91 
 
 DOUGIASS 
 
 Further Statement of Facts 
 and Circumstances. 
 
 LD 
 
 2791 
 
 K4D7
 
 FUKTHER STATEMENT 
 
 FACTS AND CIKCUMSTANCES 
 
 CONNECTED WITH THE 
 
 REMOVAL OF THE AUTHOR 
 
 THE PRESIDENCY OF KENYON COLLEGE, 
 
 IN ANSWER TO 
 
 " THE REPLY OF TRUSTEES," ETC. 
 
 BY D. B. DOUGLASS, LL. D. 
 
 ALBANY: 
 
 / ERASTUS TTTPEASE. 
 1845.
 
 MUNSELL AND TANNER, 
 PRINTERS. 

 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The following statement drawn up, and originally designed, as 
 a letter to a friend, is now respectfully communicated to the pa- 
 trons and friends of Kenyon College, and of education generally, 
 as well as to the friends ol the writer, and to ALL, in every situa- 
 tion and relation, who may have read the pamphlet to which it 
 is an answer. 
 
 The position of the writer is a very painful one, 'but, so far as 
 he can see, unavoidable. Thrown before the public, by the in- 
 justice and cruelty of a corporate body, acting with the counte- 
 nance and co-operation of a high public functionary, in direct 
 violation of pledged faith, he was compelled to vindicate himself 
 in a temperate but firm appeal ; and he has been met in reply, 
 with scarcely any regard for the real merits of the case, by 
 a virulent and needless personal attack upon his name and cha- 
 racter. To that attack he now replies, and should it be repeated, 
 he sees no alternative but to pursue the course he has laid down 
 for himself until it is decided beyond appeal, whether there is, or 
 can be, under the constitutional forms of this enlightened age 
 and country, a vested right to do wrong, or an immunity superior 
 to moral obligation. 
 
 But it is not merely as a matter of private and personal griev- 
 ance, that this subject is now presented. Questions of much 
 higher import are involved in it. The essential nature of the en- 
 dowment -at Gambier ; the due and proper conservation of that 
 endowment, as a means of liberal education, and as a property 
 of the Church, without endangering both, by the union of 
 unlimited temporal power, with that which is, in its nature, jure 
 divino ; these, and to some extent the constitution and adminis-
 
 tration of educational trusts generally, in our country, are topics 
 of deep interest, which cannot fail to engage the attention of the 
 intelligent reader. 
 
 The writer regrets the necessity of drawing out his statement 
 to so great a length, but he trusts it will be considered, that in 
 defence of charater as in that of religion, pages of elaborate re- 
 ply are sometimes necessary to neutralize lines of unfounded as- 
 persion. He hopes however that no one, who thinks it worth 
 while to have an opinion on the subject at all, will be deterred 
 from reading the whole. 
 
 Jllbany, 30th June, 1845.
 
 LETTER &C. 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 Your kind letter of the 16th ult., and the interest you were pleased 
 to express in my behalf on account of the very severe and vituperative 
 character of the Bishop's " Reply," demand my heartfelt thanks. They 
 should have had, as well as the pamphlet itself, an earlier acknowledge- 
 ment from me, had that been possible; but the nature of my engage- 
 ments with the Cemetery Association at Albany, (in consequence of the 
 lateness of the season when I commenced lhat work) precluded (he pos- 
 sibility of my attending 1 to any other thing, until that wasj in some mea- 
 sure, complete; and the delay has been further prolonged by other imper- 
 ative engagements since. I regret it the more, as I find that a notice of 
 my intention to answer the " Reply," which I sent down lobe inserted in 
 one of the New York papers, in November last, was not attended to by 
 the person to whom I sent it, and I have been, thus long, exposed there- 
 fore, to the implication of having plead guilty to, or at least tacitly ad- 
 mitted the slanderous insinuations, which constitute so large a part of the 
 publication referred to. I am now, however, once more in the vicinity 
 of my papers, and not a little thankful in looking over them, to find how 
 provident I have been, in securing documents and references, to sustain 
 me, in this otherwise unequal contest. And now, before I answer you at 
 large, let us look for a moment, at the state of the controversy, and the 
 relations of the parties engaged in it. 
 
 My adversaries would have you believe, that in the publication of my 
 former statement, I was guilty of a wanton and unprovoked attack upon 
 the " powers" at (iambier the Bishop, or the Trustees, as the case may 
 be; and upon this circumstance they found not only (he ordinary pre- 
 sumption in favor of the defensive party, but the most unlimited license 
 in regard to the means of defence. Let us see with what propriety. 
 
 I was at Gambier, under a solemn compact, to which I had pledged 
 myself, for life. I was engaged in the peaceful discharge of my duties 
 under that compact; and perfectly unsuspicious of any evil. No crime, or 
 offence, or neglect of any kind, had been laid to my charge. The pro- 
 ceedings of the Trustees show, that I enjoyed the approbation and " high 
 regard'"' of that body, as " a gentleman of integrity and moral worth" 
 c< a most excellent man, entitled to universal respect and affection." 
 Bishop Mcllvaine, the official head and representative of the Board, (writ- 
 ing about me after my dismissal,) expressed his " entire confidence" in 
 my " strict integrity, and gentlemanly character," and his " high respect 
 for my eminent attainments in science," "which," said he, '-do honor 
 to you and to your country;" adding his testimony at the same time to 
 my " diligence and zeal" in promoting "the interests of the institution,"
 
 6 
 
 and to my " kindness and hospitality, in endeavoring to enhance the 
 comfort and happiness of the students, and secure their affections."* 
 
 Finally, the whole body of students, concurring in all these particu- 
 lars my " gen'lemanly character," my "eminent attainments," my 
 "moral and religious worth," my " zeal and diligence in behalf of ihe 
 institution," and my " sincere kindness and hospitality" to themselves, 
 added over and above all, many gratifying assurances of their " personal 
 esteem and respect." Yet, in the midst of all these golden opinions, 
 freely expressed, WITHOUT ANY CONVERSE ALLEGATION, or the 
 slightest pretence of an accusation of any kind against me, the Board, in 
 a secret, inquisitorial process, and without a moment's warning, put an 
 end, or affected to put an end to my engagement, as President, and im- 
 mediately published abroad my name as having been stricken from the 
 rolls of the Institution. 
 
 We have heard of such a thing as " guilt without criminality," and I 
 suppose there may be also, vice versa, criminality without guilt; but in 
 what code of jurisprudence or morals was it evei heard of before, that a 
 man was visited with the severest possible punishment, in consideration 
 of his " eminent attainments," his " gentlemanly character," his " moral 
 and religious worth," or his "zeal and diligence" in discharge of his 
 duty ? 
 
 There is no explaining away or evading this absurdity. Bishop Mc- 
 Ilvaine says, "it was the desiie of the Board to do all things in the kind 
 est manner towards Mr. D." and "so to injure as little as possible, his 
 future standing, hence the complimentary language," &c. This would 
 be very intelligible, if Mr. D. had been put upon his plea, and convicted 
 of anything worthy of punishment; but what does it mean when applied 
 to a person legally innocent against whom no charge of any kind had 
 been exhibited " a most excellent man, entitled to universal respect and 
 affection ?" Is outrage any the less outrage, because committed in a 
 kind manner ? 
 
 The consequences of this proceeding, TO ME, were the sacrifice of my 
 property, ihe taking away of my proper and legitimate means of support, 
 the scattering of my family like sheep without a shepherd, ai d Ihe frus- 
 tration of all my cherished schemes for the education of my children; 
 the entire uprooting, in short, of all my plans and prospects in life. Yet 
 these benevolent and kind gentlemen would have it believed, that all 
 this was no aggression; and that /, in presuming to set forth the wrongs 
 done me, in a calm, temperate, and Christian spirit, no one can deny 
 that such is the character of my statement have, wantonly, disturbed the 
 peace of the community, and almost forfeited my claim to be treated as 
 a human being! 
 
 " O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts, 
 And men have lost their reason !" 
 
 To this hour, notwithstanding all the abuse they have endeavored to 
 heap upon me in their " Reply," I stand uncharged, as you justly re- 
 mark, with any thing that would be admitted as of the least weight 
 under a legal rale to show cause. There is no lack of inuendo, va;ue 
 insinuations implying SOMETHING, rhetorical tricks and subtleties in 
 abundance, conveying to the mind of the careless or prejudiced leader, 
 the idea of some unnamed fault or failure on my part, which the writer 
 seems loo humane to specify. The whole streng h of the pamphlet lies 
 in this. Full from beginning to end of the gall of defamation ; and barren 
 
 * This language is quoted from the letter of the students, but as the draft 
 of that letter is claimed to have been written by Bp. M., I am entitled to 
 consider it his language also.
 
 every where of authentic facts and sober arguments. Examine for your- 
 self and tell me if it is not so. 
 
 I was dismissed, you will please to recollect, for unpopularity with 
 the students, and the authors of the reply took their position vauntingly, 
 (see their published card in October last,) in the first place to justify 
 that act; an.l secondly, to exonerate Hishop Mcllvaine from having had 
 any part in it. Now I have read the reply, as you may suppose, with 
 some little attention, and I have not yet been so fortunate as to discover a 
 single passage, in the way of argument, that bears (logically) upon either 
 of these questions. They have reiterated, with a great many changes and 
 variations, the charge of unpopularity, (a charge which I shall show 
 to be utterly without foundation,) but beyond that there is nothing abso- 
 lutely nothing. They have not proved the fact; they have not said a word 
 to show that the alleged unpopularity, if true, was not a natural and ne- 
 cessary consequence of my responsibilities. It might have been, as 1 have 
 elsewhere said, an evidence of faithfulness. They have not said a word to 
 show that it was any cause for their unceremonious violation of a 
 contract; not a woid to justify the insidiousness and secrecy of the 
 
 S-ocess of my removal; nor, finally, a word to prove (logically) that 
 ishop Mcllvaine was not a full participator, positively as well as nega- 
 tively, in that process. Their whole collective energy has been concen- 
 trated in the effort to defame and villify my character, and to impair, if 
 possible, my claim to confidence. And of this let me now give you a 
 few examples: 
 
 Passing with a mere notice the round and plenary denials which appear 
 (p. 5, and elsewhere,) and which are to be expected perhaps in propor- 
 tion as proof is scanty, you will observe occasional reflections, in the way 
 of petitioprincipii, upon my " rashness in refusing to resign," and in pub- 
 lishing my " statement." " His only wise plan," say they, (p 4) "was 
 to let his case be forgotten as soon as possible. He does not know what 
 is good for him," (Col. Bond, p. 12, )i. e. in refusing to resign. " D. has 
 brought all these things upon himself. He would have consulted his dig- 
 nity and peace by receiving the advice to resign in the spirit in which it 
 was given," (Col. Cummings, p. 47,) &c. Whether I was rash in refu- 
 sing to resign depends upon whether I was wrong; and that is not shown. 
 
 Look also at the reflections, (p. 9 and elsewhere,) equally gratuitous, 
 that I was indifferent as to the financial condition of the institution. "The 
 question whether we were running in debt to sustain (he College, was 
 one which never troubled Mr. D ," &c. If it were even true, (and it can 
 be shown to be most maliciously otherwise,) what possible relevancy 
 has it ? 
 
 Look, then, at the representation of my private affairs at Brooklyn pri- 
 or to my removal to Gambier; what has it really to do with the proper 
 subject matter of this controversy? I speak not now of its falseness 
 that will come up in due time but of its logical correctness and relevancy, 
 supposing, for argument's sake, it were all true. Were my embarrass- 
 ments (at a period of universal stagnation) likely to render my removal 
 less difficult ? Was my mere going to Gambier to relieve me from them 
 at all ? Did the circumstances alleged, supposing them to have been as 
 represented by Bishop Mcllvaine, absolve him or the trustees from any 
 part of their obligation as parties to the compact under which I went? 
 What was it that made it the best if it was best for myself and my fa- 
 mily to go to Gambier at all ? Was it not especially the permanency of 
 the situation ? And would it not have been madness in me to have re- 
 moved myself and them thither at great expense and great sacrifice, (I 
 insist upon the propiiety of this word,) without a full and unquestioning 1 
 reliance upon the Bishop's propositions in this respect ? These questions
 
 8 
 
 are answered from the surface of the " Reply," without any arguments, 
 and the answers will show how perfectly sophistical and irrelevant 
 to the real matters in controversy this whole discussion is.* But it was 
 not inserted without motive, and if you will tum to the 25th and follow- 
 ing pages of the Reply, you will see by the spirit in which its details are 
 enlarged upon, what that motive unquestionably was:, it will be still more 
 apparent when I come to the facts. 
 
 Another example in the same spirit is found on page 29th, where Bi- 
 shop Mcllvaine speaks of my not being his " first choice for the Presi- 
 dency." I shall show presently that I was his first choice ; but suppose 
 I was not; what bearing has this fact upon the real merits of the case ? 
 Not the slightest. If 1 had been his hundredth choice, his obligation, in 
 the compact finally made between us, would not have been a whit the 
 less. The subject is wholly irrelevant therefore, and could only have been 
 pressed into the controversy like the preceding, for the purpose of defa- 
 mation. 
 
 Look then at the insinuation (p. 31,) in regard to the truth of my state- 
 ment of my affairs, before going to Gambier. " We know all about his 
 relations to the Greenwood Cemetery" say they, " from which that annu- 
 al receipt proceeded, and could, if we chose, give a statement of particu- 
 lars that would convince Mr. D. that we do know." What a parade of 
 magnanimous charity is here exhibited in keeping back what never was 
 pretended (o be concealed ! My relations with the Greenwood Cemetery 
 were no secret; but does it follow that a knowledge of these is a know- 
 ledge of all my relations and interests in life ? The Bishop knew, unless he 
 had forgotten, that while I was in the Greenwood, 1 was also a pro- 
 fessional Civil Engineer, in extensive correspondence; insomuch that 
 when I was elected President of Kenyon College in 1840, he was in breath- 
 less hasfe to communicate the fact to me lest I should " commit myself 
 to any other engagement." 1 could Lave added, moreover, with evidence 
 of the fact, that wilhin a little more than a year before that election, sal- 
 aries and fees were tendered tome to an aggregate amount of 06,000. In 
 one instance a permanent salary of $2,500 which was refused; and in an- 
 other a fee of $500 for only three weeks service, repeatedly urged upon 
 me by the intermediation of third parties, and refused ; and many other 
 like examples. 
 
 Closely connected with these charitable insinuations, and a step beyond 
 them in the moral quality, are the suggestions (p. 33, and elsewhere,) as 
 to the CAUSE of my embarrassments ; not expressed in distinct terms, 
 and still less attempted to be proved, but shadowed forth, as better suited 
 the purpose of the writer, in significant hints and allusions. " Had Mr. 
 
 * The authors of the " Reply " introduced this discussion as If to repel a 
 charge of "base ingratitude and injustice" brought by me against Bishop 
 Mcllvaine ; which, they say, " is the main string upon which all the harp- 
 ing of (my) pamphlet is struck." I deny that I have charged either ingrati- 
 tude or injustice against the Bishop. Bad faith and injustice are doubt- 
 less to be inferred from some parts of my statement, though they are by no 
 means the "main string." But what relevancy has the discussion here allu- 
 ded to, to either of these ? The question of bad faith turns upon the con- 
 sistency of the Bishop's professions with his practice ; that of injustice upon 
 the conformity of his acts with his written or implied obligations as head of 
 the Trust ; and with either of these my embarrassments at Brouklyn in 1839 
 40 had about as much to do as the annexation of Texas. The charge of 
 " base ingratitude" is a goblin of their own raising ; evidently invoked for ef- 
 fect, and to show or seem to show " that I have attempted too much for my 
 own integrity." ("Reply," p. 32.)
 
 JJ. been in the receipt even of $4000 per annum while residing in New 
 York or Brooklyn, it would have been a kindness and favor to himself 
 and family, considering peculiarities of character which his friends will 
 readily advert to without our being more particular, to take him to a 
 salary of $1000 in such a place as Gambler. We do not mean that he 
 can understand this." Pause a moment, I pray you, over the deep malig- 
 nity of this thrust. What has the cause here hinted at to do with the action 
 of the Board of Trustees, on the 27th Feb. 1844; or with the part which 
 Bishop Mcllvaine may or may not have taken in that act ? Has it the 
 slightest relation to any legitimate object of this controversy? Clearly 
 none whatever. I am before you, if you please, demanding justice the 
 reparation of gross wrong; and my adversary meets the demand by going 
 far out of his way, even abusing the sacredness of spiritual confidence, 
 to defame and vilify my private character. Look at the sort of insinua- 
 tion by which this is attempted to be done. How perfectly gratuitous ! 
 Is there any where a reputation so spotless, a character so pure, the 
 most beautiful example, male or female, that adorns and dignifies huma- 
 nity that may not be defamed at any time, if it should suit the purposes 
 of malevolence to defame it in the same way ? There is no protection for 
 any character against such malevolent assaults, and the more pure the 
 object the greater the outrage. 
 
 But for the sake of variety, I will give you now an example of a less 
 serious character. The Bishop while in New York was impressed wiih 
 the fear, " that things were not going right at the College, and that he 
 shnuld Jind some fresh burden to be born on his return to Gambier." 
 (Reply p. 7.) What was the ground of this apprehension ? Simply that 
 his correspondents said nothing at all on the subject ! ! A most pregnant 
 premiss truly The Bishop would do well to keep it for future uses. It 
 will prove any thing. I presume the suggestion, (p. 16) as to the number 
 of students that did not come to the College, belongs to the same cate- 
 gory. And I know not where else to class his proof (in the same place,) 
 that the numbers had diminished, under my Presidency, viz. because they 
 had increased only ftoo." 
 
 But again. " The earnest desire of the Board, while flinching from no 
 duty, however painful, to do all things in the kindest manner towards Mr. 
 D , &c." (Reply, p. 12), has already been noticed in another relation. 
 I recur to it again, for the purpose of pointing out more particularly the 
 disingenuousness of the logic. The question under discussion is the essen- 
 tial justice or injustice of my removal from rffice : Some show of argu- 
 ment had been attempted to make it out expedient, but not a word to prove 
 it just, and the moment this point is fairly reached, it is evaded by the 
 dexterous interposition of a circumstance, viz. the manner of my re- 
 moval ; while, by a specious talk about " duty however painful, &c." 
 the mind of the reader is betrayed unconsciously into an impression that 
 the right and wrong of the thing has already been settled by some pre- 
 vious argument.* But the fallacy does not end heie. The paragiaph 
 goes on to state, that it was in the overflow of their kind feelings 
 towards me (!) that the Board " placed my removal only on the ground 
 
 * The committee of the Board who originated the action in that body 
 against me, expressly disclaim having made any " inquiry as to the justice 
 of the difficulty." Their preamble and report is as follows: " The com- 
 mittee which has had in charge the inquiry into the causes that have produ- 
 ced the existing diminution in the number of the students belonging to the 
 classes of Kenyon College and Preparatory Schools, has had the subject in 
 anxious consideration and made all the investigations in their power, and 
 REPORT, that in their view two facts have mainly led to the present state of 
 things : One is, the high charges in the senior grammar school, whereby that 
 
 2
 
 10 
 
 of want of acceptableness with the students," without " giving other rea- 
 sons." What other reasons ? The whole proceeding, the Bishop and the 
 Board tell us, was an inquiry into [he financial condition of the Institution 
 the causes of the diminished revenue, &c. an inquiry perfectly imper- 
 sonal. My connection with it arose only from my (alleged) unaccepla- 
 blentss, and must have been limited specifically to that circumstance. 
 (if the Bishop and the Board speak iruth.~) Yet here they allude to 
 " other reasons," as if the enquiry was personal to myself, embracing 
 the circumstances of my conduct and character at large ! ! How is this ? 
 If the enquiry was, as they pretend, purely financial, what do they mean 
 by other reasons for my d'smissal ? If personal, what is to be thought of 
 all their former disclaimers on this point ? Nor is this jumble of contra- 
 dictions confined to the page quoted. It runs through the " Reply." 
 Every attempt to set forth " other reasons," (which is in short the gist of 
 the whole publication,) involves the same dilemma, and shows at once 
 the temper of the publication, and the liability of extreme subtlety to 
 over-reach and betray itself. 
 
 But let us follow the logic of these gentlemen in another of its features. 
 I wish you to notice how rapidly their wings expand after they have fairly 
 shuffled off the restraints of the original controversy, and taken their 
 ground against me personally. On page 13 of the " Reply," the writer 
 remarks, that with " many eminent qualities, a man may be totally unfit 
 " for the Presidency of a college, and may utterly fail of exerting that in- 
 " fluence over the minds of students, which commands obedience at the 
 " same time that it warms and enlists, instead of chilling and repelling, 
 " the affections of the heart." The drift of this language is not to be 
 mistaken. Under the form of a mere abstract, potentiality, speciously 
 expressed, it is evidently intended to convey to the mind of the cursory 
 reader the idea that there was an actual personal unfitncss for the Presi- 
 dency of a college, and an actual failure in exerting " that influence 
 over the minds of the students which commands obedience, while it warms 
 and enlists without chilling and repelling the affections of the heart." 
 Yet all this, you will see, is a mere inuendo, unsustained by one iota of 
 proof. 
 
 Again, (Reply, p. 13) the author continues, " after he declined, 
 the necessity of his removal became still more imperious," as he could 
 not be kept there " in the temper, towards the officers, and the trustees, 
 and the Bishop, which it was manifest the process, thus far, had raised." 
 This is a precious avowal, truly. Banditti take the lives of their captives 
 
 department is almost reduced to a nonentity. The other they mention with 
 great reluctance, berause it attaches to t most excellent man well worthy of 
 universal respect and affection, the point to which they refer, is theunpopu- 
 larity of the President. In regard to the justice of this difficulty the commit- 
 tee do not pretend to speak ; but it is believed by us to exist, and to operate 
 prejudicially to the institution over which he presides. The committee 
 therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolutions: 
 
 1. That the charge for tuition in the senior preparatory school be reduced, 
 &c- 
 
 2. That while we seriously deprecate the necessity, we are constrained, in 
 view of all the circumstances of the case, respectfully to ask President Doug- 
 lass to resign his official relation to this Institution ; assuring him at the same 
 time, that the Board, as a body and individually, entertain for him the kindest 
 feelings of regard. 
 
 3. That the salary of President Douglass be paid him to the first of Sep- 
 tember next.
 
 11 
 
 on the very same principle ; the latter, after being rifled and robbed, are 
 not likely to be in a very amiable temper with their spoilers, and the ne- 
 cessity for taking life becomes, under such circumstances, " still more 
 imperious." The allegation, however, is not more disingenuous than it 
 is untrue. The Rev. Dr. Fuller was my spiritual adviser during these 
 persecutions, and will bear me witness that my temper was not unduly 
 excited. " I am amazed to see you bear up so well," was his continual 
 exclamation. 
 
 Finally, in this connection, (Reply, p. 14), the author siill goes on as 
 follows : " To have kept him there, would have only given him the great- 
 er opportunity of injuring the college, without the least reason to expect 
 any change in his constitutional and habitual unfitness for his office." 
 Here is another sweeping inuendo, equally unsupported and still more 
 subtle than the preceding ; and in the same ratio more slanderous. But 
 what I wish you chiefly to observe is the summary process by which one 
 of the "most excellent men, entitled to universal respect and affect ion, full 
 of diligence, and zeal, and kindness, and hospitality," is converted into 
 a cold and cruel despot, "commanding obedience," indeed, but "chil- 
 ling, and repelling the affections of the heart," and not only " constitu- 
 tionally and habitually unfit for office," but even seeking opportunity to 
 injure the institution, which every consideration of duly and policy should 
 have impelled him to promote. All this in the turn of a single leaf, loith- 
 out a particle of evidence, by mere periphrasis, and the unlimited license 
 of words, " Eleven buckram men grown out of two." 
 
 Such are a part, a small part of the fallacies and falsehoods of this pre- 
 cious production. Many others will be developed as we proceed. Do I 
 call them by too harsh a name ? Examine them attentively, and tell me 
 whether they are not clearly intended to " darken council" to mystify 
 the mind of the reader, and lead him off as far as possible from the mat- 
 ter in hand, for the manifest purpose of defamation and slander ? " And 
 who is it ?" I almost hear you enquire, that descends to such unfair and 
 disingenuous artifices ? Is it some low paragraphist in politics, who es- 
 teems nothing unfair ? Some pettifogger, cunning in all the arts of chi- 
 canery, " to make the worse appear the belter reason ?" No ! It is 
 neither one nor the other. It is a body of men who, at this moment, are 
 legally intrusted with the concerns of the Theological Seminary of the 
 Diocese of Ohio an institution founded by the benevolent donations of 
 pious men and women, for the education of ministers of the Gospel, un- 
 der the presidency of a Bishop of the church, who is at the same time 
 the Professor of Ecclesiastical Polity and Pastoral Divinity in that school 
 of the Prophets. "But the Bishop," you will say, "must have been wholly 
 unaware of these proceedings." No! I am sorry to say he was not. The 
 pamphlet was written in Philadelphia during the session of the General 
 Convention, ostensibly by three of the trustees, assuming to speak in behalf 
 of their fellows, and unquestionably with the aid and countenance of the 
 Bishop. He is known to have overlooked and corrected the proofs. Four- 
 fifths of all the matter must needs have been furnished by him; and the di- 
 alectics ex unguine leonem it would be a moral absurdity to look for 
 the authorship of them, to any other person connected with the publica- 
 tion.* 
 
 * The Rev. Mr. Smallwood is an ungradnated clergyman, recently reward- 
 ed with the honorary degree of M.A., by the (President and ?) Faculty of 
 Kenyon College. Mr. Rogers is a store-keeper at Mount Vernon, and Mr. 
 Reynolds, a forwarding merchant at Masillon. The last two had been mem- 
 bers of the Board of Trustees only about five months, and never but once in 
 session with them before the 28th February, 1844. They were, besides, al- 
 most strangers to me and to my administration; respectful and kind in their
 
 12 
 
 You are now prepared to estimate the disparity of the parties in this 
 contest. On the one hand you see the principalities and powers of Gam - 
 bier, with all the accessories of high official station, character, and influ- 
 ence, and a skill and subtlety in the use of words, seldom, if ever sur- 
 passed. You see them, confederated (in ihis case) by a community of 
 interest, zealously sustaining each other in the effort to crush an humble 
 individual, whom, having once grossly injured, they cannot foigive. On 
 the other, you behold that individual, standing alone, with no pretence or 
 ground of confidence but in the righteousness of his cause, striving, as 
 he may, against such odds, in delence of his name, his character, his 
 means of support, and his capacity for usefulness. The disparity is fear- 
 ful ; and I arn not surprised that some of my kind friends should have 
 been ahrmed for me, when my enemies, breathing out threatenings, and 
 scarcely concealing their unscrupulousness as to rrxians, seem already to 
 exult in the certainty of my destruction. But there is no alternative. If 
 the disparity was even a thousand fold greater than it is, I could not, with- 
 out a moral dereliction, recede from the contest. The interests for which 
 I am engaged, God has made it my duty, in a right spirit, lo defend; and 
 I humbly trust that he will enable me so to defend them while life lasts. 
 I am no lover of controversy. No one, better than yourself, knows how 
 repugnant it is to every instinct and feeling of my nature. I take it as I 
 take medicine, only when I must, and then with loathing. But in the 
 present instance it has been forced upon me by the intolerable aggression 
 of these men ; and so long as they go on, adding wrong to wrong, the 
 option to continue or discontinue it is not with me. I am the defendant. 
 
 Some of the partisans of Bishop Mcllvaine have endeavored to raise a 
 presumption against me, on the ground that my statements are ex parte. 
 But what is the meaning of that phrase in this connection ? Every ap- 
 peal against personal injustice or violence, is more or less e.x parte. If 
 you expose, as it may be your bounden duty to do, an attempt upon your 
 life or property, your complaint has necessarily this character. The out- 
 cry of murder! or a call for help! from the victim of lawless power or un- 
 bridled passion, is ex parte, but is it therefore to be unheeded, or is the 
 complaint of any injured one to be ruled out of court, as unworthy of no- 
 tice on that ground ? This would be a precious immunity, indeed, on the 
 side of aggression. But even this is not the whole of what seems to be 
 claimed in the present case. The complaint of the single-handed victim 
 is to be debarred a hearing, while the adverse statements of the confede- 
 rated aggressors, no matter how vituperative and slanderous, are to be re- 
 ceived on their own mutual endorsement, with full and unhesitating con- 
 fidence, as if any principle in human character was more determined or 
 more relentless than that which prompts an overbearing and high handed 
 oppressor to justify his wrong doing. 
 
 Another, more imposing presumption has been urged, on the ground 
 that my Statement involves an impeachment of the conduct and character 
 of Bishop McTlvaine; and the authors of the "Reply," well aware of the 
 advantage which this view of the case would be likely to give them in an 
 appeal to the popular mind, have artfully contrived to shift the whole con- 
 troversy to this ground. "The manifest object of the pamuhlet," say 
 they in their card, "is to lay all the responsibility of that act (my dis- 
 missal) upon the Rt. Rev. Bishop Mcllvaine, to injure his character, 
 &c." " So far as Bishop Mcllvaine is concerned, (Reply p. 5) this ef 
 fort to injure him must fall to the ground and recoil upon the author of it, 
 if it can be shown," &c. "The base ingratitude and injustice of the 
 
 personal intercourse with me, (until the present action,) and the last named 
 even made a point of expressing, with tears, his strong regard for me, after 
 the adjournment of the Board.
 
 13 
 
 Bishop is the main string on which all the harping of his pamphlet 
 strikes." The morale of this double artifice is of a piece with the exam- 
 ples already given; I pass it in that aspect, without further notice, and 
 proceed, at once, to examine its logical relations to the real matter in 
 hand. And first, as a false issue. 
 
 If you turn to my Statement, you will see that more than half of it, (18 
 pages in the first edition, and 16 in the last,) is occupied with an account 
 of th'j corporate proceedings of the Board of Trustees, in the matter of 
 my removal, and an exhibition of the essential injustice of the act, in 
 form and substance. This exhibit is fundamental to all the subsequent 
 discussions, and is to be taken therefore as the primary aim and object 
 of iny publication. The remainder is taken up with statements explana- 
 tory of the circumstances, under which I became connected with, and 
 " held office in the institution," having in view to illustrate the motives 
 and agency, which, (there was some reason to believe,) had operated in 
 effecting my removal. Bishop Mcllvaine is certainly and of necessity 
 implicated, in these statements, he is almost as much so, in his own 
 version of the matter, as in mine, but what does it signify ? The ques- 
 tion whether HE did or did not take an influential part in the proceedings, 
 is entirely incidental, and of no manner of consequence to the main alle- 
 gation. It may be proved either way, without taking a feather's weight 
 from the enormity of that injustice, which, I declared frankly beforehand, 
 and still declare, I will never cease to denounce. 
 
 But I may go further on this point, and I ask you to open my pamphlet 
 and verify what I say. I have not been moved by any undue desire to 
 make out a case against Bishop Mcllvaine. What I might have done, 
 had I been so minded, if is not now needful to say. It is sufficient that 
 my course would have been a different one a very different one. As it 
 was, I confined myself to the exhibition of facts bearing directly upon 
 the subject matter of my removal; and which, however roundly denied 
 by my adversaries, I am prepared to substantiate in all their essential 
 particulars by legal testimony. These facts I exhibited in a calm and 
 temperate manner; far from endeavoring to enhance their weight or im- 
 pressiveness by any rhetoric of mine, 1 even abstained from drawing 
 formal conclusions, when I might easily have done so leaving the mind 
 of the reader, in this respect, perfectly free. Have my adversaries been 
 equally dispassionate ? 
 
 In the same spirit I made my quotations from the Bishop's letters. 
 The correspondence on his part was no light matter; it extended in time, 
 over a period of more than sixteen years, and in volume to near a hundred 
 sheets, embracing a variety of topics, and written with the freedom and 
 unreservedness of the most entire confidence. And what have I quoted? 
 Nothing but his propositions and persuasions (demi official} to induce my 
 removal to Gambier, and a few a very few, out of a vast number of 
 his professions of friendship ard confidence, to show the nature of our 
 personal relations. Neither one nor the other could be considered confi- 
 dential; nor could either, in itself, have the slightest effect to injure his 
 character. They were rather honorable; unless it should turn out in 
 a comparison of those professions with his subsequent conduct, that his 
 pledges had been violated, and his faith broken : But even that inference, 
 like the others, I left to the unbiassed conclusions of the reader. 
 
 Secondly: as to the presumption against my "statement" on the 
 ground that it impeaches the character and conduct of Bishop Mcllvaine. 
 This is a point of some importance. Almost every page of the " Reply" 
 is drawn up in some dependence, more or less, upon this presumption ; 
 but of course it could not be stated as fully and explicitly under the proof 
 reading of Bishop Mcllvaine himself, as it has since been in certain re-
 
 14 
 
 ligious newspapers. The amount of it, as there insisted upon, appears to 
 be that so eminent and holy a Bishop, full of zeal and eloquence, more 
 than ordinarily spiritual in his views, and, ahove all, the champion of 
 doctrinal purity in opposition to the errors of a corrupt and schismatic 
 church, is not to be held capable of doing wrong, or subject to a charge of 
 wrong: doing on any evidence; and such is the import of the etiquette as- 
 sumed by the Bishop in the matter of my accounts. (Reply, p. 24.) Was 
 it for the order of Bishops in general that this immunity was claimed, or 
 for Bishop Mcllvaine in particular ? Recent events answer beyond the 
 possibility of being misunderstood the latter; and we have then this cu- 
 rious anomaly: a man in this republican country in the 19th century 
 ready to die in the last ditch of a dogmatic controversy with Papal Rome* 
 broadly and boldly appropriating one of the most arrogant pretensions 
 of the most corrupt period of that very Rome pontifical infallibility.! 
 
 As to the fair and proper presumption in favor of character, God for- 
 bid that I should trespass upon it in the slightest particular. It is of all 
 personal rights that which I hold most precious, and as I claim it for my- 
 self, I freely and fully concede it to all others. But how is it to be de- 
 fined ? Does it give impunity to wrong doing ? Does it take away the 
 accountability of men ? By no means. It simply secures to every man, 
 high and low, the most humble as well as the most dignified, the right to 
 be held blameless in reputation and character till fairly impeached on good 
 and sufficient evidence. I do not deny that great consideration is due to 
 established reputation and tried worth. I yield to no one in my respect 
 for the sacredness of ministerial and episcopal character, and I admit 
 that more decisive (external) evidence (much more decisive) is requi- 
 site for an impeachment in many cases. But this is founded upon a rule of 
 evidence, not upon the presumption anterior to evidence. And now let 
 us apply these principles to the case in question. 
 
 Five days after my dismissal, while I was yet bleeding under (he sense 
 of that outrage, meditating in what terms I should answer Bishop Mc- 
 Ilvaine's letter of condolence, several of the students waited upon me, 
 (not one, as the Bishop has it, but several,) voluntarily, and with strong 
 feelings of sympathy, to tell me that my character had been terribly as- 
 sailed by the Bishop, in accounting for my dismissal to the students.^. 
 " How can that be," I said. " I hav<. been dismissed for unacceptable- 
 ness with the students : If it was f a true bill ' they (the students) must 
 have been conscious of it without any argument from Bishop Mcllvaine. 
 But of course he confined himself to that subject." "No! not at all. He 
 took up your character at large disparaged you in every thing you have 
 done for the college remarked very freely upon your circumstances and 
 conduct before you came to Gambier and a great many things after- 
 
 * See Bishop Mcllvaine's address to the Convention of Ohio, in 1844, ag 
 reported in the papers at that time. 
 
 t This pretension is not confined to the publication referred to. It is in a 
 much stronger sense the distinguishing feature of the whole system at Gambier. 
 The idea is that the ecclesiastical power reaches and inter-penetrates EVERY 
 THING from the highest spirituality to the lowest secularity on the Hill, 
 and that its rectitude, in any application the Bishop chooses, is not to be even 
 mooted. This was precisely the issue made in the famous interview in Aw 
 study, Oct. 1842, of which I shall speak again. And the real ground upon 
 which he put an end to our correspondence. 
 
 $ Two of the classes the Soph-mores and Seniors visited the Bishop on 
 this occasion ; the former at the instigation of some of the beneficiaries the 
 " Swiss " of " the Hill " and the letter probably on the suggestion of Mr. 
 Lang, who belonged to it. The Freshmen and Juniors, much the more nume- 
 rous, were also tampered with, but refused to go.
 
 15 
 
 words that we never heard of before. He was very severe upon you, and 
 seemed to do his utmost to injure your character in every respect."* Such 
 was the verbal communication at the time, and this has been corrobora- 
 ted in writing by several others since. Fifteen days after this informa- 
 tion the return of mails brought me word from Brooklyn that the same at- 
 tack upon my private character had been perpetrated by the same Right 
 Rev. individual, in letters to my friends there, and that even a lady,great- 
 ly honored and respected by me, then as now, had been so far swayed as 
 to become the medium of these communications.! 
 
 Such was, in general, the train of circumstances which led to the pub- 
 lication of my first "statement," and I think no impartial person who 
 
 * A sort of excuse for this proceeding is pretended in the <J Reply " on the 
 ground that the subjects treated of by the Bishop, had been previously intro- 
 duced by me in my interviews with the students ; and it is affirmed that those 
 interviews were sought by me for that purpose. Neither position is true; the 
 interviews, as I can abundantly prove, were not sought by me ; very few of the 
 subjects spoken of by HIM were alluded to by ME at all ; nothing that had not 
 a direct bearing upon the theory of my dismissal ; nor was a word uttered 
 that was personally disrespectful to him (the Bishop.) 
 
 t I desire to refer to this letter with the utmost possible delicacy so far as 
 the lady to whom it was addressed is concerned. I have never impugned the 
 goodness and purity of her intentions in communicating it, as she did, to se- 
 veral persons, according to the request of the writer ; nor has her doing so in- 
 terrupted, in the slightest degree, the cordiality of our long established rela- 
 tions, so far as I am concerned. But I will not dissemble or disguise the pro- 
 found contempt in which I hold the taste of any man who could deliberately 
 and voluntarily place A LADY in such a position. The letter was quoted "from 
 hearsay," as the Bishop truly remarks, simply because there was no other 
 way of quoting it. My friends requested leave to make a copy, and were re- 
 fused. I wrote to the Bishop for a copy, and my letter was return unopened. 
 But, in the mean time, a memorandum of all, or nearly all the allegations con- 
 tained in it, was carefully made by one of the persons who heard it, which has 
 since been attested by several of the others ; and this is now in my possession. 
 The following is a copy of my (returned) letter to Bishop M. on this subject, 
 dated Glenville, (Greenwich) Conn., 12th August, 1844: 
 
 Right Rev. Sir. I respectfully ask of you the letter, or a copy of the letter 
 
 addressed by you to in March last, containing a number of allegations 
 
 touching my character and conduct while at Gambler, and as President of 
 Kenyon College ; which letter I understand she was requested to communi- 
 cate, and did communicate to sundry persons in Brooklyn. 
 
 Your motives for making A LADY the medium of this communication, I will 
 not now attempt to penetrate. My reasoning upon the subject will depend 
 somewhat upon your willingness or unwillingness to comply with the present 
 request. If you do comply I shall be ready to admit that, whatever other mo- 
 tive you may have had, you were not actuated by fear to meet the responsi- 
 bility of the allegations referred to in a proper manner ; for I give you dis- 
 tinctly to understand that my object, in asking a copy, is to bring you to that 
 responsibility. 
 
 (Another letter was demanded also, but the demand is omitted here from 
 the desire not, at present, to introduce a third party. The letter then pro- 
 ceeds :) 
 
 Perhaps you may, in replying, lay claim to a reciprocal right, and to save 
 time I answer on that point at once. As the assailed party in this business, 
 and acting wholly on the defensive, I claim to have an unconditional moral 
 right to the letters referred to ; but I am willing, at the same time, and shall 
 hold myself ready to give up, as I am ready to sustain any where and in any 
 manner, whatever I have said or written on this subject. I shall expect an 
 answer to both these requests at your earliest convenience. I am, &c., 
 
 D. B DOUGLASS. 
 
 Right Rev. C. P. MC!LVAINE.
 
 16 
 
 reads that document carefully, will say that I have gone aught beyond what 
 those circumstances required. Then comes the " Reply," void of any 
 thing like argument on the real questions at issue, but fitted, from begin- 
 ning lo end, with thrusts at my private and professional character, which 
 whoever may have been the penman (1 will not descend to any spe- 
 cial pleading on that point,) Bishop Mcllvaine only could have 
 conceived. Will any one say that the presumption of which we have been 
 speaking, or the proper etiquette of his official character, ought to save 
 him from the responsibility of these things ? Does not the assumption of 
 that etiquette for protection, under such circumstances, dishonor and de- 
 grade the sacred function to which he appeals, as truly as it aggravates 
 the wrong for which he thus seeks impunity ? 
 
 But enough of these preliminaries. Let us come more particularly to 
 the statements and facts set lonhin the " Reply ;" and first its assertions 
 as lo the lime and manner of my publishing my first edition. 
 
 Great significancy is attached to the delay of seven months, but if Bi- 
 shop Mcllvaine should ever be the subjecl of such an infliclionas he and 
 his colleagues adminislered lo me, 1 venture lo say lhal he will find it a 
 much more serious mailer than he is now aware of. Many months would 
 probably elapse before he could collect his faculties sufficienlly lo minis- 
 ter lo any thing but the exigencies ol himself and his family. * * 
 I own 1 did not write in haste, as men do under the influence of passion, 
 nor do I mean so to write or act on this subject at any time. I published 
 as soon as I could with consistency; withoul any calculation of effect, but 
 rather in the belief that the suggestions of policy were all against me in 
 delaying so long; and the first perfect copy I could procure from the bind- 
 er was mailed lo Bishop Mcllvaine, in time to have been received three 
 days before he left home. 
 
 As to the manner of circulating: the pamphlet was published, as it pur- 
 ported, for private circulation, and given lo churchmen only, except a 
 few personal friends; to editors of secular papers only one or two, and 
 those churchmen. It was left at no book slore or publication office, ex- 
 cepl at ihe request of clergymen, who desired to receive il in that way. 
 Finally, as to the imputalion of having writlen or circulated my " stale- 
 ment" for party purposes, 1 ullerly disclaim it. If 1 know myself I 
 wrote and only wrote in Ihe cause of truth and justice, and there are those 
 who can bear me witness that I have kept studiously aloof from all party 
 relations whatever. 
 
 The first attempt of the Reply, in the way of argument, i s introduced 
 (p. 5,) with a passage of personal history, illustiative of the weakness of 
 Bishop Mcllvaine's memory a fact sufficiently well known, but of which 
 the relevancy is not very apparent It seems lo have for its object to dispa- 
 rage a suggestion of mine, viz; that there was some connection between my 
 removal and my action in the committee of the Ohio Convention, (on the 
 Carey ordination,) on the ground that the Bishop, while in New-York, 
 forgot the name of one of the members of that commitlee. The logic is 
 ralher foggy in any application of it, but perfectly foreign as lo the mat- 
 ter really suggested by me. If you turn to my " stalement " (p. 34,) you 
 will see that my language had no reference to Bishop Mcllvaine what- 
 ever. I expressed my conviction that my conduct, " on that occasion 
 " was noted by one at least of my constituency," &c. I repeat 
 that conviction now; it is founded upon no vague surmise, but up- 
 on the certainty that within a very short time after the Convention, one 
 of that consliluency, who had previously been one of Ihe loudest in his 
 professions of affection and regard to me, was so loud in detraction, when 
 speaking of me to third parties, that a humane friend thought it but just 
 and proper I should be apprized of it. It was not Bishop Mcllvaine
 
 17 
 
 however, nor does my language imply that it was; yet it is so assumed in 
 the " Reply," for the sake of a flouiishing page of disproof, and this is 
 offered as " the first specimen of the confidence to be placed in my so- 
 lemn assertions." 
 
 Another like " specimen" follows on page 6, the occasion of which is 
 thus slated. " But again it is distinctly asserted, (p. 32)" so they say, 
 " that during the Bishop's absence in ihe east, in the fall, subsequent to 
 the convention, the plot went on." " The Jiishop was actually, at this 
 very [early] period, (so they quote me,) arranging with his confidential 
 advisers the modus operand! of the impending and final proceeding." If 
 now you turn to page 32 of my "statement" you will find that the thing 
 which they here say is " distinctly asserted" is not asserted at all, dis- 
 tinctly or otherwise. It is assumed, gratuitously, by my adversaries. I 
 spoke specifically, of the period after the Bishop's return from New 
 York. '1'hey falsify my language, making me to speak of the time of 
 his absence. The whole case is of their own making, and that it was so 
 made deliberately and designedly is evident, from the fact that they had 
 to interpolate the word " early" in their quotation from me, to make it 
 suit. What can be done with men who have so little regard for truth and 
 fairness ? What can we think of the Theological Seminary, whose trust 
 powers are thus con scientiously administered ? What precious lessons in. 
 Ecclesiastical Polity must not the young Theologians of that Seminary 
 be favored withal, under such teaching ? But to proceed : 
 
 The Bishop " solemnly declares that (he idea of Mr. D-'s removal by 
 an act of Trustees, or of any proceeding with regard to him, such as af- 
 terwards occurred, had never to that time arisen in his mind, &c." There 
 are several specialities in the language of this declaration, which, from 
 such a dialectician, entirely destroys its efficacy as a general disclaimer. 
 If the Bishop really meant that there was at the time referred to, no plot, 
 no scheme, no design to effect my removal, which is the thing asserted by 
 me, why does he not say so in distinct terms, and make the issue on that 
 point in a tangible form ? I affirmed in my statement (p. 33), not 
 that "the Bishop" was at that "early" period "arranging the modus ope- 
 randi," &c., but " that the design and purpose of [my] dismission was 
 distinctly shadowed forth, and spoken of. in terms, long before the date of 
 the Bishop's return from New York." I repeat that declaration now; and 
 I ask the Bishop, if he joins issue with me, to explain how it was that his 
 family were taking so lively an interest, as they did take, in my private 
 affairs and personal character, al that early period ?" How was it, that 
 some of them were stationed near me, on particular occasions, to catch 
 my words any words uttered, or supposed to be uttered that could be 
 made available for the purpose of defamation ?* How was it that inmates 
 of his house, at the same early period, (early in the fall,) were aware 
 that my removal was contemplated 1 How was it, that some of his chief 
 managers on the " Hill," enjoying his full confidence, and notoriously 
 SUBORDINATE, were then engaged in tampering with the stnden's, and 
 endeavoring to create a party feeling against me ? How was it, that his 
 own son was constantly in the College, laboring with all the influence in. 
 his power to the same eff;ct ? And finally, when the notice for the meet- 
 ing of the Board of Trustees appeared in the Gambier paper, how was it 
 that the same person was enabled to say, as he did say, (five or six weeks 
 before the time of their meeting,) that IT WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF 
 DISMISSING PRESIDENT DOUGLASS? These things are susceptible 
 
 * A memorable instance of this was brought to the notice of Bishop Mc- 
 Ilvaine, in September, before he left for New York, and then made the sub- 
 ject of a remonstrance. 
 
 3
 
 18 
 
 of LEGAL pRooF,whenever the occasion shall be offered, and then what 
 becomes of all the disclaimers of Bishop Mcllvaine, and the swagger of 
 TRUSTEES ? 
 
 Perhaps it may be as well to mention here at once, that though I have 
 regarded Bishop Mcllvaine as mainly accountable for my removal, be- 
 ing not only President of the Board of Trustees, but co-ordinate with 
 them, and without whose sanction, (whatever may 6e,) in point of fact, 
 nothing is done ; being, also, the person who negotiated my acceptance 
 as President, (after having known me intimately lor fifteen years,) and 
 who should have known, therefore, all the obligations expressed or 
 implied in that negotiation. While I have considered him, there- 
 fore, as mainly responsible in the matter of my removal, I have not 
 for a moment supposed that he was the sole worker. On the contrary, I 
 have constantly had in view the reality, known and felt elsewhere, as well 
 as on the "Hill," that there is a clique, a cabal, a kilchen cabinet at 
 Gambier, embracing also a part of the Hoard of Trustees, under some of 
 the very leaders, who, in 1839-'40,* were near driving the Bishop out of 
 the Diocese, but who now, under a coalition of interests, of which I shall 
 speak more fully by and by, kindly relieve him of all the little work ne- 
 cessary for the accomplishment of their common erids.f 
 
 We come now to the inception of the actual process of my removal, as 
 set forth in the " Reply." " After the Bishop had been at home about 
 ' three weeks, a Professor of the College [he tells us] drew his attention to 
 ' the declining state of that department with its two preparatory schools," 
 '&c. * * * " Under [this] serious suggestion, the Bishop enquired 
 'into the financial stale of the Institution, and found that while all the nett 
 ' income from fees of students and from the land and every other source, 
 'with the exception of $400 taken for a Theological Professor, was ex- 
 ' pended upon the support of the officers of the College, those of the Senior 
 'Grammar School being officers of the College, and the other Grammar 
 ' School sustaining its own expenses, there would be a deficit that year in 
 ' the salaries of College officers to a large amount." This financial dis- 
 covery, you will please to remark by the way, was the only ground on 
 which the Bishop professes to have acted, and the use of similar language, 
 page 10, shows that it was also the basis of ALL that was done by the 
 Board of Trustees. " The object of the meeting was in no way com- 
 " municated to that body, [such is the language,] until the Treasurer sent 
 " in his exhibit of the state of the finances of the Institution. The Bishop 
 " read to them that document, from which it appeared that the receipts were 
 " expected to fall alarmingly short of expenses that year." 
 
 The phraseology of these statements is deceptive and disingenuous. It 
 conveys by a plausible implication, to the mind of the uninitiated, the idea 
 that the College was, or might be a self-supporting Institution, competent 
 to meet its own salaries, &c. The harping about an " alarming deficit," 
 " a new debt to be created," " no reserve to fall back upon," and the 
 " solemn responsibility" of the Bishop and his Board in the premises, is 
 just so much mere declamation, intended evidently as an appeal to the 
 
 * Bishop Chase can probably eive an earlier account of some of them. 
 There seems to have been no period in the history of the Institution, when it 
 has not been under the control of a back stair influence. 
 
 t" You must not forget," said a friend, writing to me on the subject of my 
 dismissal, " that there is a power behind the throne GREATER THAX THE 
 THROXE." " I do not forget that there is such a power," I replied, " but I 
 cannot believe that it is the greater. It is there because the Bishop wishes it 
 there, for the accomplishment of his purposes, and need not have been there 
 unless HE had willed it.
 
 19 
 
 business mind of the community, to which, the writer well knew, such 
 ideas were peculiarly odious ; and all this, it is intimated, was the pecu- 
 liar circumstance of " THAT YEAR," the regular consequence of MY 
 
 ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 If the minutes of the Board of Trustees were in Court, (and the current 
 books of the office forthcoming,) it would be seen that there never was a 
 time, since 1832, the year of Bishop Mcllvaine's consecration, when the 
 Board were not embarrassed " alarmingly" embarrassed with deficits; 
 and generally by a much larger amount, in the College alone, lhan could 
 have been anticipated for ihe year 1843-4. By a Report of the Treasurer, 
 entered on the minutes in Nov. 1835, (an abstract of which is now before 
 me,) it appears that the total receipts of the College, inlcuding room 
 rents, must have been from $3,000 to $3,500 less than the aggregate of 
 salaries and other current expenses for THAT YEAR the state of the 
 College being about the same as in 1843; and that after all the profits 
 of the two Grammar Schools, (containing at that time 120 pupils,) were 
 swallowed up in this deficit, there was still a deficit of some $1,500, 
 against the Institution. The truth is that Ihe College not only never did 
 bear its own expenses, but never was expected to bear them. Any one at 
 all conversant with Colleges, would see at once that the idea of its doing 
 so was absurd; and so Bishop Mcllvaine evidently thought when he wrote 
 his appeal in behalf of the Institution, in June 1843: "No College (he 
 says,) can hold its proper stand, and rely merely on the fees of students. 
 Especially cannot this be done in a new country. Eastern Colleges have 
 large endowments or annual grants from the States for the support of in- 
 structors.* We have nothing but our land. You see then, that the sale 
 of our land would be the death of the Institution." Such is his language, 
 and the whole appeal is based upon the principle, that without a land re- 
 venue, the College could not exist. 
 
 But perhaps it will be said, for this is also implied in the language of 
 the " Reply," that the deficit of " that year" must have been unreason- 
 ably large, since it swallowed up, not only all the profits of the Grammar 
 Schools, but the land revenue also. Whether it was unreasonably large 
 or not, is a simple question to be determined by comparison with other 
 years. That it absorbed all the profits of the Grammar Schools and the 
 rents besides, (if it did so,) might arise from the falling off' of those 
 profits, or of the rents, either or both, and then the responsibility would 
 be on the proper heads of those Seminaries, or on the " Prudenti 1 Com- 
 mittee;" but in no case upon me. I shall take leave to examine all these 
 questions in order. 
 
 First, as to whether the deficit of that year was unreasonably large ? 
 
 There were in the College classes at the epoch of my removal, 40 stu- 
 dentsf The regular receipt from these would be $1,600; and as the ag- 
 gregate of salaries and current expenses, (see Journal of Convention for 
 1843, page 35,) was $4,040, the difference to be provided for by other 
 means, was for that year, $2,240. Had the same calculation been made 
 the year before, or three years before about the time of my arrival on 
 " the Hill" the deficit in either case, would have been from $100 to $200 
 
 * Instances are known of Colleges enjoying a much larger patronage than 
 Kenyon College has ever enjoyed, which receive from grants and other extra- 
 neous resources, from $5,000 to $10,000 per annum, and could not he sustain- 
 ed otherwise; yet this circumstance is not deemed invidious, or in any way 
 a reflection upon the judicious and prudent management of those Institutions. 
 
 t There were always some Clergymen's sons &c., who did not pay. But 
 as these are not considered in the calculations of the " Reply." it is but just, 
 in making comparisons, that they should not be considered here.
 
 20 
 
 more ; and in 1835, with about the same number of students, it was as 
 heretofore stated, (from $3,000 to $3,500,) at least $1,000 more. It ap- 
 pears then, from these comparisons, that the deficiency which excited 
 such serious alarm in the mind of Bishop Mcllvaine, and rendered it ne- 
 cessary to call together the Board of Trustees; which became the ground 
 of such grave deliberation and action on their part, and which is charged 
 so inviduously (page 15,) to my particular administration, was in reality 
 os to the College no DEFICIT at all. It was rather a surplussage, 
 being in fact from $100 to $1,000 less than the corresponding deficiency 
 in other years. The real deficit then, must have been either in the Gram- 
 mar Schools, or in the land revenue; and therefore 
 Secondly, as to the Grammar Schools. 
 
 On this subject you will find a statement in the "Reply," (p. 15,) to 
 which I beg your particular attention. It is as follows: 
 
 " Milnor Hall, when Mr. D. took charge, (we take his own statement, 
 p. 15, without vouching for its accuracy,) had fifty-four pupils. It 
 therefore yielded by tuition, more than $900 for tlie salary of Mr. D. 
 and the other College officers. The other school he says had forty-two 
 ' when he took charge. Thus it produced in fees for tuition $1,260, all 
 e of which, as its instructors were College officers, was available for their 
 'salaries so that when Mr. D. went to Gambier, these two schools 
 ' yielded an income of at least $2,160." 
 
 " Now what, according to his statement, was their reduced state when 
 ' he was removed ? By his own account the pupils in the Senior Gram- 
 ' mar School had been reduced to eleven, diminishing the income from 
 ' that source from $1260 to $330; and those in Milnor Hall had declined 
 ' to twenty-seven ; so that instead of yielding a nett income of $900 to 
 ' the college deficit, it only met its own expenses. Thus, according to 
 ' Mr. D.'s statement, the falling off in the Grammar Schools at the time 
 ' of his removal, had diminished the means of meeting expenses by at 
 least $1830." 
 
 These calculations, you will observe, are based with great emphasis 
 upon my " statements." But if you will turn to the page (15) to which 
 reference is made, you will see that /am not at all accountable for them. 
 I made no statements, whatever, of the kind quoted. I never said that 
 "Milnor Hall had fifty-four pupils when I took charge." I never said 
 that I took charge of it at all ; under any circumstances it would have 
 been a falsehood. I never said that "the other school had forty-two when 
 I took charge," or that I " took charge" of that any more than of Mil- 
 nor Hall ; it would have been equally untrue.* In all these particulars 
 
 * My language in the passage referred to (part of my address to the Trus- 
 tees, pending their proceedings against me) was as follows : " The falling 
 off in numbers is not in the College classes, but in the Grammar Schools. The 
 effective number in these classes when I came here, was thirty seven ; it is 
 now thirty-nine (40), and has not materially varied from that number in all 
 the intermediate time. In the Senior Grammar School, however, there has 
 been a diminution from forty two, year before last, to twenty four last year, 
 and eleven now. So also in the Junior Grammar school, from fifty -four last 
 year to twenty-teven or eight now. But what is that to me ? I have nothing 
 to do with the internal affairs of those schools ; I took no credit for their in- 
 crease, and I protest against being held in any way responsible for their de- 
 crease. The real causes I apprehend in both cases, were very easily ascer- 
 tained, if that had been the object of your committee." 
 
 My object in this language was plainly to show the absurdity of the hypo- 
 thesis, which made me responsible for the diminution in the Grammar schools 
 with which I had only a very remote connection, when in the college with 
 which I was immediately and responsibly connected, there had been no ma- 
 terial change. I was desirous, also, to excite the Trustees, if there was a
 
 21 
 
 the quotation is false; and as the variation is palpable, and the numbers 
 were so easily corrected, if truth had been the aim of the writer, mere- 
 ly by opening the College catalogue for 1840-41, and as ihe taking 
 " charge" is evidently thrown in with an artful and insidious design to 
 pervert truth in other respects, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion, 
 that the falsehood was wilful and malicious. Mark now how plain a tale 
 shall put it all down. 
 
 As to (he falling off: the Senior Grammar School had, when I went to 
 Gambier, seventeen pupils. Sixteen months afterwards, in the summer of 
 1842, the number had increased to forty-two ; but wanting the care and 
 attention of a zealous and efficient Principal, its most important recita- 
 tions (those of Professor Sandells) being sometimes omitted for nearly 
 a week together, and no effort made to give it unity and character as a 
 Seminary, it gradually lost interest and dwindled down, from sheer want 
 of cultivation, to twelve, (I said eleven, but it should have been twelve,) 
 at the date of my removal. There was in that Institution, therefore, a 
 falling off of five, (from seventeen to twelve), during my official residence 
 on " the Hill," making a diminution of $227 (instead of $1260) in its 
 receipts. In Milnor Hall, the number of pupils when I went to Gambier, 
 was thirty. In two years it increased to fifty-four ; but Irom that time to 
 the date of my removal, it fell off again, (not from the neglect and inat- 
 tention of its principals, as in the former case, but from essential defects 
 in the modes of instiuction), to its original number, about thirty. So 
 that its receipts were not, from first to last, materially altered. And \\o\y 
 let us sum up the whole of this matter. In the College there was an incre- 
 ment of two : in the Senior Grammar School, the falling off (from forty- 
 two to eleven, as they have it) settles down to jive : while in the Junior 
 Grammar School (Milnor Hall) there was no material variation. The 
 aggregate falling off, in ALL the Institution then, from the beginning to 
 the end of my incumbency as President of the College, was three, as to 
 the number of pupils ! and one hundred and thirty-five dollars, (instead 
 of eighteen hundred and thirty) as to the amount of receipts ! Some- 
 what of an error. Typographical, think you ? Bishop Mcllvaine read 
 the proof ! 
 
 But there is a climax of disingenuousness, even, if possible, beyond 
 this, in the renewed attempt to make me responsible for the sins of the 
 Grammar Schools. This is evidently a mortal effort with them, and page 
 after page of the " Reply" is garnished with asseverations and arguments 
 or verbiage intended for argument, to make it out. I am sick of fer- 
 reting out these dishonest fallacies, but this is a point of some impor- 
 tance, and must not be passed over. They say that I was responsible for 
 these schools. 
 
 First. Because the profits arising from them went to pay Ihe salaries 
 of the College officers, dns. So did ths profits of the lands. Was I 
 responsible for theml The Prudential committee, I apprehend, would 
 have had something to say on that subject. 
 
 Secondly. Because the Principals were members of the College Facul- 
 ty, tfns. They were also members of the Education Committee, and 
 might have been members of a dozen organic bodies besides. Would 
 that circumstance have transferred, fro'Y- them, to the heads of those 
 bodies, any part of their proper responsibility as Principals of their res- 
 pective Schools ? 
 
 Thirdly. Because in one of them (the Senior Grammar school,) a Pro- 
 fessor was the Principal, and tutors gave instruction. Sins. The same 
 
 particle of truth or justice in them, to institute an inquiry into the real causes 
 of the former. But it was of no avail.
 
 22 
 
 Professor was also a Preacher, and an instructor in the Theological Semi- 
 nary. Were these departments " as much connected with the President 
 as any department of duty of the same professor ?" And why not, if the 
 principle is sound ? 
 
 Fourthly. Because, in the same school the students live in the College 
 edifice. Ans. Their living there is purely and professedly incidental. 
 Circumstances might render it necessary for Theological students to live 
 there in the same way. Would the President's responsibilities, in that 
 case, extend to the Theological Seminary 1 
 
 Fifthly. Because the Schools are dependant upon the reputation of the 
 College. Ans. So are the tailors, and shoemakers, and trades-people of 
 " the Hill," and what of it ? 
 
 Sixthly. Because "not only the existence, but much of the charac- 
 ter and attainment of the College, depend on them" (the schools.) Ans. 
 There were many things upon which the well-being, and even the exist- 
 ence of the College depends, over which /had no control, and for which 
 I was not in the least responsible. Its resources might be wasted, its 
 property alienated, or its standard of discipline or scholarship fatally de- 
 based, by the mismanagement of an ignorant Board of Trustees. What 
 power had I to prevent it ? There were always abuses and nuisances on 
 " the Hill," which I had no power to reach authoritatively, however 
 much I might use my personal influence to restrain or correct them; as I 
 used that influence to correct evils in the two Grammar schools. 
 
 Seventhly. Because these schools were " important nurseries" for the 
 College, and furnished a large proportion of its pupils ; and "as pupils 
 were sent to (Mem) expressly to be prepared for the college," parents 
 would not so send them if the College was in bad repute, dns. Was I 
 responsible for all the nurseries in which pupils were, or might be reared 
 for Kenyon College? That would be a large responsibility, truly. Eve- 
 ry grammar school in the country, while open for students at large, is 
 also, potentially, a nursery for Kenyon College ; and this was precisely 
 the case in regard to those at Gambier. The Senior Grammar School 
 was "an Academy, or High School, [see Catalogue just published] de- 
 signed for the accommodation of young men who may wish to obtain a 
 thorough English education, pursue a partial classical course, or be pre- 
 pared for admission into the Freshmen class of the College." It had in its 
 best state, twice as many general pupils as candidates for College ; and 
 could have had, under ood management, a much larger proportion. So 
 far from pupils being placed there " expressly to prepare for College," 
 parents much more frequently placed them there under a popular bias 
 against College education altogether, and were only induced to allow 
 them to prepare for- College by great persuasion afterwards.* Milnor 
 Hall, in like manner, was " an Institute of Elementary and Classical In- 
 struction," (see Catalogue) where " Reading, Orthography, and Pen- 
 manship" were taught to boys (from 10 to 15 years old), as well as "the 
 studies required for admission to the Freshmen class of Kenyon College, 
 and such others as are usually taught in common Academies." This In- 
 stitution furnished, in 1841, seven candidates for the Freshmen class, not 
 one of whom, however, was able to proceed with the class in which he 
 entered. In 1842, having about forty pupils, it furnished not a single 
 candidate; and only three out of fifty-four pupils in 1843; making an 
 average of one qualified candidate, out of an average of forty-one boys, 
 per annum. So much for the assertion that pupils were sent there ex- 
 pressly to be prepared for College. 
 
 * I have a volume of correspondence on this subject, with parents who 
 committed their sons to my care.
 
 23 
 
 Eighthly. Because such was the " previous practice," these depart- 
 ments having " always been as much under the direction of that body, 
 (the College Faculty) and consequently under its President, as the Col- 
 lege, in every thing but very minute and subordinate details " Answer. 
 There was not and could not have been any " previous practice" on the 
 subject ; I went to Gambier under " a new organization, provided for by 
 changes in the constitution of the Theological Seminary," (see Bishop 
 Mcllvaine's address to the Convention of 1841), by which new offices, 
 new duties, and new relations, were created in all parts of the Institution. 
 Whatever subordination the Grammar schools may have had to the present 
 faculty, they were not the less organized instilulions under their own proper 
 and responsible heads, nor did the Faculty ever in a single instance 
 overlook that circumstance, by the slightest attempt to exercise a control 
 over the, interior management of either. When they appointed examina- 
 tions, it was as a conservative visitorial body, and at Milnor Hall in 
 particular, they were, on such occasions, always regarded and treated 
 as the guests for the time being, of that Institution. The assertion, 
 therefore, that these schools were, in the same sense as the College, under 
 the direction of the Faculty, is simply false. But even if it had been 
 true, it by no means follows that the President was individually respon- 
 sible for the acts of the body. 
 
 Ninthly. It is said that " the doctrine that the President of the College 
 had nothing to do with the internal affairs of the Grammar schools, was 
 as new to the Trustees as it was surprising," and that " no Officer of any 
 department, no Trustee, no one but Mr. D. ever took any other view than 
 that taken" by the author of the Reply. The profound ignorance of 
 the Trustees on all matters (of fact and principle,) connected with the 
 real interests of the Institution, renders the first clause of this allegation 
 extremely probable.* The second is simply untrue. I venture to affirm, 
 without fear of contradiction, that no person on the " Hill" ever alluded 
 to me or thought of me as the head of either Grammar school. I am per- 
 fectly certain that I never performed a single act, or gave a single direc- 
 tion in that character ; and that if I had done so, it would have been 
 indignantly resisted, and universally regarded as an act of arrogant and 
 unjustifiable usurpation. 
 
 But it is stated by Bishop Mcllvaine that " before (I) began (my) 
 duties, (I) asked (him) to explain (my) relations to those schools, espe- 
 cially Milnor Hall. Which he did; slating that according to all the 
 previous practice and universal interpretation, (I) was President of these 
 departments precisely as of the College ; that (I) was never heard to 
 demur to that construction, that (I) began and went on in the fulfilment 
 of that trust, and conversed with the Bishop about those institulions, as 
 having that relation to them." If I understand this language right, it is 
 a reiteration in the Bishop's own name, of what I have just denied, viz. 
 that I was constituted the organic head of the two Grammar schools, and 
 endowed with administrative functions in and over them, exactly as in the 
 College. But the Bishop is mistaken. With a full sense of the responsi- 
 bility of what I am saying, and as I shall answer hereafter, I solemnly 
 declare that the whole of the statement for which he here makes himself 
 responsible is untrue. He gave no such " construction"; he conferred 
 no such powers. I did not " begin to fulfil" any such " trust," nor did 
 I ever ".converse with the Bishop about these institutions as having such 
 a relation to them." I would not have accepted the Presidency, under 
 any circumstances, encumbered with such a condition. The powers of 
 
 * One of the best informed of them was surprised, only a few months be- 
 fore, to learn that the President's salary was only $1000.
 
 24 
 
 the Presidential office were certainly defined as extending, in a certain 
 sense, to these Grammar schools, 1 was in favor at (hat time, and the 
 Bishop exceedingly liberal, but it was as to them, a supervisory power, 
 over organised departments, each having its own pioper head, responsi- 
 ble, not to me, but to him the uishop and the Board of Trustees ; su- 
 pervisory, as his own oversight of a parish is supervisory, and not at all 
 administrative or interior, like that of the President over the College. I 
 again solemnly affirm, that no such construction was ever put upon my 
 duties or my responsibilities by the Bishop or any one else, till it became 
 necessary to trump up a pretext for my removal. And I appeal to the 
 unvarying usage and custom of the '' Hill"; to the constant language of 
 Bishop Mcllvaine, and to the repeated declarations of the Board of Trus- 
 tees, in corroboration of this fact. What man, woman or child, ever 
 looked to me for any single function or responsibility in the interior man- 
 agement of Milnor Hall i Was any body, but Mr. Blake and Mr. Badger, 
 ever so much as thought of in connection with those responsibilities ? I 
 answer unhesitatingly, and without fear of contradiction from any quar- 
 ter, no ! And the same is equally predicable of the Senior Grammar 
 school. Look at the catalogues. They give in due order the names of 
 the HEADS and all the MEMBERS of those schools, but they give not the 
 slightest reference to the President, as having any organic connection 
 with them whatever. Hear also Bishop Mcllvaine. As early as 1833, 
 in his appeal to the public, he spoke of the Institution as consisting of 
 " four distinct seminaries the Theological Seminary, Kenyon College, 
 the Senior Preparatory, and Junior Preparatory Grammar Schools." in 
 all the negotiation under which I became President of the College, the 
 Preparatory Schools were not so much as named or alluded to by him. 
 In his address to the convention of 1841, after speaking in great praise of 
 the College under my Presidency, he thus proceeds: " The same may 
 be said with emphasis, of the Junior Preparatory school, Milnor Hall. 
 Under the great efforts and untiring zeal of the Principals, that department 
 has been wholly renovated, &c." Finally, observe the language and 
 action of the Board of Trustees, to the same effect. In their Report to 
 the Convention of 1839, they say : " The Institution, as the Convention 
 are aware, comprises four departments a Theological and Collegiate, 
 and two Academical or Preparatory ; each has its appropriate officers, 
 its separate course of studies, and its peculiar regulations and discipline." 
 In the reports of committees entered upon their minutes as for instance, 
 at the meeting at Gambier in September 1842, when a committee reported 
 the (then) prosperous condition of the Junior Grammar School, to 
 whom do they refer as the responsible head ol that Institution ? To me ? 
 Oh no ! Such a reference would have been perfectly ridiculous. No ! 
 They refer justly and properly to Messrs. Blake and Badger the joint 
 Principals ; and I venture to say, that the absurdity of a reference to me 
 in that relation, is not to be found any where in the records of that astute 
 body, however ready they may have been to " see things otherwise," 
 when THE BISHOP had a special end to be answered by their so seeing. 
 
 But though I had, as I have thus clearly shown, " nothing to do with 
 the internal affairs of these schools, I was not indifferent to their welfare, 
 and did faithfully, perhaps too faithfully, all that was in my power to 
 avert the state of things, which in my view incurred, as to them, the 
 loss of public confidence and patronage. What that state of things 
 was, in regard to the Senior Grammar School, I have already in part 
 intimated. You will better understand it, however, as well as some 
 other things connected with the whole subject, by the addition of a gene- 
 ral remark, which I may insert here. 

 
 25 
 
 The whole Institution, College and Grammar schools, at the date of 
 my first personal acquaintance with them, was found, as to classic dis- 
 cipline, most unexpectedly and alarmingly low; greatly below that of 
 any reputable eastern College: And the Grammar schools, far from fur- 
 nishing a resource for the correction of this evil, stood precisely in the 
 way of any substantial improvement. The desire of the Principals, young 
 in office, to fulfil the expectations of parents, (often injudiciously exci- 
 ted,) in regard to the admission of their sons into the College, was para- 
 mount, whether the latter were prepared or not; and it was no uninvidi- 
 ous task 1 assure you, for me, or any one else, to raise a question on the 
 ground of qualification. In the Senior Grammar school, and in the Col- 
 lege, by operating through the Tutors, I was enabled to accomplish some- 
 thing, notwithstanding the inertia and occasionally the undissembled op- 
 position of Professor Sandels. But in the Junior Grammar school, hav- 
 ing no such lever, my task was a much more difficult one. My first im- 
 pressions of that Institution weie highly in its favor. It was vacation, but 
 the <reneral arrangements for police and external management, seemed 
 admirable, and I supposed every thing else must be upon the same foot- 
 ing. This impression was a little shaken during the summer of 1841, but 
 complet ly overset at the first examination I atlended, in July of that 
 year; and I became painfully aware, that, with all the decorum and pro- 
 priety of its external arrangements, there was no such thing as sound 
 mental discipline in the school.* The candidates for the Freshman class 
 of the College, furnished no exception to this remark ; they were totally 
 unfitted for admission. A years' hard study would scarcely have qualified 
 them for admission into any respectable college ; and yet Mr. Badger, 
 their instructor, thought them well prepared, f Mr. Sandels did not ob- 
 ject, and I was too new to the whole system lo be at liberty to take the 
 stand which my judgment strongly suggested. Six of the seven were 
 therefore admitted, to the entire satisfaction of their parents, and the 
 great glory of the Junior Grammar School. 
 
 And no v, what think you was my duty in these premises ? Messrs. 
 Blake and Badger were not appointed by me ; they were not in any way 
 accountable to me in the performance of their d Jties ; but the well-being 
 of the College, and a really friendly regard for them (Blake and Badger,) 
 and for the institution over which they presided, forbade that I should pass 
 over this state of things without some attempt to ameliorate it. Nor did 
 I. I embraced an early opportunity of conversing on the subject with 
 Mr. Badger, expressed, with perfect frankness, and as much freedom as 
 I felt myself at liberty to use, the results of my observaiion, and my 
 views as to the proper mo-ie of classic discipline, tendered my services, 
 at his pleasure, to visit the school, and, in any way, giveall the influence 
 in my power to stimulate the pupils in their classic recitations. So far as 
 Mr. Badger was concerned, I have reason to believe these suggestions 
 were received, as they were certainly given, in a kind and friendly spirit; 
 but I am equally certain that they were coldly and unkindly regarded by 
 Mr. Blake ; that my personal efforts at the " Hall" were deemed obtru- 
 sive by him, and the impediment thrown in the way of the promotion of 
 Milnor Hall boys, invidious and offensive. Certain I am, that his man- 
 
 * There was scarcely a question asked on any subject, from the beginning 
 to the end of the examination, that was not answered by the examiner, or so 
 put in a leadinsr form as to infallibly suggest the answer. In the Classics, 
 there was scarcely a phrase construed or a word parsed, in which all that 
 had any approximation to correctness, was not suggested seriatim by the ex- 
 aminer. These circumstances were particularly noted at the time. 
 
 t Mr. Blake did not pretend to teach even thus far, in elastics.
 
 26 
 
 ner towards me became more repulsive, and at times positively insulting; 
 nor was 1 at all surprised to he informed* that the boys, his pupils, 
 went home to their parents with a strong impression " against the Presi- 
 dent." 
 
 That I should have relaxed the zeal of my supervisory efforts under 
 these circumstances, seems tome a matter of course ; and yet the author 
 of the " Reply," page 16, adverts to it as if it was a dereliction of duty. 
 He would have had me go on, it seems, in the course of action I had cho- 
 sen to adopt, without any regard to the amount of ill-feeling or jealousy 
 (unpopularity) I might incur from Mr. Blake, or any one else ; and yet, 
 mark me, I have been tried and condemned in the secret councils of this 
 man (the writer of the Reply) and his colleagues ; and actually hurled 
 from my office, without a moment's warning, ON A SECRET PRESENT- 
 MENT FOR UNPOPULARITY, RESTING UPON THE SECRET IN- 
 FORMATION OF THIS VERY MR. BLAKE. 
 
 But I must get back to my subject. I have been drawn aside, perhaps 
 too far, in speaking of my relations to the two Grammar Schools, in con- 
 sequence of the attempt of my adversaries to fix upon ME the responsi- 
 bility of their decline. I do not forget, however, that I am really discus- 
 sing a. financial question, touching an alleged insufficiency of the receipts 
 to meet the expenses of the institution, and that it still remains to be in- 
 quired. 
 
 Thirdly. Whether the " deficit," spoken of by Bishop Mcllvaine, 
 may not have arisen from the falling off of the LAND REVENUE ? I 
 have shown that there was no " deficit," in the proper sense of that term, 
 in the College ; that there was not a very considerable one from firsl to 
 last, and leaving responsibility out of the question, in the Senior Gram- 
 mar School; and in the Junior Grammar School, regarding it in the same 
 aspect, none. The only other soutce of revenue, to be noticed, then, is 
 the DOMAIN, the " COLLEGE TOWNSHIP," the lands, farms, build- 
 ings, &c., the administration of which, in t heory and practice, was exclu- 
 sively reserved to the Episcopale, as PRUDENTIAL COMMITTEE. 
 
 By the Treasurer's report in 1835, heretofore referred to, it appears lhat 
 although the deficit of the college for that year, (after absorbing all the 
 profits of the Grammar schools), was more than $1700, the revenue, from 
 land and other rents, was sufficient, not only to extinguish this arrearage, 
 but to meet the interest of the debt, amounting to nearly as much more, 
 and still leave an unexpended balance of .$450 in the Treasury. The nett 
 income from this source, was, in short, at that time, $3841. It would not 
 be unreasonable, I think, to expect that (his income had been somewhat in- 
 creased in 1844, by the improvements from 1835 to that time ; and espe- 
 cially as we find an addition of som $6000 1o the capital debt, on that ac- 
 count; a considerable portion of which must have been incurred within that 
 period. But even if it had remained unaltered, as THE DEBT of (he in- 
 stitution had been paid, and the interest account, therefore, extinguished, 
 it was sufficient to have met the entire wants of the Collegiafe depart- 
 ment, (in 1844), inclijvling the " $400 for a Theological Professor," and 
 still to have left a surplus of from $1700 to $1800 in the Treasury. The 
 declaration of Bishop Mcllvaine, then, "that there would be a deficit to a 
 large amount," after all the " income of the lands," Sfc., " had been ex- 
 pended," implies that there must have been a falling off in the latter since 
 1835, of from $2500 to $3000 ; and this conclusion is verified by other 
 evidences, bearing upon the subject. The Report of the Trustees lo the 
 Convention of 1843 for instance, under the head of " Buildings, 
 
 This fact was stated in terms by the Bishop, in his interview with the Se- 
 nior and Sophomore classes, as I am prepared to prove.
 
 27 
 
 Farms," Sfc., gives the " total receipts, $2992.20," and the " t ot al 
 expenditures, $1928.67," leaving an " excess of receipts, $1063.53." 
 Finally it was stated by Mr. Dennison, in committee, on the memorable 
 evening of the 28lh of February, 1844, that the nett amount of the land 
 revenue for the year, would not exceed $900. 
 
 Here, then, is the rub the real source of the alarming deficit so much 
 talked of; not " in the salaries of the College officers," nor in " the de- 
 clining state of (the College) department " as the Bishop has it but in 
 the prostration, the frilterring away of the means, duly provided and al- 
 ways counted upon, for the payment of those salaries. Think of the rev- 
 enue of this magnificent domain 4,000 acres of rich, productive Ohio 
 land estimated by the Trustees in 1842 (see Journal of Convention, page 
 74,) at $90,000 besides mill property, and a whole village of tenements; 
 the revenue from all these sources, amounting, in 1835, to almost $4,000 
 per annum, now dwindled down, under the management of the Pruden- 
 tial Committee, to $900! Can any one, contemplating this state of things, 
 fail to perceive the deep policy of the whole proceeding against me ? At 
 a moment when the mismanagement of this noble property seems to have 
 reached its climax, when the evidence of its abuse had become too pal- 
 pable to remain much longer unobserved, when it was daily to be ex- 
 pected that the friends and patrons of the Institution would become 
 alarmed and call for some inquiry on the subject, a hubbub is suddenly 
 raised about " the unpopularity of the President," an alarming " diminu- 
 tion in the College classes " is discovered all at once, the Institution is 
 threatened with a " deficit to a large amount " in consequence, and " a 
 new debt will have to be incurred (so they say) unless he (the President) 
 is immediately removed from office." All this is duly seasoned (in the 
 Reply) with intimations of the wasteful expenditures of that officer his 
 recklessness in such matters his utter indifference, in short, to all con- 
 siderations of this kind; and, on the other hand, in strong contrast, the 
 solemn responsibility of the Bishop his vigilance in guarding against 
 abuses his " bounden duty to a College, which, by so MUCH LABOR, 
 
 HE HAD JUST SUCCCEEDED IN RELIEVING FROM ITS EMBAR- 
 RASSMENTS." Can it be a question, I say, in the mind of any one, af- 
 ter what has been said, that all this is but part and parcel of the most 
 deep and subtle scheme to overwhelm me, and at the same time to divert 
 inquiry from a real and palpable abuse of a great public trust ? And see 
 how perfectly it would have been consummated had I been weak enough, 
 under the wheedling of Col. Bond, to tender my resignation. 
 
 We proceed, now, to examine the mode and the means and appliances 
 by which, according to the " Reply," the final result was brought about: 
 " The Bishop was bound (he tells us) as President of the Corporation and 
 Prudential Committee, to look into the causes of this deficiency, and 'his 
 he (accordingly) proceeded to do with all delicacy and caution." What 
 were the Bishop's ideas of " delicacy and caution ?" Doubtless you will 
 say he went immediately to the President, and spread the whole matter 
 confidentially before him. The President was at the head of Ihe Acade- 
 mic administration no small responsibility and more deeply interested, 
 personally, in the prosperity of the College than any other individual. It 
 is hardly supposable that he could have been called to that situation with- 
 out some pretension, also, to experience and education, and professional 
 standing; and a reference to the contemporaneous le'ters and publications 
 of Bishop Mcllvaine, show that he actually regarded him as holding a 
 very high rank in all these respects* Besides, he was the Bishop's "dear" 
 
 The following article, from the Western E. Observer of March 27th, 1841, 
 is instructive on this subject as coming from the pen of Bishop Mcllvaine. 
 Of course I am not responsible for its hyperbolisms :
 
 28 
 
 and "old friend;" having acknowledged claims upon him from " Ihe 
 long and intimate associations " subsisting between them, (nearly twen- 
 ty years) " under such various and interesting circumstances."* In ev- 
 ery view of the case, under every suggestion of official propriety, frank- 
 ness, faith and honor, it was the plain and obvious duty of Bishop Mcll- 
 vaine to consult the President of the College at the very threshhold of tliis 
 inquiry. Did he do so? Oh no! His "delicacy and caution " were of a 
 different complexion altogether; not the caution that hesitates under the 
 fear of doing wrong, but that which seeks concealment, and dreads only 
 discovery. The inquiry was secret. No little address must have been 
 required to keep it from coming to the ears of the President, eight entire 
 weeks, (the Bishop and his consultants being all the while in daily inter- 
 course with me,) till his Trustees could be got together, and the blow 
 struck; Out it was not wanting. The mind that conceived the plan had 
 in it precisely those elements of " delicacy and caution " needful for its 
 execution. The eight weeks rolled round; the Board met, and their work 
 was already done before a single note of alarm reached me. Yet the Bi- 
 shop would have it believed there was no plot, no design, no scheme 
 against me at all. 
 
 Who were the persons actually honored with the Episcopal confidence 
 in these proceedings ? My particular friends, he tells us; persons who 
 had been advanced by my patronage, and who enjoyed, in some sense, 
 my regard and confidence. This was his idea of " delicacy." But why 
 such delicacy if there was no previous design no presentiment in his 
 
 "KENYON COLLEGE President Douglass arrived at Gambier the day before 
 the close of the term last week. His connections, in the duties of an Engi- 
 neer with an extensive company in New York having been rendered unex- 
 pectedly difficult of completion by the increase of embarrassments in the bu- 
 siness community of the East, have occasioned, necessarily, some delay in his 
 coming to the sphere of his future labors. Meanwhile, however, the full 
 course of study in the College has been vigorously sustained. The Faculty is 
 now very strong. President Douglass has had great experience in education, 
 and been most zealously enlisted in the effort to improve the literature and 
 science of our country by means of Institutions combining the decided incul- 
 cation of Christian principles and duties with the pursuit of secular learning. 
 No less than sixteen classes, of as many successive years, at West Point, were 
 trained by him, as he filled successively the Professorships of Mathematics, 
 of Natural Philosophy, and of Civil and Military Engineering. Almost all 
 the eminent scientific instructors, who were trained at that Institution, were 
 educated by him. Prof. Ross, of Mathematics, at Kenyon College, who is 
 universally considered as second to no mathematician or instructor in Ameri- 
 ca, was his pupil. So were the Professors who now occupy the three princi- 
 pal chairs at West Point. To the great devotion and skill of President Doug- 
 lass in the cause of education, he adds the zeal of a devoted Christian, for the 
 highest interests of man, associated with the utmost kindness of manner, and 
 benevolence of disposition. The cause of literature and science in the West 
 has received, indeed, a great accession of strength in the person of this gen- 
 tleman, and Kenyon College may well be proud of her President." 
 
 Who could have anticipated that, in three years from the date of this arti- 
 cle, the eminent, devoted, and benevolent individual here described, should 
 have been characterized by the same pen as " chilling and repelling " in his 
 manners " constitutionally and habitually unfit for office. only appointed 
 thereto " when it really went a beaging," Sic., and that he should have been 
 arraigned dismissed rather without a previous complaint made, or ques- 
 tion asked, on the presentment of the College bell ringer. But even this is not 
 the greatest of the marvels connected with this strange proceeding. 
 
 See the Bishop's letter of condolence, dated the day after my dismissal 
 in my former itatement, page 34.
 
 29 
 
 mind against me ? Why avoid me, whom, on every just principle, he 
 should have consulted, to tamper with the weak (or unprincipled?) breth- 
 ren of my Academic family ? The Bishop himself gives the solution : 
 "The President had a few days before more than once informed (him) 
 that the College was never in a nealthier state. Such (he adds) being ihe 
 remaikable contrast between his idf-a of the state of things and that of 
 his officers, the Bishop proceeded to no further inquiries," &c. In other 
 words, my testimony did not suit theirs did.* 
 
 The Bishop labors hard to bolster up the respectability of his consult- 
 ants, and make it appear that they were a considerable portion of the offi- 
 cers of the College; but they were not so, either in numbers, experience, 
 intelligence, or general character. Mr. Blake, as I have already stated, 
 was one of the Heads of the Junior Grammar School. He (or his col- 
 league) had indeed a seat in the Faculty, (for what purpose is not exact- 
 ly known) but he was not a College officer, nor competent, by his own 
 acknowledgment, to have discharged the duties of the lowest Academic 
 station there. Mr. Lang was, in no sense, an " officer" of the College 
 or of the faculty. He was simply an undergraduate student, to whom 
 the perquisite of ringing the bell had been given, to aid him in his (me- 
 ritorious) efforts to complete his education; and for this purpose also I 
 had recommended him as a teacher of Elementary Mathematics in the 
 Senior Grammar School J 
 
 Of the four consultants then named by the Bishop, and so often referred 
 to as " THE officers," only two were really officers of the College at all. 
 There were in Ihe College altogether, as you probably know, four Pro- 
 fessors and two Tutors. The Bishop's consultation embraced but a sin- 
 gle person of each grade. Prof. Ross was not included, any more than 
 myself, nor Prof. Thrall, nor Tutor Comstock; Prof. Sandels and Tutor 
 Gilbs were, and to them were added Mr. Blake, the English teacher of 
 the Junior Grammar School, and the undergraduate, Mr. Lang ; and it is 
 this compound of odds and ends that is held up in the " Reply " as the 
 Academic corps the official body of the College " my officers," &c. 
 
 I shall not undertake to distribute very nicely the proportions of dis- 
 honor incurred by the individual parties of this quartette. I cannot but 
 hope yet that the agency of some one or two of them is misrepresented in 
 the " Reply." They were examined separately, it seems and in private. 
 Bishop Mcllvaine was at liberty to make any version of their replies he 
 thought proper; nor does he pretend to have submitted that version to be 
 corrected and verified by them afterwards, except in the particular case 
 of Prof. Sandels. The presentment set forth in Ihe " Reply " then, (p. 
 8-9,) while it purports to have come from the joint and unanimous testi- 
 
 * The Bishop throws m a remark at this point, that I was indifferent to the 
 pecuniary welfare of the Institution, and took no concern in its indebtedness, 
 &c. The assertion, however, is wholly gratuitous not only unproven bntin- 
 capable of proof for it is untrue. During all my early residence on the "Hill" 
 I was unceasing in my inquiries and conversations on this subject, till it be- 
 came too evident to te mistaken that the Bishop did not intend i> admit me, 
 quo ad hoc, to his confidence : and it was pointedly intimated to me by Prof. 
 Sandels, when the Bishop's obliquities towards me first began to be noticed, 
 that THIS was a point on which he could not bear to be questioned. " You 
 may get along with him (said he) on all other points, but beware of that," 
 and accordingly I did, then and for that reason only, begin to beware. But I 
 did not cease to feel therefore ; and perhaps it may yet appear that I felt as 
 much and as disinterestedly even as Bishop Mcllvaine. 
 
 J A College honor open to undergraduates.
 
 30 
 
 raony of the four, really stands upon his declaration alone; nor will I be- 
 lieve, till it is established by unequivocal testimony, under the test of a 
 cross examination, that either of the others Lang and Gibbs at least 
 would deliberately have verified what (hey could not but have known to 
 be false. It is, however, unquestionable, that while they were in daily 
 and familiar intercourse with me Gibbs and Sandels as members of the 
 Academic family, and Lang as a favored pupil and all, except Mr. 
 Blake, apparently on terms of the most entiie confidence and coidiality; 
 they were for eight weeks also in the relation of secret correspondents of 
 Bishop Mcllvaine, and, with full consciousness, co-operating in a design 
 to drive me from my office and station, by an attack upon the dearest and 
 most vital of all this world's interests my name and character. It will 
 be said, perhaps, in excuse, that they weie called upon by the Bishop. I 
 answer, the Bishop must have known upon whom to call, and how to season 
 his application. He called u\>onthem because they were available for his 
 purpose, and did not presume to call upon others who he knew were 
 not available.* 
 
 But the important part in all this preparatory movement seems to have 
 been played by Professor Sandels ; Professor of the Latin and Greek 
 Languages and Literature" in Kenyon College ; head of the Senior 
 Grammar School, and " Instructor of Lalin and Greek" in the Theologi- 
 cal Seminary of the Diocese nf Ohio. Such an accumulation of titles 
 and offices would ordinarily imply ihat the incumbent must be some vete- 
 ran in literature, deeply read in all the lore of classical antiquity, and 
 perfectly at home in all the disciplinary administration of " Colleges and 
 Halls." In the present instance, however, you must prepare yourself for 
 a different reality. The professor was no veteran ; an Irishman by birth, 
 not very long in this country, without any regular education, graduated 
 in no college, and never associated (till he came to Kenyon,) with any 
 academic body whatever. So late as 1840 he was a Theological student 
 in the Seminary ; but having made himself in some way useful to the 
 Bishop in the movements of that year, he was suddenly elevated after 
 a short period of tutor's duty, a little before his ordination to the 
 Professorship, and other responsibilities above named. His depart- 
 ment, as I have already intimated, was, in discipline and attain- 
 ment, far below the grade of the same department in respecable 
 eastern Colleges. It could not well be otherwise. The discipine, as 
 line, as might be expected, was extremely superficial ; in addition to 
 which a considerable proportion of his recitations were often omitled on 
 the slightest pretexts. It is susceptible of proof, that at the date of my 
 removal, the most delinquent person graduate or undergraduate con- 
 nected with the Institution, was the Professor of Languages. He had 
 heard the Freshman class in Xenophon but 17 recitations, and the Juniurs 
 in Tacitus but 16, in eight weeks, and wondered why the latter did not 
 take more interest in the subject. His turn at prayers was omitted not 
 uncommonly four or five times out of seven for months together ; the 
 
 * Mr. Lang was appointed Head of the Senior Grammar School a few 
 months after. Mr. Gibbs is styled in the "Reply" "an officer of (my) 
 choosing," but he was not chosen by me. Prior to his appointment, I had 
 never seen him or heard of him. A Tutor was to be chosen ; the Senior Tu- 
 tor, with whom he was to be associated in duty, strongly recommended a 
 friend and classmate, whose name was Gibbs ; I nominated him accordingly, 
 and he was elected by the Faculty. Had I known him I should not have no- 
 minated him, for many reasons. Though of mature age, he was in mind, 
 character, intelligence and manners, a mere youth ; and over and above all, 
 an open declaimer against the church, by whose endowment he was paid and 
 gratuitously instructed.
 
 31 
 
 excuse being, THAT HE COULD NOT WAKE UP. These derelictions 
 of duty were the subject of earnest and oft repeated appeals on my part ; 
 and it is known to Professor toss, as well as to Professor Sandels, lhat 
 for a long time it was to me a subject of deep grief, that 1 could not by 
 any admonitions or entreaties, awaken in the iatter the least interest in 
 any of the duties to which he was pledged. * 
 
 Such was the character and responsibility of the chief witness in this 
 proceeding ; and it Avas before such testimony, be it remembered, that 
 the " skill," and " experience," and " zeal" and devotion and Christian 
 character and " benevolence of disposition" of the new President, so 
 recently lauded in all the forms of rhetoric by Bishop Mcllvaine, vanished 
 from his mind like the early dew. It was not even necessary to " ask 
 HIS opinion" on a subject of the most momentous concern to himself and 
 to the Institution ; " the remarkable contrast between his idea -of the 
 stale of things and that of his officers ; (i. e. Blake, Lang, Gibbs and 
 Sandels,) being in the Bishop's opinion a sufficient reason for making 
 " no further inquiries." The testimony thus drawn out and recorded in 
 the Bishop's private memorandum. (Reply, p. 8-9,) embraces substan- 
 tially the following allegations : P\rst that the students were without 
 exception extremely dissatisfied with the President's " ways and modes, 
 in the government of the College, and with no person or thing of the 
 Institution besides. Secondly that because of this dissatisfaction they 
 had lost their interest in the Institution and become indifferent to its 
 discipline. Thirdly that the spread of these sentiments abroad, had 
 made parents far and wide unwilling to send their sons. And finally 
 that the same feeling pervaded the Faculty ; the President having usurped 
 all the powers of government, to the exclusion of that body, and they 
 allowing it only " from a wish to avoid unpleasant difficulties with him." 
 
 These allegations, though of no particular importance as bearing upon 
 the ulterior action of the Board of Trustees, for they were not laid be- 
 fore that body at all, are yet of no little significance as developing the 
 grounds of the Bishop's action, and the state of the plot on the 6th of 
 January. I am not arraigned, you perceive, on any charge of miscon- 
 duct, (unless the last allegation be supposed to embrace some intimation 
 of that kind,) but upon an opinion of my official conduct and character 
 said to have been held by the students ; as if such an opinion unstable 
 and fluctuating as it is known to be was a proper test of my official 
 character and faithfulness as President of the College. Who ever ex- 
 pected that in the discharge of my difficult and responsible duties, I 
 should escape the judgment, sometimes even the harsh judgments, of 
 those under my care ! Bishop Mcllvaine called me to Gambier, lor the 
 purposi: of taking responsibility, in the enforcement of a vigorous system 
 of discipline and study ; and neither he or I ever expected this to be 
 done without great self-sacrifice, and severe trials of firmness and pa- 
 tience, f Yet here I find him with his pliant auxiliaries, making my very 
 self-devotion in this cause, the lever for my destruction ; and that too, 
 
 * The relations in which I found the Professor with Bishop M. on my arri- 
 val at fJambier, naturally gave him a large share of my confidence. He also 
 sympathised or appeared to sympathize warmly with me on various matters 
 and occasions where sympathy was needful , (particularly in regard to 
 church matters, and the obliquities of Bishop M. towards me in 1842-3 till 
 September, 1843. His salary was raised then; and after that I heard no more 
 of sympathy ; and the plot against me was brought to its maturity, precisely 
 in the four following months. 
 
 t The following extract from the address of the Bishop to the Convention of 
 1837 , will show what were his sentiments on this subject at that time : '* If the
 
 32 
 
 when he knew (every ingenuous student could not but see) that in thus 
 subjecting the highest executive function to the irresponsible, and often 
 prejudiced opinions of the students, he was virtually surrendering all that 
 was dignified and respectable in the character and government of the 
 College. Who, after this, can exercise authority, or administer discip- 
 line in K>nyon College, except in such degrees and proportions as the 
 subjects of such discipline may be pleased to approve. Bishop Mcllvaine 
 having made their approval the unqualified test of executive faithfulness, 
 future Presidents and Professors will disregard it at their peril ; and 
 what then becomes of the dignity and character of the College ? 
 
 Apart from the principle, I could have had no objection to rest my 
 case upon an appeal to the students actually then present. 
 
 I had not indeed made their approval the primary object of my admin- 
 istration, but I had not been therefore regardless of it. Their confidence 
 was very dear to me, and it was one of my most cherished reflections, in 
 the midst of laborious duties and severe trials, that by the uncompromi- 
 sing devotion of myself to the permanent welfare of the Institution, and 
 the highest inteiests of those connected with it, I was establishing the su- 
 rest claim to the ultimate approbation of every intelligent, thoughtful, and 
 right minded student. I had moreover a sincere regard for a large pro- 
 portion of the students personally, and I could not doubt that lhat regard 
 was in some degree reciprocated. Without making any particular in- 
 quiries, I had sensible evidence that it was reciprocated; and when the 
 charge of unpopularity was brought out upon me, with the suddenness of an 
 electric shock, on the evening of the 28th of February, I was far less amazed 
 by the suddenness than by the substance of the allegation, and the confi- 
 dent assurance with which it was made. The clearest convictions of my 
 understanding, the results of all my experience in the daily intercourse of 
 the students a far more intimate intercourse than any other person en- 
 joyed were diametrically contradicted by it. And it was only by the 
 spon'.aneous reaction of the students themselves, a few days after, that I 
 
 number of students in the College classes, (he observes) exclusive of those in 
 the preparatory departments, seems small in comparison with other Institu- 
 tions, it should be recollected that in the West, a College can hardly be expected 
 to sustain a dignified stand, as to the requisites of admission; to enforce a 
 vigorous system of internal discipline, and carry out such a course of study as 
 becomes its profession and its degrees, without sacrificing for a long time 
 numbers for attainments. It is the determination of those in the adminis- 
 tration of Kenyori College, to endeavor to attain an enlarged patronage with- 
 out compromise with any defective notions of education or any humoring of 
 popular caprice. A few young men well educated are worth a host super- 
 ficially taught. Such a determination in this country requires much patience 
 and firmness in the prosecution ; but I trust it will never yield to any tempta- 
 tion to popularity or pecuniary increase ; ultimately it must have its reward." 
 Entertaining precisely the same views, I wrote to Bishop M. in the course of 
 our negotiation in 1840, to know whether I could depend upon being sustained 
 in them by the Board of Trustees, and the following is his reply : " The 
 questions you propose as to the interference of the Board, &c. may all be 
 answered in one sentence they have never interfered in such things all has 
 been left to the Faculty all under yon will be ; so you are left at ease on all 
 such heads ; therefore I conclude you will certainly come,"&c. 
 
 The same views were also taken and sustained in all my consultations 
 with the Bishop before entering upon my duties, and it was announced 
 in the chapel, that thorough discipline and sound scholarship would be 
 insisted upon at all events. Finally, in my address at the commencement 
 of 1842, the same determination was still more strongly and fully expressed, 
 before a very large audience of the friends of the institution the Bishop 
 being present and tacitly approving. It was a settled system therefore, fully 
 understood and sanctioned by him and duly published, on which I acted.
 
 33 
 
 was relieved from this state of perplexity and doubt. The following are 
 the facts. 
 
 1 had been giving a course of popular lectures, at the request of the 
 students, on a subject of military history, the last of which was to be 
 delivered on the Saturday evening after my dismissal; but being placed 
 in a new position by that event, and as a hostile feeling was said to exist 
 among the students, I was in doubt whether I might not expose myself 
 to some unpleasant exhibition of that feeling in giving the lecture; and, 
 finally concluded not to give it. Immediately on making the announce- 
 ment, however, I was waited upon by a number of the students, with an 
 urgent request that I would by no means give up the lectuie; and in re- 
 ply to the reason assigned, the most full and affectionate disclaimers 
 were uttered and reiterated by them in behalf of the whole body of the 
 students. Thus reassured, I went to the chapel at the hour appointed, and 
 gave my lecture to a most attentive and respectful audience, adding at 
 the conclusion, as the occasion seemed to demand it, a few words of part- 
 ing counsel to my young friends, without any reference however to the 
 subject matter of my removal. The professors and their families were 
 there, and most of the population of the " Hill," and many of them will 
 undoubtedly recollect the strong emotion with which these last words 
 were received by the students; the enthusiastic response to the vote of 
 thanks; the call that was made upon me for the charges on which 1 had 
 been removed, and my answer;* and the motion to pass a vote of censure 
 upon the Trustees; which motion, I am confidently assured, would have 
 passed by a large majority had I not interposed to prevent it; and finally 
 the adjournment of the students to meet again on Monday. So far from 
 any demonstration of hostile feeling, many of the students gathered 
 round me, in leaving the Chapel, with the strongest expression of their 
 sympaihy and regard; and I have before me unequivocal evidence that 
 such was the sentiment of the great body of the students all, indeed, 
 except a very few, and those mostly, if not all, beneficiaries the paid 
 retainers of the Education Committee. At the meeting on Monday they 
 passed unanimously, and of their own motion, without any influence of 
 mine, (Mr. Lang being in the chair,) a set of resolutions, much more 
 strongly expressed and more decidedly in my favor than the letter of 
 which the Bishop makes so much account, and it was only when they 
 were discussing an incidental question about publishing the resolves, that 
 two or three beneficiaries came in, and excited some opposition; and even 
 then their plea for so doing was the injury they affected to think the re- 
 solutions would do mtf.f So much for the universal dissatisfaction of the 
 students with my administration. 
 
 * I objected to any discussion or action on this subject, but as the question 
 was catagorical, as to the matter charged against me, I felt mjself al liberty 
 to give them the answer which had been given to me, by one of the Trus- 
 tees (Col. Bond) in reply to the very same question, which was as follows: 
 "Nothing at all sir! I have not heard the beginning of a charge against 
 you." A resolution was then moved denouncing the "injustice of my re- 
 moval," but I admonished them to abstain from any proceedings of that 
 kind, and immediately left the desk. My position was a very difficult one. 
 I asked the opinion of several of the Professors afterwards, as to the pro- 
 priety of my action. None of them censured me and Prof. Ross in particu- 
 lar, though: I might have gone much farther. 
 
 t I am said to have stimulated the-e meetings, and to have collected the 
 students at my house, and to have " made great efforts to enlist their sym- 
 pathies against the Bishop and the Board of Trustees}" but it is untrue, in 
 every particular. I did not assemble the students in a single instance; I 
 had nothing to do directly or indirectly, with any of their meetings; my sons 
 were forbidden to attend them. A letter now before me, of which I have 
 
 5
 
 34 
 
 But how, you will ask, could a memorandum have been made so oppo- 
 site to the truth ? I ask in reply, why did not Bishop Mcllvaine, if he 
 wished to know the truth in a mailer of such deep interest, go directly lo 
 the source the only proper source of correct information the students 
 themselves ? Why did he call to his councils, secretly, four special indi- 
 viduals to give their opinions of the opinions of the sludenls, \\hen the 
 latter were at hand to give their own version of the matter? Why did he 
 examine them apart, and then, in the secrecy of his own closet, make his 
 own memorandum of their aggregate testimony, without submitting it, 
 afterwards, to either of them except Prof. Sandels ? Was this the way 
 to arrive at truth 1 
 
 The second allegation is, that " they, (the students,) found no fault 
 with any thing, or anybody, but the President.". If Mr. Gibbs, one of 
 the persons upon whose responsibility this declaration is said to stand, 
 bad carried back his recollection a few months, it would have em- 
 braced a very critical state of things, then existing in one of the classes, 
 in regard to himself. It was the subject of an informal consultation, on 
 his own statement of the matter, in the Faculty, and the occasion of some 
 interviews between him and me : and he may now know further, that I 
 was waited upon by a deputation, professing to represent the class, with 
 a strong protestation against him, as a teacher and as a man ; and that it 
 was only through my personal influence that a very serious outbreak was 
 averted. 
 
 There was, perhaps, no circumstance in the institution which was so 
 constantly complained of by good students, as the deficiency and ineffi- 
 ciency of the Classical department. It was notorious at all times that 
 there were students present, prepared at other seminaries, who were far 
 more competent lo instruct than the College instructors, and who could 
 have no motive to stay, with any view to improvement in that particular; 
 while those less thoroughly prepared, but desirous of becoming good 
 scholars, complained that they made no progress, except as they could 
 learn something incidentally from their more competent fellow students. 
 Several of the most desirable pupils of both descriptions left on this 
 account. But there were other drawbacks to the College. There was no 
 instruction in modern languages; no apparatus connected with the Phi- 
 losophical department, and therefore no practical instruction in physics;* 
 
 several, on this subject, says, " we met by common consent without a call 
 from any body," " no body could have prevented our meeting." .Neither did 
 I stimulate them to any action against the Bishop or Trustees; quite the 
 contrary. My clients and all within my influence were cautioned against it, 
 and several of them have since given me memorai'dums of the words made 
 use of by me. I certainly did read the documents, and answer frankly the 
 questions put to me as to the circumstances of my removal, when the stu- 
 dents called upon me; but by what rule of rectitude or honor should / have been 
 restrained from so doing? If the removal was rizht, it need not fear exam- 
 ination; if wrong, it may hope in vain, to avoid it. The first resolutions 
 passed by the students, were pretty severe upon the Trustees; nnd it was on 
 this account I sent for Mr. Lang, who had been chairman, and requested him 
 to modify them, so as to make them unexceptionable to all. Yet the Bishop 
 speaking of this action, with his accustomed candor, says, " he tried to get 
 something of the kind from the students, but in trying to get them to go too 
 far, he failed in getting any thing." Perhaps I may have an opportunity, 
 hereafter, of cross examining some of the Bishop's witnesses on ihis matter; 
 we shall then know what passed in the meeting of the students. 
 
 " Almost the only good article of philosophical apparatus, was an Atwood's 
 machine, made in New York, while I was Professor of Natural Philosophy 
 in the New York University, and purchased by me for $200, and presented to 
 Kenyon College. It was my intention to have constructed, by the labor o
 
 35 
 
 no sufficient labaratory or apparatus for the chemical department ; no 
 systematic collections ; nor any of the incidental means and appliances 
 by which the interest of college students is ordinarily excited and sus- 
 tained. And the institution suffered in proportion. These things were 
 constantly mentioned by students to me, as grounds of objection, however 
 little they may have been apprehended in that light by Bishop Mcllvaine 
 and his counsellors. 
 
 The memorandum goes on to state, in substance, that the young men, 
 in consequence of their dissatisfaction with the President, had become 
 disaffected towards the institution, and wholly indifferent to its discipline. 
 The same idea is paraphrased with some improvement on page 16. 
 " Dismission had little terror," they say, because it inflicted no 
 penalty. Students of the best character for morals and study left the 
 college, promising to return if Mr D. should resign, "&c. These alle- 
 gations necessarily imply that there must have been a very debased state 
 of discipline in the College at that time. So great disaffection must 
 needs have been accompanied by an increased amount of delinquency 
 frequent irregularities, and disorders of a grosser kind tending toward 
 dismission, and a more than ordinary number of actual dismissals, 
 or voluntary withdrawals. I think I am right in saying that these cir- 
 cumstances are necessarily connected in the mind of the reader, with 
 the facts alleged ; so that if the former are shown not to have ex- 
 isted, it will be apparent that the latter cannot be true. And now for the 
 proof. 
 
 I have before me an abstract of the delinquencies and discipline of the 
 College for the greater part of the time of my Presidency ; from which 
 it appears that during the term in which I was dismissed, there was not a 
 single (o/Acr) dismission in the College. About two-thirds of the term 
 had transpired, and in that time not a single student had been arraigned 
 for any offence whatever ; there had not been an act of discipline of any 
 kind, even so much as a private admonition ; nor had a single student 
 left the College, or shown the least disposition to leave it on any pretext 
 whatever, i venture to say, another such instance cannot be found in all 
 the records of the institution, from its foundation to the day of my dis- 
 missal. Again, the same document shows, in the most conclusive 
 manner, that so far from there being a debased state of discipline, the 
 discipline had never been higher. There had been a regular progressive 
 improvement in that respect, from the beginning to the end of my Presi- 
 dency. Take, as an exponent, the average proportion of ordinary de- 
 linquencies, per student, for a term of 13 weeks. In the latter part of 
 1841, this average was 11 ; in 1842, 10 ; in 1843, it was reduced to 6 ; 
 and in the beginning of 1844^my final term to 3^. Or take the pro- 
 portion of non-dd.nquents* during a like term. In the latter part of 
 1841, it amounted to only 12 per cent of the whole number of College 
 students ; in the latter part of 1842, it had increased to 40 per cent ; in 
 1843, to 58 per cent ; and in the beginning of 1844 my final term, it 
 had gone up to 69 per cent. The assessments for damages also, furnish 
 instructive evidence to the same effect. In the summer of 1842, it ave- 
 
 self supporting students, a working laboratory in the basement of the Col- 
 lege, and to have made by the same means, the ordinary articles of a com- 
 plete philosophical apparatus. Timber for this laboratory had already been 
 cut and hauled at the date of my dismissa! ; and with good seconding, I could 
 have had, in two or three years, the means of illustrating, in a very satisfac- 
 tory manner, the whole course of physics, without any outlay of money 
 worthy of consideration. 
 
 * Those who had no (unexcused) delinquencies, or not more than two du 
 ring the term.
 
 36 
 
 raged from $1.50 to 02.00 per student, (making proportion for a term of 
 13 weeks), whereas, in 1844 my final term it was only about one- 
 fourth that amount. 
 
 As to the number of students leaving the College, by dismissal or oth- 
 erwise, without taking a degree : There had left in this way, within 
 one year previous to the date of my removal, 16 persons about 37 per 
 cent of the whole average number of students lor that year. This pro- 
 portion may seem large to those who are chiefly conversant with eastern 
 colleges, but it is by no means extraordinary in the west, in " where the 
 nature and value of a regular systematic education," the Bishop tells us, 
 " have yet, in a great measure, to be learned." I could identity a single 
 year of Bishop Mcllvaine's Presidency at Gambier, in which the propor- 
 tion thus leaving was 64 per cent of the average whole number, and a series 
 of four years in succession, in which it was more than 50 per cent. For 
 10 years before I went there, it averaged 40 per cent. Finally, in 
 1839-'40, the two years before my going there, the number thus leaving 
 was greater than the number entering, and the whole number who left, 
 including graduates, more than double that number. 
 
 But the gravamen of this part of the memorandum is, that /in particu- 
 lar was the author of a harsh and relentless system of discipline; that I 
 was distinguished above all the Faculty in this respect so as to be notori- 
 ous among the students, and that 1 was regarded by them, in consequence, 
 as an object of peculiar dread and dislike. The falsity of this allegation 
 in substance, has been already shown. It seems to be connected in the 
 Reply with the idea of an inordinate number of dismissals, of which I was 
 understood to be the author. Let us again look at the facts. 
 
 During the term in which I was dismissed there was, as I have said 
 no other dismissal. In all the preceding term there were but two 
 gross and aggravated cases of habitual delinquency and idleness, 
 and so regarded by the Faculty unanimously. In the long vacation of 
 1843 one person was dismissed by the Faculty for a violent assault upon 
 a fellow student, and refusing lo pledge himself not to repeat it, besides 
 other irregularities.* Finally, in the summer term of 1S43, there were 
 
 * There was, however, in the Institution at that time a clique of young 
 men, (alluded to in my former statement) in regard lo whom il was urged 
 in the most impressive terms, more than once, by Bishop Mcllvaine, that 
 they ought all to be sent away. Their general habits and character, were 
 said to be derogatory to the character of the College, and likely to hinder 
 exemplary young men of Ohio and its vicinity from joining it. But there 
 was a private consideration also. He insisteJ, (without the slightest evi- 
 dence however,) that it was they who had made some attempts upon his 
 orchard, and said he had loaded his gun for them in case they came again 
 an instructive example of" that influence which commands obedience at the 
 same time that it warms and enlists instead of chilling and repelling the affec- 
 tions of the heart." Prof. Sandels also, leaving home in the course of the va- 
 cation, made a point of calling upon me to give his vote for ihe unqualified 
 [dismissal of these young men. They were not dismissed however. Circum- 
 stances, with which I had no connection, except as their patron and fii.'nd, 
 suggested their withdrawal from the Institution and they were allowed to 
 withdraw, without the degradation of an actual dismissal, except in the one 
 case mentioned. It was some of the persons connected with this clique 
 who are referred to as being personally friendly to me, and at the same time 
 dissatisfied with my ''ways and modes" of government; and again, "as 
 students of the best character for morals and study, who " left College for 
 the same reason." Their competency to judge in such a matter, as well as 
 their " character for morals and study," may be estimated from the following 
 data : They were all, except one, Freshmen ; all, without exception, of lew 
 standing in their classes; all, more or less, exceptionable in conduct, not 
 having been matriculated, after a year's probation, except one, and he had 
 been degraded again. Finally, they had all been dismissed but a short time
 
 37 
 
 two dismissals and one expulsion, clear and unquestionable cases, in re- 
 gard to which there was not the slightest difference of opinion in the 
 Faculty. The whole number of actual dismissals, then, during a year 
 preceding my own, was but six certainly not a very inordinate number 
 not more tlian li id been dismissed in a single term under Bishop Mc- 
 Ilvaine's presidency, and less than one-third the number peremptorily 
 disposed of in a single act of the Faculty, during the winter of 1842-3, 
 wilh the unanimous approval of the Board of Trustees. 
 
 But on what ground and by whom was 1 held up as the specialand par- 
 ticular author of these dismissals, or, in fact, of any dismissal ? Dismis- 
 sals, and all other specific punishments, were awarded by the Faculty 
 a deliberative body. The President neither moved in them, nor voted, 
 except when there was a tie; and the records will show that, so far from 
 there being a lie in either of the instances, referred to, there was not even 
 a single dissenting voice. I appeal with confidence to those records; I 
 appeal to every member of the Faculty; I pledge myself to prove, by the 
 testimony of Professor .Sandels himself, if I should ever be so fortunate 
 as to catch him upon the witnesses stand in any Court of Record, that the 
 attempt to fix upon me in particular the authorship of these dismissals or 
 of any dismissals that occurred during my Presidency, is a base and 
 barefaced slander. An instance cannot be named in which I ever went 
 beyond the Faculty in my views of punishment, whilst there were repeated 
 instances in which the severity of their views was restrained and mitiga- 
 ted by me.* But it is said that the students, in point of fact, did particu- 
 larize me, regarding me as the author of harsh discipline, and finding no 
 fault, in this respect, "with any one but the President." If this allegation 
 were true (which it is not) I would ask, who taught them thus to regard me. 
 The deliberations of the Faculty were secret and confidential; how and by 
 whom were the students taught to refer to any particular individual the res- 
 ponsibility of our corporate acts ? The answer is not a difficult one, it was 
 pretty well understood long before my removal ,and by others probably soon- 
 er and better than by myself, that there was a lobby intercourse kept up be- 
 tween the author of this slanderous allegation and a portion of the students, 
 by which false impressions were constantly disseminated among the lat- 
 ter in regard to the proceedings of the Faculty. It was notorious that while 
 no one of that body was more generally harsh and severe in his judgment 
 of the students, or more ready to propose vindictive and severe measures, 
 than the Professor of Languages; he invariably managed to be regarded, 
 even by the persons who were the subjects of those measures, as their zea- 
 lous advocate and friend; while others who, in repeated instances, were 
 
 before by the unanimous vote of the Faculty unanimously approved by the 
 Board of Trustees and only restored again through my instrumentality. 
 It is not possible that the reason mentioned for leaving the College could have 
 been given by any one whose judgment in such a matter cannot be proved to 
 be utterly worthless. 
 
 * Had it not been for my interposition, in the spring of 18-12, the whole 
 Senior class would have been dismissed, Prof. Sandels was in favor of it, 
 but it was opposed by me, and by pursuing the course suggested by myself, 
 I was enabled to save the class, without compromising the, dignity of the In- 
 stitution. The papers on this subject are now before me. Had I been left 
 at liberty to pursue the same course (suggested, again by me,) on the occa- 
 sion of the holiday outbreak in the winter of 1842-3, viz : to assemble the stu- 
 dents concerned, and reason the matter with them on principle ; the Faculty 
 would not have been obliged, as they were, to dismiss 19 undergraduates in 
 one batch Nor would they have had the opportunity to take back 13 or 14 
 of that number, on acknowledgment, if I had not ultimately pursued that 
 course, on my own responsibility. For all which I have, in addition to other 
 evidences, the assurance of the parties themselves.
 
 38 
 
 most reluctant to yield even to the claims of discipline, and never did yield 
 except when Iho^e claims were clearly paramount, were represented as 
 harsh and overbearing. With this malign influence thus operating against 
 me, and all the other agencies, of which 1 have spoken, busih engaged 
 through the winter in exciting the minds of the sludenls against my " ways 
 and modes" of government, it is not so much a matter of surprise that there 
 should have leen some thus excited, as that there should have been so few. 
 
 It still remains to say a word or two about those not yet fully accounted 
 for, who left the College, within the year before my dismissal, voluntari- 
 ly. Of these, one left on account of sickness, and having lost much time, 
 finally concluded not to return expressing, however, as it happens, the 
 fullest confidence in the President and most of the Faculty. Another was 
 withdrawn by advice of his patron, Prof. Sandels, for reasons to me un- 
 known. Another left on account of inability to meet his bills, and all the 
 rest on account of utter and hopeless inability to get on with their studies. 
 But there were many others, the memorandum goes on to state, that 
 " would go away if their parents would let them," while, in the very 
 next sentence, we are informed, that on account of the bad reputation of 
 the College under my Presidency, parents were prevented from sending 
 their sons. Parents must have been very perverse if both these allega 
 lions are true; but what shall be said of ihe reasoning which draws from 
 both alike an argument against me ? Surely, if the sentiment of the 
 parent is good against me in one case it ought to be good in my favor 
 in Ihe other, and with greater weight too: since those who had their 
 sons in the College may be supposed to have had a better knowledge of 
 its affairs, and a higher responsibility in what they did than those who had 
 not. But the truth is, both allegations, in any sense that would in the 
 slightest degree implicate my administration, are utterly groundless. That 
 there may have been students restrained from leaving the College, by their 
 parents, is not improbable; it is more or less the case in all Colleges, but 
 it WHS at Kenyon, as elsewhere, a strife between the better judgment of 
 the parent, and the idle, undutiful, insubordinate spirit of the son, without 
 any personal reference to the President or any other officer. Of the sen- 
 timent of the students, as a body, towards myself, I have already spoken 
 and may have occasion to speak again. With regard to that of the pa- 
 rents, a single statistical fact will show that it could not have been very 
 adverse. The average number of students entering College during the 
 three years of my Presidency, was 26 per annum ; and during the two pre- 
 ceding years, under Bishop Mcllvaine's Presidency, only 12 per annum. 
 If parents were really unwilling to send their sons then in 1841-2 and 3, 
 what must they have been, according to this statement, (which is docu- 
 mentary) in 1839-40 ? But by what right, with what color of decency, I 
 may say, do these secret presenters a foreigner, a young and inexperi- 
 enced tutor, and an undergraduate presume, if they really did presume, 
 to expound the sentiments of parents, scattered, as the patrons of the In- 
 stitution were, over the whole United States ? I have before me the re- 
 sults of a large and extensive correspondence with parents and with the 
 friends and patrons of the Institution generally, including several mem- 
 bers of the Board of Trustees; and I pledge myself to draw from them at 
 least ten clear and unequivocal testimonials of approbation and confidence 
 for each single allegation of the least value, (of a date prior to the 28th 
 Feb., 1844,) that the Bishop and his abettors can produce from the same 
 source a gainst me. 
 
 The last count of the Bishop's indictment implies that there was a 
 deep, radical, and irreconcileable misunderstanding between myself and 
 the Faculty ; the latter having given up the government almost wholly 
 into my hands, "from a wish to avoid unpleasant difficulties' ' with me, and 
 " with no hope or prospect of any amendment." This, like the other items
 
 39 
 
 of this precious document, stands, you will recollect, upon (he single 
 averment of Professor Sandels. The Bishop might have obtained the 
 opinions of all the olficers in particular, but this probably did not consist 
 with his views of" delicacy and caution." He did not even consult the 
 older and more expeiienced of the Professors. On this as on the other 
 points, ihe same inexperienced Tutor, the same head of the Gianmiar 
 School, half a mile distant, and the same undergraduate, were his only 
 consultants, besides the Professor of Latin and Greek ; and even these, 
 were not called upon to verify the record. The language made use 
 of implies an entire and hopeless diversity between the Faculty and 
 myself ; a determination, on my pait, to carry out my own particu- 
 lar views, in opposition to the corporate sentiment, and a giving up of (he 
 matter, on theirs, in opposition to their better judgment, lor the mere 
 sake of peace. 
 
 Let me pause a moment here to consider the weight which this allega- 
 tion ought to have as an argument against me, supposing it true. If the 
 Faculty of Kenyon College had been, as the faculties of most colleges 
 are men of liberal, education and mature experience, thoroughly verged 
 in the administration and discipline of colleges I myself bi-ing at the 
 same time, comparatively, young and inexperienced, 1 grant you that 
 a wide difference of opinion between them and me in regard to the 
 administration of the College would have been a fair subject for in- 
 vestigation ; and the attempt to carry out my particular views with- 
 out such investigation, indelicate and improper. But even then, the 
 subject of difference would have been entitled to a fair hearing, on its 
 merits. The real case, however, was widely different from that here 
 supposed. So far from the Faculty standing above me in the particulars 
 mentioned, (1 suppose I may say without arrogance, what nobody pre- 
 tends to call in question), they were greatly behind me in academic ex- 
 perience and education, as well as in age. They had been collected 
 together as an academic body, in haste, (in 1840) to meet a particular 
 exigency ; and were all, except myself, as to college matters, notoriously 
 and confessedly new men ; perfectly inexperienced in the " ways and 
 modes" of college administration.* Of the four Professors, I was the 
 only one who had been educated in a college at all ; the only one who 
 had been trained to any considerable extent in other departments of a 
 college course, besides his own ; the only one who had been connected 
 with ihe administration of any college, before Kenyon. Professor Ross, 
 who was by far the most efficient and accomplished among them as an 
 instructor, was yet a cadet when I occupied the principal chair of Ma- 
 thematics at West Point ; and when nominated by me to his present Pro- 
 fessorship at Gambier, confessed his entire want of acquaintance with the 
 administration of colleges. Professor Sandels had been Tutor a little 
 while in Kenyon while studying for orders in 1839-40, and that was all 
 his previous experience. Professor Thrall was a respectable west country 
 physician. None of these had received an academic degree of any 
 kind, (there were in fact but two graduated out of six or seven members 
 of the whole Faculty,) before my arrival. Under such circumstances, 
 had there been a difference of opinion between the Faculty and myself, I 
 submit to every candid and ingenuous mind, whether it ought to have 
 been taken even as prima facie evidence against ME ; much less (as the 
 Bishop would have it considered.) a ground final and conclusive, for my 
 peremptory dismissal, without so much as a question asked about the 
 merits of the matter in debate. 
 
 * I am far from wishing to disparage any gentleman connected with the 
 Faculty by these statements ; they are however the facts of the case, and the 
 very facts on which Bishop Mcllvaine rested his most urgent appeals to 
 hasten my arrival at Gambier in the fall of 1840.
 
 40 
 
 But (here was no such difference. The Faculty and myself were upon 
 the most amicable footing, in all respects. So far from any attempt on 
 my part to overbear them, there had not been Ihe slightest disagreement 
 or dissention of any kind in our deliberations for more lhan a year.* No 
 deliberative body could have been more perfectly harmonious ; they (in 
 their corporate character,) exercising without let or hindrance from 
 me, all the powers which a Faculty ever does exercise ; and constantly 
 of their own free will referring to me all sorts of discretionary matters ; 
 and all, to human appearance in perfect harmony and good will. The 
 assertion that I had private and particular ends to carry out in opposition 
 to the common weal, is most unjust. I venture to say there is not one of 
 the Faculty who will pretend to have come near me in the devotion of 
 himself, his ease and comfort, and the comfort of his family, to the pro- 
 motion of the common interest. All the experience of my early life had 
 been a school of esprit de corps to me, and it is not very likely that I 
 should have forgotten its lessons when called to preside over a seminary 
 
 * The only occasion of disagreement in the Faculty during all my Presi 
 dency were three, all occurring in the year 1342, and all, as I am now well 
 assured, connected with certain political movements on the Hill, of which I 
 shall have occasion to speak hereafter. I will briefly state the occasions, 
 that it may be seen how far ray claim> to confidence as President of th(> Col- 
 lege, were forfeited by the rule or mode of my action, in either case. First 
 the right of the President to convene the Faculty during \ acation ! That 
 body having been thus convened, on business of importance, the President's 
 right in this particular was unexpectedly mooted and contested with some 
 asperity by one of the Professors. He was not sustained however by the 
 Faculty, and in an amicable conversation some time after I succeeded in 
 showing him that it was not an unusual or improper exercise of the Presi- 
 dential power. Secondly on a question, whether or not to have an after- 
 noon recitation in all the classes. It was desired by some of the Professors, and 
 clainel as a prescriptive right by one, to have all his particular recitations 
 arranged in the morning hours, by which one of the classes was subjected to 
 the inconvenience of having its three recitations crowded together between 
 eight and twelve in tne morning. As the evils of this arrangement were 
 very conspicuous, and had been greatly complained of, I took upon me to 
 represent and urge somewhat strongly the interests of the College in this 
 particular, and in taking the question, for the first and only time during my 
 Presidency, I exercised the right given me by the laws, of calling for a 
 two-thirds vote. It went against me, and I gave it up ; but I claim that 
 the position taken was a proper one, properly insisted upon, and perfectly 
 disinterested. Thirdly a proposition made by me to adopt an uniform sys- 
 tem of class marks, with a view to the more equitable distribution of the 
 College honors, was resisted somewhat warmly by one of the Faculty, as 
 tending to bring them (the Professors) unduly into subjectiveness to the Pre- 
 sident. The objection was not sustained, I believe by any of the Faculty. 
 Most of them were decidedly in favor of the system propo ed, and after a 
 few weeks delay, the dissentient himself conceded his objections, and it was 
 unanimously adopted. 
 
 All these instances occurred within a month of each other, in 1842; and 
 were connected, as I shall presently show, with a secret movement of that 
 period, having for its object to detach the Bishop from myself, and connect 
 him in a coalition with his quondam enemies. It placed almost every body 
 on the Hill for the time in a false position, and among the rest created for a 
 brief period an estrangement between Professor Ross and myself; and it 
 was then that he expressed his intention to have left " the Hill" in case 
 Bishop Mcllvaine had removed to Cincinnati, (lleply, p. 35). Professor 
 Ross and myself, however, had been too long and intimately associated to 
 be long estranged ; I sought an early occasion for mutual explanations, and 
 the good understanding then effectually restored, was not afterwards inter- 
 rupted again during all my residence at Gambler.
 
 41 
 
 of learning 1 . The facts would show that I did not forget them ; my influ- 
 ence a^d vig-Hanre were constantly employed in smoothing liltle matters 
 of disagreement among the olficers themselves, and whenever the com- 
 mon interest was assailed or threatened from any quarter, I was the first 
 and often the only one to stand forth no matter at what hazaid, in its 
 defence.* 
 
 Finally, my private and personal intercourse with the members of the 
 Faculty was unmarked by any external circumstances indicating Jhe 
 slightest want of friendliness or confidence. With all of them, wiihout 
 a single exception, it was cordial, familiar, and [apparently] confiden- 
 tial ; characterized, in all the relations of neighborhood and society, by 
 the habitual interchange of kind and friendly offices. 1 know very well 
 that these external signs are not proof positive that I had, in point of fact, 
 " the confidence of the Faculty," and especially as ONE at least, in. 
 whom these si<rns were all very conspicuous, is now known to have been 
 at the samr time an active co-operator in a plot to destroy me. But while 
 I confess with sorrow that my confidence in human character is somewhat 
 unsettled by this instance of baseness, 1 am by no means yet prepared to 
 give it up entirely. I would ralher be the dupe of an occasional decep- 
 tion than obliged to live in continual suspicion regarding all kindness, 
 all courtesy, and all sympathy, as hollow, deceptive, and insincere. 
 
 Such was the matter and the manner of the secret investigation, on (he 
 grounds of which Bishop Mcllvaine proceeded without further inquiry, 
 to convoke the Board of Trustees. It was not necessary, he tells us, [p. 
 9,] to have any communication with the President on the subject, since 
 the question whether we wen 1 running into debt to sn-.tain the College, 
 was one which never troubled Mr. D. It mijrht be asked how Mr. S-in- 
 dels, an unnaturalized foreigner ; and Mr. Gibbs, a Presbyterian Theo- 
 logical student ; and Mr. Lang, an undergraduate, came to be so much 
 more deeply interested in the pecuniary welfare of the Institution than 
 the President. The latter had been for years regarded, wherever he was 
 known, as one of the firmest friends of Kenyon College : He had taken 
 an active part in the e iternrize for paying off the debt ; and no one listen- 
 ed more joyfully to the Bishop's account of the success of that enter- 
 prise, j Who could have supposed that the consummation of that success, 
 when the debt, with its heavy burden of interest, amounting to more than 
 two thousand dollars per annum, had just been extinguished, was an 
 occasion of financial difficulty and alarm ? I conversed with Bishop Mc- 
 llvaine on the financial state of the Institution several times, and with 
 more than ordinary familiarity after the 6th of lanuaiy. He answered all 
 
 * I might mention several instances of this, in connection with the relations 
 of the Faculty to the Agent, Mr. While. In the spring of 1S43, for instance, 
 a proposition was passed round among the Professors, to resign en masse on 
 account of an alleged impertinence on his part I was probably the on'y 
 person who discouraged the movement on our part on principle ; an'l at the 
 same time the only one who went forward to assert the honor and dignity 
 of the Facu'ty, in a personal remonstrance with Mr. White incurring in 
 no small degree the " unpopulatity 1 ' of that individual fo so doing. 
 
 f I >,piipvp -t <-xn H" shown that in proportion to my means, I have been 
 the largest donor to Kenyon College. My donations prior to 1834, in appa- 
 ratu : > ' ' n hase I expressly for the Institution, and amounting to 
 between 3 and 400 dollars in cash, were thought worthy of honorable men- 
 tion by Bishop Mcllvaine in his address to the Convention of that year. Yet 
 now by a mere change of polaritr in himself, he is pleased to represent me 
 as destitute of all concern in th'- pecuniary prosperity of the Institution ; and 
 would, if he conM.hv n touch of his potent rhetoric dissipate all my claims to 
 confidence in this respect. 
 
 6
 
 42 
 
 my questions with apparent frankness and cordiality, but he gave me no 
 information, not the slightest hint, of the " alarming" state of things, 
 which he now s;iys was the ground work of these secret proceedings. 
 Such an intimation, 1 hesitate not to say, would have been most strange 
 and incongruous.* He spoke of calling the Board of Trustees together, 
 as if their action was necessary in the disposition of the funds collected 
 by him, and advised me in the most affable and friendly manner to make 
 out and present my accounts, [the very accounts for disbursements against 
 which he now declaims so loudly,] promising to give me a good commit- 
 tee to examine and report upon them. Such was his countenance TO ME 
 during that interval, and yet he was at the same time, beyond the possi- 
 bility of a doubt, meditating aye, actually working out my dismissal 
 from the Presidency. For what else, by his own showing, was the Board 
 assembled? What is the meaning of his exhortation to them before act- 
 ing, [p. 10,] and his approval afterwaids [p. 12], if such was not his deli- 
 berMe purpose ? But there is even more direct evidence than this. The 
 call for the meeting of the Trustees was published in the Gambier paper 
 about the middle of January. A few days after its appeaiance, the 
 Bishop's son, who was then spending much of his time in the College, 
 was asked for what purpose the Board was called together? " To remove 
 President Douglas," was the prompt reply ; and the reasons being asked, 
 were given, viz. l\\e fiscal difficulties of the Institution, with much of the 
 same declamation as in " the Reply ;" but not a word about unpopu- 
 larity with the students. 
 
 With regard to the Trustees, I must caution you not to form any estimate 
 of them from what you have been accustomed to see of College trustees 
 in the East. There, at least in the cases with which you are most con- 
 versant, the selection of such functionaries is governed by some little re- 
 gard to the nature of the trust, and the infinite importance of the great 
 end to which it is consecrated; at Gambier, however, since 1840, the 
 primary qualification has been subserviency to the Bishop. Although 
 elected ostensibly by the Convention, they a^e virtually appointed by him; 
 and with due care, smce the date mentioned, that no one is appointed 
 who is not ready to square all his ideas, whatever they are, in accordance 
 with the Bishop's. Formerly it was not so. The Board had some de- 
 gree of independence; appointed their own prudential committee, for the 
 management of the domain, fcc.; and in 1838, they even went so far 
 the Bishop being absent as to define the relative powers of the Board 
 and its President in the management of the property. He assembled 
 them, however, immediately on his return, and compelled them to re- 
 scind all that they had done.f Nor did he stop, till in the Convention 
 of 1839 he succeeded in transferring, by a change in the Constitution, the 
 whole discretionary power, which had hitherto been exercised by the 
 prudential committee, exclusively and permanently to HIMSELF. Final- 
 ly, in 1840, a ''new Board and a right Board" was elected upon his no- 
 mination, and since then the Tru-tees have had little to do but to pass 
 and record {he fiat of Bjshop IVlcIlvaine. 
 
 Intelligence and liberality under such a system were not needed; they 
 might even be objectionable; and the Bishop's policy, as he distinctly 
 
 * I well remember, however, that a note on this key was touched by Mr. 
 Wing, before the Bishop returned from New York; and by Mr. Sandels a 
 little after, vefy enigmatical to me at the time, but now well understood. 
 Yet Mr. Santlels' salary had been raised from $600to$SOO, only a few months 
 before, while the success of the Bishop's efforts in raising money was yet 
 uncertain. 
 
 t The verification of this statement will be found in the proceedings of the 
 Board of Trustees, of March 21, Sept. 4, and Nov. 22, 1838.
 
 43 
 
 avowed to me in 1842, having been to keep them away as much as pos- 
 sible from Gamhier, they were consequently very ignorant of the actual 
 condition, as well as of the wants and necessities of the College.* The 
 constitutional time for their annual meeting was at commencement, but 
 it was so managed during all my presidency, in spite of my remonstran- 
 ces, that they never did meet on that occasion. There were in fact but 
 two meetings (at Gambier) from first to last, and those in the middle of 
 the long vacation. Not an individual member of the Board had ever 
 been present at any one of the college examinations; nor did they on 
 other occasions appear to take interest in its affairs, as a seminary of 
 learning; and the natural, as well as the most charitable conclusion was, 
 that they really did not know what interest it was proper for them to 
 take. Such was the constituency of Kenyon College. j 
 
 The members of the board arrived from their remote places of resi- 
 dence, generally on the evening of the 27lh of February. On all former 
 occasions, my house, which had become a sort of hotel, was the usual 
 stopping place for four or five of their number, and was now accordingly 
 prepared lor their reception again but nobody came. Three of my ha- 
 bitual guests, Burr, Bury and Allen, absented themselves from the meet- 
 ing, and Mr. Smallwood came and excused himself on the following 
 morning, having been invited some weeks beforehand to stay with Mr. 
 Elakel Prof. Ross and Prof. Thrall also expected guests, bui were like 
 myself, disappointed. The whole Board, was billetted upon the Bishop, 
 Mr. Blake, Mr. Sandels, Mr. Wing, and Mr. White generally two at 
 each place leaving Dr. Fuller, Prof. Ross, Prof. Thrall and myself, 
 vacant. 
 
 The business of the session commenced in form on the morning of the 
 28lh. The Bishop, having read to them, as he tells us, the " exhibit" of 
 the " Treasurer, " by which it appeared thai the receipts wr.re expected to 
 ' fall alarmingly short of expenses that year," then said, " this is your 
 1 first information of the business for which I have called you. We are 
 ' more than ever under solemn obligations to avoid any further debts. 
 ' We must make any sacrifices to do so. You see the present prospect; 
 ' you are called to inquire into the causes and remedy of this deficiency. 
 ' I have made inquiries, and formed an opinion, but you shall not know 
 ' anything that 1 have learned, or what 1 think on the subject." Here 
 was a riddle indeed " the causes and the remedy of this [alleged] defi- 
 ciency," (the dream and the interpretation thereof,) were to be found 
 out forthwith, without the slightest direction or hint from the propounder. 
 But our Trustees, unlike the soothsayers of the Assyrian monarch were 
 not to be daunted by the difficulties of the case. The way, they were toUl, 
 had been trodden before them ; and with an exhortation to be rr-ady for 
 any responsibility, they adjourn their meeting and go forth to the work. 
 
 In so extensive and complicated an establishment, embracing four or- 
 ganic seminaries of learning, a College, a Theological Seminary, and 
 
 * A part of the Board, as I have intimated, Was doubtless in confederacy 
 and correspondence with the clique on " the Hill ;" Jbese were of course well 
 supplied with, information ex parte. 
 
 t To any one acquainted with the circumstances, the self-devotion of these 
 gentlemen in assuming the " responsibility" of my dismissal, and the grand- 
 iloquent terms in which they speak of their " personal knowledge" of 
 matters and things at Gambier, are quite amusins. " Th$ most wonder- 
 ful part of the whole affair." said an Ohio friend tome, shortly after my 
 removal, " is that these Trustees should have been so completely duped 
 into the belief, that they were the authors of your dismissal." " Not all 
 dupei," I replied.
 
 44 
 
 two distinct Grammar Schools with their respective systems of disci- 
 pline, their various departments of instruction, the means and appliances 
 of each, and all the relations, internal and external, incident to such in- 
 stiluiions; embracing also an extensive domain of farms, village tene- 
 ments, mills, and privileges ot various kinds; and finally havini:, as all 
 admit, a most mysterious complication of books aiid records in the office 
 of the Agent; it might reasonably have been expected that several clays, 
 perhaps even weeks, would have been occupied, even by men of experi- 
 ence and discipline, in the investigation of either branch of the proposed 
 inquiry. Bui no; the Board adjourned a little before dinner, and met 
 again a little after, having achieved that meal, and digested to their own 
 salisfaction, all the complicated interests and relations of the whole insti- 
 tution. This wai done, we ate told, by dividing the committee of six, 
 into three sub-committees and so, by a labor-saving process, making a 
 circle of domiciliary visits to " every officer of the whole institution, 
 whether of the College, its Schools, the Theological Seminary, or the 
 Treasury, except t.'ie Bishop." Let us follow them a little way in this 
 process. 
 
 The two who called upon me were Col. Bond and Mr. Smallwood. 
 They came into my study just before dinner, very much in the manner of 
 gentlemen in New York making a new year's call. They did not lay 
 aside their hats or canes, and my impression is that they did not even sit 
 down, but perhaps they did; at all events, their call was very unlike a 
 call of busine-s in any respect, nor did the time or manner of it admit of 
 any thing like formal statements. They spoke at first, generally, of the 
 diminution of numbers, which I showed them was an inquiry relating to 
 the Grammar Schools, not to the. College. They then pressed me to 
 speak more particularly of those institutions, and I stated, very frankly, 
 with regard to the Senior Grammar School, that Mr. Sandels had more 
 on his hands than he could do. He was a young instructor, in point of 
 experience, and often complaining on account of his health; about half 
 his recitations, in the College, had been from one cause or other, omitted 
 during the current term, and 1 presumed an equal proportion of hi* duties 
 in the Grammar School; that- the students of that instilulion had com- 
 plained greatly on this account, and imist, to a very considerable extent, 
 have lost interest in the school. Will) regard to the Junior Grammar 
 School at Milnor Hall, I declined making .my statements, leaving the 
 principals of that institution to speak for themselves. The whole inter- 
 view may have lasted twelve, or fifleen minutes; and the cotMiiillee then 
 went over to Mr. Ross's, where they remained about five minutes. They 
 afterwards called upon Dr. Thrall and Mr. Sandels, which I presume 
 completed the forenoon operations of that sub-committee. Their col- 
 leagues in the meantime were similarly engaged, as I suppose at Milnor 
 Hall, Mr. Wing's and Mr. White's office, and in the College with Mr. 
 Gibbs and Mr. Lang; remaining about twice as long with each of the lat- 
 ter as with Prof. Ross and myself collectively. 
 
 Such was the moc/tts operandi of this so called investigation. And now 
 I prav you look at it for a moment as n judicial proceeding, involving the 
 public station, name, and character of the President of the College. Ob- 
 serve in the first place, that although tho process had been maturing for 
 nearly two months, with a clear, acknowledged, reference to myself, I 
 was still uninformed of it at the meeting of the Board; and the hole in- 
 quiry, such as it was, had been completed, and for hours deliberated 
 upon, before the slightest intimation reached me (and then from a foreign 
 source) that I was the subject of it, or my conduct and character in any 
 way called in question. Observe secondly, the organization of the com- 
 mittee of inquiry into sub-committees, taking away from it all its effi-
 
 45 
 
 ciency as a judicial body to weigh and compare evidence, and making it 
 a mere dra^ net to collect every species of idle gossip. Thirdly, tne ir- 
 responsibility of the testimony. None of the witnesses, except the initi- 
 ated, having any idea of the drift and bearing of the thing, or appre- 
 hending at all the value about to be assigned to the casual words of an 
 apparently, common conversation. Fourthly, the power of the sub-com- 
 mittees to draw out precisely (he testimony that suited them, and re- 
 press whatever did not a power that was used without scruple, (in the 
 case of Mr. Ross and others) whenever the replies did not implicate me. 
 Fifthly, the irresponsibility of the sub-committees keeping no record 
 of the statements made to them, and giving virtually their own versions 
 of such parts as best suited them, and rejecting others. No part of my 
 statement, for instance, nor ol Prof. Ross's, and but a small portion of 
 some others, appeared in the committee's report. Was this a fair and 
 honorable inquiry ? Has it a single feature of judicial equilyinit? On 
 the contrary, does it not everywhere betray the workings of a simple pre- 
 determined purpose to remove me from office, right or wrong, and a 
 perfect symbolism among all the agencies for carrying out this purpose' 
 from its firs! inception in the early part of January to its final consum" 
 rnation on the 29lh of February ? It is of no consequence how or in ha* 
 manner this symbolism was effected. I care not to speculate upon the 
 secrets of the Bishop's back parlor, or Mr. Wing's, or Mr. Sandel's, or 
 Mr. Blake's studies, or Mr. White's office; nor will 1 trouble myself to 
 inquire what passed between these persons and their guests, that night, 
 or that morn ng, or at any time. There was enough in the Bishop's 
 ominous exhortations and cautions, enough in his significant rrserves 
 the President not being admitted to his councils to have guided them, 
 (the Trustees) even without any external confederacy. At all events, 
 whether by instinct or inference, their actions show that they knew very 
 well what was to be done; no pack " bred out of the Spartan kind" ever 
 fleshed their game with a more sure and certain scent. 
 
 The Board reassembled between two and three in the afternoon of the 
 23th, the committee having already completed their work and made up 
 their report. Between three and five, of the same afternoon, I had an in- 
 terview with them on matters of ordinary business, and sat for an hour in 
 familiar conversation, ending with an invitation to dine with me on (he 
 following day ; and slill not a lisp was heard of the ruin which awaited 
 me, and which even then must already have been virtually consummated 
 in their secret council. It was not till neap nine in ihe evening (hat Prof. 
 Ross came into my strdy, and with startling earnestness exhorted me to 
 go and see the Board forthwith; informing me undthis was my first in- 
 formatim not that I was accused, but (hat I had been actually tried and 
 condemned, and the sentence the severest which it was in the power of 
 the Board to inflict was already in suspi-nse over me. Then followed 
 my interview with (he committee at (he Bishop's, of \\hich I hove given 
 a detailed account in my former Statement, and whirh for (he first time 
 unfolded all the realilies of the systematic treachery and duplicity with 
 which I had been surrounded. 
 
 I need not repeat Ihe narrative, already given, of these painful develop- 
 ments (he night of agony that followed the interview just mentioned 
 ihe tampering of Cols Bond and Cummings on the following morning to 
 in luce me to endorse my own dishonor by the tender of my resignation 
 the like plausable attempt of (he former and the Rev. Smallwood to draw 
 me into a hypothetical defence of my character and conduct, when it 
 was not pretended (hat either was impeached my final protest against 
 the whole proceedings and finallv, in a little more than twenty hours 
 from the first note of warning by Prof. Ross, the coup de grace by the 
 Board.
 
 46 
 
 A brief notice of one or two mis -statements in the Reply is all that need 
 now be said on these subjects. "A private advice to resign," it is stated, 
 " was first given to Mr. D. by Col. Bond." This of course refers to the 
 call of that gentleman at my house on the morning of the 29th, that being 
 the only personal interview I had with him during the proceedings. But 
 the writer forgets to mention that there was a first communication prior 
 to this. On the previous evening I had an interview of an hour and a 
 half with the investigating committee, in which 1 was distinctly told that 
 unless I resigned, I should be dismissed; and this alternative was never 
 after for a moment lost sight of. It was still hanging over me in all its 
 terrors, when Col. Bond called, with the look and language of a friend, 
 and exhausted all tfye powers of his rhetoric to induce me to tender my re- 
 signation, lean hardly look back upon this crisis without ashudder. I have 
 had many dangers to encounter in the course of my life, and some hair- 
 breadth escapes, but I remember none with more fervent gratitude to a 
 kind protecting Providence, than that while thus surrounded with sore 
 temptations and trials, unaided by any human counsel, I was yet enabled 
 to maintain my integrity, in spurning this insidious advice. The value 
 of the friendship that prompted it may be estimated by what followed. 
 The Colonel, in making his report of the interview to ihe Board, is re- 
 puted to have said, " He will not resign, we cannot avoid dismissing 
 him;" and yet within the same hour, the same gentleman, acting as a 
 committee man, assured me in the most cordial, as well as the most court- 
 ly pi. rase, that there was not the slightest charge of any kind pretended 
 to be alleged against me; and such was also, in effect, the recorded report 
 of the committee of inquiry, as heretofore quoted. Why could they not 
 avoid dismissing a man confessedly innocent? 
 
 The version (hey give of this disclaimer of "charge against me," (p. 
 17) is, that when I complained " that I was to be dismissed without being 
 informed upon what charges," " the answer was that no charges were 
 brought; that the simple fact was, that the patronage of the institution 
 was not enough for its support;" " a large debt and deficit must accrue 
 that year," &c. &c. I affirm in the most solemn manner, that this state- 
 ment is, in every particular, utterly false. The matter of the " charges 
 against me," was not called up by me in the way of complaint at all; it 
 was a simple inquiry for information. When the committee offered me 
 an opportunity of defence, I wished to know, of course, what was to be 
 the subject of that defence, and to this end I inquired, "what are the 
 charges against me?" The answer, after some conversation, was given 
 by Col. Bond; not " that no charges were brought ;" but, that there were 
 no charges; and this was the only answer, consistent with the committees 
 report just referred to. The " simple fact," namely, that the patronage 
 of the institution was insufficient, &c., said to have been stated to me 
 in reply, is a pure imagination. The fiscalities of the institution were 
 not mentioned or alluded to by the committee in anyway whatever. Not 
 a word was said on that subject.* 
 
 His next position, say thev, (p. 17,) was, that he had been given no 
 opportunity of confronting those who had given information whereupon 
 "the Trustees immediately senta Committee," &c., &c. This again, is 
 untrue. It is, in fact, opposed lo their own statement, see page 12, where 
 they say, tc a Committee was sent (immediately after Col. Bonds report 
 of the private interview,) to urge a resignation, and to convey the assur- 
 
 * A detailed account of this interview is giveu in my former Statement, p. 
 12, 13. It embraces every subject discussed and the substance of every 
 thing that was said ; it has not been, nor can it be controverted in any par- 
 ticular.
 
 47 
 
 aiice that if not received by a certain hour, a dismission would ensue. ' 
 I shall not try to reconcile these conflicting statements. The last quoted 
 is the true one. As to an opportunity of confronting my accusers, it was 
 neither asked nor tendered. The idea was not expressed or implied in 
 any part of the conversation. I protested against the whole proceeding 
 from beginning to end. I denounced it then, as I denounce it now, as an 
 inhuman outrage and I warned them fully that 1 would " never cease to 
 protest against if as an act of flagrant cruelty, injustice and oppression." 
 The Reply, page 13, attempts an argument against my claim of tenure 
 for life, i am represented as having said to the Bishop on a former 
 occasion, " that (I) was then in correspondence with gentlemen east- 
 ward, about an office similar to what (I) then held;" and as "every 
 bargain has two sides," if I did not feel myself bound to slay for life, I 
 could have no claim to a tenure for life. This statement and the reasoning 
 from it comes of course from the Bishop, and they are botli alike erro- 
 neous. I never told him or any body else that / was in correspondence 
 with any body, about any office, similar or dissimilar. In point of fact, 
 I nevor penned a syllable to any gentleman Eastward of the kind here 
 represented, except to decline a very advantageous proposition that was 
 gratuitously made to me. But if it were even true that I was in such a 
 correspondence, and that I fully contemplated resigning whenever "an 
 alternative worth thinking of should occur," it would not in the least have 
 impaired my claim to a tenure for life. Officers of the Army re-ign 
 Judges of the Court resign any person holding office for a term of years 
 resigns within that term, if he pleases.it dees not alter the tenure. Bishop 
 Me Ilvaine was fully determined to resign, in a certain contingency, in 
 1840. He even wrote to me about an "alternative worth thinking of ;" 
 does it follow that the Convention of Ohio have a right to turn him out 
 therefore, whenever they please ? The idea is absurd. Bishop M. 
 well knows that the right of tenure is not a reciprocal right in the sense in 
 which he here affirms it. It is emphatically a safeguard to the incumbent, 
 against the injustice or bad faith of a capricious employer, and in this 
 light I claim it. Whether my claim is good depends not upon whether I 
 might, or might not have been induced to resign under certain circum- 
 stances, but upon the expressed or implied conditions of the original com- 
 pact, under which 1 accepted the Presidency, and removed to Ohio, 
 and thatf/M>*e may be somewhat better understood, I give here entire the 
 two first letters I received from Bishop Mcllvaine President of the 
 Board of Trustees, on this subject. The first is written, you will per- 
 ceive, on Sunday morning, just before the solemn services at the cluse 
 of the Convention at Mount Vernon. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Mount Vernon, Sunday morning, August 9th, 1840. 
 
 My Dear Major I write in great haste, just to say that I nominated you 
 yesterday to be President of Kenyon College, at a salary not less than $1000, 
 with house and grounds, pasturage, ?cc., and that you were unanimously 
 elected, with acclamation, by a new Board, and a right Board, representing 
 the Diocese the Board having been elected almost without dissent All 
 thinss have gone as I desired. My troubles in this respect seem nearly over 
 in case you accept I write now hastily to say I will write more fully as soon 
 as I can get an hour. Only don't commit yourself to any thing else, and say 
 
 nothing about it till I can write to , and you again. Write me as soon 
 
 as you pkase. Yours very affectionately, CHAS P. MclLVAINE. 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Gambier, August 10, 1340. 
 
 Dear Major I wrote you hastily yesterday, announcing your appointment 
 as President of Kenyon College, with a salary of $1000, a house, and not
 
 48 
 
 more than 10 acres of land for pasture, &c. I write now to say that the ap- 
 pointment is exceedingly popular. Only it is predicted by certain, who would 
 not be a little pleased to see my plans fail, that you will not come. I say 
 you will and all with me depends on that. I consider the living worth at 
 least $2000 in Brooklyn. I do hope you will consent to consecrate yourself 
 to this work for life. Your department is Moral and Intellectual Phi'losophy 
 and Rhetoric. Don't be alarmed, you can easily make yourself up for it 
 with your Mathematical mind, and fondness for reading, and ability to study, 
 
 you will easily go ahead. We have appointed K Prof, of Mathem.itics 
 
 and Nat. Philosophy. 's health was considered too unpromising. We 
 
 should not have turned him off, but as we were organizing a College, not 
 supposed before to have existed, he was not appointed. A new Prof, of 
 Lansuages has been appointed a new Agent also. I think it probable 
 
 will resign his Professorship. All see now that I am head, and will 
 
 be, and am powerfully backed by the Diocese. We shall be all harmony 
 
 here. is left out. Now I want you to go right up to see K , and 
 
 get him to accept. His salary is $600, and house and grounds. I shall write 
 him immediately. You have a vacation of eight weeks to get ready. The 
 sooner you are here, however, the better. I rejoice indeed in the prospect. 
 You must come. I am killed if you do not. You will find things very much 
 on the m^nd. told me he would not undertake Intellectual Philoso- 
 phy. That was an insuperable obstacle. But I see now that I have made 
 precisely the choice. All, even my opponents, say so. Let me hear without 
 delay. The sooner I can say in the papers you have accepted, and that 
 K has, the better. All wait to hear. It will probably save us some stu- 
 dents, if it comes in time. Try to get K 's ear before writes 
 
 him.* Yours very affectionately, C. P. M . 
 
 Upon the faith of these letters, followed by many others in the same 
 strain of urgency and conciliation, removing every obstacle and every 
 objection as fast as it was presented I finally accepted the Presidency 
 of Kenyon College ; wound up my affairs at Brooklyn by a peremptory 
 liquidation, the more ruinous because of the universal embarrassment of 
 the times, and cast all my future fortunes and the fortunes of my family, 
 upon the prospect of honorable employment, and usefulness, in the station 
 to which I had been so long and so urgently invoked * Was this a 
 compact to be dissolved at an hour's notice, at the mere will of the party 
 of the first part ? 
 
 The Bishop would fain have it believed, that my appointment was not 
 a compact between equal parties, but a pure gratuity from HIM to MK, 
 involving no reciprocal d ity or obligation on his part whatever. To 
 judge from many parts of the Reply, I was almost a stranger to him, 
 scarcely known except upon the footing of a very general acquaintance, 
 
 * I have thought it due to myself to publish these letters entire, to guard 
 against the disingenuous evasions and perversions to which the author of the 
 " Reply" has thought proper to resort, in his notice of the extracts hereto- 
 fore given from this same correspondence. I deprecate as much as any one 
 can, any refen nee to such a correspondence in a public discussion, but I claim 
 justification on the ground, which justifies even the taking of life, that it is 
 absolutely necessary in self defence. It has been said that the case of neces- 
 sity can only be made by the order of a civil court, but I submit with all due 
 deference that the order of the court does not make the case at all, it only 
 declares it. The necessity, like that of justifiable homicide, is physical ; it 
 exists prior to and independent of any such declaration. In regard to the 
 present case, I ask any upright man to realize it as his own his ri.'hts and 
 the rights of his family violated, his property wasted, his name and character 
 vilified, his professional hopes in a measure blasted by the broken faith or 
 vindictiveness of his fellow man, and he with the evidence of that broken 
 faith in his hand, under the sign manual of the aggressor need I ask what 
 he would do? The two letters now published, however, are at least demi- 
 official.
 
 49 
 
 yet it may be shown from the correspondence, that I had been upon terms 
 of the nrnst intimate and unreserved confidence, the confidence of entire 
 personal equality, for 15 /ears previous to my appointment as President. 
 His importunity in 1833, and in 1840, he represents as having 1 reference, 
 not to the substantive question but only to the time of my coming 1 , &c. 
 But I submit to the judgment of any impartial reader, regarding the ex- 
 tracts already given, whether this is a correct or candid view in either 
 case, and to make it more plain, I shall add one or two farther particu- 
 lars. In regard to the Vice-Presidency in 1833, the Bishop represents 
 me [p. 26,) as having " no business or permanent employment," at that 
 time, and being-" in need of such employment ;" yet he knows that I 
 was Professor of Natural Philosohpy in the New York University, with 
 the option of lucrative employment also as a Civil Engineer. He knows 
 moreover, that the " pecuniary affairs" that hindered me from going at 
 that time, and upon which he has dilated so largely as a ground of re- 
 proach, was a simple transaction ( in the stock of a certain company 
 with which I had been officially connected) into which I had been inad- 
 vertently drawn without anv the slightest fault on my part. He knows 
 this, for I stated it to him fully in answer to his vehement and unceasing 
 solicitations, and I have now before me his letter of condolence in reply ; 
 an extract from which will be a sufficient answer to all the unkind 
 misrepresentations now attempted on this subject, (the Vice-Presidency 
 of 1833.) The letter is dated Gambier, Feb. 14, 1834. 
 
 " My dear friend and brother I received your two, well filled, and 
 interesting sheets a few days since, and had hardly read two lines before 
 I began to feel very sorry that 1 ever wrote you those letters which in 
 your circumstances must have been exceedingly painful. But Major,, 
 you must set them down to my selfishness, and impetuosity, and love of 
 you, and anxiety to be a co-worker with you, and not to any thing like 
 complaint or alienation of heart from you. I had no conception that your 
 difficulties would prove so great or your debt so deep. In the anxiety 
 and load they must occasion you, I do most deeply sympathise. May 
 you have the consolation of him who is touched with a feeling of your 
 infirmities," &c. &c. 
 
 The Presidency in 1840 is held up as a pure gratuily.* Although 
 " the place went a begging." it was offered as a favor to me, a 
 " pecuniary convenience''; and the idea that I accepted it with any view 
 to oblige the Bishop is indignantly spurned. Referring to one of my 
 letters of 1840 in which this view was presented, he tells us, it was 
 " immediately answered with a protest" in the following words : viz. 
 ' I chose you because 1 wanted you for the College, but believing also 
 that it would be good for you'; which words he says were written, not 
 on the 21st September, as quoted in mv " statement," but on the 2d De- 
 cember, and answered by me on the 16th. If the Bishop " kept a copy" 
 of this correspondence, I can only say he has made a very disingenuous 
 
 * I could show by our intermediate correspondence that the Bishop was 
 always anxious to get me at the head of some institution in the West, and 
 I always reluctant. In 1837 he moved by himself in a particular attempt 
 for this purpose which he had much at heart, and wrole several times chid- 
 ingly, to me because I did not take the same interest. In 1839, the moment 
 the Journal of the Ohio Convention was out, he sent me a copy endorsed 
 in his own hand with my name, and the words " see page 25'' and, on turn- 
 ing to that page, I found a score round the passage of the Bishop's address 
 in which he opens the subject of a separate presidency. All hit friends nnd 
 mine, to whom I showed it, construed it as an intimation of his "first choice." 
 I do not quote these things to disparage the Bishop's friendship at that lime, 
 but to show what are his claims to consistency in the position he now takes. 
 
 7
 
 50 
 
 use of it ; if he has not , he shows great hardihood in asserting ore rotun- 
 do, what lie could not be very sure of. His letters are now before me, 
 and the passage referred to appears, not as a protest, nor in the letter of 
 December 2d at all, but exactly as I quoted it, under date of September 
 21st part of an argument to confirm me in the acceptance of the prof- 
 fered Presidency.* The real " protest," if protest it can be called, is a 
 very harmless thing, and i take leave to quote it is a pregnant commen- 
 tary upon the position now so arrogantly assumed by the wntr. It 
 occurs in the midst of other matters on the fourth page of his letter. 
 " Dear Major, I do not quite like it, that in your last you set down all 
 your efforts to come here and be President, anil the resistance of tempt- 
 ing offers, &c. to a ' desire to accommodate my wishes.' Is it only for my 
 wishes ? But this is a point which between us is too delicate to be further 
 touched on." This is the allusion noticed by me in my letter of (he 
 16th. But the most remarkable part of this so called " protest" is, that 
 while it was expressly intended (so says the Bishop) to remind me of 
 my obligations as the favoured party, it does in fact absolve me entirely 
 from any such obligation. " I have had my views fov you," it goes on 
 to say, " but I have no idea of thinking, or beginning to think, that you 
 are under any obligations tome."| 
 
 An equally disingenuous and detractive use is made of my letters writ- 
 ten (after my acceptance) to explain the cause of my detention at Brook- 
 lyn for the settlement of my affairs. By garbled extracts, the Bishop 
 endeavors to make out that I was one of the most abject of prodigals 
 embarrassed in circumstances not as every body else was embarrassed 
 at that time, by the monetary crisis, but by my own sheer recklessness 
 and improvidence. I will not enter into a defence of my chanicter in this 
 particular. Perhaps I may not always have been sufficiently regardful uf 
 the value of money ; but that is not now the question. As to my embar- 
 rassments in 1840, the Bishop knows that the representation he has given 
 of them is utterly unfounded and most unjust. The facts are simply 
 these : Under the advisement of friends I was induced to invest my liitle 
 capital (the earnings of my professional life) and some credit, in 
 Brooklyn property. Being myself wholly engaged in other pursuits, I 
 allowed, as many others did, the critical moment for realizing to pass 
 unimproved ; and when the troubles came, agitating alike the whole bu- 
 siness community, 1 had enormous assessments, taxes and interest to pay 
 without the power to sell a foot of land at any price. J Of course all my 
 resources for ready money were completely absorbed by these demands, 
 and I was for a time, as I stated in all frankness to the Bishop, most seri- 
 
 * The entire quotation under date September 21, is as follows: " I have 
 been greatly relieved to-day by yours of the 14th, by which I conclude, as 
 on the strength of it I have given out, that you are comina : All sorts of ru- 
 mour had been spread that you had declined'' " I could only hope, but I have 
 suffered great anxiety" The " questions you propose as to the interference 
 of the Board, &c. may all be answered in one sentence they have never in- 
 terfered in such things all has been left to the Faculty all under you will 
 be so y ou are leit at ease on all such heads. Therefore I conclude that you 
 will certainly come ; and Major, I do honestly believe that it is your duty to 
 the Church to your usefulness to your family. 1 know you will never be 
 as happy in Brooklyn as you may be here. I chose you because I wanted 
 you for the College ; but believing also it would be good for you." 
 
 t The letter was in fact an apology for his hasty epistle from Medina, and 
 concludes, after detailing; the circumstances under which that letter was writ- 
 ten, as follows : " Now let us have fair weather again." 
 
 $ I paid in one instance an assessment of about $4090 on an acre of ground 
 for the opening of a street on which I had not a foot of front.
 
 51 
 
 cusly and painfully embarrassed. There are many, I imagine, who can 
 realize ihe case on Us merits, however much HE may be disposed to 
 myslify it. 
 
 It was in my endeavors to extricate my affairs, and mostespecially with 
 a view to Ihe interest of my creditors that in 1S39 and 40, I declined, as 
 I have stated, all offers of service, however tempting, that would have 
 taken me away from Brooklyn. And the question really to be decided,' 
 when the Presidency of Ken) on College was tendered to me, was whether 
 I would abandon all hopes of retrievement, and submit, in those adverse 
 times, to an immediate and peremptory liquidation. Ihe decision, it may 
 well be supposed, was a very painlul one. Nor was it settled affirma- 
 tively until 1 was assured that the aid and agency of kind friends would 
 be given 10 carry out the best possible arrangement of my affairs, for the 
 benefit of all concerned.* According to the Bishops account there was 
 no sacrifice in all this; not the least difficulty in closing up all my multi- 
 farious concerns, public and private; in the midst of the general depression 
 of that period, on a short notice of six or eight weeks. My removal to 
 Gambier, instead of enhancing my embarrassments, he affects to regird 
 as the grand panacea that was to cure them all. 1 shall not answer these 
 absurdities, further than to give an extract from my letter of the 16th De- 
 cember, by which, together with that of the 27lh Nov., the Bishop might 
 have corrected his sentiments on the subject if he had been so minded .f 
 The quotation is made from a copy which I believe to be substantially 
 correct. " In my early letters, no matter which, I spoke of my debts, 
 and the absolute necessity of arranging them before going to Gambier. 
 Now every body here knows that the most tedious, difficult, wearisome, 
 and vexatious of all labors in these times is the settlement of accounts; 
 unles> indeed one has money in hand to pay them as fast as they are ren- 
 dered. That I have had my full share of these trials you will see by my 
 last letter, and I counted upon the difficulties incident to such business, 
 being, as a matter of course, equally well known to you, as to us here. 
 It was known furthermore that I was President of an important Public In- 
 stitution, [the Greenwood Cemetery] which was yet to be matured under 
 my administration, and for which, undrr that view, considerable sums of 
 money had been advanced by different individuals; and besides, it was 
 the meajis by which I was myself to realise funds for the payment of my 
 bills and expenses. Now this consummation has certainly been delayed 
 beyond my own expectations, yet under any circumstances, it could 
 hardly have been expected that an Institution of such magnitude and im- 
 porlance could be peremptorily disposed of." 
 
 I might add other evidences to show that my acceptance of the Presi- 
 dency of Kenyon College was emphatically an act of self sacrifice, that 
 it was so regarded by both parties, and that Bishop Me llvaine haughtily 
 as he now speaks on that subject did not then presume to think, or 
 "begin to think that I was under any obligations to HIM." What then 
 could have been my inducement? I answer again, in the language of my 
 former " Statement," " chiefly my long cherished and uncompromising 
 attachment" to one who had so earnestly "desired to be a co-worker 
 with me" "to stand by him, and hold up his hands in the struggle in 
 
 * I have before me the draft of a letter to a friend asking his advice on the 
 subject, on the very day (Aus. 15) that I received the Bishop's first letter an- 
 nouncing my appointment, in which the interest of my creditors is set down 
 as the most important point to be considpred. 
 
 t These letters \vere considered perfectly satisfactory at the tine, as to the 
 cause of my delay. Yet the Bishop now uses them, by disingenuous quota- 
 tions, to make out a case against me.
 
 52 
 
 which he was supposed to be engaged, and sustain to the utmost of my 
 power ami upon principle, ihe honor of the Episcopate."* I believed 
 that Ihe cause of "religion and leaining" in the West demanded such 
 sacrifices, ami I submitted to them that I might "consecrate myself to 
 this work" of honorable usefulness " lor life." 
 
 But here I am met with a vague pretence that I did not fulfil the object 
 of my mission Jt is not pretended that I was wanting in zeal, or dili- 
 gence, or fidelity, or honesty of purpose, my attainments also are pretty 
 fairly acknowledged "nobody ever denied these things at Gambier," 
 the Bishop himself tells us. But then it is obscurely thrown out in various 
 forms of indirect speech, lhat, alter all, 1 may not have " succeeded in 
 promotingthe welfare of the College" my measures may not have been 
 "good ami wise" and the Bishop was " painfully aware that in nomi- 
 nating me he had committed a prodigious mistake." The legal bearing 
 of this exception I do not think it worth while to discuss; every body 
 mu-;t see that the thing alleged, if it were even verified by specification 
 and proof, is unworthy of the least notice in this aspect. Men make 
 " prodigious mistakes" every day in the most solemn concerns of life, 
 but who ever heard of this being made a ground for the voidance of a 
 contract ? Nor is it of any .greater value as a formal justification of the 
 ACT of my dismissal. I was not di missed upon any allegation that my 
 measures were not wise and good, but because of a certain feeling, said 
 to have existed among the students, of the merits of which the Foaid did 
 not pretend to speak. The whole thing now alleged is manifestly an 
 after-thought, intended to operate upon the public mind to my prejudice, 
 and so to avert popular censure from the perpetrators of an atrocious out- 
 rage, and in this light only I notice it. 
 
 Observe in the first place, if you please, how short the time since the 
 object of this vituperative insinuation had been held up, by the AUTHOR 
 of it, as the glory of the College, and a great acquisition to the "cause 
 of Lilerature and Science in Ihe West;" a man of " great experience in 
 education," unit'ng with greal "devotion, and skill," and Christian zeal, 
 the " upmost kindness of manner and benevolence of disposition " Ob- 
 serve also that these laudatory phrases were not uttered in ignorance. 
 The object of them had been in the most intimate and confidential inter- 
 course with Ihe writer, his bosom friend, for 15 years; had been his fa- 
 vorite candidate for the Vice- Presidency in 1833, and, with difficulty, 
 resisted his importunity to move to Gambier, at that time; had been 
 urged by him again in 1837, wilh scarcely less importunity, to put in his 
 claims to another very high Academic office in the West; and finally in 
 1840 had been induced to accept the Presidency of Kenyon College, by 
 consid' rut'ons of personal rcgaid and Christian duly, strongly urged upon 
 him by the same individual. To suppose that tnere could have been any 
 misapprehension in the mind of the Bishop as to the character of his nomi- 
 nee, under lhes circumstances, is to suppose an obtuseness of under- 
 standing for which he is not very likely to gain credit. 
 
 Again, notice if you please, the entire want of consistency between the 
 nature of the allegation and the mode of proceeding upon it. Fidelity 
 nnil zeal, and honesty of purpose, are certainly worth something, and in 
 the very difficult and responsible station in which I was placed, one would 
 
 * It has been sairl that my statement of the condition of things on "the 
 Hill," nt the time of my arrival, was incorrect, and by implication that the 
 Episcopate was not in the condition stated I shall have occasion to notice 
 that subject presently, but in the mean time, what do you suppose the Bishop 
 means in his letter of August 9th, (quoted above,) by his " troubles being 
 almost over in case (I) accept ?" &c.
 
 53 
 
 suppose they should at least have entitled me to a fair and impartial hear- 
 ing, even though opinions might differ as to the merit of my acts. Is a 
 man of eminent attainments, whose Christian character, and moral worth, 
 and zeal and faithfulness in the discharge of his duty, are unquestionable, 
 to be huiled from his station like an outlaw, without waining, on a vague 
 and irresponsible suggestion ihe mere breath of human opinion? VV iih 
 what consistency are his character and professional reputation assailed 
 afterwards 1 Is it conceivable, in fine, that a man should be so far gone 
 in unwise measures as to have incurred any formal judicial proceeding, 
 whose acts had never before in a single instance been called in question. 
 
 Wilh regard to the actual merits of my administration, 1 pretend to no 
 extraordinary claims, neither do 1 fear the utmost sciutiny of fair and 
 candid examination.* The principles on which I acted had the entire 
 sanction of Bishop Me Ilvaine,and are beyond all question the only prin- 
 ciples on which Keriyon College can have any just claim to public pa- 
 tronage. I hart and still have the firmest conviction that, in faithfully 
 conforming all my administration to them, I was laying a wide and suie 
 foundation for its permanent and extensive usefulness; and I believe, n< t- 
 withstanding all that has been said, that I have the witness of the Bishop, 
 and the Trustees, and the Faculty, and the Students, and the. Public at 
 large, besides a volume of internal evidence, to the same effect. 
 
 This is not, of course, the place to enter upon a formal proof of this 
 allege t 'on; but 1 may without impropriety offer a few particulars in the 
 way of illustration, to show that it is not made by impulse or at random. 
 Some of the evidences from fact I have already in part staled. It wrs 
 shown for example, that the number of ordinary delinquencies as wellrs 
 of gross offences, and the amount of assessment* for damages, were all 
 greatly diminished during the period of my administration; and it mry 
 be added without fear of contradiction, that the general regard for ordir 
 and decorum, the sense of personal character, and Ihe zeal lor sluHy, had 
 as greatly increased. No one acquainted with the College can deny, 
 that there was a very decided improvement in the character of the stu- 
 dents, as gentlemen and as scholars, from the year 1841 to 1843 inclusive. 
 In Ihe very term in which I was dismissed, more than at any former pe- 
 riod, it was felt that the College, without any diminution of its external 
 patronage, had been freed almost entirely from evil influences within 
 itself; and that it could now be safely recommended to the confidence of 
 the most sciupulous and careful patent. Do these things indicate ineffi- 
 ciency ? 
 
 That my administration was generally appreciated on this account I 
 have also shown in part, and shall now proceed to illustrate further ; 
 first, by an extract from Bishop Mcllvaine's Address to the Convention 
 of 1841 : as follows. 
 
 " The new organization provided for by the changes in the Constitution of 
 the Theological Seminary, which were completed during the year 1839-40, 
 
 * It was my constant aim and endeavor during all my Presidency, to draw 
 public attention towards the College, and to induce the Diocese and the com- 
 munity at large to look into every part and department of its management. 
 The members of the Convention of 1841. 2, and 3, will remember that these 
 views were held forth on each of these occasions, as a reason for the Conven- 
 tion meeting habitually on the day after commencement at Gambier. 
 In t'ie Convention of 1843 I als-o moved and sustained a resolution for a Visi- 
 tor! il Committee to attend the College examinations on the same principle. 
 Perhaps some will remember also that it was Bishop Mcllvaine, and 
 the prominent adherents of the Gambier " Clique" that chiefly opposed these 
 several propositions.
 
 went into effect at the beginning of the last winter term. It was not however 
 until more than one half of the year had elapsed that the College could feel 
 any distinct benefit from the new system, on account of the necessary delay 
 in the arrival of President Douglass, who commenced his duties in April last. 
 Since then I can truly say, and none can know the present state of the Col- 
 lege in its preparatory departments without concurring with me, that great 
 life and vigor has been infused into all its government and instruction. The 
 greatest degree of zeal and earnestness animate the officers ; entire harmony 
 prevails in their counsels ; the instruction of the classes is eminently success- 
 ful ; the spirit of the students is that of cheerful conformity to Jaw, zealous 
 prosecution of study, and unusual satisfaction with the efforts made for their 
 improvement, united with a very kindly personal relation to their instructors. 
 The College building is now undergoing a thorough inlernal repair, by which 
 its aspect in reference to comfortable accommodations will be entirely changed, 
 and the indwelling of the students will be placed on a very desirable footing. 1 ' 
 
 My next quotation shall be from the Valedictory Address of 1842 ; in 
 regard to which please remark that it was interpolated by the Orator, 
 after the body of his Oration had been overlooked and criticised, and was 
 not seen or heard by me therefore until I heard it on the platlorm;* and 
 furthermore that I had the personal assurance both of the speaker and of 
 the members of the Class generally, that it was no unmeaning compli- 
 ment, but the actual sentiment of them all; It followed the address to the 
 Faculty, in the following words : 
 
 " President Douglass " Our relations with you have been so peculiar 
 and interesting, 'hat we canno' depart, without some faint expression of our 
 thankfulness for the friendly manner in which you have uniformly treated 
 us, and a public avowal of our high esteem for your character, and attach- 
 ment to your person. During the eighteen months that you have presided 
 over the destinies of this Institution \ve have daily met you on terms of fami 
 liarity and confidence, not often accorded to the pupil, by his instructor. We- 
 are sensible that it has been your earnest desire to render our intercourse 
 with you, not merely instructive, but pleasant and improving. We have 
 not been cold observers of your constant attention to our convenience nnd 
 comfort, nor uninterested spectators of your exertions to add to our means 
 of enjoyment, by improving the natural advantages and beauties for which 
 this place is distinguished. 
 
 " But I need nof enumerate the labors, nor speak of those traits of cha- 
 racter which have won our affectionate regard. It is enough to spy, that we 
 have never doubted the goodness of your intentions, but have at all times 
 been confident that your aim was our welfare. With this estimate of your 
 worth, we now leave the scene of your instructions; and wherever our lots 
 shall be cast, there you may look for those who are ready and willing to do 
 all that in them lies to defend your reputation and secure your happiness. 
 Farewell .'" 
 
 I give also an extract from an editorial notice of the same commence- 
 ment, in one of the Mt. Vernon papers, ihe writer of which, (as well 
 as the sources of his information,) was (hen, and is still unknown to me. 
 
 " President Douglass explained some important changes in the College 
 discipline, introduced by the present Faculty within the last year. While 
 we have not room to remark upon them, justice requires of us to say that 
 they are changes that will gain for the Institution a character which few 
 seminaries of learning deserve. President Douglass, we are informed, is 
 much beloved by the students and respected as a father by them. Great 
 improvement has been made in the College grounds since last year." 
 
 Bishop Me Ilvaine was seated on the platform at the same time.
 
 55 
 
 In the same strain I might quote a multitude of letters from the parents 
 of pupils, and from students after iheir leaving College. A large file of 
 them is before me, almost every letter of which is interspersed more 
 or less with expressions of approbation and thankfulness. Not to occupy 
 too much surface however, 1 content myself with a single example from 
 a very estimable and examplary student, whose leaving College before 
 the completion of his course is very likely to have been charged to my 
 account. It is dated in February, 1843: " No length of time," he re- 
 marks, "can ever efface from my memory the recollection of one whom 
 ] cannot regard but as a father. Never, so long as life lasts, shall 1 for- 
 get your kindness to me while at Kenyon. I think at times that I can 
 still hear the sound of your voice, warning me and my fellew students, 
 with all the anxiety of a parent, to avoid those shoals and quicksands on 
 which young persons are so apt to fall and be wrecked that I can hear 
 you telling us of the path of duty and honor, and pointing out the way 
 to distinction and usefulness." * * * " From the improvements 
 which have been and are still being made in the College, I hope to see 
 her at no distant day take that station among the institutions of our coun- 
 try, which her triends would have her take." 
 
 The following is from a member of the Board of Trustees, dated 
 January, 1843: " I assure you I think of you very frequently, and do 
 hope that things may be so arranged to your comfort and satisfaction, 
 that Kenyon College may become all that you desire to make it." * * 
 I trust you will still have patience with our difficulties at Gambler.* Do 
 not, until it would be wrong to do otherwise, yield up your efforts in the 
 cause of the first Institution in the west. I know that you have things 
 to contend with, sorely trying to your temper, your patience, and ) our 
 Christian fortitude. * * * I consider your service of immense value 
 to the Institution," &c. &c. I might make other quotations from the 
 letters of the same individual, and from other Trustees, to the same ef- 
 fect. 
 
 The following is from a prominent clergyman of the diocese: "I 
 feel a lively interest in your present improvements at Kenyon. The wel- 
 fare of our Western Church depends much on the prosperity of the Col- 
 lege; and the higher the standard of education there, the more able will 
 our young clergy prove, and the greater influence will our church at 
 large attain to. I wish you every success, and every blessing on your 
 labors." 
 
 The following is also from a clergyman, high in the confidence of 
 Bishop Mcllvaine, and dated in June, 1843: "I would comply with 
 your request, if for no other reason, from a principle of gratitude for 
 tha eminent service you are rendering the Church of my affections, in 
 your efficient superintendance of every thing connected with the interests 
 of Kenyon. I want you to feel that the Clergy of our Church appreciate your 
 able and hearty services. I want you to feel that we are thankful, and that 
 we would rejoice in any opportunity of surrounding you with an affection- 
 ate and hearty co-operation. You are serving God wish abi'ities, which 
 few if any of us possess; You occupy a place on the walls of our Zion, 
 second in importance to none. Most fervently therefore do I implore for 
 you grace to persevere without wavering." 
 
 The following is also from a Clergyman very favourably situated for 
 knowing what he states, written after my removal : " As regards the 
 College I may be allowed to bear evidence to whal 1 consider a distinct 
 
 * Alluding to the pecuniary embarrassments, just after the special conven- 
 tion at Newark ; and in answer to some remarks upon the conduct of the 
 Agent, by which considerable excitement had been produced in the Faculty.
 
 fact ; that wherever I went you were spoken of in (he highest terms ; and 
 there appeared to be a general impression among the people that now 
 things will go well. Your Presidency seemed lo me to establish confi- 
 dence in the Institution, and I never heard one syllable of doubt or un- 
 popularity breathed against you." 
 
 A corresponding strain of remark was constantly made, viva voce, by 
 the members of the Convention and by the friends and palrons of the In- 
 stitution visiting "the Hill" from all parts of the country. During the 
 sessions of the Convention, the prevailing tuple in the intervals of actual 
 business, was the improved condition of the Institution, in every respect 
 of which any judgment could be formed in time of vacation. Compari- 
 sons between the past and the present, always complimentary to the latter, 
 were in the mouth of almost every visitor who had ever been on " the 
 Hill" before.* It was constantly the subject of complimentary language 
 to me ; and persons otherwise unacquainted with me not unfrequenlly 
 introduced themselves for the purpose of speaking it. 
 
 I have thus endeavoured to illustrate by facts, and also by some evidences 
 of current and responsible opinions, that my administration was in sub- 
 stance, as well as in common repute, an efficient and beneficial adminis- 
 tration to the ends for which the Presidency was conferred upon me. It 
 remains to notice the few particulars, in which the " reply" seems to 
 controvert this position, with anything like fact. And first as to the 
 management of the Matriculation system (p. 42.) This the writer says, 
 was erected in theory and broken down in prac'ice till it became almost 
 or quite a nullity." The assertion is simply untrue. The system had, 
 as it was expected to have, peculiar difficulties to encounter on its first 
 introduction. The means of estimating the character of the students was 
 less perfect than it would undoubtedly be after the system had been for 
 some years in operation-; but in the mean time there was no lack of care, 
 the wisdom of the whole faculty was employed, to make it in practice 
 what it was in theory, a moral restraint ; and that it was so in an eminent 
 degree, I most solemnly aver, with a much better opportunity of know- 
 ing, than any other person could possibly have. 
 
 The Bishop notices also the Patronage system, and pretends to illus- 
 trate its operation by a distorted account of, what he could not but have 
 known to be, a special and peculiar case. He repiesents a youth, who 
 was committed to my care with a deposit of $200 previously estimated 
 by me for the expanses of one year. After " fifteen months" residence 
 (having: heen dismissed) " his father [it is said] had been called by me to 
 p:iy $350 more which he paid [making $550 in all] and more is still 
 called for " " The father," it is fuither said " has received no satisfac- 
 tory account of the matter, and the sum still called for, h refuses to pay." 
 
 I must give the Bishop credit for no small degree of art in getting up 
 (his case for effect. How far it is entitled to confidence we shall see. 
 My first commentary upon it shall be an extract from the last letter of the 
 father of the youth referred to, dated August 5, 1844, some months before 
 the reply was written, and covering a remittance of $75 ; " The sum of 
 
 * It was on an occasion of this kind, in the latter part of 1842, when this 
 comparison was strongly expressed by a visitor in the presence of Bishop, 
 Mcllvaine, that the latter betrayed, for the first time in my presence, but most 
 unequivocally the jealousy to which I have alluded in a note to my former 
 statement (p. 25) ; and a very short time after, occurred the outbreak of 
 indignation in his study, mentioned in that statement, (p, 29.)
 
 57 
 
 $75," he writes, " covers the amount of what you have paid, with interest 
 for a period somewhat over one year. I shall be in New York about 
 the time of the General Convention [n. v.] and shall be glad to 
 see you and pay any balance which you think is justly due." The 
 balance here spoken of, has reference to one, of two or three small 
 bills, not due to me, but which I had merely forwarded at the request of 
 the parties concerned. There was some uncertainly, whether I might not 
 have paid this one at my own risk, but not finding the voucher, 1 did not 
 include it in my return of bills paid; and it was the adjustment of this 
 (possible) balance, to which the quotation refers. It will be seen then 
 that so far as I was concerned the statement that " more is still called for 
 and refused," is destitute of truth. Every cent rendered in my abstract 
 as having been paid or pledged by me, was more than covered by the 75 
 remitted, and the party was even willing to have settled an additional 
 balance, if upon inquiry it was found to have been so paid. The state- 
 ment implying that 1 had given no satisfactory account of the matter, is 
 also, as to me, incorrect. I wrote in succession five long letters, to the 
 father, explaining with minute particularity the conduct of his son To 
 these letters I received no answer, and after waiting eight or nine months, 
 till I began to think of collecting the balance of my disbursements in 
 some other way, I met a private opportuniiy and sent the naked bills with 
 a request for their immediate payment, and then, for the first time, it 
 was made known to me by a letter of complaint from the father tliat none 
 of my previous letters had reached him.* I wrote anolher long letter in 
 reply, but while I was meditating upon the means of sending it, with the 
 certainty of its being received, I, and my family, were overwhelmed with 
 our o\vn troubles, and this letter, getting mingled will) other papers, was 
 lost sight of. A briefer explanation, written after my return to New Yoik, 
 was all that my situation and engagements then permitted. That some 
 explanations may have still been wanting, to the party concerned, under 
 these circumstances, is very probable; but if so, 1 repeat it was not from 
 the want of any possible care or pains taking on my part, and of this, that 
 gentleman was made aware by the letter just referred to. 
 
 The amount of expenditure in the case of this young man, stated to 
 have been $'550, is afterwards more correctly stated at $525. In either 
 case, however, it was without doubt most extravagant, and such as any 
 father would have just reason to complain of; but before the responsi- 
 bility is placed upon the College patron, it should be observed, First: 
 That the father, with particular views on the subject of expense, and 
 deprecating any thinsr like stint, enjoined upon me, again and again, to 
 supply his son on a liberal scale, and to advance beyond the amount de- 
 posited, if necessary for that purpose; and when at the end of the first 
 year I rendered him an account of $320, (in all,) including College ad- 
 vances for the following term, (a part also having been incurred surrep- 
 titiously by the son,) he entirely approved of my doings, and reiterated 
 strongly the sentiments just mentioned. Secondly: The aggregate sum 
 $525 comprehends several items of extraneous expense, not embraced or 
 supposed to be embraced in any estimate of ordinary expenses. Such as 
 an excursion to the North in the Vacation of 1842 $35 for his expenses 
 home an outfit of extra clothing for the same occasion the surreptitious 
 bills above mentioned ; (which finally proved more considerable lhan was 
 at first supposed) and a considerable amount of expenses incurred at Ml. 
 Vernon, (after he withdrew from theCollege and from my oversight,) the 
 payment of which could not be avoided : All together amounting to 
 
 That they had been received and read by his son, however, was made 
 known lo me by a token not to be misunderstood. 
 
 8
 
 58 
 
 about $-170 or $180 which being deducted from the 525, leaves a nett 
 amount of $'350 for his proper expenses for one year and a half (Aca- 
 demic reckoning) under my patronage. 
 
 I could give, if the occasion required it, many other particulars of these 
 surreptitious bills and the expenditures at Mount Vernon, lhat would exon- 
 erate me from all blame in regard to any of them. Most of them were 
 for articles of necessity, (money furnished by me for such articles having 
 been diverted to other objects.) These could have been recovered at 
 law. A few of a more doubtful character might not have been recovera- 
 ble, but being peremptorily demanded, an.i suit threatened, they would, 
 at least, have detained the young man some weeks in Mount Vernon, 
 where his associations were of the most demoralizing sort. In rny opin- 
 ion it was of vital importance to disengage him from those associations 
 and send him home immediately, and such also was the urgent request of 
 his father. Without a moment's hesitation, therefore, I assumed the pay- 
 ment of those bills, and got him off. I had been requested to act for him 
 as I would act for my own child, and, whether appreciated or not, (God 
 is my witness) I did so most faithfully. 
 
 The use made by Bishop Mcllvaine cf this case would stand as a con- 
 spicuous example of sophistry, if it were not lost in the multitude of other 
 like examples. It is the substitution of an obvious exception to a general 
 rule for the rule itself ; a mode of reasoning which would at once break 
 down all distinction between truth and falsehood in morals. With re- 
 gard to my patronage duties generally, I may add, that they were ever 
 held by me as of the most solemn obligation, and discharged with uncom- 
 promising devotion, even in the midst of other and very pressing duties. 
 About half the students in the College at the time of my dismissal were 
 my clients, and though it may be that my efforts were frustrated in a few 
 instances, as those of the most careful parents sometimes are, by the wil- 
 fulness or wickedness of those for whose benefit they were intended, I 
 have the happiness to know that, in general they were justly appreciated, 
 and in some cases conducive in no small degree, to the permanent wel- 
 fare and happiness of the client. 
 
 The next set of allegations to be examined in order, are those which 
 relate to the expenditures, made or administered by me at sun<lry times 
 on the College and College premises ; than which, probably no part of 
 the pamphlet is more unsparingly or more rancorously virulent.* Turn, 
 if you please, to the 36th and following pages for an example. The 
 Bishop here gives an account of the repairs in the College building in 
 1841, and of my connection with them. These repairs' he first tells us, 
 were oriirinaled by Messrs. Blake and Badger, of Milnor Hall, so that I 
 was entitled to no credit on that score. ; Ihey were finally assented to, 
 however, in a conference, with me, on condition lhat I would ; ' make 
 such arrangements with the persons to be employed that no payment 
 should be demanded except at such and such intervals." This condition 
 he goes on to say, was neglected by me, and after a few pariphrases upon 
 the troubles that, ensued, it comes out at last that this was the cause of 
 all the financial difficulties of the Institution. " "Thus were we swamped. 
 Here was the crisis which required the special convention to consider 
 
 * The motive to this, will be better understood by a reference to what I 
 have elsewhere said, on the theory of the whole movement, viz. to divert 
 from Bishop M. to me the odium of his mismanagement, as head of the trust. 
 The Bishop has a peculiar tact in this way. At the convention at Newark 
 all the responsibility of these embarrassments was thrown back upon his pre- 
 decessor, Bishop Chase.
 
 59 
 
 whether to meet (he debts by sale of lands or otherwise. Thus came the 
 necessity of the application made last year at the east and in Ohio for 
 $30,000" " eleven buckram men/' again, " grown out of two." 
 
 To any one who has taken note of the progress of things at Gambier, 
 or attended to the representation of its embarrassments elsewhere made, 
 by Bishop M., a reply to this fanfaronade can scarcely be necessary. I 
 shall notice it, but as briefly as possible. In the call of the special con- 
 vention, the Bishop speaks of it as a notorious fact that the institution 
 had always been greatly embarrassed with pecuniary difficulties. In 
 writing to me in 1840-1, he represented it as very nearly " swamped"; 
 and when I conversed with him on the subject soon after my arrival, he 
 put entirely out of sight the possibility of any other alternative than the 
 sale of the lands for relief. What else can we do ?" was his reply to 
 every thing I said in opposition tosnle.* The chief source of alarm then 
 and always, was the New-York mortgage $15,000 of which the inte- 
 rest had not been paid for nearly two years. It was understood when the 
 Ohio delegates went on to the general convention of 1841, that they and 
 the Bishop were to make a joint effort to " stave off" that claim ; but the 
 latter writing to me on the subject while in New York, spoke in utter 
 despair of accomplishing any thing ; and it was the ultimatum of the ad- 
 ministrator of Mr. Ward's estate that chiefly made the crisis on which 
 the special convention was convoked. Listen to the Bishop himself on 
 this subject. " Much (he larger part of the debt is owed to an estate in 
 New York now in the hands of an administrator, who holds a mortgage 
 upon all the real estate of the Institution," * * * " He will not with, 
 hold his hand from the lands unless the debt be forthwith discharged," &c. 
 
 In his address to the convention. Bishop M. gives an account of the 
 different items of expenditure out of which the debt about $36,000 in 
 all had arisen, beginning with a pretty large old score charged to the 
 administration] of his predecessor, Bishop Chase. Then comes a sum 
 for improement of lands, and building's, including the noble edifice 
 erected under the eye of Bishop M. for his own accommodation. Then 
 his salary for several years, and Ihe expense of his removal to Ohio. * * 
 And finally the repairs here alluded to, of which he speaks in the follow- 
 ing terms : 
 
 " The last particular in this account is an expenditure upon the repairs of 
 the College building, and furnishing the rooms with certain articles of 
 stnndiug furniture for the sake of the better ensuring order and propriety 
 therein I am aware that some have supposed there was extravagance in 
 this, considering the indebtedness of the Institution, and I believe it was 
 made a handle of by some toils prejudice. In justice to the gentleman 
 under whose supervision that measure was carried forward, I feel bounl 
 to say that while it was possible there might have been better terms with 
 the contractors, as to times ot payment, there is not the least reasonable 
 doubt thai all the expenditure was good and very useful, and the great bur- 
 den of it absolutely demanded. The College had undergone no repairs of 
 
 * Mr. Fox (Sands and Fox, of N. Y.) will recollect that when at Gambier 
 in thesnmmer of 1841, I requested him to speak to the Bishop on this sub- 
 ject. All that was wanting was good financial and prudential management, 
 in the office and over Ihe grounds : Clergymen were unfit for such a manage- 
 ment, and ihis unfilness was the real element of all our trouble. 
 
 t It now appears that a specific asset was left by Bishop Chase for the 
 express purpose of paying off all arrearages created by him ; viz. the " north 
 section of College lands." These were afterwards sold for about $22,000, 
 and the " arrearages" were only quoted at $20,000. Yet the whole of the 
 latter are put down in Bishop M.'s expose as so much debit to the adminis- 
 tration of Bishop C.
 
 60 
 
 "any permanence since it was built. Its condition was a disgrace. We 
 " were either to be ashamed to receive students or make repairs." 
 
 Tliis language expresses in very moderate terms, the sentiment under 
 which I put my hand to these improvements. My first visit to the Col- 
 lege building tilled me with surprise and disgust, at the foul and dilapi- 
 dated stale of it, regarding it as a place of habitation for young gentlemen. 
 Early in the summer (1841), I drew the attention of the Faculty to the 
 subject, got a special committee raised, put myself upon it, spent 
 some days in exploring the whole extent of the evil, and drew up a report, 
 which being highly approved by the Faculty, I was authored to commu- 
 nicate to the Bishop. As the evil was a very serious one however, and 
 some expense would have to be incurred, I requested the members to co- 
 operate with me in bringing it strongly to his mind, and purposely kept 
 back my report until it was known that some of them had seen him in ac- 
 cordance with this suggestio i.* 
 
 The co .currence of the Bishop being at length obtained, and the ar- 
 rangements made, I entered upon the work, immediately aftercommence- 
 ment, and in about eight weeks, with unceasing toil, and care, and laborir 
 and vigilance, having western men and western mechanics to deal 
 with, ;ind using, with my own hands, as occasion required, the paint 
 brush, the hammer, the hod, or the wheel barrow ; I succeeded in re- 
 newing and finishing the whole interior of the building, wood, plaister, 
 paint, and paper, and furnished it with bed-steads and matresses, chairs 
 tables and wash stands complete. f 
 
 The Bishop took the liveliest interest in the whole proceeding at the 
 time ventured into the dust occasionally to cheer and encourage me, and 
 spoke in the most laudatory terms of what was doing, to the Convention at 
 Chillicothe His letters from New York where he went to attend the Gene- 
 ral Convention, breathe the same spirit. But now turn to the spirit oflhe 
 " Reply ;" Is it conceivable that it could have flown from the same pen ? 
 My neglect in not attending to a certain stipulation, in the making of the 
 contract, the consequences of that neglect, the accumulation of conse- 
 quences as the ball rolls on, crescit eundo, till the whole Institution 
 wa* ' sw.im )t.f " The answer to all this, however, is very brief. I DID 
 NOT MAKK THE CONTRACT. The workmen were engaged by the 
 agent; the plaisterer and his men came to commence the work without 
 my having spoken a word to them, nor did I know anything about the 
 terms on which they were engaged. I may have catered for a hand or 
 two in the progress of the work, but if so, it was upon conditions pre- 
 
 * This accounts for the part assigned in the reply to Messrs. Blake & 
 Badger. 
 
 t The whole expense of furniture was about $SOO, and of repairs $1300 : in 
 return lor which, an addition of $2.00 was put upon the room rent and $2 00 
 charged for use of furniture, making an additional annual receipt of $260 (on 
 65 College and Grammar School Students) for an outlay of $2100. The 
 " repairs" were estimated before hand, at $800, but when we came to touch 
 the plaister, it fell down in masses over our heads, and had to be almost en- 
 tirely removed. Much of the wood work was also found so saturated with 
 vermin, as to make it necessary to remove it very extensively ; hence the in- 
 crease of cost. 
 
 JThere is another version of the Mount Vernon Suits, which are here said to 
 have precipitated the crisis. They were brought, or brought about, to make 
 another gentleman (the agent Dr. Crittenden,) unpopular, and get him to re- 
 tign. The chief of them, was for an account with a firm, of which the senior 
 partner stepped into the vacated agency the moment it became vacant.
 
 61 
 
 
 
 viously established and without assuming any responsibility in that re- 
 spect at all. With regard to the furnituie, it did fall in my way to nego- 
 tiate a contract for the article of bed-steads, but even this was in an un- 
 derstanding with the agent, and duly reported to him. 
 
 But there is still a sequel to this matter more malignant if possible than 
 the main allegation ; and in the discussion of which Bishop M'llvaine is 
 enabled to place in striking contrast his devotion to the \velfaie of the 
 institution, ar.d mine ; for example, " In the midst of the suits which had 
 now come upon us, when the Bishop, to save expense, was teaching in 
 two professorships in the Theological Seminary. [N. B. The whole 
 rank and file of that Institution, including the two College Tutors, was 
 three Students ! .'] Mr. D. brings in a bill of 82 for that very labour, 
 &c. highly two Dollars charged for the labours of a vacation by the 
 President, while the Bishop hao been labouring twelve years in gratuitious 
 instructions ! charged too in the midst of the embarrassments and trials of 
 the institution, when the Bishop and all others were considering what to 
 do to keep the College from sinking." How disinterested the Bishop ! 
 How selfish the President ! ! The Bishop seems to forget that a little 
 while before HE brought in a bill for $80 for teaching one of my classes 
 while 1 was detained ai Brooklyn. But perhaps it makes a difference that 
 it was not brought " in the midst of the suits." Be it so, I will not spend 
 lime upon these bagatelles. Let us go to that which was the veritable 
 substance of all the suits, the debt. It amounted, you will recollect, to 
 about $36,000. Would you believe it, that upwards of $15,000 of it- 
 more than two fifths of the whole was incurred (either directly, or by 
 diverting the funds of the institution, to the purposes of the Diocees,) 
 for the accommodation of this very, disinterested nan! His residence, 
 second to none iri Ohio, had been built ; his salary for several of the first 
 years, paid ; all his expenses in moving his family from Brooklyn to 
 Gambler, added to the debt, and adding also, its interest to the other bur- 
 dens of the institution for some eight or ten years ! I might speak of 
 other, local, facilities enjoyed by Bishop M., besides all this : but I let 
 them pass. I do not dwell upon the things here mentioned as regards 
 their propriety or impropriety in themselves, but I do presume to question 
 the taste of a man who, has been so well cared for, and whose con- 
 venience and comfort have made so considerable items in the indebted- 
 ness, of the Institution, taking so much credit to himself for his disinter- 
 estedness.* 
 
 My explanation of the obnoxious charge, the Bishop broadly repudiates. 
 "He had no churn, " he says "no bill of timber was ever heard of by the 
 Bishop," &c. With all due deference, I must correct this statement. I re- 
 peat in the most solemn mariner, that a bill of timber was the gist, the es- 
 sential matter of the whole conference. Dr. Crittenden was settling up 
 his affairs to leave ; I found a bill of timber charged in my account, which 
 I supposed had been furnished, as limber for like purposes was furnished 
 to Mr. Ross and others, without charge. I objected to the charge, and 
 carried my claim to ihe Bishop, with whom the matter was fully discussed. 
 He made "no objection to the principle, but feared the -precedent, as Dr 
 C. and others had built fences, and would expect the same allowance. 
 Returning to the office, I was informed that the principle of allowing 
 compensation for extra services in vacation, had been settled in the case 
 of one of the Tutors ; and as my claim had been refused to save a prece- 
 
 * The Bishop's talk to the people in New York and Brooklyn about the hard- 
 ships and poverty of his condition at Gambler (!) is much of the same charac- 
 ter. He is a comfortable farmer, with an abundant salary, and money at in- 
 terest ; and lives on the fat of a most plenteous land.
 
 62 
 
 dent, I thought it not unjustifiable to use a fair precedent, in return, to 
 save myself. 1 accordingly drew up the bill referred to, and called a 
 second lime upon the Bishop, to whom the whole matter was minutely 
 and particularly explained. The Bishop, according to the Reply, and 
 in his account of the matter elsewhere, assumed a very magisterial tone, 
 refusing to allow the whole bill, and he even affects to repeat the very 
 words in which his refusal was expressed. I again declare, with the 
 most clear and perfect assurance, that no such tone was assumed, nor any 
 such words used, on the occasion. The Bishop did not refuse any part of 
 the account. The reduction from $2.00 10 $1.50, per diem, was my own 
 voluntary act ; suggested by myself, on the principle that it would then, 
 cover the timber furnished/ro/tt the College Saw-mill, and with this I was 
 willing to be content.* 
 
 But I am lo notice yet some other matters (of account) of a later date, 
 to which the Bishop is pleased to allude in the same amiable and liberal 
 terms. " All other expenditures," he observes, p. 38-9, " which Mr. 
 D. involved himself in, were deeply regretted by the Bishop, because he 
 knew he could not afford them." " He was only injuring the Institution 
 by such things." These allusions have reference to certain additions and 
 alterations made in my house, and to certain improvements on the Col- 
 lege grounds in 1843. With regard to the first; the members of the Con- 
 vention of 1842 will probably recollect some pleasantries of that date, 
 about " building three Tabernacles." Objection having been made to 
 the proposal to meet again at Gambier, on the ground that the accommo- 
 dations were too limited, I replied with great earnestness to secure the 
 object, and after expatiating on its benefits to the Institution " it is good 
 for us to meet here, and if there is any lack of accommodation, let us 
 build three Tabernacles," &c. The point was carried, and in the spirit 
 of my suggestion, (as well as to provide employment for two meritorious 
 young men, who wished to support themselves in the Institution by me- 
 chanic labor,) I undertook, in 1843, to make such enlargements in my 
 house as would enable me to accommodate more than my proportion of 
 the Convention. With very great exertion, these improvements were 
 ready in season; and by furnishing a large room in the College with beds, 
 I was enabled to keep open housn for some 25 or 30 guests during the 
 Convention week, including several of my constituency, the Trustees, 
 and their families. And now comes the sequel. Three or four months 
 are passed, and lo ! my own family is turned unceremoniously out of 
 house and home, by these very Trustees, and my pains taking and labor 
 to promote their comfort, and the comfort of the Convention, is cast with 
 insult into my teeth, as a piece of useless and wasteful prodigality ! Does 
 the Diocese of OHIO endorse this proceeding, in taste, in feeling, in 
 rectitude, or inequity ?f 
 
 * The Bishop makes a reflection upon the style of the fence, as if it was 
 something extra ; It certainly was a good substantial fence, but with as little 
 pretension to style as possible, nothing in fact but a rough oak picketing. 
 He also speaks invidiously of my enclosing grounds" without authority," for 
 my own private ue. What use? Was it for orchards or gardens or grain 
 fields ? O no ! My garden when I went there was a very small patch, 
 slightly fenced, and surrounded with a deep triangled thicket of cat-briers, 
 almost impracticable. In building new fences I tookin a portion of this thick- 
 et, lying between the College and the Chapel, and expended upon it about 
 $150 to clear it out, and make it, look beautiful ! And this was all the use 
 I had of it. 
 
 t I never pretended that I had an original claim to reimbursement for these 
 expenditures, but as they were incurred in the discharge of my official hospi- 
 talities, and in reliance upon the permanency of my station, they are justly 
 chargeable, and will have to be paid.
 
 63 
 
 Secondly, as to expenditures of the same date on the College grounds 
 I had been constituted, at a meeting of the Trustees at Chillicolhe, in 
 September, 1841, the agent for laying out and improving the (park) 
 grounds around the College. I was engaged in this duty in the S| ring 
 of 1843, with a small balance of appropriation, at comman ', which I was 
 expending, (with the unanimous approbation of the Faculty,) in the con- 
 struction of a substantial and tasteful path way, underlaid with stone, from 
 the College towards the village. My balance ran out as I reached the 
 front of the Chapel, and there I proposed to stop. Butasthe students and 
 most of the people on the Hill, were struck wiih the utility and beauty of 
 the improvement,* I was induced (by their solicitation) to make out a 
 plan and estimate for finishing it, with a substantial gate way of stcne at 
 its outer terminus in the village. Not to multiply details, I proposed that 
 if $100 could be raised by subscription within the College, I would pro- 
 ceed, taking the risk of raising the balance in some other way, and upon 
 this arrangement the work was already far advanced towards completion 
 when the Bishop returned from (his first trip to) N. Y. Nothing could 
 exceed the fullness of his approbation, both of the work itself and the 
 progress made in it, when we first looked at it together, in coming from 
 the Chapel, a day or two after his return. " How do you manage as to the 
 expense ?" he inquired. I explained the airangement to him, stating 
 that the whole subscription would probably reach $150, and (hat there 
 would still be a deficit of about 130. "U! well take care of that," 
 said he in reply, and so I considered the matter settled. Some time after, 
 he asked me about the front fence, and desired that I would put that in 
 hand also, and have it done, if possible, by the meeting of the Conven- 
 tion, (in Sept.") which I did. The work was not entirely finished, how- 
 ever, till the Bishop left, on his second trip to N. Y., and of course noth- 
 ing more passed till his return. A week or two after that event, I called 
 upon him in relation to the subject, and requested his interposition, as I 
 had been put to some inconvenience, from having had to advance most of 
 the amount myself. " Make out your bills," said he, in the most kind 
 and affable manner, " include every thing; I shall have to call the Trus- 
 tees together on other business, and it will be a good time to present 
 them." Alas! could I but have known what was in that secretive mind, 
 at that moment! but I spare you any unnecessary reflections. It was 
 finally agreed that the accounts should be referred to a " good and liberal 
 minded" Committee, and I left him without a doubt that he was entirely 
 concurrent with me, in all respects. 
 
 After my dismissal, as nothing seemed to have been done on this sub- 
 ject, it began to be rumored that my claims were not to be allowed, and 
 one or two persons who had balances still due them, called to know how 
 they should get their pay. I referred them to Mr. White, the Agent, and 
 lodged a certificate in the office, that the improvements were made by 
 me as an asrent, specially appointed to lay out and improve the grounds; 
 that the path and gate-wav, (when part done) had received the sanction 
 of Bp. M., President of the Board of Trustees, who pledged himself 
 that the deficit should be provided for; and finally, that the fence had 
 been built at the specific request of that personage. Upon this certificate 
 one of the creditors immediately put his claim in suit, against the Insti- 
 tution; and some interest was excited on the Hill, at the prospect of the 
 trial. But care was taken that it should not be tried. The Agent re- 
 ceived instructions to settle it, the evening before the day of trial, and all 
 
 * Substantial stone paths were a great desideratum in that country. This 
 was 10 feet wide, trenched out from one to two feet deep, and filled with 
 stone and gravel. Great quantities of loose stone and rubbish were also re- 
 moved from the grounds in making it.
 
 64 
 
 the other unpaid balances were then also assumed. If Bishop M. thought 
 my claims so very unfounded why did he pay these balances which were 
 a par) of them ? Why did he evade a legal decision, which would have 
 set the matter at once and forever at rest ? 
 
 It was in rel ition to these matters that the correspondence arose, in 
 which I am accused of having spoken unbecomingly to Bishop Mcll- 
 vaine ; and which, on that ground, was taken by him as a pretext for 
 breaking off our further intercourse. 1 will not deny that my letter was 
 a very severe one, more severe, it may be, than was consistent with my 
 own dignity, but consider! I was seated in the midst of the ruins of all 
 my household comforts in a desolated house, writing, peradventure 
 upon a barrel-head, with a medley of boxes and baskets and crockery 
 piled around me, my furniture having just been sacrificed under the 
 hammer of the auctioneer, to meet for the second time a forced liquida- 
 tion : All this at the hands of my " old friend " A letter is brought to 
 me. Six long pages of the most refined special pleading, to show that I 
 was not technically authorized to make certain improvements on the 
 College grounds ; that the Bishop, though he appeared to approve of it, 
 did not so in reality ; and that one hundred and forty-two dollars 
 and tioelve and a half cents, if you please, expended on such improve- 
 ments, we:e therefore to be siiperadded to the burden of my other cares. 
 Is it surprising that under such circumstances I should have written as I did, 
 (a private letter) to the author of these things ? The Bishop has seasoned 
 his reply with a few garbled extracts. I give them more fully. 
 
 * Yon say that our conversation (at the time you promised to make 
 good the deficit) was exclusively about the gateway. I affirm, in the most 
 solemn manner, (and there are others to corroborate me if needful,) that this 
 is diametrically contrary to the fact. We were standing in front of the 
 chapel, which we had just left, it was within a few days after your return, 
 from New York you began the conversation by remarking in the most ap- 
 proving manner, that I had done "' a monstrous deal of work here" point- 
 ing directly to the path, which was full before us in an unfinished slate. 
 Almost the whole conversation was of the path. I told you how many tons of 
 stone there were in it how many loads of earth had been removed what 
 grading and levelling had been done, and was doing upon the risjlit and left, 
 &c. &c. The gate ivas spoken of, but much more remotely, and the state- 
 ment of expenses was distinctly and emphatically for the whole work. 
 
 I further, and most solemnly affirm that the deficit, which was then and 
 there assumed by you, was not a mere deficit in name, but an estimated 
 amount in dollars. (viz. $130) conditioned upon the fact that the $150 which 
 I said I had hoped to raise by private subscription, was actually so raised. 
 I affirm also (hat your language and manner at that lime and afterwards, 
 were of the most cordial and unqualified approbation of the whole work, as a 
 great and eminently beneficial improvement to the College ; and that from 
 that lime to the date of your recent letter, I never heard from you one word 
 of disapprobation. The indebtedness ol the College was never once alluded 
 to. You had just returned from New York whence you had written, and 
 brought the most flattering account of your success in raisins; money, with 
 the prospect of speedily paying off Ihe whole debl of Ihe Inslitution. Any 
 discouragement on that ground therefore would have been stransely out of 
 place; while on the other hand, a little bonus for the improvement of the 
 College, was not only justified, but under the circumstances, the most natu- 
 ral suggestion of common good taste and feeling. * 
 
 Speaking of my call upon him after his (second) return from New 
 York, the letter proceeds : 
 
 You received the application in the most gracious manner, made not the 
 slightest objection, said not a word of disapprobation to any part of the 
 work, and yourself suggested that I should make out a statement of the 
 whole, and bring it before the Board of Trustees, saying that they were about
 
 65 
 
 to be called together on other business. I beg you to note particularly that 
 up to this time, and in fact to the very meeting of the Board, you had never 
 on any occasion made the least objection; or intimated by any sign to me that 
 you did not cordially approve of the whole work. On the contrary, on the 
 occasion just referred to, your words and manner were most decidedly favor- 
 able, and such as left in my mind no manner of doubt that you were so, in 
 feeling and sentiment as well as in taste. 
 
 And now, sir, I am prepared to account for the exceeding modesty, as you 
 are pleased to call it, of my application to the Board. "You had, in the pleni- 
 tude of your kindness, promised me a special committee, with whom I could 
 confer at large on the subject of these expenditures, and it was only necessary 
 therefore to address the Board in such terms as would bring the matter fairly 
 before them. There could be no need of an ex parte statement where no an- 
 tagonism was known to exist. The Board were presumed to be liberally 
 minded; ils chairman, professedly, and to all appearance, my friend. The 
 hostile and illiberal feeling you now exhibit was then, as yet concealed a 
 mental reservation in the deep recesses of your dark double mind ; and so 
 completely disguised under the outer garb of smiles and courtesy, that to 
 my poor simple apprehension, there was not the slightest ground of suspicion. 
 that all was not equally fair within. 
 
 You proceed to say with a good deal of declamation, that the Board felt 
 " deeply and strongly" that the works referred to ;< were not good and pro- 
 per improvements ;" I know very well now, the process by which the 
 opinions of the Board are formed ; but how does it happen that they should 
 have passed a vote of thanks for these very works in September last? Sir, 
 I have the best reason for believing that they had no such feeling as that here 
 represented. The greater part of them declared to me and others on the 
 Hill, that they thought the improvements highly important and valuable, and 
 that they ought to be paid for and, (unless they too practice upon the ethics 
 of the secreta monita) there is no reason to doubt that a vole to that effect 
 would have passed, if you had not been perfidious. 
 
 A word or two as to the substance of your present feeling you think (and 
 such it appears was your secret mind, even when you were professing the 
 contrary) that the works in question, were in bad taste, considering the in- 
 debtedness of the Institution, and that those who had money to appropriate 
 to such objects, might better have employed it, in removing that indebt- 
 edness. 
 
 This is certainly a disinterested and liberal minded thought! Why did it 
 not occur to you, when you were laying out 7 or 8000 dollars, for your own 
 private accommodation, on your house. There was indebtedness then as well 
 as nou> and the appropriation of this sum at that time besides reducing the 
 principal debt, would have saved to the Institution at least 5,000 dollars of 
 interest money. Your predecessor was content to live in a very humble dwel- 
 ling, so that he could appropriate his means and energies to the welfare of 
 the Institution you build a splendid palace for yourself suffering Kenyon 
 College to degenerate into the filthy p sty I found it in 1841, and when in the 
 progress of my unceasing efforts to give it somewhat of the dignity and char- 
 acter which a College ought to have, a few hundred dollars are expended, it 
 is denounced oy you as a " most unjusti6able expenditure." Such is how- 
 ever the narrow, illiberal and selfish spirit, by which all your administration 
 here, has been characterized. 
 
 There is one more topic in your letter, on which, before taking leave of it, 
 I must make a few remark*, viz. your bold and unblushing avowal of thnt 
 most dishonest of all Jesuitical artifices ; mental reservation. A large part of 
 your letter is the quotation of your secret mind, as the criterion of obligation 
 and duty, in diametrical opposition to the plain and explicit declarations of 
 your lips. I can hardly realize it I ask myself in amazement, if this can be 
 the same man in whom I used to place confidence alas ! how are the mighty 
 fallen. But, while I am slow to realize this double-dealing policy, the avowal 
 of it has I confess unlocked a world of mystery which I had otherwise found it 
 even more difficult to realize. I now see how your pledges an J promises, so lav- 
 ishly proffered to me before I came here, have been utterly disregarded since. 
 
 9
 
 66 
 
 Those eloquent appeals, and that solemn adjuration in the name of the church 
 by which I was induced to come " and consecrate myself to this work lor 
 hie" alas! how quickly dishonored and forgotten by you. The smiles and 
 courtesy with which you received me in public, while you and those in your 
 confidence, were endeavoring by secret detraction to undermine and destroy 
 me. Your disclaimer in regaid to my dismissal, when by }our own confes- 
 sion you were holding secret councils to bring it about: And finally, the 
 overflowing expression of your kindness and sympathy in your letter of con- 
 dolence, when within three days after, you were laboring with your utmost 
 zeal to disparage my life and character, and render me odious and confrnpti- 
 ble to my former pupils: These things were somewhat mysterious, but now 
 1 understand them. 
 
 Bishop! I speak plainly to you on these subjects from principle it is high 
 time somebody should do so, and there is nobody else on this hill, who dare*. 
 The time-servers and flatterers whom you have drawn around you have other 
 business in hand, and would not, if they dare; and sir, if you are not speedily 
 roused to a sense of your perilous position, and led under the guidance of di- 
 vine grace, to repent and do your first works, you are a lost man. 
 
 Respectfully yours, &c., D. B. DOUGLASS. 
 
 I know this is very severe. 1 will not say that regarding the office and 
 dignity of Bishop Mcllvaine I was wholly justifiable in writing it. It 
 was "out of my grief and my impatience" (hat I did so. But I must 
 say, afler mature deliberation, that as regards the man who had thus 
 wronged, and was wronging me, I do not see that I could have expressed 
 mvself very differently. Deeply do I regret that he did not see fit to act 
 upon my suggestion. 
 
 But I foel that there is a mystery involved in all this which ought not 
 longer to go unexplained. The question which you and other friends 
 have asked, will naturally press itself upon the mind of every reader who 
 has followed me thus far. " How could the Bishop, so long, and so unre- 
 servedly your friend, prior to 1841, have become so bitterly your 
 enemy in 1844 !" That question 1 will now attempt to answer. 
 
 I suppose it will not be denied it \vas a fact very notorious atlhe lime, 
 that, for some years prior to 1S39-40, there had been a division of senti- 
 ment, a party feeling, gradually growing up on the Hill at GamMer, and 
 in (he Diocese of Ohio, against Bp. Mcllvaine; that this opposition ral- 
 lied under the name of Dr. Sparrow, [embracing pretty nearly the same 
 elements that had been opposed to Bp. Chase,] and that, somewhere about 
 the date first mentioned, it had become so formidable as to have made it 
 a practical question, which should prevail. The collision in the Board 
 of Trustees, noticed in a former part of this letter, viz : with regard to the 
 powers of the President, [of the Board] and the discretionary functions 
 of the Prudential Committee, were a part of this controversy: And in the 
 Convention of the same year, [1839] at Steubenville, the whole matter 
 was brought to a direct issue by the Bishop himself.* 
 
 The points specifically presented for debate, were certain amendments 
 in the Constitution of the Theological Seminary. First, to exclude all 
 officers " of the Seminary or any institution annexed thereto " [virtually 
 Dr. Sparrow and his friends] from seals in the Board of Trustees. Sec- 
 ondly, to vest the power of the Prudential Committee, permanently in the 
 Bishop putting an end to all antagonism from that quarter. And finally, 
 to annex, pro forma, a College, [which had already been annexed, en- 
 dowed, and in full operation for 13 years] with a seperate Faculty and 
 President to be nominated by the Bishop, [another exclusion to Dr. 
 Sparrow.] The Convention was a small one, but a favourable report 
 having been obtained from a Committee of reference, the measures were 
 
 He had no alternative as he distinctly informed me, but to put down that 
 opposition or quit the Diocese.
 
 67 
 
 eventually carried with some modifications. The party question, how- 
 ever, was not considered as settled, li I the Convention of 1840. The 
 steps which were (aken to ensure a preponderance in that Convention, it 
 is not necessary now to particularize. The Bishop was still doubtful of 
 the result when he visited New York and Brooklyn in llie summer of il at 
 year, and spoke determine tely to me and others ol his intention t-> resign 
 in case he should he out voted. He wasnof out-voled, however, the ques- 
 tion was settled in his favor, and the resulls were decisive, to uit a ' new 
 Board an I a right Board" of Trus1e.es; an entire new Faculty in tl.e Col- 
 lege; a President, not Dr. Sparrow; the resignation of the latler, and 
 other of the Professors and officers; changes in the headship of both 
 Grammar Schools; a change in the Agency; and generally, the displace- 
 ment, hy some means, of every officer, who had been at all prominent in 
 the late opposition except Mr. Wing! MR. WING WAS ALLOWED 
 TO REMAIN, not, as the Bishop informed me, because he had ci nfidence 
 in him,* but because he thought him harmless. Mr. Blake, and peihaps 
 one or two others, suspected of a leaning towards the Sparrow interest,, 
 were also retained, and besides them of course, the rank and file of the 
 party generally.! 
 
 Such were the circumstances under which I commenced my Presiden- 
 tial career, in the Spring of 1841. Chosen by Bishop Mcllvaine as a 
 "dear and old friend" "elected wilh acclamation hy a new Board and 
 a right Board" and announced on my arrival in terms which 1 need not 
 now repeat. The occasion was hailed as a new era in ihe prospects of 
 the College. At the date of the Convention of Chillicoihe, my adminis- 
 tration was spoken of as having already " infused new life and viyor into 
 all the government and instruction." And again in ihe Spring of 1842, 
 a highlv complimentary vote, on the state and prospects of the Institution, 
 was passed by the Board of Trustees al Cincinnati. Generally, it may be 
 said, the improved condition of the College in every respect, external and 
 internal, was a subject of remark ami congratulation to all (he friends of 
 the Institution, conversant with it. Even Ihe Bishop's " opponents" con- 
 curred in this But now in the midst of these bright prospects, when 
 everything seemed to point wilh unerring certainly towards the con um- 
 mation of Ihe good wishes andhijrh hopes of ihe. friends of the Institution; 
 wrnt was my grief and mortification to find ihe countenance of Bp. M. 
 averted from me ; our intercouse, without any failure on my part, grown 
 cold and formal; my plans and aims, involving no expense, disparaged; 
 the popular approval of my admi istration listened to wilh evident repug- 
 nance; and myself studiously thrown back to such a di*lance fion him- 
 self and Ihe Board of Trustees, as almost to preclude the possibility of any 
 confidential intercouse with either. J 
 
 * They were scarcely upon terras of common intercourse. 
 
 t My representation of the state of society on the Hill, at ihe time of 
 my arrival in H41, is controverted in the Reply, but not with truth. There 
 was nothing like social intercouse so far at least as Bishop Mcllvaine and 
 his family were concerne I. The principal families ne.xt in order, were Prof. 
 Sparrow's. Prof. Wina's, Prof. Muenscher's, and ex-Frof Bache's; and I 
 should like to know in which of these, there was any cordial intimacy or in- 
 terrourse kept up with the Episcopal mansion. Prof Ros a siranser un- 
 til I arrived was so struck wilh the stale of thinas Ihnt he was temple' 1 , as 
 he told me, if I had much longer delayed my coming, to throw up his appoint- 
 ment and return to New York. 
 
 They try very hard to make it appear that I had some ambitions project, 
 some '"' new views" or " claims that were inconsistent with the decisions or
 
 68 
 
 While I was yet in the midst of my grief and amazement under these 
 painful experiences, lo ! another wonder is presented : Mr. WING, as- 
 sisted by Mr. Blake, taking the lead, in a [glorification^ movement, and 
 a memorial addressed to the Bishop in the ieai of his removal to Cincin- 
 nati. [Reply, p. 34.] The very men whose opposition two years before 
 had nearly sent him an exile from his Diocese, now rushing- to his side 
 with sanctimonious horror at the bare idea of his removal iron) the Hill. 
 
 Then, alter an interval of three or four weeks, came the Bish jp's an- 
 gry and violent outbreak upon ME in his study, [see Statement, p. 29 ]* 
 revealing in its connexions and consequences, the fact, that Mr. Wing, 
 one of the loaders of the late anti-Bishop party, was now in the full and 
 exclusive confidence of the Bishop; and /an alien. 
 
 Then followed two or three days afterward, the [cruel] letter to the 
 Faculty on the subject of the Catalogue, of which a copy is given in the 
 Reply, [p. 43 ] The Bishop thinks it was not cruel, but if he can point 
 out a more insidious device to create a breach between me and the Fac- 
 
 the Convention of 1339. Mr. Smallwood. I believe, has something; to say on 
 this subject; but it is all false. Neither Mr. S. or any body else can name a 
 single claim ever urged by me that was inconsistent with those decisions, or 
 with any established rule or law of the Institution. If any thing, I thought 
 that loo muck had been conceded to the Presidency of the College in those de- 
 cisions, instead of too little, and so declared myself to the Bishop and others 
 repeatedly. One of the reasons assigned by me to Bp. M. for the immediate 
 drawing up of a code, was that / should be willing to concede many things 
 for the sake of a right organization, which another perhaps would not. (See 
 former Statement, p. 26.) 
 
 * The Bishop gives a modified version of this interview,(p 41 2.) from a 
 memorandum which he says was penned within five minutes after I left him. 
 Had he waited four or five hours, it would probably have been less affected by 
 the excited impressions of the moment. The stamp of the foot of which he 
 speaks is a pure invention. God is my witness that there was nothing ot the 
 kind. The phrase " we'll see to that," was not used in the connection in 
 which he places it ; and the attempt at " explanation," which the Bishop says 
 he made, was not made at all. Ever}' word uttered from the time I took my 
 hat till I left him, was the bitterest recrimination and reprimand. In regard 
 to what did take place, I solemnly re-assert all that I said in my former 
 statement, and I coul I, if it were necessary, go into other particulars. He 
 was in a state of excitement when I went in. All his answers were testy and 
 impatient the answers of an angry unreasonable man; and I changed the 
 course of my remarks once or twice, to avoid his angry mood. We were 
 talking of matters perfectly indifferent, when he branched off into an invide- 
 ous parallel between his labours and mine. I still answered nothing, except 
 to acknowledge the greatness of his labours and express my willingness to aid 
 him if in my power to do so; to which he replied with the insulting sneer, as 
 heretofore slated. When I was about leaving the room, he said, in a loud 
 anthoritative tone, I want to know, sir, what it is you are grumbling about) 
 I can fight it out now as well as any time." I disclaimed having any thine 
 tojl^ht out, and he proceeded with increased vehemence, " you want to be in- 
 dependent, 1 understand, but I'll let you know I am President over every part 
 and parcel of the College, the same as over the Seminary." Pestered at length 
 out of patience, anl greatly surprised at this new assumption of power, I 
 turned upon him and replied: " I was not appointed, sir, with any such un- 
 derstanJing, and I never will recognize you in that character." (I conceded 
 almost every thing, however, in the subsequent interview.) 
 
 1 am not unaware of the responsibility of these declarations. I make them 
 upon my conscience, and with certainty that they are categorically correct. 
 My habits of attention had been disciplined by seventeen years daily exercise 
 with pupils at the black-board, and were not likely to fail me on such an oc- 
 casion as this.
 
 69 
 
 ulty, he is more perspicacious in that way than I can pretend to be. I 
 will not waste words on the subject, however, further than lo give, in the 
 margin, an extract from my letter in reply.* 
 
 .Next, after another short interval, came the pelty intrigue to throw me 
 out of the delegation to the special convention. The bishop speaks of 
 this as an evidence of my great unpopularity, but the people had no more 
 to do wilh it than yourself. By their vole 1 was in fact already a dele- 
 gale; a legal delegale, incapable of being displaced by any vote of ihe 
 vestry ; and the movemeni to displace me instead of being a popular 
 movement was directly opposed to the popular decision. A pretence 
 was made (by those who knew at the lime that il was illegal, accoiding 
 to ihe arlicles of ourassocialion) to elect a special delegation to that con- 
 vention. A little cabal of three persons (Scott. Warner and Sims,) was 
 moved to oppose my election, and several ballots were taken before a 
 choice was made. As this was the first instance of an obstinate division 
 in Ihe vostry since I had been senior warden, 1 asked Mr. Scott what was 
 the meaning of it? and his answer was, ' we weie told, sir, that you 
 were opposed to the selling of the lands." This revelation then, seemed 
 to unravel the mystery of all the recent proceedings. The only persons 
 with whom I could recollect having conversed on the subject of selling 
 the lands, were Bi.-hop Mcllvaine and Mr. Wing. The latter in particu- 
 lar, had repeatedly argued with me at great length, and with earnestness, 
 the policy of sale ; and putting all these things together, I could not doubt 
 that the ascendancy to which he had now raised himself in the confidence 
 of the Bishop, had THIS at least for one of its objects ; and under this 
 impression 1 immediately sat down and wrote the following note. 
 
 Dear Bp I write in all sincerity as in times past. I have indeed been, 
 most deeply wounded by your changed conduct towards me, (changed I 
 solemnly declare, without any just cause.) after so many years of uninter- 
 rupted intercourse and confidence, and after so conclusive an evidence of my 
 devotion to yourself and the Institution, as was given you in my coming here. 
 But I am now satisfied that your mind must have been abused in regard to 
 me for sinister purposes, and I am greatly mistaken if there be not a plot in 
 progress bo'ling no good t> either of us, or to the Institution. Is it fit that 
 our little differences shonld keep us under these circumstances, where our 
 enemies would wi-h to keep us, at sword's points ? There is nothing on my 
 side that may not be settled between us in five minutes ; and if I have seemed 
 to give any cause of offence to you, I think it may be explained in as little 
 lime. If you are disposed lo meet me on this ground, (and I repeat my be- 
 lief that it is of vital consequence to ourselves and to the Institution), I will 
 come to you alone at 8| o'clock this evening. Drop me a Jine, and give no 
 intimation to any one of my intended visit. Yours, &c. 
 
 * " Your note to me of the 24th June last, contained no intimation of any de- 
 sire or expectation on your part that it should be laid before the Faculty. On 
 the contrary the note and all the circumstances connected with it. gave me 
 the impression without the shadow of a doubt that it was for me alone; and 
 that it required no answer. I had conversed with you at my study on the 
 23d, and informed you of what had transpired in the Faculty on the subject 
 of the Catalogue, and also that I was then engaged in the work of preparing 
 it. You replied that you would request Mr. Wing to act with me on behalf 
 of the Theological Faculty, and the note received on the day following was, 
 as I understood it, a mere announcement that you had done so." 
 
 " Allow me a further word in regard to the subsequent failure of the arrange- 
 ment I supposed it a matter of too great notoriety to need the form of an 
 explanation that within a few days of the date referred to, my eyes, in conse- 
 quence of excessive application, and mental anxiety, were attacked with the 
 first symptoms of a malady, apparently of the most dangerous and fatal char- 
 acter, so that it became necessary to suspend all literary labour of whatever 
 kind, for several months."
 
 70 
 
 The meeting took place as proposed, and in the spirit of my note I con- 
 ceded and was willing to concede every thing (concedable) for the sake 
 of harmony and (he interests at stake. To some extent I succeeded. 
 Many strange misapprehensions into which the Bishop had been betrayed 
 either ihrough the blindness of his own passions, or i>y the arts of tl o-e* 
 around him, were removed ; and as far as I was able to draw his mind 
 from its concealment, he expressed himself satisfied. The relations of 
 external courtesy were restored, and I cannot doubt that this circumstance 
 gave me the position in which I was enabled to act with so good effect 
 in the convention for the saving of the lands.* But the designs of the 
 " Clique," as it turned out, were not limited t-> that object. They still 
 retained their position " behind the throne." keeping appearances, in- 
 deed, with me, while the liishop was raising his funds in the East; but 
 
 the moment that end was attained, the. blow was struck, and * 
 
 Dr. SPARROW NOMINATED BY BISHOP MC!LVAINE as my succes- 
 s >r ! ! " What think you now," said an Ohio correspondent, " of the 
 power behind the throne ?" 
 
 The Dr. (wisely) declined the appointment, however, and two or three 
 others have since declined ; and the Presidency of Kenyon College, with 
 nil its " pecuniary convenience," is now literally " a begging" again. 
 JFfe will be an adventurous spirit who accepts it, under a regime which is 
 ready to repudiate all its solemn obligations at the next chanire of the 
 moon ; and to add contumely and insult, if the " temper" of the victim 
 should render that necessity " imperious." * * * 
 
 I am sorry for Bishop Mcllvaine. Greatly as he has injured me and 
 mine, I mourn with unfeigned sorrow over the position in'.o which by his 
 
 * The part taken by me in the proceedings of the special convenlion, as set 
 forth in my statement is denied of course in the Reply, and reference is made 
 for proof, to the Journal. Will the respondent please to tell us from the 
 journal, whether the books of the Institution were before the Convenlion? 
 The Bishop introduced them in his address, were they forthcoming ? Will 
 he tell u from the journal, on what business the house went into committee of 
 the whole ? and what report was made by that committee when it rose? 
 What resolutions were referred to a select committee ? and what became of 
 them afterwards ? The journal is- very lame on all these points. The fact is, 
 that when every one was filled with doubt and fear and uncertainty, as to 
 the course to be pursued, and it was unjerstoo that the committee of refer- 
 ence would only report in general terms. / proposed at a certain breakfast 
 table, that a direct attempt should be made to get, in Ohio, 100 subscriptions 
 individuals or clubs. of $100 each, payable by instalments in two years, 
 and to make that the basis of an appeal out of the stale. The proposition 
 being approved. 1 brought it before the house as soon as the committee's re- 
 port was disposed of. After some discussion it was referred to the commit- 
 tee of the who'e, nnd there debated for some hours. It was the test questioi 
 between the advocates anil opponents of sale, and no pains were spared on 
 the part of the former to defeat it. It was eventually carried, however, in 
 the form in which it appears, and has proved as it was intended, the effective 
 beginning of the entire movement for paying the debt. I do not wish to dis- 
 parage the labors of Bishop Mcllvaine in raising the money, though F grently 
 deprecate in some particulars the means employed ; but there was a time 
 when the Bishop an I the principal leaders of opinion on the Hill were loud 
 in favor of sale, an I I repeat the declaraion that it was my motion in the 
 special convention and the debate thereon, thnt chiefly defeated that policy. 
 Mr. E. H. Cummings, who len Is his name to the denial of this statement, 
 knows all these facts. He and Col. Bond know also that the statement of 
 the language used by them in my study, in regard to Bishop Mcllvaine's over- 
 bearing deportment in the Board of Trustees is TRUE Gumming? assert- 
 ed it in terms ; and Bond, with a shrug far more significant than words, ex- 
 pressed his assent.
 
 71 
 
 lust of temporal power he has betrayed himself. Gladly would /have 
 avoided (he necessity which his wrong doing imposed upon me, of speak- 
 ing of him as 1 have ; and though 1 may yet have other steps lo take for 
 the maintenance of my just rights, I shall never cease to utter for him 
 with reverence and simplicity, the prayer which the Church pus into the 
 Tips of her children, for " all those who have done, or wish us evil." 
 
 Ever yours, &c. 
 
 P. S I find I have inadvertently passed over some insinuations which 
 I intended to expose. But it does not signify.
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed.
 
 Unive 
 
 So 
 
 I