public would be perfectly satisfied of the truth of every word advanced by me in my former letter. However, even without those letters, there is abundant evidence of the truth of what I allege, and I have waited so long in the hope that Dr. Sangster would himself make a public statement of the facts ; but as he still maintains the same patient silence which has characterized him in the past, I shall state what I know, in justice to him and his present esti- mable wife, and also in justice to myself and the teachers who support him. I know, then, that there is in evidence a document in which the first Mrs. Sangster confessed that she had been guilty of spreading false and scandalous rumors against her husband, and acknowledged that she had been guilty of adultery — and this document was signed by her own hand in presence of two witnesses in the city of Toronto. That, 1 think, is sufficient evidence, both ' legally and Biblically, that my statement was not made rashly or unwarrant- ably. It has been already mentioned in my former letter that Dr. Sangster was subsequently divorced, and also that his first wife was again legally and properly married to a citizen of the United States by the Rev. P. G. Cooke, of Buffalo, on the 1st February, 1871 ; and yet, in the teeth of all these facts, the philogynist of the Globe has the audacity to say that there is not one tittle of evidence to support the charge. There is an audacity about this scurrilous champion of the Ring that is almost refreshing in the sublime im- pudence with which he tries to mislead the public, by boldly ignoring all the acts of his pet type of injured innocence, the first Mrs. Sangster. But there is something atrociously malignant about it all when we remember the grounds on which he fancies he may ignore her acts without fear of detection. TO THI globe's slanders. 15 n 8 d 8 He knows that the climax of her long aeries of outrages against her husband was capped bv the judicial proceedings had in the Cook County Court, in Chicago, and ne hugs himself in the hope that the documents relating to those proceedings remained, as would not be very unlikely, in the custody of the Cour^, and that they perished in the disastrous tire which destroyed the records ol so many trials in Chicago. It is a bold speculation of the Olobe moralist, and almost deserves to be a successful one from its brazen effrontery. How near it came to being successful will be seen from the fact that the last document of importance in this case was only delivered from the Chicago post-oflace late on the night of Saturday, Oct. 7th 1871, and the Chicago fire broke out on the very next day, Sunday, Oct. 8th, 1871. On siich desperate chances as these, this high-toned moralist risks his case and bases his canting homilies on morality. What a pretty moralist, truly, to dare to dictate to the public school teachers of the Province ; and what pretty ideas of morality are those he attempts to palm off on the unwary ! Let a woman be lost to all sense of shame, let her do her utmost to ruin her husband and estrange from Ivim the affections of his children ; let her disgrace him, and degrade herself ; let her pollute the sanctity of the domestic hearth ; let her desert even the poor little sinless child of sin to whose death one of the Ring has alluded with such delicacy in the Globe; let her live in undisguised adultery in a foreign land ; let her acknowledge hor adultery ; let her cast off the husband and children she has so wantonly outraged — still, will this moral philogynist undertake her cause, and prate in good set phrase of the unmanliress of bringing any charge against her. I wonder in what school he got siich fine-spun views of what is moral and what is not ; but I can assure him that the teachers of Ontario distinctly refuse to accept him as their guide in questions of morality. It seems to him to be moral and right to defend against all charges a woman who has herself acknowledged that she has been guilty of the crowning wrong and outrage against her husband — but on the other hand, if a woman ventures by word or deed to show her sj-mpathy with a man in the bitterest trial to which he can be subjected, this exquisitely nice moralist holds up his hands in holy horror at the very thought of such an indiscretion. Surely, surely, it makes a vast difference in the moral aspect of an act or word whether it has been said or done by a member or an opponent of the Ring. Oh ! but, says our moralist. " Dr. Sangster has broken the law of the land," and you see, you know, that justifies the Globe in its indecent attack on the position and character of his wife. Well, sir, we shall see about that, and I shall prove very clearly that he is just as shady in his knowledge of law as he is loose in his views of morality, and false in his statements and conceal- ments of fact. I suppose he must have felt a slight twinge of conscience (if, indeed, he has any conscience left), at the cruelty with which he attacked Dr. Sangster's present wife ; and so he adopted a plan somewhat analogous to the Jedburgh justice which hanged a man first and tried him afterwards. He first delivered the Globe dictum on the law, and afterwards took "a learned Canadian lawyer " into his confidence to try if he could not help him to prove his position ; and now we shall see what they have made out of it. In his editorial, with a vagueness of expression which appears to be affected habi- tually by this moralist, he states that it would be impossible for Dr. Sangster to " bar dower " without the signature of " Mrs. Sangster," whom I take to name the first Mrs. Sangster, for I can hardly think that he means to hide behind a wretched quibble as to the person so designated. Now we have seen already that the first Mrs. Sangster has been guilty of adultery, and has acknowledged it ; we have seen that she has been divorced d vinciUo matri- monii ; we have seen that she has contracted a second marriage, which I hold to be a valid one, but which the Globe would hold to make her guilty of big- amy and adultery (and for the purpose of this " bar dower " argument, I do not care on which horn of the dilemma the moralist and his legal friend impale themselves) — and any one of these three grounds is amply sufficient to bar 16 DR. SANQSTERS REPLY dower most effectually. So far is the Glohe^s statement of the law from being correct, that, with the exception perhaps of the ** learned Queen's Counsel," to whom the moralist pat the case, there is not, I am sure, a lawyer in Toronto or any where else so ignorant as not to know that " adultery is a bar of* dower; and even where a woman departs from her husband's house in consequence of his cruelty, yet under 13 Ed. I., ch. 34, by adultery, without reconciliation, ■he forfeits her dower." Draper, 61; Woodward v. Dawse, 10 c. B. N. S. 722. Nor, with the same exception, is there a lawyer who does not know that " bigamy is a good bar to dower also, and so is a divorce d vinculo matri- monii." Draper, 53. Such are the facts, and such is the law ; and yet in the face of all this the Gluhe moralist and his learned lawyer are either so ignorant or so dishonest that they try to throw dust in the eyes of the teachers by a clap-trap perversion of the law in the matter of " barring dower." Nor is the opinion "given by a learned Queen's Counsel " any better, as I shall prove by analyzing it and examining it, and examining the authority on which it pro- fesses to be based. And hsro I may as well state at once that I have grave doubts as to whether any such opinion was given at all or not. We ffave no proof of the existence of this " learned Queen's Counsel " beyond the mere word of the Globe moralist, and we have seen that he is rather hazy in his ideas of what is required by the ninth no less than the seventh command- ment; so that for all that I can tell, this pompous opinion may have been fabri- cated in the back office of the Globe, and wherever it was got up, it amounts to very little in any case. In the first place, an opinion of counsel ca?) have but little weight when it is published to the world without being authenti- cated by the signature of the lawyer who gave it, and it seems that in this case the Queen's Counsel who gave it did not like to risk his reputation at attach- ing his name to the document. But besides all this, the opinion is in itself unsound and misleading. The decision on which it is based, is not only not a case in point, but was afterwards not sustained, but over-ruled by Lord Brougham, and the opinion is not even a fair deduction from the case itself. LoUey and his first wife retained their English domicile through- out the proceedings which were had for the Scotch divorce, and his second marriage was solemnized in England ; and Dr. Sangster's case, we all know, differed from LoUey's in these two material points. It must be borne in mind that the case of The King v. Martin LoUey, was tried before judicial divorce was established in England, and the law has been very much changed for the better since the judges delivered their decision in the case — a fact which has been altogether ignored by the quibbling Queen's Counsel, to whom the Globe referred the case. He ignores too — perhaps, indeed, he is ignorant — that in the celebrated case of War- render V. Warrender, 2 CI. & F. 650, it was held that the S6otch Commissary Court had jurisdiction to dissolve an English marriage, and Lord Brougham rejected LoUey's case, not as not involving a point of Scotch law, but as decided by judges who had no authority to declare the law for Scotland. "For," said he, " I do not see how, consistently with any principle, the judges who decided the case could limit its application to England, and think that it did not decidle on the validity of the divorce in Scotland. They cer- tainly could not hold the second English marriage invalid and felonious in England, without assuming that the Scotch divorce was void even in Scot- land." And so in Dr. Sangster's case, we could not hold the second mar- riages invalid and felonious in Canada, without assuming that the American divorce was void even in the United States. Much less could the marriages be held invalid in Canada, considering that they were both solemnised pro- perly, and in accordance with the lex loci in the United States, where the par- ties were then domiciled. In fact, sir, the LoUey case is just such a shady one as would naturally commend itself to a man of the Globe moralist's calibre; and there is scarcely another decision on record in which the jvidges' opinion has arrayed atrainst it so many or so weighty authorities as are arrayed against thtt decision on which the " learned Queen's Counsel " bases his ex TO THE globe's SLANDERS. IT jpcvrte opinion. Merlin, Justice Sewall, Lord Stowell, and Lord Brougham are all opposed to it; and Westlake, in his admirable treatise on Private Interna- tional Law, aays of it : "It is impossible not to perceive that the opinions of jurists are sometimes influenced by considerations more proper for the poli- tician, and as the dictum in LoUeys case may thus be probably traced to a national feeling which must have been very much changed when judicial divorce was established in England, it may be expected to be restrained in future to the facts which were then before the judges." So much, then, for the LoUey precedent, and the opinion of " a learned Canadian lawyer." It is really curious how wantonly misleading or how wilfully ignorant is this wonderful Q.C. He seems to be absolutely ignorant that there is such a thing as an international code which regulates such ques- tions as we are discussing. He appears not to know or care for a single one of the principles which underlie the laws of marriage and divorce. He does not know that divorce is not a remedy on the contract, and that, even if it were, remedies depend on the lex fori and not on the Ux loci contractus. He ignores tlie fact that post nuptial adultery is now a valid ground in England for procuring a divorce d vinculo matrimonii ; so that, even if the Lolley de- cision were law, which it is not, there would still be, unhappily, only too strong grounds for granting a valid divorce even in the English courts. I pass over his wretched quibbling about the location of the '* Court of com- petent jurisdiction," when everybody knows that there is no Court of com- petent jurisdiction in divorce cases in Canada. I pass over his ignorance of plain English, merely assuring him that the words "Whosoever being mar- ried marries any other person," are not exactly the same as *' Whosoever being divorced marries any other person ." And, finally, I offer him the benefit of the precedents and reasonings by which I have analysed his opin- ion, so that he may know where to look for something to correct his present vague notions on the subjects of dower, divorce, marriage, and bigamy. His ** opinion" is certainly not of much weight at present, and I am not at all surprised that he was ashamed to sign his name to it. In fact, not one w^ord has yet been advanced in the columns of the Glohe or elsewhere to controvert the position taken in my first letter on the autho- rity of Lord Stowell ; and I challenge the Glohe moralist, the learned Q. C. , and the Toronto Ring, to produce a solitary parallel case to Dr. Sangster's which was ultimately decided in accordance with the views they profess to hold. That " a foreign marriage valid according to the law of the place where celebrated is good everywhere else" is a principle of law as firmly established as any principle can be, the Glohe and its special pleader to the contrary notwithstanding. And I am certain that in the interpretation of points of law, the Public School Teachers and the public generally will prefer the authority of Lord Stowel, Lords Brougham and Westlake, to tliat of any special-pleading police-court shyster in Toronto. Lord Stowell's authority, in the case to which I referred in my first letter, was accepted by Judge Wilson in delivering a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench on a cause tried before the Court in Toronto, and Reported in Vol. 31 of the Queen's Bench reports — and I presume Judge Wilson knew better than the member of the Ring who wrote to the Glohe in the name of " Decency," whether that authority was applicable in Canada. My letter has already grown to an inordinate length, though I have by no means followed the Glohe through all its many windings. But I think, Sir, I have at least followed them far enough to show what an utterly unscrupu- lous libeller is the canting moralist who vents the spiteful malice of the Ring through his columns. He may wriggle and twist as he will ; he may distort, pervert, and conceal facts as loosely as he pleases ; he may argue as brazenly as he likes about the propriety of adultery and profligacy in married women ; he may inisstate the law as shamelessly as he can, and back up his arguments by the opinions of any subservient pettifogger he can find willing to aid him — ^yet will he have for all his pains the satisfaction of finding that his venom- 18 DR. SANGSTER S REPLY ouB attacks are as impotent as they are malignant. He will find that the teachers are not so blind as to follow a guide who would lead them, by false statements of fact and law, to sanction the gross immorality of which he is the advocate. They already 8e6 through the malicious spitefulness of the attacks on their candidate, and they see more and more clearly every day the wilful attempts of the Globe to mislead them with reference to the question of morals. They know now that the immorality was not Dr. Sangster's, and they will prove by a triumphant vote that they resent the outrageous attempt of the moralist and his friends to turn the tables so shamelessly on a deeply- wronged, ill-treated man. Allow me to thank you, in the name of the public school teachers, for your kindness in opening yo\ir columns to a statement of the real state of the case, and allowing me the opportunity of vindicating the character and position of the teacher's candidate and his estimable wife against the indecent attacks of the most shameless Ring that ever tried to get the control of the educational interests of the country. I am, &c., Hastings. May 27, 1874. Globe Shifts its Ground. The eflfect of these letters of " Hastings " and Professor Carter was to compel the Gluhe to shift its ground, and, accordingly, its next editorial charged me with being the " alter ego " of Dr. Ryerson, and sought to excite feeling against me in that connection. It is presumed that some of its friends must have pointed out that this was a double blunder, because, in the first place, despite the Globe's venomous attacks on the Chief Superin- tendent for years past, and the anonymous scribbling of a few sore headsy there is no man to-day so popular, and so deservedly popular and venerated, by the whole body of Public School Teachers, as Dr. Ryerson ; and, in the second place, the whole record of my past life shows that I am in the habit of following my convictions, irrespective of fear or favor, and that, therefore, in the Council, neither private nor personal considerations could influence me to betray the trust reposed in me by my fellow-teachers. Accordingly, since the one wishy-washy editorial advancing this objection to me, nothing further has been heard with regard to it. The Globe Once More Changes its Ground. Abandoning its previous positions as untenable, the Globe has for some time past sought to create the impression th^t my conduct, before my second marriage, was such as to lay me open to grave charges, which it proceeds to formulate against me. These I purpose examining one by one — not with a view to convince the editor of the Globe, but to satisfy my fellow-teachers of the base and unfounded nature of this attack on my character, made in order to induce them to cast their votes against me. The Globe's First Charge Refuted. The fii'st and most serious charge made against me is to the eflfect that my treatment of my former wife was not that of an honorable and Christian man — that, in 1869, I drove her from my house, without having any valid reason for so doing, but simply in order that I might be free to pay attention to another. I solemnly aver that this is a base and wicked false- hood. I am anxious, if I can avoid it, no matter how great my provocation, not to say one harsh or unnecessary word about her whom, notwithstanding all her faults, I must still look upon as the mother of my children. In all my TO THE GLOBES SLANDERS. 19 intercourse during the past two years with Teachers a-nd Inspectors — though knowing I was the victim of the grossest misrepresentation, I suflfered in silence and uttered not a single word to anyone against her or in my justification. Indeed, it was only with the extremest reluctance I could overcome my natural repugnance to expose my domestic sorrows to others so far as to submit to my friends proofs of the unhappy past of my private life. Nor was it until the editor of the Globe, with a want of principle and right feeling which places him beyond the pale of civilized humanity, paraded my marital misfortunes before the world, that my friends were compelled to justify the .generous support they had extended to me, by referring to matters which both they and I, and, I venture to believe, the public also, would infinitely prefer should have been allowed to sleep in oblivion. I shall say, therefore, as little on this point as possible — preferring, unless absolutely driven to the opposite course, to suffer under some amount of misconstruction rather than to shock the public sense by an exposure such as the Globe has the brutality to de- mand ; and whether the profeasio'nal moralist of the Globe has the good taste to appreciate my reticence or not, I feel quite sure my fellow-teachers and a Christian and enlightened public will not misunderstand it. The circumstances attending my separation from my first wife being, then, of too painful and too private a character to be publicly discuHsed in detail, it will suffice to say that they were known at the time to my friends, who even then blamed me for what they termed my mistaken forbearance. I may state, generally, that, in January, 1865, we separated, so far as living separately in the same house could extend. In June, 1866, all social inter- course whatever ceased between us, as I could not longer rei^ard her as my wife. From that time, I was never seen in public with her. I never met her, except on rare occasions, even at the table, and my children and friends knew we were as completely separated as if we had resided in different hemispheres. In June, 1869, anxiety for the moral welfare of my children, and the conviction that she had become banded with my most unscrupulous enemies to work me all the mischief in her power, led me to insist that the private separation theretofore subsisting between us should culminate in a public separaticm. Upon leaving my house, not "in poverty," as the Globe falsely puts it, but amply provided for — having indeed a fifth of all my income, though she hid run me deeply in debt, and I had a large family to keep, she removed, against my strongly-expressed wishes, to the United States, where she has resided ever since. In 1870, circumstances, into which I do not wish to enter unless forced to do so, came to my know- ledge which led me to see that the existing state of things could not be permitted to continue, and we were, in pursuance of steps then taken, divorced, by legal process, in the State of Illinois — the final decree of divorce, which issued in July, 1870, being to the effect " That the bonds "of matrimony heretofore and now existing between the said John H. " Sangster and the said Mary Sangster be from this time henceforth and " for ever dissolved and annulled, and that all and every duty, rights of "dower, courtesy claims, and claims for alimony, accruing to either of the " said parties by reason of the said marriage, shall henceforth cease and " determine ; and that the said parties be severally at liberty to marry " again, in like manner as if they had never been married." On the Ist February, 1871 , my former wife, acting on this divorce, as she had an undoubted right to do, was married again to her present husband. Some months afterwards, I resigned my position here, and removed to the United States, with the bona fde intention of permanently residing there, and I was there married to my present wife, on the 21st September, 1871. It will therefore be seen that, instead of "divorcing a wife one day and marrying another the next," as the Globe, with its accustomed truthfulness, puts it, the better part of tioo years elapsed between the divorce and the second marriage, and that I was not re-married until some eight months aftei my former wife had taken to herself a second husband. 20 DR. SANSTER 8 REPLY ! ^ The editor of the Globe takes two out of sewn letters written by mo to ray former wife, and ingeniously selecting a word here und a word thuru, uses these, not in their natural collocation, to give color to his assertion that at the time of my separation from my former wife there was no mention of criminalty on her part. I have referred in my letter to the Globe, which I give a page or two further on, to the disingenuousness of this course, and to the fact that these were the only letters, with the exception of the first, which did not discuss the misconduct complained of. I need only here say that, painful to my family and myself as the publication of these seven letters in full would undoubtedly be, it would furnish not only a complete refutation of the Glube^s charge, but a clear vindication of the rectitude of my conduct. If the editor of the Globe doubts or atfects to doubt this, he has the letters, I presume, and it is in his power to publish them in extonso. I may add that looking back on the trying ordeal I passed through during the four and a half years intervening between January, 3865, and June, 18G9, I cannot charge myself with being either ungenerous or heartless, or with conduct un- becoming to a Christian or to an honorable man. Reasons for not seeking a Canadian Divorce. The Globe seeks to excite public feeling against me upon the ground that I sought for an American divorce at all, saying that I could have had no valid ground on which to proceed, or I would have procured a divorce in Canada. On this point, I desire to say that our divorce law in Canada is not too strict, but it is simply impracticable. It represents not the public sentiment of Ontario, but that of Quebec. Protestant communities regard marriage as a civil contract, of the most solemn and binding character it is true, but still a civil contract, Roman Catholics on the other hand regard it as as a religious sacrament. The consequence is when a divorce is sought for in the Dominion Parliament, by which alone a divorce can be granted, everj'^ Roman Catholic member, and some few Protestant members, make it matter of conscience to vote against it, irrespective altogether of the evidence adduced. Thus, not only do years elapse before a bill for divorce can be carried through both Houses, but the risk of having a majority against the bill, as above pointed out is so great, that comparatively few resort to Parliament for relief. They resolve, as 1 did, to separate and bear, or they remove to the United States, or they resort to crimes of a deeper or blacker nature, as pointed out by *' Hastings." No one will claim that Canada is more moral than Great Britain, or that Protestaiit countries where divorce is possible, compare unfavorably as to public morals with Roman Catholic countries where it is impracticable. Nor will any one claim that human nature is es- sentially different in Canada to what it is in other countries. Divorce Courts have been now for years past established in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and are largely used. It appears that in Canada with three millions of peo- j)le, some half dozen divorces have been granted in a quarter of a century, while in England with twenty millions of people, some three hiouired are granted every year — yet only on the ground of adultery, upon which ground alone T think divorces ought to issue. Does this prove a higher state of morals in Canada, or that the special crime referred to, is thus prevented ? Certainly not, but only that other means of relief are resorted to. A recent writer thus refers to the English Divorce Court : — " Sometime ago, a special court was provided for the convenience of those who could not afford the lux- ury of going into the House of Lords. That court has already worn out the life of one judge. Lord Penzance was a man who had withstood suc- cessfully the vexations of ordinary litigation for many years, but he speed- ily succumbed to the pressure and complications of divorce trials. And now his successor. Sir James Hannen, pleads for help. He says that he coes not know how he will cope with the business of his Divorce Court. TO THE globe's SLANDERS. 21 There is a list of two hundred and forty-three divorce oaumm without jury before him ; and, busides these, there are twenty-seven special jury and forty-four common jury cases awaiting trial. He has been holding court from 10^ o'clock in the morning, till 5 in the afternoon, and yet the di- vorce cases accumulate so much faster than he can dispose of them, that he is in despair. He says that his is a case of one judge douig the work of four, which, if true, shows that London alone now requires four courts that shall be devoted exclusively to divorce courts. The Divorce Court of London has been used principally by the middle classes. The groat scandal that follows divorce in high life, out of which the English newspapers maku greater sensations than the American press, has the effect of checking the tendency for seeking legal divorces among the aristocratic classes. They usually come to some private agreement to disagree, and make alliances of a quusi-morganatic nature which suits their purposes equally well. The lower and working classes do not seek the Di- vorce Court for the reason that their marriage relations — so an English journal explains it — are of so loose a character that they do not require cere- monies either to unite or to dissolve. It is the respectable middle class, therefore, that has found the Divorce Court so great a boon, and has made such liberal use of its facilities." Had I, therefore, resided in Eni^land, Ireland, or Scotland I could have obtained a divorce. But residing in Canada it was probable that, after long years and great expense, I might have been defeated not for want of evi- dence, but for the reason already pointed out. Moreover, T wished to avoid the scandal involved, and to save my children from the shame to which the murderous attacks of the Globe has so exposed them. I had no intention of marrying again. My experience of married life had not been such as to lead me to wish for new bonds. I simply desired, not on the ground of old error?,, which I had so far condoned as to permit the mother of my children to reside under my roof, but because of more recent ones, to sever all connec- tion with her who was my former wife. So long as I could save my children from the pain of an exposure, and yet protect both them and myself from an association that was degrading, I cared not whether the divorce was obtained in Canada or Kamtchatka, provided it was obtained by due legal process, and irrevocably dissolved my unhappy marriage. That I did subsequently marry on my divorce arose simply from the fact that through my domestic infelicity the name of a young and innocent lady became unhappily asso- ciated with mine, and the association was kept alive and colored by the perverted ingenuity of my enemies, until it became evident to me, as it would to any man of heart and honor, that the only way in which I could in any measure recompense her for the sorrow and misconstruction she had suffered indirectly through me, was to offer her — no matter at what sacrifice to myself — the position which she now so worthily fills and richly graces. Other Base Falsehoods of the "Globe" Exposed. In his vehement desire to fix upon me the charge above dealt with, the editor of the Globe ventured to assert that I had signed a deed of separation, saying that we parted by mutual consent, and that neither party was to blame. In the same issue as his only reply to ** Hastings'" second letter, he gravely said, " Anonymous communications only show the badness of a cause," but «)ffered to insert in the Globe any communications over Dr. Sangster's own signature, or the real name of any of his defenders. I say nothing about the unconscious but cutting irony of the Globe^s opinion about anonymous commxinications, when we remember that from first to last the Globe has been and is filled with these ; but satisfied that his offer to open his columns to the defence, was the veriest buncombe, I addressed the following communication to the editor oi the Globe. Of course it was not inserted. The manager of that paper, with a sense of British fair play which is peculiar to the Globe office, did not even acknowledge that»it had been sent to him, but in his next issue he answered it by two columns of abuse and irrelevant assertion, altogether 22 DR. SjAvoSTER'h reply avoiding the iaiuos raised, and commencing with a ntatomont tliat he had noticed the letter in the MaU, and had not inaerted it in exteiuu simply in mercy to me, and becaiise it was so indecently warded ! ! Mv Letter offekino to Withdraw from the Contest if the " Olobb " WOULD Substantiate its Statement. To the Editor of the Globe. Sir, - In your editorial of last Saturday you repeat a statement first made in yoiir editorial of the previous Tuesday, to the eifect that a document now in my j^iossession, and purporting to be my fonner wife's confesHion of adul- tery, signed by her in the presence of two reliable and rospoctablc witnesses, is a forgery. It is my intention to at once take such stops as will satisfy my fellow-teachers of the authenticity of this and other documents bearing on my case. Ultimately I shall probably afford you an ample opportunity of proving or disproving your base allegations in regard to this as well as other matters. My object meantime is to call public attention to another statement con- tained in your editorial of last Saturday. Speaking of me you ask : " How '* did it come to pass that he eventually signed a deed of separation, saying " that they parted by mutual consent without any fault on cither side. " Now, sir, this one specimen statement will satisfy an intelligent and honent public of the utter recklessness of your assertions in the interest of the unscrupu- lous ring of self-seekers of which you are the mouth-piece — of your readiness to utter any lie provided it will serve your base purposes. I challenge you to produce this " deed of separation," as you call it, or any person who will deliberately say, upon oath, that he ever saw it, or that it ever had an ex- istence. You are most anxious that I should withdraw from my candidature. To drive me thence or to defeat my election, you have vainly tried to intimidate me — you have insulted and bullied the public school teachers — you have threatened the public school inspectors, the Chief Superintendent, and the Council of PubUc Instruction. Now I pledge myself to retire at once if you produce any document with my signature to it which, by any exercise of ingenuity, can be twisted into having any complexion such as you ascribe to it. And, on the other hand, if you do not and cannot produce a document which you have thus distinctly and maliciously asserted is in existence, I presume it will penetrate even your dense moral consciousness that you stand before the world a convicted liar. Seven letters in all were written by me to my former wife. One in January, 1855, one in July, 1866, one in May and two in June, 1869, one in May and one in June, 1870. The second and the last two of these letters would, had you referred to them, completely expose the weakness of the cause you have espoused, since they discuss the question of adultery and divorce. Had you been honest in your endeavours to enlighten the public, you would have published the whole series of letters in detail. Instead of doing so you select the only two in which, with the exception of the first, the question of divorce does not arise, and from these you make garbled extracts to suit your purposes. With the exception of these letters, however, the only document over my name which has, or ever had, an existence in this connection, is an agreement, now in my possession, in which, in consideration of a solemn pro- mise on the part of my former wife, * ' That she will not hereafter seek to " see or to communicate with the children of the said John H, Sangster, ex- "cept with his written consent first obtained," I, on my part, make a promise that I will, " as far as in his (my) power, bring up his (my) children in ignor- " ance of the causes which have driven him (me) to seek a divorce from the " said Mary Sangster, and in all circumstances to be as tender of their recol- *' lections of their mother as the case will permit." The morality and decency, and high-toned journalistic principle which TO THE OLOHES SLANDERS. 23 lifts led von, In punuanoe of your biwe tki\A HPlfish ends, to invade the snnc- tities of private life, to slander niy wife, and l;i(-erate the foolings of my children, and to outrage every sensu of justice and propriety ; your distor- tion of facts, your unblushing assertion and r>'*»^ration f what you know to be false ; all this, I say, I leave to (be judgimiif of my fellow teachers and an intelligent public. I venture to beMeve that Ui'^re is not one right- minded man or woman in the country who (1( "s not, in tho i^cverest terms, condemn the hoartlossnoss and cold-blooded brutjtli^y involved in tliirt prosti- tution of the editorial pen of the leading journal of a great party in tho Staled to the ftirtherance of petty intrigue, tho gratification of personal malignity, and the perpetuation and spread of exploded scandal. Yours &o., John H. Sanusteh. Toronto, June 10. 1874. I leave it to my fellow-teachers whether this letter is so iiidecently worded as to warrant its exclusion from the columns of a newspaper which for eight weeks past has ransacked the vocabulary of Billingsgate to find choice terms wherewith to season the abuse, and point the vituperation it has showered ho lavishly upon me. Nor can the editor wriggle out of the unenviable position in which his failure to answer my challenge places him. It is confessedly difficult or impossible to prove a negative. A meets B and publicly calls him a thief ; and it would, as a rule, puzzle B greatly to pi'ove that he is not a thief, justice and common sense alike impose the onus of proof on him who makes the assertion. In my letter, while I do not undertake the impossi- bility of proving a negative, I offer this moral slanderer inducements he would gladly seize were it in his power, in order to get him to prove one of the many base assertions he has made ; and his inability to produce the agree- ment referred to will satisfy teachers, at least, of what slight reliance can be placed upon any of his statements. The "Globe's" Charoe op Forger v Refuted. Tho Globe twice distinctly asserted that the document referred to in the beginning of my letter was forged by me> This document was never pub- Ucly mentioned by my friends with my consent, and it is only with pain that I now allude to it. When the charge was formulated I sought the opinion of The Honorable John Hillyard Cameron, as to how I could best verify the document. I was informed that it is a misdemeanor now to make an affidavit in any case not before the Courts, and that therefore the witnesses could not testify upon oath to its authenticity. By Mr. Cameron's instruc- tions, however, they appeared before him, acknowledged their signatures, and stated that they were present and saw it signed. The following letter from Mr. Cameron will be received by my fellow-teachers as a sufficient reply to the Globe's reckless and unblushing assertion : — SiR,- BoMAiN Buildings, Toronto, Uth June, 1874.^ -At your request I beg leave to state that in the course of my exa- mination of documents relating to your case, there was submitted among them a memorandum under seal, executed by yourself and your former wife, in which, among other things, she acknowledges that she had been guilty of adultery. The witnesses to this document both reside in Toronto. I know one of them, whom I believe to be highly respectable. Both of them stated to me that they were present, and saw the document executed by you and your former wife. Your obedient servant, » J. Hillyard Cameron. 24 DR. SANGSTER'S reply Globe's Slanderous Attack on Private Character Refuted. Tlio socond grave charge made against me by the high-toned and Christian moralist of the Globe is to the eflFect that an imj^roper intimacy existed be- tween me and my present wife before our marriage — as far back, indeed, as^ 1867. I leave it to the public sentiment of a civilized and Christian com- munity to pass judgment on the pruriency and want of principle which have inspired the great Globe to stoop so infamously low as to become a retail jr of exploded scandals. I most solemnly aver that the Globe^s statements in this connection are quite as recklessly and even more maliciously untrue than those already refuted. That my name was, unhappily, associated with that of my present wife, before our marriage, is but too true ; but that the association arose out of any impropriety on our part is utterly and wickedly false. The association in question was first made by my former wife in the early part of 1869, in retaliation for certain restrictions I thought it necessary to impose upon the amount of ' utoxicating drinks admitted into my house. Acting in the interests of those who sought to work me harm, and following the advice they gave her, she sought some one with whose name to associate mine. The unfor- tunate some one selected chanced to be her who is now iny dear wife ; and the stories then set afloat, under the cunning assumption of violent jealousy, were eagerly accepted by my many enemies in Toronto, and s[)read, and amplified, and multiplied with an ingenuity so devilish, and a persistency so envenomed that ere long there was no tale too monstrous for belief . The misguided woman who originally started these rumors subsequently gave me a written acknowledgment that they were untj*ue, and, indeed, one of the " other things " referred to in Mr. Cameron's letter, as being acknow- ledged by her, is to the eflect " that she has been guilty of spreading scan- dalous and false stories to the detriment of the said John H. Sangster." Yet, unhappily, all the mischief was done when the stories were once set afloat. There are always ia a large city those who are prurient and malicious enough to believe evil rather than good ; and in Toronto there were not only the many whom I had in one way or another crossed, and who were, therefore, bitterly hostile to me, but there were also the many opposed to the Department with which I was connected, and all these were but too eager to believe and circulate. Then, too, they who ought to have been most anxious to guard from misconstruction, were, in reality, the most active and unscrupxilous in inventing and spreading slanders. The step-mother of my present wife, and the step-mother's sister, were among the first to receive, and the most untiring in their eflForts to circulate, all that they heard to her detriment ; and stories emanating from them, under the specious guise of anxiety for her welfare, were received with a faith which was blind and un- questioning. Most people, indeed, supposed it was a mother who spoke, never dreaming that these slanders were but the outpourings of a step-mother^ s hatred and spite. Such, then, were the agencies which sought to color with criminality the most trivial acts of our daily life. Convinced, at length, that my many and unscrupulous enemies in Toronto would not cease, while I retained my position, and remained in the country, to visit their rancorous hatred to me upon the head of an innocent and help- less girl, I resolved, in June, 1871, to resign the Head Mastership of the Normal School, and remove, with my family, to the United States — leaving my present wife in her position as a teacher in the Model School, and trust- ing that, when I was no longer here, my detractors would cease to persecute her. Only God and myself can ever know with what bitterness and regret I resigned a position which it had been the great object of my life to attain, and one in which, despite the paralyzing and depressing influences of my broken and most unhappy domestic life, I had not been altogether useless to my country. I say, only God and myself can ever know the sorrow with which I resigned, and went fortk, with a large family, into what seemed to TO THE globe's SLANDERS. 25 be inevitable poverty and obscurity, simply because it appeared to me that that was the only course open to me as an honorable man. Three or four months subsequently, on account of the continued virulence of my enemies — the very men who are inspiring the present attack — who seemed to be now determined to cast upon my present wife the venom they could no longer pour upon me — I insisted that she had better r sign also, and leave the country. I felt convinced that, alone and unprotected, driven from her home by the indignities and insults of a designing step-mother, with her one only relative too cowardly and weak to afford her the support it was his natural duty to supply, her life would be made, in my absence, a long misery. The sacrifice I made in throwing away my ambition, and the power of being useful in my day and generation, which the Grood Father had assigned to me, though it seemed to be great and grievous at the time, was insignificant indeed compared with the rich and unknown blessing He gave me in my beloved wife. The only years of happiness I have ever known since my childhood are the three I have spent with her. For the first time in a quarter of a century of tmselfish labor my home has been a place of domestic peace and felicity. I feel that the holiest devotion and loftiest efforts of a long life can but poorly repay my noble wife for all the pain she has suffered, directly and indirectly, through the sleepless malignity of my enemies. Indeed, there have been times, during the past few weeks, when it required all her gentle influence, and all God's grace vouchsafed to me, to keep me from becoming " a defiant law-breaker," and from visiting upon Mr. Gordon Brown and Mr. William Inglis the punishment their unmanly outrage and dastardly endea- vour to destroy my family peace, so richly merit, an outrage and endeavour which must, in the opinion of all right-feeling persons, cover them with an infamy as lasting as their memory. Other Globe Falsehoods Refuted. It would fill a volume to follow the Globe moralist through his tissue of unscrupulous assertions and unblushing falsehoods, and deal with each one par- ticularly. Perhaps, the most apparently serious of those that remain — and it will serve as a sample of the rest — is a statement in a late editorial effo-H- worded thus, " Let him show that it was becoming on his part to write, whi^'e he was Head Master of the Normal school and an undivorced u^arried man, a letter to this same young lady — a teacher who was under his charge and a mere girl, infatuated by his attentions — beginning " My Darling," in which he gravely proposed that she should go off to the States with him, and that he should there get a divorce, and that they should then be married." Now I declare I never wrote any such letter as this, nor did I ever make any such proposi- tions to my present wife as those referred to. The Globe must have either the original letter or a copy of it in his possession, as no sensible man or woman will for a moment believe that the Globe would venture to make so malicious and specific a statement as this on any mere hearsay evidence. I therefore challenge the production of this letter. I am quite willing that it should be given to the public, and if it contains any such proposition as the Globe positively avers it does, I will retire from the contest. The only letter I ever wrote before my resignation to my present wife was the one he here refers to, and which he, in another editorial, says was written on the 20th February, 1871, i.e. just before the time she was driven from her home by the ceaseless persecution of her stepmother. In this I deplored the unfor- tunate association of our names by the public, and expressed my feeling that it wcnild have been better for her had she never known me. This letter, written when my wife was 22, not a " mere girl," was stolen from her pocket by her stepmother, and it is presumed thence passed into the possession of the Globe. It was written it will be observed, not as the Globe says, while I was an " undivorced married man," but months after I v^as divorced, and some time subsequent to the second marriage of my former wife. I have al- 26 DR. SANGSTER 8 REPLY ready said it did not contain a single proposition such as the Olobe ascribes to it, and I once more challenge its production. I am quite willing to leave it to an unprejudiced and impartial public whether there was any moral impro- priety in its being written by a man not only then long past divorced, but whose former wife had previously taken to herself another husband. The other charges of the Globe are quite as reckless and as unfounded as those I have already examined. Those who have read the foregoing pages, will be sensible of how little credence is due to the utterances of this unscru- pulous moralist. To use his own words, " unsupported assertions won't do. Coarse abuse is equally futile." The public rightly asks that the Globe shall in future prove the charges it so recklessly formulates. Globe's Attempt to Mislead the Public as to the Sentiments op my Present Wipe's Family. One more point in this connection I will briefly touch upon. The Globe la- bors sedulously to create the impression that my wife's relatives were opposed to her marriage with me, and it thence attempts to excite public indigna- tion against me. My wife's brother and sister — the only living near relatives she has except her father, warmly sympathized with her through all the bitter persecution she suffered from her step-mother ; they were present at our marriage and assisted at it, and are, and have been our consistent and dear friends ever since. My wife's father, though, compelled to place him- ;self in seeming opposition to her, has since her marriage written several letters to her fully endorsing her course. These letters are now in my pos- session, and abound in expressions of confidence and love towards his daughter, and respect towards myself. He weakly endeavors to palliate his acts by saying that *' surrounded as he was his only policy was to act as he did " that he " secretly wished to have nothing to do with it," — refers to the time when his daughter " was driven from her home by her step-mother, and went to board in the city." ** You thought I was against you throughout, but you must be aware that I would do nothing to prevent you pleasing your- self in a matter of so much importance." ** I sympathized with you all through," &c. , &c. Thus all my wife's relatives were with her heart and hand. The only individuals, for whom the Globe can claim sympathy, are a couple of designing busy bodies who remained old maids so long that all the milk of human kindness in their composition had turned to vinegar, and then unhappily for my present wife, and her brother and sister, became a step- mother and step-aunt. I did not " threaten my wife's father with a civil suit unless that father ceased to complain of the manner in which his daughter was transgressing with the head-master of the Normal School," but I did write strongly expressing my detestation of the want of manliness and natural feeling which could make a father utterly careless about protecting his daughter from the bitter attacks of two spiteful old women. I expressed, and indig- nantly expressed, my abhorrence of his want of fatherly love, and stated that t£ natural feeling did not lead him to guard his child from misconstruc- tion, and prevent the mischief being done to her by his wife and his wife's sister, I would hold him responsible for their utterances, and see whether other considerations could not compel him to adopt the line of conduct which parental affection sh'uld prompt. The Globe confesses that all these letters and all the circumstances were laid before the Chief Superintendent who declared " this letter to be the worst thing he had seen in the case." Now I am willing that this " worst thing " should be published, and to let the world judge therefrom at once of the Globe's truthfulness and my criminality. It was written under a sense of hot indignation, but if it contains a single sen- tence which can be twisted into a threat of action on my part, because my wife's father, or indeed any of her own real relatives had "complained," I will admit all the charges the Globe has brought against me. TO THE globe's SLANDEHS. 27 The Qlobe on my Rrsionation. Throughout the entire crusade the Olobe by its correspondence, which as Isefore remarked, was for the most part written in the editorial sanctum, and by its editorials, has directly and indirectly asserted, first that I was dismissed from my position in the Normal School, and then finding this ground un- tenable, that I was forced to resign, or that some pressure of some kind was brought to bear on me to compel me to resign. This, as all else said by the Olobe on the subject lacks the slightest ele- ment of truth. I not only was not dismissed, but no pressure of any kind was brought upon me to induce me to resign. Neither the Chief Superintend- ent of Education nor the Council of Public Instruction, individually or collectively, ever entertained any, but the kindliest feelings towards me, or expressed any desire, save the strongest, that I should remain. As early as November, 1870, and several times subsequently, I voluntarily laid before my official superiors all that I knew was rumored against me, and asked for the fullest and most rigid investigation . The Chief Superintendent and indi- vidual Members of the Council, men as far above the Globe editors in moral status as they are superior to them in Christian sentiment, carefully examined sail that could be urged against me, and the result was, not only, was I not pressed to resign, but I do not believe there was a single member of the Council who did not regret the determination to resign to which I had arrived. The subjoined letter from the Chief Superintendent, and " Minute of Coun- cil " on my resignation, will speak for themselves ; and I ask any intelligent teacher to say, whether they could have emanated from an individual or a body in any sense hostile to me or desiring my withdrawal. "Educational Office, " Toronto, June 20th, 1871. " Sir, — I have the honor to acknowledge, with deep regret, your letter of the 7th inst., tendering the resignation of your office of Head Master of the Normal School — an office which you have filled with such great ability and success during the last six years, since the death of the first and late Head Master, Mr. T. J. Robertson — an office the duties of which you state have become irksome to you, and are wearing upon your health from various causes wholly unconnected with your official position. " I need not say how deeply I sympathize with you in the afflictions and trials through which you have been called to pass ; and during the twenty- three years of our connection you know that you have had my entire con- fidence and unqualified support ; while I have observed, with almost parental satisfaction, your unrivalled and unflagging success from your entrance into the Normal School as a student in 1847, and the Model School as a teacher the following year, up to your present position as the Head Master of our Canadian Normal School. " I cannot but regard your retirement as a great loss to the country, and to myself one of the most painful losses of my long official career ; but whatever may be your future course or relations, I would earnestly wish you all possi- ble happiness and success. *' I laid your letter of resignation before the Council of Public Instruction yesterday ; but I did not recommend its acceptance at present, wishing your relation to remain unchanged as long as possible — until it becomes absolutely necessary to take steps to provide a successor. ' * I have the honor to be Sir, ** Your obedient servant, "[Signed.] E. Ryerp^ <, " Chief Superintendent of Education^ Ontario. " To John Herbert Sangster, Esq., M. A., M.D., " Head Master Normal School." 28 DR. SANGSTER'S reply " Education Office, " Toronto, J uly 5th, 1871. " Sir, — At a meeting of the Council of Public Instruction (held yesterday, ^ the resignation of your office as Head Master of the Normal School was accepted — it being understood that you persisted in resigning ; but in order that the salary of your office might be continued to you as long as possible, it was ordered that the acceptance of your resignation should not take effect until the thirty-first day of July. After accepting your resignation, the Council mianimously adopted the following minute, which I have great pleasure in communicating to you : — Extract from Minutes of Council of Public Instruction, July 4th, 1871. * That in accepting Dr. Sangster'sjresignation the Council desires to record ' its deep sense of the faithfulness, ability and success with which he has ' discharged his duties, first as Second Master, and then as Head Master of * the Normal School during several years ; and the improvements which have * taken place in both Normal and Model Schools under his administration, * which he now voluntarily resigns. The Council hopes Dr. Sangster may be ' as successful in the future as he has been in the past, both as a student and ' a teacher, and wishes him all possible happiness in whatever situation he * may occupy. ' * ' My letter of +.he 20th ultimo, sufficiently expresses the pain and regret with which I close my long official connections with you, and my earnest desire that God's blessing may attend you in all your future relations and pursuits of life. *• I have the honor to be, "Sir, *' Your obedient servant, "(Signed) E. RYERSON, ^^ Chief Superintendent of Edxicatioiy, " John H. Sangster, Esq., M. A., M. D. " Head Master Nonnal School. The "Globe" and the Present Council. When the School Bill was before the Legislature at its recent sitting, the boast was openly made here in Toronto, that the Globe and the Ring intended to obtain control of the Council for the furtherance of their own selfish ends. Hence, the present crusade, and hence we find the Globe agents, and High School Inspector McLellan, in the most dastardly manner, perambulating the coTintry, canvassing, not only against me, buh also against Mr. Hunter — the High School Candidate, as indeed they would canvass against any one not likely to prove sufficiently subservient to the interests of the Ring. To the Globe belongs the unenviable notoriety of trying to subordinate educational interests to political exigencies and considerations — and of thus introducing into our country the bane and incubus which paralyzes all the wisdom and liberality otherwise displayed in the American system. The brilliant trio of Councillors which have special charge of the interests of the Globe and the Toronto booksellers, will of course form but an insig- nificant element in the remodelled Council, and are therefore likely to be soon snufied out. Meantime the Minutes of Council as published in the Jonrncd of Education will afford my fellow teachers and the p\xblic an indica- tion of how delightfully things will work for Mr. George Brown and Mr. Nelson, if the Globe should ever obtain complete control of that body. The "Globe's" Assertion that the Council of Public Instruction have Repudiated me. Examined. In order to force something like a resolution of repudiation from the present Council of Public Instruction, which might be used to my detriment, the TO THE globe's SLANDERS, {}lohe again and again asseverates that I had claimed to be holding Teachers' Institutes under the sanction of the Council of Public Instruc- tion. I need not tell Public School Inspectors and Teachers that the assertion is as shamefully false as the many others I have examined. They know that in no single instance did I, either directly or indirectly, profess to be acting under the authority or sanction of the Council. They know, as does any one who possesses any knowledge of school law, that the Coiincil of Public Instruction has no connection, either intimate or remote, with Teachers' Institutes. Still, for its base purposes, the averment was made by the Globe and reiterated until two of its creatures on the Council, waiting till they thought they had control of the meeting, moved the following resolution : — " It was moved by Mr. McCabe, seconded by Mr. Deroche : — That whereas there is on the public mind an impression, more or less general, that Dr. J. H. Sangster, at one time Principal of the Normal School, has taken part in Teachers' Institutes throughout the Province, under the authority of this Coiincil ; therefore Resolved, that this Council has in no way whatever sanc- tioned, authorized, or recognised for any purpose or in any capacity what- ever, the connection of p -id Dr. Sangster with such Institutes, or with any other public educational work, since he ceased to be Principal of the Normal School, in July, 1871, nor liad this Council any legal right to so authorize him. " Moved in amendment, by the Reverend the Chief Superintendent, and Beconded by the Very Reverend H. J. Grasett, B. D. : — That certain state- ments having appeared in the newspapers as to this Council having authorized the holding of Teachers' Institutes, " Ordered, That as the law does not authorize this Council to appoint any Teachers' Institute, much less to authorize any person to hold such Institute, this Council has never taken upon itself to appoint such an Institute or any person to canduct it. '* Amendment carried, the Chairman giving his Second vote." It will be observed that Dean Grasett, to his honour be it recorded, exer- cised his right as Chairman of voting twke, in order to defeat this iniquitous attempt to use the Council to give point to the venom of the Globe. Yet, referring to this same disgraceful failure to obtain the action they sought, find possibly not knowing that the Miniites of the Council, are now published in iAiQ J ov'^nai of Education and that teachers can read and underntand for them- selves, the editor of the Globe, with his usual nice regard for truth, has tibe honesty and manliness to say, *' Repudiation of all connection with him has come only very lately from the Council of Public Instruction." "Globe's" Falsehood about "Pkomisbd Positions" Challenged. The Globe, in its last editorial, tries to induce the public to believe that Public School Inspectors and Public School Teachers are exerting themselves in my behalf because " I had promised them situations." Not only does that paper thus add another insult to those already oflFered teachers, but it adds another to the mass of gratuitous falsehoods it has promulgated. X positively aver that I have made no such promises. With the exception of a High School Master whom I know, and knew to be working in the interests of the Toronto Ring, and one Inspector who has not and will not use hirt in- fluence in my favour, no reference to appointments in the gift of the Council has ever passed between me and either Teachers or Inspectors ; and in these cases my non-committal answers were not satisfactory in the opinion of those who sought the promise of support. Here, as elsewhere, I defy the Globe to its proofs. It apparently cannot enter into the Globe editor's heart that such things can be done for love and friendship, and justice, and conviction of right. In this connection I desire to return my thanks to the Editors of the many papers, of all political shades, who have, unsolicited by me, and 'I 30 DR. SANGSTER S REPLY simply actuated by British love of fair play, taken up the cudgels in my defence. I desire also to thank my friends for working in my be- half. A gentleman writing from one of the western counties says, in a letter received to-day : " After an electioneering experience extending over a wide range of country, I think I am prepared to say you are the most loved and the most hated man in the Dominion." While I deplore the hatred, I thank God for the love. Whatever the result of the election — whatever my own fate in the future may be, 1 shall never forget, or fail to think with gratitude of the earnest, generous, and self-sacrificing efforts to secure my return, made by my many friends — both gentlemen and ladies — in the different sections of the province. My proudest consciousness at this moment is that of the thousands who have ever come directly in contact with me as students or coadjutors, I have heard of but few who are even cold, and only of some five or six who are t»t this moment my opponents. My past students — those who know most of my past life, are, with rare exceptions, working for me, as though they were my brothers and sisters, and the great majority make my case their own. I thank also those who have written to express sympa- thy with me — many of them I am not personally acquainted with, but still their kind expressions of sympathy have been appreciated by myself and family. For myself 1 can bear pain. I have served a long apprenticeship to it. T have learned to bear prejudiced and illiterate judgment with equinimity— misconstruction with patience, estrangement and lost usefulness with resigna- tion — but for my family, for those near and dear to me, who have by this attack been made to suffer to a degree which only the Pitiful Father can know, I do ask the sympathy of the public, and of my fellow teachers, both male and female. Conclusion. I have thus followed the Globe through the tortuous windings of its crooked policy, and shameless distortions, and reckless assertions, and unblushing falsehoods. One by one I have refuted its malicious slanders ; I have laid bare the base selfishness of its motives ; I have exposed its perversion and suppression of truth ; 1 have challenged the publication of its proofs ; I have defied it to establish, not assert, that I have been guilty of one single act of immorality ; 1 have pointed out the mendacious effrontery with which it asseverates and reiterates what it knows to be untrue ; I have resented the gratuitous insults it has again and again offered the Public School Teachers of Ontario in its domineering dictation to them as to whom they shall or shall not vote for — in its endeavour to bully or cajole them into not casting their votes for me — in its assumption that they have not intelligence enough to see through its transparent sophistries, its specious pleading, its fussy and empty pretentions. I have shown that I am not legally or morally assail- able — that my conduct has not been unworthy or dishonorable. [ re- married, it is true, on an American divorce, but not till long after my former wife had remarried, and not until I had removed from the country with the honest intention never to return — and thus when I did remarry, I was both legally and morally free to do so. I may add, as a commentary upon the desperate effort of the (Mobe and its friends to annihilate me on this aspect of the question, that teachers — writing to me as they have from all parts of the country, to express the sympathy they have felt for me and my family, under the dastardly outrage to which both I and it have been subjected — have brought strange facts to my notice. It appears that there are at least two ministers of the Gospel, one member of Parliament, one important official, ai)pointed within the last three years, and one prominent lawyer — all Cana- dians — who have also remarried on American divorces, and none of them, so far as I can learn, with cases legally or morally so strong as my own. Yet these are all most respectable and reputable members of society. The two ministers are both men of prominence in their respective churches, and one of them is said to be now actually married for the second time since his divorce, i TO THE globe's SL\NDERS. 81 although his original wife is still liring unmarried ; fortunately for them, however, they have never crossed the Glohe^s schemes, or stood in the way of the Ring of educational conspirators which are fanning the breeze the Globe has raised. Were I a vindicative man, I might be led to retaliate by pub- lishing some- of the many stories, seemingly well authenticated, regarding the domestic life and private character, and 7)ecu2iar morals of some of the Globe^a pet members, and officials, and personal friends — much to the chagrin of that journal and the delectation of the general public. By its unscrupulous attacK upon my private character, the Globe has aroused scores of my friends in every county and town in Ontario, and not a few in Quebec, and the re- sult has been to put me in possession of materials to form a very curious volume, were I inclined to publish it. Meantime, I will dismiss the Globe's attack for the present, in the words of the last issue of the Waterloo Chronicle, one of some dozen or more sterling Reform journals which have had man- hood and honesty enough to take a stand on this question, even against the "great Globe," — " Thb assault is a base slander, conceived in selfish- " NESS, BORN IN ENVY, NURTURED IN SPITE, CIRCULATED IN MALICE, KEPT " ALIVE BY PERVERTED INGENUITY, AND DESTINED TO COVER ITS PROMOTERS " WITH WELL-DESERVED INFAMY." To THE Public School Teachers of Ontario. Fellow Teachers, — I now respectfully solicit your vote and interest in my behalf — I ask for more — I ask for your sympathy for my family under the indecent and unmanly outrage to which it has been subjected. I ask you to show that sympathy, practically by casting your vote in my favor. Were I conscious of being imworthy, I would not solicit your support. It is because I know that, while erring and sinful as others are, I have not, during some ten years of peculiar privation and trial, under all the calumny and misap" prehension, the sore troubles and smothered sorrows of a broken life, done or said anything immoral or dishonorable, that I have ventured to present myself as your candidate ; I ask your votes then, and do so on the following grounds: — 1st. I am known to nearly all of you personally. I have met over 4000 of you in my institutes during the past year. I hope that the Globe has not only not injured me in your estimation, but that your confidence may be even stronger in me now than before this Globular thutvder storm had cleared the atmosphere about me. 2nd. I deeply sympathize with and understand you in the noble work you are engaged in from day to day. I have travelled all along the path you are treading. I know your wants, your aspirations, your daily trials, your pro- fessional crosses better than most men, and I know therefore that I can better serve you in the Council than those who are but little acquainted, if at all, with the genius of Canadian Schools or Canadian Institutions. 3rd. I have grown professionally old with not a few of you. I am no mere theorizer. I am practical and rational in my views. I feel therefore that I am not only more in sympathy with you than most, but I can better secure attention to your wants. I can better advise you or assist you in your dif- ficulties. 4th. I know the schemes and cunning designs of those who hope to subor- dinate Public Schools and Public School Teachers to other departments of our educational appliances ; and if elected to the Council, I shall not cease to guard your interests with all the watchfulness and force that I am master of. 5th. I have no personal interest to serve in going to the Council. Prior to this bitter crusade against me on the part of the Globe, I had no desire to go there except that I might be useful to you. 6th. I ask for your support, because I have been subject to this attack in a great degree on your account. It is true, that so far as the Globe editors are y 32 DR. SANGSTERS REPLY concerned, it was inspired by personal hostility and selfishness. But the Toronto Ring have interests diametrically opposed to yours, and they desire, as also does the Globe, a man weak "enough to be moulded to their views. 7th. I ask your support because I am your fellow teacher — I am one of yourselves. I hold a first-class Provincial Certificate as a Canadian Teacher, and I am therefore entitled to take charge of any Canadian School. I have already defied the Glvhe and all the Globe myrmidons to prove one act of immorality against my past life. I now defy it to demand that my certificate shall be cancelled, and to back its demand by any substantiated a'iid proven charge. If I am moral enough to be a teacher, I am moral enough to be a member of the Council of Public Instruction, and the Globe insults the whole body of Public School teachers by taking any other ground. Finally, fellow-teachers, do not let designing men, who are carried away by their zeal to do all the dirty work the Globe prompts them to do, blind you to the true issues involved, or lead you to cast your vote contrary to your convictions, or not to cast your vote at all. Not to vote for me, under exist- ing circumstances, is to vote against me — is to range yourselves on the side of those who are making this indecent attack upon me. If you are quite sure you ought to vote for me, do so. and do it as soon as you get your voting paper. If you delay till after the schools close, you will probably forget it in the holidays, and when your schools re-open, amid the excitement of commencing a fresh term the matter will not probably recur to yoiur memory. Vote therefore as soon as you get your paper. Give me a generous support, and not only place me at the head of the poll but give me such a majority as will flhow unscrupulous wire-pullers in the future that the Public School Teachers of Ontario are neither convenient tools to be used by designing men, nor slaves to tamely submit to be bullied by selfish schemers but a self-respect- ing and respectable body of intelligent men and women capable of judging for themselves, without impertinent dictation by the Globe or by the Globe's creatures as to what is best and most proper for them to do. I am. Ladies and Gentlemen, faithfully yours, JOHN H. SANGSTER. Note. — I some days ago sent my divorce to the United States, in order to obtain a certificate from the Secretary of State as to its genuineness and validity, and also opinions from the most eminent legal men of the country of the perfect legality of both my divorce and marriage. I have also taken steps to procure attested evidence of my former wife's marriage on 1st Feb- ruary, 1871. I have a duly witnessed copy of the marriage certificate of my former wife, signed by Rev. P. G. Cooke, of Buffalo, but I desire, in addi- tion, to procure affidavits. I had hoped to have had all these documents in time to send with this pamphlet, but beyond the certificate of Hon. Geo. W. Harlow, Secretary of State for Illinois, with the great seal of the State attached, they have not yet arrived. Shoi^ld it be necessary, I will publish them in a few days. — J. H. S. Chicago, June 23rd, 1874. Sir,- -I forward the Certificate of Secretary of State as to authenticity of devorce. I will at once, as you request, obtain opinion of State Attorney on its perfect validity, and, lif you desire also, send it to Washington for opinion of Attorney-General. I think all this is quite unnecessary. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that a devorce obtained in any State with personal service, as in your case, is valid in every State of the Union. (/See Second Page for Copies.) Yours truly, A. Goodrich. #*• OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. f e g e d 11 ra )r it- ig m As an effort has been made to make the approaching election a pnlitical issue, I append a few extracts from editorials from journals of all ahades of political opinion on the subject of the attack, whicli is purely personal, and not political. I have, in my past career, kept entirely aloof from politics, though my friends are pronounced Reformers. My relations with individual members of the present Ontario Government Avero before this attack and still are, so far as I know, of the kindliest character. The issue is a purely per- sonal one, between the editor of the Globe and myself, and only as such do ■wish it to be regarded. Several reform papers wliich have, I am told, within the past week, come out in my favor, 1 have not now at hand. A few weeks ago we alluded to the infamous attack made hy the Glabc nn Dr. S;in;^ster, and the shameless, cruel manner in which his jirivate and domestic affairs have been brought before the public. We cannot call to our recollection anything connected with the press of this country which displays more heartless brutality than this same crusade against a candidate for public otHce. To accomplish this, the most sacred things pertaining to private life are dragged before the public and made to do service in the cause of an unscrupulous and remorseless enemy. We give below a letter from Dr. Sangstur, the contents of which must convince every reasonable person that he has been unjustly assailed by that sheet. There is one section of that letter which lio husband or father can read without feeling a pang of sorrow, we allude to the compact entered into with the first wife to keep the cause of separation from the innocent children. The father agrees to keep the mother's fall a secret from her offspring, and to rear them up in ignorance of the disgrace she l)rought on herself and children. This compact, or agreement, is rendered null by the ghoulish rapacity of the writer in the Globe, who tears open the grave where the hidden sin lay and gloats over the corpse ; and the poor children have to suffer the shame and agony of seeing their mother's crime paraded before the world and made the subject of newspaper connnent. All done to gratify the malice, the personal or political hatred of the editor of a paper noted for its personal attacks and vindictivenuss of spirit. — Goderich Star. The National this week in an able article replies to the Globa'x iiihuman attacks upon Dr. Sang- ster, who is the opponent of Goldwin Smith as a candidate for the Council of Public Instruction. — Ottawa Citizen. The Olobe continues to spit venom at Dr. Sangster, and not content with traducing his own character, drags his wife and his wife's relations into print. This shameless course is characteristic of the great organ of Purity ; and yet it is but a few days ago since the Globe held up its hands in holy horror at a few colored posters on the city bill-boards and denounced them as unmoral and obscene ! Such canting hypocrisy.— Port Hope Times. The Olobe of yesterday contains an article against Dr. Sangster, which, for downright black- gruardism and indecency, places it on a par with the filthy blackmailing sheets issued in the interest of the lowest classes in the American cities. The mi.ssion of the Globe seems to be to intrude into the domestic circle, and expose to the gaze of the world family feuds and domestic discord. Such conduct is deserving of the severest censure. If Dr. Sangster choose to retaliate, what a dainty dish the family record of the Browns would make '.Stratford Herald. There is nothing that can be fairly said against Dr. Sangster which should prevent his receiving that warm and cordial support from every Canadiaii teacher, to which he is eminently entitled by his past services and qualifications, and which the interests of education point out as desirable. We trust teachers in this section of the country will— and we believe they will— east their votes unani- mously for Dr. Sangster, as well as a matter of justice, as a mark of sympathy with him in the unprincipled persecution to which ho has been subjected by the malice of the Globe.— Ottawa Free Press. (Reform.) Such proceedings are a disgrace to journalism, and stamp upon the writer and his paper a stigma from which, by any known process it can never recover. While the public journalist has the right to condemn or approve of the public acts of any man seeking office at the hands of the 34 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. C'onimtinity, he, nt tlic sanio time, ha« no rljrht under heaven to enter the family circle of aii.r Indi- vidual, lie lie liird or |>ciisaiit, to kow the wedx of dlnoord and uonteiitidn, in order, iMTliap.s, "to (^aln Konio |H't Hflii'iiK! or wiilm to j^ratify a niali'.'idiii{ few. Ah to thu Doctfir's ability to fill the ixmitiou with credit to all concerned there Is no dcjuht whatever. The acciwation of nioral iiiisuitahllitv lirouKht aifahixt him has not yet been proven, nor have wo seen any documentary evidence with which to tjive it color, and until we do. Dr. SanjjHter is, within the ranj^fe of our knowledge, more wuited for the podltion than any other |)erH(m entfajfed In the various educational dei»art- muntM In the DomhxUm.—Weekli/ Advertiner. (K«form.) Tlie eand^diiturc of Dr. Sant^Hter for the ponltion of representative of the Teaeher.-i In the iVumcil of I'uhlic Instruction Is the natural result of the devotion of his (freat abilities to the profession, durinjf a life of hard work— to him u labor of love— in the cause of education. The course of the (Jlnhf toward the former (Dr. S.) has been brutally heartless, in the cold-blooded niall^rnlty with which, by Invading the sanctities of private life, and publishin),' f^curbled e.xtracts . from jtrivate letters, it attempts to j^ain not merely the choice of its nominee, but also to blawt the reiaitatlon of his ojiiwnent.— Ort"W(ft Packet. Dr. Sannster has published a letter in which he gives a flat denial te some of the ' aceu atlons of his accusers, and i)romises to offer his " fellow-teiichors " a further opportunity of understand- ing the merits of his case. Up to this time the imblic bus heard but one side of the case, that put by the (Unhe, and all who know how miHcnipulously that journal acts with facts, may be well ])repared to consider tlie circumstances of the ca«e ai)art from heat and si)leon The lino of eo)iduct adopted by the Globe looks so like an inveterate prosecution for some hidden purpose, that the nubile mind is in the condition to give Dr. Sangster's case a very generous construction. Ifu lias nothing to gain by silence, since the jmvacy which he desired to screen his own and his wife's uiisfortune has been so rudely torn aside.— Lo?j(/o» Fret I'rexs. Many journals which have hitherto blindly followed its lead, have become so disgusted at the want of decency disjilayed by the Glohc. m its vile charges and slanderous allegations against tlie <;haracter of Dr. Sangster, that they utterly refu.so to follow in its v,'a.\io.— Exeter Times. We would ask the public of Canada what possible excuse can be offered for the conduct of a journalist with a powerful organ ut his back, attempting by falsehood and misreiiresentatlon to draj| down the name of an eminent unci worthy man to the lowest dejith of infamy ?—jBmnt Umon. In the National of lost Thursday, occurred an article which gave us the facts of this unhappy case. Our own conviction was, that the Doctor had been more " sinned against than sliming," and this conviction is proved true by the article referred to. We quote one i)aragraph at length, and only regret that wo are unable to publish the article in full. We, therefore, hope that all teachers into whose hands our paper may fall, will unhesitatingly give their sui>i)ort to Dr. Sangster. He is a native Canadiua, a profound scholar, a perfect gentleman, an experienced edu- cator of over twenty-four years' standing. Hence, we hoi)e that Dr. Sangster— the right man in the right place— will be elected by an overwhelming majority, and that the teachers of this County at least, to a man, will ojipose any attempt to force ujion them one who, at best, is a mere theorl.st in educational matters. — Spirit of the Age (Canada First.) The Brant Union puts the issue between Dr. Sangster and Professor Goldwln Smith as follows : " Can there be any cfoubt in the minds of the teachers of the Province as to which man they shall support? Shall it be one who has spent his lifetime in the practical work of education in Canada, or a foreigner, a sen.sationalist, and a republican? We trust the teachers will make the Doctor's cause their own, in spite of the venomous columnies that have been heaped upon him. Tliey had a very pleasant time of it yesterday in the Globe office. The editors devoted the entire Lord's day to incubating fresh columns of scandal against Dr. Sangster. You mu.st have noticed that the' Globe's slanderous articles are generally written upon the Sabbath. We shudder to think of the latter end of the men who willingly keep away from church to defame their neighbors. — Toronto Sun. The virulence and suddenness of the attacks upon his character by the Globe,— founded, as these attacks undoubtedly were, upon one-sided evidence,— seem to indicate that they are prompted by a desire to persecute the individual, rather than j)rotect the public from imposition. "The position of a member of the Council of Public Instruction is not more important than that of a Parliamentary rei>rescntative or of an adviser of the Crown. Yet, if the personal characters of many of those who occupy these positions were so closely enquired into and so minutely scrutinized as that of Dr. Sang- ster lias been, we doubt much if they would stand the ordeal half as well. It does, therefore, seem inijust that the pri\ate affairs of one man should be enquired into and sifted, and that man ostracised and hounded down, while many others, with sins much more weighty, are allowed to escape unchal- lenged. We mxist confess that, taking all things into consideration, we can not but feel sympa- thy for Dr. Sangster, and that, whether he be elected to the position to which he aspires or not, he has been put to a test which many who are now considered ^above reproach could ill bear. Huron Expositor (Reform.) Without attempting to discuss the law of divorce, we have simply to remark that the English law recognizes divorces obtamed in the United States, and Doctor Sangster evidently understood thi.s, or he never would have gone from Canada for such a purpose. The very fact that his wife had married again would justify him not only in the law of the land but in the law laid down in the IJible ; and if one choose to act in accordance with Bible doctrine, he cannot be called inmioral even though h e act in opposition to the law of the land. Take the case of Dr. Punshon. He lived in England and wished to marry a deceased wife's sister, which the law of that country vould not allow him to do. He came to Canada, and was here married to the woman of his choice. Who ever called Dr. Punshon an outlaw because he did that which was contrary to the " OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 35 law of Eiit;1anil? Ho inok connclenco and the niblo as hiN Kt>iint()d I'rvNidcnt of the Wcwleyan ('onfcrence, there wbh not found in the whole body one who ohjeuted on the ^ound that I»'r. PuuHhon wb« an immoral nutn. Hut awide from the qucNtion of morality, Dr. San^ttter \» the ^eaehttrV uandi- date, and hon the riii^ht to he elected an their rejireHt-ntative. Ah a teacher he Ntanih unrivallctl. He hoH nu equal in thiH Dominion, and it is doubtful if there ran be found an educator on the Continent who hai* done no mucli for both teachers and ))U|)iiH as Dr. hau{fHtor. —Dran^ford Eoening Currier, Tl»e Rcandala of the Olohe are neither few nor far between. There a)>|)earH to be a (renlus in that eNtabllHhment, whose sole object in the world m-not to xct >^oll out of It tlirout(h the pul- pit— but to discover the carrion of Hociety, and to feant on what it proclaims to be putrid offal. One public man after another conies in for the blai;kin)jf-brush operation, and in thiH iieli);htful em- nloymcnt week after week, and colunui after coUunn, are devoted to the dirty busuiess, till (leople Decome disj^iisted, and out of itheer symjiathv with the victim, thoHc who were opixiiieiitiiaru made warm friends of the injured ones. That this is the ca.se in reference to Dr. bauKster none will deny. There are probably not more than five Grits in the County of O.xford, with headH thick enough and hearts hard eliou).fh to believe one tithe of what has an|)cared in the Glohc aifalnHt that gentleman for the pa.st three months, or since the PaciHc Scanroval of the verdict that was pronounced by that intelligent body of educators «f the youth of our country.— Woodntock Times. The savage and continued onslauglit ujwn Dr. Sangster by the Globe, to which wo alluded in our last issue is still kept u|i with all the venom and virulence which that un.scrupulous journal ever displays when hounding down an op|Kmcnt. The press, at first misled by the specious and circum- Btantiul falshoods of the Globe, and disposed to join in the outcry against hnn, is beginning to take a more just ana reasonable view of the case as the real facts become known, and many journals of pronounced Reform tendencies are taking the Doctor's part. The |ioople of Canada will not allow any more of the most talented and able men of the country* to bo hounded from jiublic life to gratify the jealous spite of mediocre and 8tu)»id ignoranui.ses who envy them their Huperlor attainments and jwpuiarlty. The article in last Saturday's Issue Is one of the weakest on the question that bus yet appeared. Like the Globe'x former efforts it is vehement and reckless in assertions, scurrilous in tone, but illogical in argument. The most remarkable feature of this scries of articles Is the effrontery with which they clamor for facts, evidence and documents to be produced in defence of Dr. Sangster, while they themselves have not produced une tittle of proof again.st him. They adduce nothing but mere os.sertiona, based on the statements of inter- ested p.artles and the enemies of Dr. Sangster, and then e.\i)ect that the country will receive their simple h-M aiirSt as evidence only to be refuted by the production of documents. What "docu- ments" have ihi'i) brought forward, we should like to know? It has always been the rule of English law that a man is innocent until proved guilty, but such is not the Globe's Idea of justice, it would impose the burden of proving himself Imiocent on the accased. Elsewhere we publish extracts from a number of our contemporles of all shades of politics condemning the Globe't course in the strongest language. The list might have been largely increased, as many other papers besides those we have quoted, take equally strong ground in favour of the Doctor. We have dwelt thus fully upon the circumstances brought to onr notice in connection with this ease, at the risk of wearying our readers, in order that we may defeat one of the foulest and most damnable conspiracies against the reputation of a public man, ever hatched by the conductors of the villainous and unscrupulous journal, that has hounded so many eminent and patriotic Cana- dians to their graves. We should not have done our duty had we kept silence during the consum- mation of such an iniquitous plot as the attack on Dr. Sangster has proved to be. Our statements are nothing but the simple truth, and can be verified by ample documentary evidence. The Olobe't articles on the subject are from first to la.st a tissue of lies, fabrications and insinuations, the rei- teration of exploded calumnies and the veriest gossip and scandals originally set afloat by a pair of mischief-making old women, and now eagerly seized hold of by the personal enemies of the Doctor. The anhnus of the Globe in this matter is very ai)imrent. Anticipating the time when Dr. Ryerson must cease to be Superintendent of Education, the Glob'-, of course, is preparing to pull the wires in order to place some pliable creature of its own in that position. George Brown is brother-in- law to the senior jiartner of the extensive Scotch book-puDlishing firm of Messrs. Nelson & Co. Now if Dr. Ryerson was succeeded by a supple tool of the Dictator, the contract for supplying books for the use of the Provincial schools would be given to Nelson & Co., the Browns and the Nelsons would share the plunder, and everything would be lovely. But Dr. Sangster's election to the Council of Public Instruction will probably be the first stej) to his succeeding to Dr. Rycrson's position and defeating George Brown's little game. Here then we have the key to the motive which has Induced the Globe's vindictive attacks on Dr. Sangster. He is too honest and independ- ent to wink at the schemes of aggrandizement indulged in| by Brown and his Scotch relatives — so he must be slandered, maligned, and if possible crushed. Fortunately the power of the Globe is waning, and they cannot do it ! All its Insinuations, Its lies and its forgeries are as impotent as the hissing of a fangless viper. People have at last begun to estimate it at its true value.— Canadian National. (Canada First.) It is verj' easy to see that the Globe's abuse of Dr. Sangster was not prompted by any desire to promote public morality, but, on the contrary, to serve its own ends, and to ruin the sub- ject of its virulent attacks. We are of opinion that the malignity of the Globe towards Dr. Sangster has not in the remotest degree injured his chance of election, but has rather improved it. Its vile tirades and infamous slanders, its lying, and the baae motives which prompted it to attack him in such an unscrupulous manner cannot injure Dr. Sangster in the estimation of the majonty of the Public School Teachers of the Province, who, we are satisfied, will demon- strate this by electing him in August next. — Kingston Daily News. The action thus taken might alone furnish presumptive evidence that the Globe's denuncia- tions are as unjust as they are violent, and that, wherever the real facts of the case are known, n(> OPINIONH OF TlIK PIlKSS. iii.stitiiii s 111 tlif lloUl Mll'll ill>.tl- tlioT will )io trpiitcil liy tcftcJuTM with iiitTitcd cuntunipt, While tiiiiully In Bi'i'dril with thn lih'ihf, iiiiil ivcliiilrlii« Its ifft'iit iihllity »ri(l thu liimuiiso intliirmL' it wIiIiIn," uu ri'^ri't that it ha><, III tliin instill , (luMcuiiilril til ^T'lHi iiiiNri'|>ri>»i'iit»tii>n, ami ii Ntiniinus pt r\i'rHi<( tactM. Ilail tin.' (Hiihi' triitlifiillv Ktatcd thi- fartn, tlii'ii thi^ st'vun-»t cfiiNuro n( wliich the i a.M- ailiiiittiil WDiiliI huM- litM'ii piTfiftly in 111(1 r, hut the hj|HiiTi>y whiili slhuli'ti (nit lif Saii|;i.t»r fur uii- fair, aiiii i.ne-.sidecl iittucl;, wliilc iImzciih of comin nf lln' lilmKi.'.Ht iiinrul dxi' ari' either iillmfether ilKiiureil iir curedilly |ialliati'(l, Is wurthy of uiKiualillcd re|iri>hatiuii. Stutthrmj Ayi' (Kcfunii.) Dr. Saiiu'ster has ri|ilitil to the dlnh' in a ^h luni. The (Hnhi'' \h still at i'r. MaiiRster, i>n TiicMlay haviii); inililihlitil ii \nu\i artieic nn the matter, Kivinir further pnrtli.'uhirit of the Itni'tor's private afTairs. It neeins as If It liked the Mibjei t, iitt fiirnishiliK senj-aticnal ri ad- iiilf for tilt! d"lietatioii of suliscrihers. Prohahly no iiuoflon which it has ever diseiisxed hax drawn iiiwi-.- just eondemnation upon its courHe than tlii>. The pioniliuiiee latelj iriveii to tliis matter, we .-liould fiiiie.N, is doinn the Uoulor gooil, as we are >ure it must he very Krutlfviii^ to his friend)* to read the followiii);.— Hfm,k,vii.i,k, .I?/»<' 10. The following resolntlon wuh, ly a unnniiiioiiM vote, pa.ss«d to-dny hy the t'ouiity Couiieil of ll:i\al house in Kiij;land, the dbiln' never learus a: ytliinv: nor lor;.'ets aiiylhini,'. (leorifc llrown's offeiisive (lictatioii upon all matters cumin;; under his iiotict', has already injured Idnn-clf and Ills part}', liiit without teaeliin^' him moderation. Kveii foois learn hy e.vpirieiicc, lut no ^mioiint of facts seem capalile of making an impression ujioii the thick hi ml of the maiiaeiii^ dinctor. A person Would he likely to imaj^'ilie that the teachers of (tntario were iiiteliiKent eiioii^rh to select a re|presentnti\e in the Coiineil ot I'uhlie liistiiiction without diitation from any ipiarter, )>artieiiiarly when the candidate was a ;;entle!neii who has ' _.•... educational interests of tiie country for \eiirs the Kev. Dr. I'uiishoii to fliid instances of trans'.'ressors ooeiipyin^' positions of trust and nspoiisil.iiity. If there tijion the Con.servative side to lay hare the private ehaiaeter of the Hon. Geor^je lirowii himself, it mi^'lit Well he douhted whether his position ;i,s Senator reflects nuieh credit upon the country. There are few of us who could atVord to lny aside our cloaks, and when a puhlie journalist attempts to tear them open, he slioiild he careful to have his motives ahove suspicion. The articles referring to Dr. .•-aiigster in the Gl'ibf, wo say it with all deliheration, stamp the writer as a scoundrel, we care not whether he is the Hon. George Urowit or merely his factotum, ilr. Dyniund. — Londun Krening Jleniltl. The contest hn.s now, it ap)icar.s, shifted •,'r()un(l au-il'ii and the eluirc'e is reduced to " flirtation." Here wo suppose Itr. Saniister's enemies will at last find rest. They have never attempted to hring forward awitne.s.sor a doeumetit in support of their allcj^'ations. They contented tlKinselves with making charnes and asking him to defend hlnmolf, anil w hen the defence was put in, their ready invention tahled a fresh indictment. 'J'lie eharjje of flirtation is too frivolous and too indeflnite for serious consideration. As to his fitness on other grounds for the place of the teacher's representa- tive, no ([ucstion can he raised. A man of fine intellectual power, of immense industry, of great ac(|iiirements, the very prince of teachers, and a passionate lover of the profession itself, under- stan.ling its wants, sy"m|)athising with its aims, and rejoicing with its successes, Dr. Sanuster stands head and shoulders aliove any in Ontario to-day as the Hepresentutive Teacher, and as such we still helieve the teachers of Ontario will crown him by u .swoeiung majority.— IFattfrioo Chronicle. (Iteform.) heeii so closely identified with the Hut we need not even yo so far as against the strict laws of morality Were similarly unscrupulous writers ,f-.,