(856

J. C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES

University of California Berkeley

THE PETER AND ROSELL HARVEY

MEMORIAL FUND

FREMONT'S ROMANISM ESTABLISHED.

ACKNOWLEDGED BY ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.

HOW FREMONT'S NOMINATION WAS BROUGHT ABOUT.

Hughes, Seward, Fremont, and the Foreigners a most foul coalition.

We have linked together the names of Bishop Hughes, Win. H. Seward, and
John C. Fremont, and charge upon this trio a most foul coalition, a coalition
which was projected in the city of Washington by the Seward politicians, the
friends and advisers of Fremont, and the agents of Bishop Hughes, during the
past spring, and which has been covered up, concealed, and hidden from the
people until its consummation was realized, their mutual pledges to each other
fulfilled, and the object for which it was concocted seemed almost within their
grasp. For months past the Republican leaders have been accustomed to as-
semble, night after night, in their rooms in that city; and there discuss the
merits and prospects of their various aspirants for the presidency, and to ar-
range the details of the campaign.

Among these political tricksters and Garrison Abolitionists, Seward had
many enthusiastic admirers, Chase had his friends, McLean his supporters,
Banks his lukewarm followers, and here and there was a Haleite. These
were the five prominent aspirers for the nomination by the Philadelphia Re-
publican Convention, which finally chose for its standard-bearers, Fremont
and Dayton. Seward was the choice of the majority of the Republicans who
nightly assembled in that city. He was regarded as the founder of this fac-
tion, the genuine exponent of its principles, and as the fittest bearer of its flag,
which was to be unfurled throughout the north.

The elements of his strength consisted in the union of the Abolitionists and
the Foreigners under the lead of Bishop Hughes, and for a while his nomina-
tion seemed certain, but the state elections of Rhode Island, New Hampshire
Connecticut, and various municipal elections throughout the north, demon-
strated so clearly the strength of the North American vote, and so clearly the
utter hopelessness of carrying Mr. Seward unless this American vote could be in-
veigled into the support of the Republican nominee, that he (Seward) was aban-
doned because of his anti-American sentiments, and his known affiliation with
Archbishop Hughes. The Republicans had earnestly desired a union of the
Abolitionists, Foreigner, and Americans north. Without a union in these
elements, in opposition to the ruling dynasty, they could not hope for success,
and that union upon Seward being impossible, he was abandoned. Then came
Chase. He was the governor of the great state of Ohio, and in the election
whit.h had terminated in his success there had been a perfect union of the
Abolitionists and Foreigners, with a large portion of the Ohio Americans under
the lead of Thomas H. Ford.

Upon him for a time the union of these elements seemed practicable; but
when it became perfectly understood that Chase was a violent opponent of
American doctrines, and that the Oiiio Americans had been inveigled into his
support by that arch trickster and political game-player, Thomas H. Ford, and

that since the election, Chase had denounced their tenets, and deceived them,
he, too, was abandoned. Next on the list was Banks. Upon him there could
be no union. Bishop Hughes could not unite in the support of a Massachu-
setts Puritan. Puritanism he despised, abhorred, and denounced as a heresy,
as an insult to his faith. Besides, Banks professed Americanism. Thus was
N. P. Banks of Massachusetts, ruled off. With Hale all agreed there was no
chance. He had in him no elements of popularity. Who then could be found
as a standard-bearer for the united American and Catholic forces? It would
not do to take one known as a Romanist, and the Catholics would not have
an American or a leading Protestant.

The assembling of the Cincinnati Convention rapidly approached. The war
between Douglas, Pierce and Buchanan was raging with fearful violence.
Night after night the secret Republican conclave met. Seward, Chase and Hale,
the true representatives of their principles, had been cast aside, arid the partisan
followers of each began to murmur; discontent became manifest. Philosopher
Greeley and Chevalier Webb, seized this as the opportune moment to urge
the claims of Seward. Day after day the columns of the Tribune and Courier
teemed with their laudations of William H. Seward.

They applied the lash and attempted to whip his opponents into his support;
Weed, of the Albany Journal, cried out for Seward. Just then the friends of
McLean, who had been silent spectators of all that had transpired, presented
his claims. His fugitive slave decisions were objected. They were met with
letters avowing his adherance to the Republican doctrines. His long career
of usefulness and his character as a jurist were prominently set forth. His
non-identity with any party, or with any particular set of principles, his high
moral character, and his long retirement from the strife and bickerings of poli-
tical life, added to his personal popularity. He had many friends and few en-
emies. He had graced the legislative halls and the bench, and won for himself
a world-wide reputation, and, though an American in his sympathies, he was the
son of an Irishman. The name of McLean rang throughout the land, and his
nomination seemed then a foregone conclusion.

But the friends of Seward and Chase were determined that the presidential
honors should not be won by one so pure in morals and so just in all the pri-
vate relations of life. Yet but few doubted McLean's nomination; his friends
regarded it as a " fixed fact," and while they were passively awaiting the as-
sembling of the convention, Seward and Chase were secretely devising and
putting into operatioYi their schemes to effect his defeat. McLean is a Metho-
dist and the President of a Bible Society. These facts were sufficient to arouse
the Archbishop's hostility. Webb was directed to continue to urge Seward's
claims, and he did so up to the very last moment, even voting for him in the
convention after his name had been withdrawn. His support for Seward was
intended to conceal the effort directed at McLean. Greeley was directed to
go for Fremont, who was first jocularly placed upon the presidential track, by
a few political adventurers, and who was regarded as a weak and feeble man,
more willing to bear honors than fit to grace the presidency. The scheme to
defeat McLean was well devised. Fremont had no political antecedents, but
had recently become a Republican. He is the son-in-law of Thomas H. Ben-
ton, was the son of a Catholic Frenchman, had been raised in the Catholic
Church, was married by Father Van Horseigh, a foreign Roman Catholic priest,
who was the pastor of St. Peter's Church in Washington city, and who died a
few years ago. Fremont holds a pew in St. Mathew's Church. These cir-
cumstances rendered him particularly acceptable to Archbishop Hughes, and
he cordially and with alacrity added his influence to that of Howard and Chase
to secure the defeat of McLean.

Thus a man who in California had endeavored to establish the Democratic
doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty, and who during the 20 days he was in the U.
S. Senate, voted always with the south, and twice against amendments of
Messrs. Seward and Hale abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia,* is

* See Sunate Journal of Sept. 12th ami 18th, 1850.

put forward as the representative of north slavery sentiment at the north.
Why was ihis done and the chiefs who had endured all the toil thrown aside?
Let every American, every anti-slavery man ponder over this. Let him recall
to mind what Jesuitism has done in the past, and see here hut another of its
deep laid schemes. This anti-slavery agitation is a mere cloud, under which
it carries on its deadly designs against American Protestantism. Men's preju-
dices are to cement an unholy union between Catholicism and anti-slavery.

LOOK UPON JOHN C. FREMONT'S RECORD.

Let us take up the question of

FREMONT'S ROMANISM.

That John C. Fremont, is a Roman 'Catholic, no fair-minded man can
deny, so long as he has before him

The Proof.

1st. His father was a Roman Catholic from France.

2d. He was educated at a Catholic institution, by the charity of Roman
Catholic ladies.

3d. He was married by a Popish priest with whom marriage is a sacrament,
not to be administered to heretics, and married in accordance with a license
procured for the purpose, in which the name of the Popish priest was inserted
at his own request.

4th. His adopted daughter was educated in a Catholic school.

These statements of facts we do not stop to prove because Mr. Fremont's
friends or advocates do not deny them.

5th. It was well understood by the Catholics, before his nomination, that he
was a Catholic.

The Boston Pilot, a Catholic paper, in speaking of the Bolting Convention,
of the 12th June, in New York, part of which went over to the Republican
Convention which at the time of the split was in session in Philadelphia says:

"If Fremont is nominated, we shall see the strange sight of this anti-Cath-
olic, durk lantern, oath bound party nominating a Catholic and the son of a
foreigner for the highest office in the gift of the people ! For a Catholic to
be put into the Presidential chair by the party whose only creed is hatred and
persecution of Catholicity, will be in the world's history, like England's restor-
ing Pope Pius VII to Rome, a proof that governments and parties are unwill-
ing instruments in God's hands to use as he will."

6th. When in St. Louis he attended the Popish church, regularly as one of its
members. A Catholic lady, member of the same church with him in St.
Louis, now living at Sandy Hill, in N. Y. state, makes this statement, whose
name Mr. Baker of the Sandy Hill Herald, will give to any one who wishes to
test the truth of this assertion.

7th. He goes to a Roman Catholic Church in Washington, crosses himself with
so-called holy water at the door, and makes the sign of the cross when he goes into
his pew.

In proof of this Alderman Fulmer of New York, a gentleman of undoubted
veracity, has published the following statement :

1st. That in 1852, he (Alderman Fulmer) and Col. Fremont were in Brown's
Hotel, Washington city, together, and that then and there, he (Fulmer) first saw
Fremont, and saw him then and there, daily and repeatedly, so that there could
be no mistake as to identity.

2d. That he (Fulmer) being told that he (Fremont) was a Roman Catholic,
doubted il for reasons not here necessary to name, and doubted it so earnestly,
that it was affirmed and re-affirmed, whereupon he, himself, upon being in-
formed proof of it existed in Col. Fremont's worshipping on the Sabbath in
the Roman Catholic Cathedral, or church, went to that church to see and
satisfy himself of the fact. He there saw Col. Fremont enter the church, and
by or near the door, cross himself with so-called holy water as he entered, and he
(Fremont) then passed up the center aisle of that church, to a slip or pew not
far from the altar, or place where the priests were, when he (Fremont) again
crossed himself, and took his place.

3d. That he (Fulmer) witnessed for some time the rites and ceremonies in
the Roman Catholic Church in which Fremont was then worshipping, arid that
he (Fulmer) stayed there till the boys with the censers (so called) sprinkled
incense (so called), whereupon he (FulmerJ left.

4th. That, on the same Sabbath, he dined at the same public table with Col.
Fremont, in Brown's Hotel, at a sort of oval table, at which he was distant from
him (Fremont) only some five or six persons, and then and there Col. Fre-
mont, addressing those five or six persons unknown to him (Fulmer) between
him (Fulmer), and Fremont dwelt upon the august rites and ceremonies of the
church he had been that day attending, as if with a view to impress them there-
with, and in so public manner, that he (Fulmer) felt it proper to ask him (Fre-
mont) if he (Fremont) believed in TRANSUBSTANTIATION?

Whereupon he (Fremont) asked, "What I (Fulmer) understood by TRAN-
SUBSTANTIATION ?" when the conversation continued substantially as follows :

FULMER I understand it to be the belief, that the wafer which the Roman
Catholics use in the sacrament, is substantially converted by the priests into the body
oj Jesus Christ. Do YOU BELIEVE THAT?

FREMONT I do.

FULMER Did Christ ever have more than one body ?

FREMONT No. He had but one body.

FULMER Do you believe that the body of Christ was crucified and vras laid in
the sepulchre of Joseph's tomb?

FREMONT I believe it was.

FULMER Do you believe that body after the resurrection was the body he
ascended to heaven with ?

FREMONT I believe it was.

FULMER Then what kind of a machine, hook, or knife, or pressure, does a
bishop or priest make use of to obtain the body of Christ to convert into wa-
fers at pleasure for the whole world ?

Fremont, excited and appearing angry, made no reply, and in seeming in-
dignation left the table.

Now, here are the points to take issue upon, and " by authority" we affirm
this conversation and this scene to be true. As the Times has spoken " by
authority" of Fremont through the editor, we await the reply of Fremont him-
self, when, if denied, we will substantiate these facts by oath or affidavit, and
*hus add to them that sanctity.

8th. When offered a Protestant book by a friend he refused to read it, on the
ground of his being a Papist. t

Prof. Wier of West Point, the person referred to, one of the most gifted
and purest men of New York state, whose testimony no respectable man or
paper, however friendly to Fremont dare question, has written two letters,
the most guarded of which we give below. Mr. Gray a rabid Fremont man
and who became greatly agitated in talking to Mr. Wier on the subject of
Fremont's Catholicism, afterwards addressed him a note to which Prof.

Wier replied.

WEST POINT, Aug. 27, 1856.

JOHN A. C. GRAY, Esq. Dear Sir : I have just received your notice of
the 25th instant, in which you request a correct statement of the incident
alluded to in an article that, appeared recently in the Troy Whig, and which I
may add, was a publication of private remarks, made without my knowledge
or consent.

The circumstance on which I presume the article was based, and which I
stated to you in the cars was, that previous to Lieutenant Fremont's first visit
to the Rocky Mountains, he came to West Point, and was introduced to rne
by a mutual friend, Lieut. Scammon. I was much interested in Lieutenant
Fremont's youthful appearance, in connection with the arduous journey he
was about prosecuting beyond the bounds of civilization, and offered him,
through Lieutenant S.. a little hook that had been recently published by the
Episcopal press, but whether a Prayer Book, or a Companion for the Altar,
I can not now s;xy, for it was some twelve or fourteen years ago, but it was
courteously returned, with the intimation, through Mr. Scammon, that Lieu-
tenant Fremont was a Romanist. This impression has always remained on
my mind, and led me to make the remark that 1 presume has given rise to the
article to which you refer.

* As I should be very sorry to do an injury to any man, and as you think a
correction is needed, I have no objection to your making what use you please
of the above. Very respectfully,

Your obed't serv't,

ROBERT W. WIER.

Here is the testimony af Mr. Fremont's own confession that he is a Roman-
ist, not a mere general believer, but one of the strictest of the sect. It would
not have been a great stretch of liberality on his part to hare received this act
of courtesy and kindness in the spirit in which it was offered, and no doubt
it required an effort to repel it as he did. But he felt bound by the stern con-
victions of duty and the severe requirements of his religion, to refuse even
the acceptance of a heretical book although he should never open it. No man
can say that Mr. Scammon might have been mistaken. There could be no
misunderstanding in a matter so delicate as this. There stands the testimony
unimpeached and every just and honest man must accept it or overthrow it.
We can not conceive of more direct and conclusive proof than this.

9th. Imitating- other Roman Catholic explorers, in his expedition to the Rocky
Mountains 1842, he made on Rock Independence, the sign of the cross, a thing
that no Protestant explorer ever did or ever would do. See his own words in
Congressional Document 166, of 1845.

After reaching the highest point, he says: "Here, not unmindful of the
custom of early travelers and explorers in our country, / ENGRAVED on this

ROCK of ike far west a symbol of the Christian faith. Among the thickly in-
bribed u4nes, I made on the hard granite the impression of A LARGE

which 1 covered with a Hack preparation of India rubber, well calculated to resist
the influence of wind and rain. It stands amidst the names of many who have
long since fonnd their way to the grave, and for whom the huge rock is a giant
grave one.'

It is not necessary to stop here to prove what every intelligent reader al-
ready knows, taut all Roman Catholic explorers, and none others, take posses-
sion of new countries with the cross as well as the flag and if with either
alone, with the cioss. Much effort has been made to show that this proves
nothing in favor of his religion it being a mere symbol of Christianity. It is
a sufficient answer to thi?, to say that no English or JJmerican Protestant explorer
ever took possession cf newly discovered lands with the cross before. Where true
American pioneers go they plant the stars and stripes.

I0th. Col. Russell, of the army, who slept for months under the same blanket
with Fremont, declares that Fremont made to him no secret of his being a
Romanist, and that of the fact there could be no doubt.

LETTER FROM HON. NATHAN SARGENT.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2, 1856.

A. B. ELY, ESQ. Dear Sir: I have your note of the 28th July, inquiring
where Col. William Russell of Missouri resides or may be addressed, and
asking me what he has said, or will say, in reference to Col. Fremont's
religious opinions?

Col. Russell's residence is at Harrisonville, Cass co., Mo. ; but I am informed
that he is at present in Baltimore on a visit.

Col. Russell is a man who will say what he has said ; and he has said to me
that Col. Fremont was a Catholic when he was in California. I spent an even-
ing with Col. R. at Brown's Hotel two or three weeks ago, and knowing that
he had been much with Col. F. in California, and on very intimate terms with
him, I asked him if he knew anything of Col. Fremont's religious views at
that time? He replied that he did; that he was with him a great deal, and in
fact might say that he had slept under the same blanket with him for eight
months. I then asked him what Col. F. was? He replied a Catholic. I
asked him if he was sure of this? " Perfectly," he said; and then added,
*' Col. Fremont won't deny that he was a Catholic ; everybody there so understood it,
and he made no secret of it"

Further conversation occurred between us on the subject, but this is the
sum and substance of it. I asked him if I might refer to this conversation
and use his name? He replied, "certainly; you are at liberty to do 80." But
he again said, "COL. FREMONT WILL NOT DENY THAT HE WAS
A CATHOLIC.

Col. Russell, you may not be aware, was Col. Fremont's principal witness
on his trial before the court marshal. Should Col. Fremont deny over his

own signature that he was a Catholic when in California, I presume Col. Rus-
sell will then speak for himself.

Col. R. is an old, ardent personal friend of Henry Clay, with whose family
his own is connected, his daughter having married Mr. Clay's grandson.
I am, very truly, your obedient servant,

N. SARGENT.

This has been published for a long time, and if untrue, why have we not
had Col. Russell's denial. Mr. Sargent has been registrar of Pennsylvania, a
gentleman of the highest standing, and no one has yet presumed to question
his veracity.

llth. He was married by a Popish priest with whom marriage is a sacra-
ment, not to be administered to heretics, and married in accordance with a
license procured for the purpose, in which the name of the Popish priest was
inserted at his own request.

It is said in reply to this that he could get no license and hence no other
clergyman would marry him. This false assertion was nailed by obtaining the
following certificate from the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the District of
Columbia:

" District of Columbia, Washington county, to wit:

" I, John A. Smith, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, for
the county of Washington, do hereby certify, that on the 19th of October, 1841,
a license issued to unite in holy matrimony, John Charles Fremont and Jessie
Ann Benton, as is manifest of record.

"In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name, and affixed
the seal of said court, this 21st day of July, 1856.

[SEAL.] JOHN A. SMITH, Clerk."

Certificates of the baptism of Mr. Fremont's children by Rev. Mr. French,
of the Episcopal Church, have been published to prove that the former was
an Episcopalian. In reply to this Mr. French has written a private letter in
whi -h he states that, except that one occasion, he never saw Mr. Fremont in
his church that he always supposed he was a Roman Catholic and on that
account never spoke with hirn on the subject of religion

This settles at once that he was not an Episcopalian, and goes far to prove
that he was a Romanist, for it is not to be supposed that Mr. French would be
mistaken about the religion of a man whose children he was baptizing. If
any one doubts the genuineness of this letter, he can be satisfied by calling on
the editor of the Albany Statesman, who will show it to him with proof of its
authenticity, or by writing to Mr. French himself. No honest man can persist
in his denial of this fact, when the means of proving or disproving it are thus
placed within his reach and he will not avail himself of them.

12th. Again it was stated in the Albany Statesman that Father Olivetti, a Ro-
man Catholic priest had declared in public that Mr. Fremont he knew to be a
Catholic, and on that account should vote for him and also induce the Catho-
lics of that whole region to do the same. The Republicans afraid of the effect
of this avowal persuaded Father Olivetti to play the Jesuit and deny in a pub-
lished Utter over his own signature that he had ever made any such statement. This,
like every other attempt to crush the truth, ended only in making it more appa-
rent. Gentlemen who heard the statement, indignant at the unblushing false-
hood, catne forward with the following statement and affidavit:

STATEMENT OF C. D. CULVER, ESQ.

SANDY HILL, Sept. 2, 1856.
Editor of the Albany Statesman :

DEAR SIR: My relation with Rev. Mr. Olivetti, having always been of the
most friendly character personally, and being averse to newspaper contro-
versies, or heated political discussions, I have endeavored to avoid any in this
case.

Having, however, been shown an affidavit in which my name is mentioned
in connection with a statement made by Mr. Olivetti (at Fort Edward on the
23d of August last), and which affidavit I understand is to be made public, I
deem it entirely proper to state, that I was present on the occasion alluded to,
and can only repeat here, what I have said before, when questioned in regard
to the matter; that the Rev. Mr. Olivetti did say without reserve, that Mr. Fre-
mont was a Catholic, and that he should vote for him this fall. A gentleman
who was with him, and who also appeared to be a Catholic priest, said to Mr.
Olivetti, " You have never voted." " I know it, but I shall vote for Mr. Fremont
this fall," was Mr. Olivetti's answer.

Very respectfully, yours,

C. D. CULVER,

C. D. Culver, Esq., is known to every one of our readers in this locality, and
to nearly every one in this state. But for the benefit of those in other states,
we would state that he is an eminent lawyer, a gentleman of unblemished
character and high moral worth, a man of property, and an excellent and popu-
lar citizen. Now read the following

AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES B. GUY.

Washington county, ss: Charles B. Guy, of Kingsbury, in said county,
being duly sworn deposes and says, that he is well acquainted with Father
Olivetti, a Catholic Priest, residing in Whitehall, in the county of Washington.
That on the 23d day of August last, this deponent was with said Olivetti, James
R. Gandall, C. D. Culver, and several other persons (one of whom was under-
stood to be a Catholic priest, and was in company with said Olivetti), at the
Fort Edward Railroad House kept by Joshua fcldridge, conversing on the sub-
ject of politics. That during that conversation the question was distinctly
asked of said Olivetti, if the statement published in the newspapers asserting
that he, Olivetti, had publicly said at Whitehall that Colonel Fremont was a
Catholic, and he knew it and should vote for him, was true?

To this Olivetti replied, that he had said so at Whitehall, and had also said
so in the cars last evening, and he should not deny it.

And at this deponent further says, that on the same day the said Olivetti, in
Fort Edward, said he should vote for Col. Fremont, and his friends would vote
for him, and added these words, <k and we shall have him for oar next presi-
dent."

He also stated in substance that he had five hundred Catholic friends in Es-
sex county whom he was going to see next week, relative to the presidential
question. This deponent says there was much farther conversation on the
same subject. CHARLES B. GUV.

' Subscribed and sworn to, before me, this 2d day of September, 1856.

L. H. NORTHRUP, Justice of the Peace.

AFFIDAVIT OF J. R. GANDAL.

County of Washington, ss: James R. Gandal being duly sworn, says, that
he is a resident of Fort Edward in said county, and is personally acquainted
with Rev. Michael Olivetti, of Whitehall; that on the 23d day of August last,
he was present at the Railroad House, in the village of Fort Edward, in com-
pany with the said Olivetti, Charles Guy, William W. Cronkhite, Charles D
Culver and others, when the following conversation was had.

In the first place, Mr. Cronkhite asked Mr. Olivetti if he had published in a
Whitehall paper that John C. Fremont was a Catholic, to which Mr. Olivetti
replied he had not. Mr. Cronkhite then said, " I thought I would ask you if
you had snid that John C. Fremont was a Catholic, knowing it you had said so,
you would say so again," to which a person present, a stranger to this deponent
(but said to be a Catholic clergyman, and who was i company with Mr. Oli-
vetti), immediately said " No, you deny it." Mr. Olivetti then said, " I have
said it publicly in the street, and said so in the cars last night, and shall not
deny it, but I did not authorize any publication of it," and added " 1 shall vote
for him, and have my congregation vote for him, and we shall have him for
our next president."

This deponent has a distinct recollection of the conversation above set forth
and the same is true. J. R. GANDAL.

Subscribed and sworn to this 2d day of September, 1856.

A. D. WAIT, County Judge of Washington County.

Both Mr. Guy and Mr. Gandal are well known citizens, men of high charac-
ter and undoubted integrity, and their bare word would be taken by their
neighbors before the oath of any Romish priest that ever drove a herd of
Catholic Irishmen to the polls.

13th. Right on the top of this astounding development carne the follow-
ing

TESTIMONY OF AN OLD COMPANION-IN-ARMS.

The following letter speaks for itself, and adds proof on a point where fur-
ther proof would seem to be useless. The writer, Mr. Busey, is a gentleman
of respectability and standing in Washington, and the statement he makes, is
worthy of all credit.

WASHINGTON CITY, Sept. 5, 1856.

DEAR SIR: I have just returned from a visit to Senator Clayton, where I
met Judge Nathan Sargent, Thomas P. Trot (at present at the head of the
depredation bureau of the General Post Office Department), and Capt.
Edward Barry, formerly a captain in the army. We were conversing about
political matters, and the subject of Fremont's Catholicism having been inci-
dentally mentioned, Captain Barry remarked that he was surprised that any
one doubted it, and stated that he knew Fremont to be a Catholic. Judge Sar-
gent immediately enquired of him how he knew it ? Captain Barry replied,
that he had seen him at Father Van HorseifrKs church; that when Col. Fre-
mont resided in this city, a short time previous to his marriage to Miss Ben-
ton by Father Van Horseigh, he (Fremont) was in the habit of visiting at the
house of a Mr. McCormick, now deceased; at which Barry met him and
that he KNEW the fact, of his own knowledge, that " Fremont was a regular
attendant at Father Van Horseigh's Church, and a Roman Catholic/'

This conversation took place in the presence of Mr. Trot, Mr. Clayton,
Judge Sargent, and will be verified by either or all of these gentlemen ; and if
you desire their corroboration of the above, you can obtain it by addressing
them. They are all in this city Capt. Barry, Mr. Trot and Judge Sargent
residing here.

Capt. Barry is well known in this community as a man of character and
truth. He is not an American in politics, and hence can not be suspected of
making this statement with any view to advance Mr. Fill more's prospects.
Nor did he do so with any intention that his statement should be communi-
cated; but, it being important to show that the statements, or rather the con-
tradictions of the Republican press are unfounded, and that Fremont is or
was a Catholic, I have deemed it my duty to communicate the fact to you,
and also give the names of those who were present, so that you might, if you
need any corroboration, address them. Yours truly,

To C. D. BRIGHAM. S. C. BUSEF.

Again read the statement of Mr. B. F. Cook, made at Factoryville, Rich-

mond county, as reported in the Commercial Advertiser, and which has never
been denied by any one over his own signature.

" Some friends having desired to enlist the speaker in the cause of so-called
Republicanism, he expressed a desire to have all doubts removed on this mooted
question, but said that nothing short of an assurance from Col. Fremont's own
lips, would satisfy him* An interview was arranged for. The object of the
visit being understood by the colonel, he avowed himself ready to answer any
questions proposed. Mr. Cook proposed the following and received to each
the answer annexed: " Were you married by a Roman Catholic priest?" /
was? the colonel's lip quivered as he spoke. " Did you at the time believe in,
or profess to believe in the Roman Catholic religion?" / did not." "Have
you before or since, or at any time professed the Roman Catholic religion ?" /
have not" Here Mr. Cook bowed, to signify that he had no more questions to
ask. Col. Fremont then volunteered some remarks to the following effect:
that while in California he attended no church, and that he occupied his Sun-
days in reading and writing, and in attending to such matters of business as he
thought of importance. Mr. Fremont further said " I arn frequently interro-
gated by all parties on this subject. I presume the delegation now waiting for
me up stairs wish to interrogate me on this point. When they do, I shall put
the most favorable construction on the matter thftt I can. I wish to offend
none, but to secure the votes of all. Only this very morning, I have a letter
from Maine, saying that unless I make a personal denial of Romanism, and
that I am or have been a Roman Catholic, that state will be lost to the Repub-
licans; and another letter from Indiana, telling me that if I will authorize my
friends there to say I am a Roman Catholic, they can secure for me a large
German and Irish vote. I have to frame my replies so as to secure the votes
of all. There is now a deputation waiting- for me, whose errand I doubt not is
the same. It is best to say as littJe about this matter as possible, and we must
manage the thing as well as we can, so as to get the votes of both sides." Here
the interview terminated. Mr. Cook's statement was listened to with .pro-
found interest."

State of New York, City and County of New York, ss:

Benjamin F. Cook, of said city, being duly sworn, says the foregoing state-
ment of a conversation which took place at the residence of Hon. John C. Fre-
mont, No. 56 Ninth street, in said city, about three weeks ago, between said
John C. Fremont, J. L. Moffatt, Nathan Comstock, Jr., R. W. Potter, Isaac
Sherman, and myself, is full and correct to the best of rny knowledge and be-
lief. Signed, B. F. COOK.

Sworn to before me, Sept. 15, 1856. D. B.TAYLOR, Com'r of Deeds.

Now Fellow Citizens and Americans, we have not brought forward 'this
mass of eviderfte to convince you that Mr. Fremont is a Catholic, because^
we have other testimony, that of itself alone puts it beyond a question. We
present it to show how step by step the American party has labored to estab-
lish a truth that Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, the Tribune, Times and Evening
Journal, were all the time aware of, but have determined the people should
not know. They hoped to keep the people in doubt until after election and
then smile at their credulity. When Archbishop Hughes, saw how much
stronger party ambition was than Protestantism among Protestant clergymen
and the leading papers of the state, and that a Popish president and the son
of a foreigner, was just as good for them as a Protestant, he determined to
throw off the mask and appeal to the Catholic vote of the country in a mass
and at the same time show his utter scorn of those false hearted men who
sought to obtain the Catholic vote by selecting a Catholic candidate and at the
same time feet the Protestant vote by asserting that he was a Protestant. If
any thing can awaken in the heart of the honest masses an utter scorn and
detestation of the Republican press and its unscrupulous editors the following
editorial in the Freeman's Journal, Archbishop Hughee's paper of the 13th
September, will do it. We take the liberty of dividing it into heads and
underscoring it.

11
THE FACT SETTLED.

Archbishop Hughes's Contempt of Bolting Americans.
" RELIGION AS A POLITICAL TEST. Were it not disgusting it would amuse
ITS to see the savageness of the contest that has been waging for months be-
tween the two Know Nothing parties on the subject of the religion of the can-
didates of one of them. It was certainly of the nature of a farce that an out-
and-out Know Nothing faction should have selected for their presidential
candidate, not only the son of a foreigner, but one who, until recently, was
looked upon by his friends and associates as a Catholic. The party known as
Choctaws, North Americans, or anti-Slavery Know Nothings, offered Mr.
Fremont their nomination, and he formally accepted it, having avowed his
sympathy with most of their principles, and his purpose to carry them out if
he could be elected. According to the New York Tiiries, a Fremont paper,
this convention which thus nominated Mr. Fremont, was composed of those
"who bolted for the American (K. N.j National Council and nominating con-
vention in Philadelphia, by reason of the admission therein of. <<eiegates re-
presenting a Roman Catholic constituency, thus taking the most decided posi-
tion as anti-Roman Catholics, and still maintaining that position." Yet, as if
to illustrate how utterly profligate in principle Know Nothingisrn is, and how
necessarily self stultifying, they take as their candidate a man supposed to be
a Catholic."

:.' -' - ! ';,.,:..' '' -'.\j[ '/IS . " '" ."-i ?:.' ;K.''t i. " . I . i 5 ; vj . ''?'':' *> : ! .'

Declares Fremont a Romanist, and Charges on Weed, Greeley, Ray-
mond, Beecher & Co., an Attempt to Deceive the People.

u Having selected such an one for their candidate, the next curious step is
the attempt to make out, not that Fremont had given up being a Catholic,
not that he was now a Protestant, or of no religion, a thing possible in itself,
plausible moreover, and which he certainly has the political right to do without
being politically questioned about it, but that he never had been a Catholic,
never had so professed himself. This is, we think, the most audacious attempt on
the credulity of the American people that has ever been tried. Had the appeal been
made to the real American principle that a man's religion is riot a matter on
which he ought to submit to questioning however contradictory this might
be to the inquisitorial dicta of the Know Nothings, their inconsistency would
have found some to pardon it. 'BUT THE ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE
PUBLIC SWALLOW SO ABSURD A STORY AS THAT MK. FREMONT
DID NOT FOR YEARS PROFESS HIMSELF A ROMAN CATHOLIC,
AND NOTHING BUT A ROMAN CATHOLIC HAS ACTUALLY
SOMETHING IN IT HARDLY ONE STEP FROM THE SUBLIME."

Compliments the Catholics, who could at any time have Nailed the False-
hood on Beecher, (Jpeeley & Co., for withholding their Testimony.

"There is a relieving feature in this unpleasant business. It is that While
there are scores of men who, hy personal intercourse with Mr. Fremont in other
days, are in a condition to give the most conclusive testimony, and many of these
are hostile to Mr. Fremont politically, not one of them of any character has
beenjound to violate the rights of private intercourse, or the political privilege oj re-
ligious liberty, so much as to be induced to publish a work on the subject. The
unseemly contest has been left to the two Know Nothing factions to dispute
between thf-rnselves. The one set averring what Mr. Fremont does not,
with his own word, aver, that he has never professed himself a Roman Catho-
lic, the other set asserting that he has not ceased to be a Catholic, but is playing
some dark and mysterious part for the accomplishment of Catholic designs on
the country. The two sets are well matched. It would be a pity to interfere
with them."

Rebukes Greeley for Accusing 1 Father Van Horseigh of Violating his
Oath in Marrying two Heretics.

"But we must insist on their letting alone the good name of the Catholic
priesthood. It will not do for the friends of Mr. Fremont to malign falsely the
. character of the good old Jesuit, Father Van Horseigh, who married him. Respect
for the memory of a good priest, now deceased, will one day, compel the overhauling
of the coarse charges of the Tribune, that he had no regard to the requirements of
his sacred office. The same kind of gross impropriety has been practiced with
a Catholic priest still living. The Rev. Mr. Olivetti, of Whitehall, in the dio-
cese of Albany, has been trumpeted through the country as having declared
that he knew Mr. Fremont to be a Catholic, and that he meant to vote for him
on that account, and that he had five hundred men in Essex county whom he
would make vote for him also. Mr. Olivetti has felt it proper to give a formal
denial to this tissue of absurdities in a local paper of Whitehall. He says that
he knows nothing about Mr. Fremont's religion how should he? that he
has not had time to learn the merits of the political parties in this country, and
does not intend to vote at all, having enough to do with the discharge of his
clerical duties. As to the retinue of five hundred men that were waiting for
his word to vote, it is hard to think that such stories can be believed by any
one. Catholics understand perfectly well their rights, and their individual re-
sponsibilities as citizens, and do not exercise their citizens' privilege at the dic-
tation of any man. But the Catholic's conscience in such matters, its liberty
and its dignity, is a thing not understood by Know Nothings who bind them-
selves to do blindly the bidding of the knights that carry the dark lantern for
their party."

Regards with Equal Contempt and Scorn, the Know Nothings that Sup-
port Mr. Fremont, and those who Oppose Him.

" Meanwhile, as the Know Nothing faction that sustains Mr. Fremont repels
as fatal to his prospects the charge of his having for years been known as a
Catholic, and the Know Nothing faction that opposes him maintains that he
is still a Catholic at heart, and only a Protestant for the nonce, till after elec-
tion, it gratifies us to witness the profound disgust with which a vast pro-
portion of the community view this indecent discussion."

The Editor of the Organ of Bishop Hughes on the Stand !

! , The following Letter from the Editor of N. Y. Freeman's Journal, the Organ of
Bishop Hughes, comes to us in the Columbus (Ohio,) Capital City Fact, of the 26th
inst. It presents directly the issue of John C Fremont's Veracity, and suggests
before the nation the question Is not John C. Fremont guilty of deliberate, premed-
itated falsehood in denying his religious faith ? We ask men who would not coun-
tenance a deliberate falsifier, to read the following, which among honorable men will
fall with crushing effect :

OFFICE OF THE N. Y. FREEMAN'S JOURNAL, Sept. 5th, 1856.

SIR : No such article as you refer to has appeared in me Freeman's Journal nor
would I admit it, even to injure the prospects of the candidate of so bad a party as
the Black Republicans because the religion of Mr. Fremont, if he has any^left, has
nothing to do with his claims for office, or should have nothing to do with them
at least.

What is more to the purpose, is the personal veracity of Mr. Fremont. If you can
get any one to induce him to say over his own signature, what he seems to authorize
his friends to say for him viz: that, he has never professed to be a Catholic, THEN
I WILL BRAND HIM PUBLICLY AS A LIAR, as I know the whole story of his
life in Washington, and know that daily, and for years, he professed to be a Catholic,
and nothing but a Catholic. That he professed to be suck when he was married.
That he avowed himself such to his brother officers in the army, and to men in civil
life to Protestants and Catholics, whom I know and could cite as proofs. But J. C.
i Fnmont dare not, over his own name, deny a fact that lean have sworn to by twenty

distinct affidavits of highly respectable people, men and women, priests and lay, Cath-
olic and Protestant, viz : that for years he professed himself A CATHOLIC, AND
DENIED HAVING ANY OTHER BELIEF IN ANY OTHER RELIGION.

A man who will LIE about a serious fact in his own history, ought to be denounc-
ed, if he pretends to run for President, even of so mean a coalition as Black Repub-
licans and Choctaw Know Nothings. If CoL Fremont will assert that he has never
given himself out as a Catholic, I WILL CLAP THE HOT IRON ON HIM
QUICK AND SURE.

* * * * * # an* '.-. # *

Yours, 4-c , J. A. McMASTER.

Editor and Proprietor of Freeman's Journal.

THE BISHOP OF ST. LOUIS ON THE STAND!

From the St. Louis Pilot (Roman Catholic), Sept. 16.

That Fremont professed to be a Catholic and conformed to all the practices of
that church, can be proved here by the most incontrovertible evidence. The follow-
ing facts were related to us yesterday by a gentleman of this city who is perfectly
cognizant of them, and was well acquainted with Fremont, with whom he was in
the habit of daily association.

In the year 1838, Fremont spent the winter in St. Louis. He was at that time
assistant engineer to Mr. Nicholas, who was employed by the government to make
a topographical survey of Iowa and Minnesota. St. Louis was the headquarters of
the surveying party in the winter. For the purpose of being near an open space
from which he could take observations, Mr. Nicholas engaged rooms for his party at
an hotel in Ferry's Building, adjoining Chouteau's Garden. Among the party was
a young gentleman /rom New York by the name of Flaudrien, who is still alive, and
can testify to the truth of these facts. Mr. Nicholas was a rigid Catholic, and died
subsequently at the Jesuit College at Georgetown, in the District of Columbia. He
exacted of the young men of his party, who professed to be Catholics, a rigid prac-
tice of the duties of their faith. FREMONT WENT REGULARLY TO CON-
FESSION, AND TO THE COMMUNION. A CLERGYMAN OF THE CA-
THEDRAL OF ST. LOUIS WAS HIS FATHER CONFESSOR, and all the
Catholics in the city looked upon Fremont as in full communion with their church.

Our informant states that he was himself present at the table when the following
incident occurred: A young Englishman who was traveling through the country,
made some remarks of the most offensive nature reflecting upon the chastity of
Catholic females. He was immediately taken up and peremptorily challenged by
Fremont, on the ground that he had insulted the ladies of his church. No duel,
however, took place, as the Englishman though it best to leave the city at once.

As Fremont at this time of his life had no object to be gained thereby, he made
no secret of his being a Catholic, He was married by a Catholic priest, he erected
a cross on the summit of the Rocky Mountains, and in the most important acts of
his life he passed himself off for a Catholic Now he desires to conceal the fact; he al-
lows his Black Republican organs at the North to deny it; he permits them to lie
atrociously for him, and thereby becomes so far responsible. Such is the man whom
the fanatics of New England seek to impose upon the people of the United States as
President one false to his religion and a traitor to the place of his birth.

From the St. Louis Leader (organ of Bishop Kendrick,) of September 16.

It would be affectation in us to keep silence in regard to what is said in this cjty
on this question. That Fremont professed to be a Catholic when in St. Louis, ad-
mits not of a doubt. We understand that an evening cofemporary will publish some
important facts on the subject this evening. We have certain further developments
in reserve, and are only waiting for the permission of a third party to publish them.
To be a Catholic is no disqualification for the office of President of the United States.
But to be a Catholic and at the same time the candidate of the Know Nothings for
the Presidency, is certainly a very curious combination. To be of ANY religion, and
to suppress, or deny it, for fear of losing votes, is despicable. What is asserted is
this. That when Fremont was here as a young engineer, he was considered a Cath-
olic by his immediate employer, and the latter being a zealous one himself, took pains
that the young men with him should practice their religion. A gentleman more-
over, whose name can be produced, recollects an anecdote rather favorable to Fre-

mont, but bearing on this point. At table, in a hotel, an Englishman after dinner,
gentlemen only present of course, uttered a most insulting opinion in regard to the
chastity of Catholic women and Fremont sent him a challenge, on the ground that
he had insulted the members of his church. The Englishman vamosed Another
gentleman vows that he saw Fremont at the altar rails of the Cathedral, but whether
he received communion or not, can not be positive.

In fact, our acquaintance lies among gentlemen who know him mostly Catholics
themselves (for the very first people in St. Louis, you know, are Catholics, and it it
a recommendation in best society) and we have yet to meet the first man who knew
Fremont here, and did not regard him as a Catholic. We possess, however, evidence
of a far more delicate and recherche nature, and if we are permitted, will publish it.
Suffice it to say, at present, that it establishes in our mind the conviction that when
here, among Catholics, and in Catholic CREOLE society, this thenvbscure young man
passed himself off as a Catholic, professed at least to perform devotions peculiar to
the Catholic Church, and rejected by all Protestants, arid,jin short, was either a Cath-
olic or a hypocrite.

Letter from a Gentleman in California,

The following lettei is from a man, formerly of Charlestown. in this State, (Mr.
Jesse Morriil) and well known to the old members of the Order of United Americans.
He was for many years in the employment of the Fitchburg Railroad Company, and
was respected and esteemed by all who knew him. We know him personally, and
have every reason to put implicit confidence in what he says :

SACRAMENTO, CAL., Aug. 19, 1856.

J. E. FARWELL, Esq. Dear Sir : I see by some of the Eastern papers, there is
some doubt about the religious opinions of Col. Fremont. As for that, I think I
can put you right.

In November, 1845, learning that Col. Fremont was in attendance at the Roman
Catholic Church, arid having a desire, from curiosity, to see him, I followed. I saw
hint go to the holy water, dip his finger in, and cross himself, and then go towards
the altar and get down on his knees. During service I SAW HIM CROSS HIM-
SELF SEVERAL TIMES ! ! I have since, on one occasion, SEEN HIM PAR-
TAKE OF THE SACRAMENT IN THAT CHURCH.

*******^*

I am yours c., J. MORRILL.

f bu;, . , H ,

JOHN C. FREMONT'S PRO-SLAVERY PRINCIPLES.

John C. Fremont was in the U. S. Senate about twenty days. During' that
time he voted with extreme southern slavery propagandists. His course was
undeviating and his action always in accordance with extreme southern
policy.

The Proof.

Qn the 12th of September, 1850, a vote was taken on William H. Se ward's
bill providing that u Slavery shall forever cease within the District of Colum-
bia, and all persons held in bondage therein shall be free."

The vote on this proposition and substitute was:

AYES CHASE (now Governor of Ohio); DODGE (of Wisconsin, Dern.); HALE
(now, and again U. S. Senator); SEWARD (of N. Y.); and UPHAM, (of Vermont,
now dead.)

NAYS. Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Baldwin, Barnwell, Bell, Benton, Berrien,
Bright, Butler, Clay, Davis of Mass., Davis of Miss.. DAYTON, Dickinson,
Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Downs, E\ving, Felch, Fit E VI ONT, Green, Gwin,
Hamiin, Houston, Hunter, Jones, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Norris,

Pearce, Pratt, Rush, Sebastian, Shields, Smith, Soule, Spruance, Sturgeon,
Turney, Underwood, Wales, Whitcomb, and Winthrop 45.

See Senate Journal of 1850, p. 626.

Fremont's Second Vote was given for Slavery.

On the 18th September, 1850, Mr. Pratt, having moved to take up a bill to
prevent the enticing or assisting slaves to escape from their owners in the Dis-
trict of Columbia. Mr. Hale moved that the bill be committed to the committee on
the District of Columbia, with the instructions so to amend it as to abolish slavery
in the District of Columbia.

He is recorded as voting against Mr. Male's motion, as follows:

YEAS Messrs. Baldwin, Chase, Davis of Mass., Dodge of Wis., Ewing,
Hale, Hamlin, Seward and Winthrop 9.

NAYS Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Barnwell, Bell, Benton, Bright, Butler,
Cass, Clay, Cooper, Davis of Miss., Dawson, DAYTON, Dickinson, Dodge of
Iowa, Douglas, Downs, Felch, Foot, FREMONT, Gwin, Houston, Hunter,
Jones, King, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pratt, Sebastian, Shields, Smith, Soule,
Spruauce, Sturgeon, Turner, Underwood, Wales, Whiicomb and Yulee 40.

Fremont's Third Vote was given for Slavery.

Mr. Underwood, of Kentucky, having called up the bill for the relief of the
American Colonization Society, which sought to repay the society the ex-
penses for maintaining and sending to Liberia the slaves recaptured on the
barque Pons, the motion was to ingross the bill for a third reading, and how
did Freedom Shrieking Fremont vote! Look upon the damning record!

The question was discussed at length as to whether the United States would
pay these just and legal demands; and on the vote being taken for the en-
grossment of the bill to a third reading, Mr. Fremont's name is found record-
ed ill the negative as follows:

YEAS Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Chase, Clayton, Davis of Mass.,
DAYTON, Dodge of Wis., Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Ewing, Felch, Greene,
Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Mangum, Pearce, Pratt, Seward, Shields, Smith,
Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Wales, Walker, Whitcomb and Winthrop
29.

NATS Messrs. Atchison. Barnwell, Benton, Buller, Dawson, Dickinson,
Downs, FREMONT, Hunter, King, Mason, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turner
and Yulee 16.

[See Congressional Globe, vol. 21, part 2, page 1803.]

We wish in conclusion to show by a recent vote in Congress how honest
these men are who condemn Mr. Fillrnore for signing the Fugitive Slave Bill.
It is well known that that law applied only to the States. The following is the
article in the constitution under which the Fugitive Slave Law was passed:

"No person held to service in one State under the laws thereof, escaping
into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be dis-
charged from such snrvice or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the
party to whom such service or labor may be due." U.S. Constitution, Art. IV,
Sec. 2.

It will be seen that this provision of the Conltitution relates only to a slave
escaping into a State, and makes no requirement respecting fugitives in the
territories. When, therefore, a fugitive slave law is extended over the territo-
riep, it is not, as in the case of the States, because the Constitution positively
commands it. Bearing this in mind, read the extract from an act which passed
the House of Representatives on the 29th of July, 1856, by a vote of 88 yeas
to 74 nays ; stbenty-six of the eighty-eight yeas being given by members of the
Republican party. The part which we quote is known as Dunn's amend-
ment :

16 /B52

Provided, however, That any person lawfully held to service in said Territories
shall not be discharged from such service by such repeal and revival of said eighth sec-
tion, if such person shall be perm anently removed from such Territory or Territories
prior to thejlrst day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight ; and any child or
children born in either of said Territories, of any female lawfully held to service, if
in like manner removed without said Territories before the expiration of that datt,
shall not be, by reason of anything in this act emancipated from any service it might
have owed had this act never been passed:

C^"" Jlnd provided further, That any person lawfully held to service in any other
State or Territory of the United States, and escaping into either the Territory of
Kansas or Nebraska, may be reclaimed and removed to the person or place where such
service is due, under any law of the United States which shall be in force upon the
subject. H

It is only necessary to subjoin the names of the Republican members of the
House, by whose votes this was passed, and the nail is driven and clinched. Here
they are :

Charles J. Albright, Ohio-, John Allison, Penn ; Lucian Barbour, Ind.; Samuel
P. Benson, Me.; Philemon Biiss, Ohio; Samuel C. Bradshaw, Penn.; Samuel
Brenton, Ind.; James Buffinton, Mass ; James H. Campbell, Penn.; Lewis D.
Campbell, Ohio; Calvin C. Schaffee, Mass.; Schuyler Colfax, Ind.; Linus B.
Comins, Mass.; John Covode, Penn.; William Cumback, Ind.; William S. Dainrell,
Mass.; Sidney Dean, Conn.; John Dick, Penn.; Edward Dodd, N. Y.; Nathaniel
B. Durfee, R. I.; John R. Eddie, Penn.; J. Reace Emrie, Ohio; Thomas T. Flag-
ler, N. Y.; Joshua R. Giddings, Ohio; William A. Gilbert, N. Y.; Amos P. Gran-
ger, N. Y.; Galusha A. Grow. Penn.; Robert B. Hall, Mass.; Aaron Harlon, Ohio;
David P. Holloway, Ind.; Thomas R. Horton, N. Y.; Valentine B. Horton, Ohio;
Jonas A. Hughston, N. Y.; William H. Kelsey, N. Y.; Rufus H. King, N. Y.;
Chauncey L. Knapp, Mass.; Ebenezer Knowlton, Me.; James Knox, 111.; John C.
Kunkel; Orasmus B. Matteson, N. Y.; Killian Miller, N. Y.; Edwin B. Morgan,
N. Y.; Justin S. Morrill, Vt.; Matthias H. Nichols, Ohio; Jesse 0. Norton, 111.;
Andrew Oliver, N. Y.; John M. Parker, N. Y.; Guy R. Pelton, N. Y. ; John J.
Perry, Me.; John U. Pettit, Ind.; Benjamin Pringle, N. Y.; Samuel A. Purviance,
Penn.; David Richie, Penn.; Alva Sabin, Vt.; Russel Sage, N. Y.; William R.
Sapp, Ohio; John Sherman, Ohio; George A. Simmons, N. Y.; Francis E. Spin-
ner, N. Y. ; Benjamin Stanton, Ohio; James S. T. Stranghan, N. Y.; Mason W.
Tappan, N. H.; Benjamin B. <Thurston, R. I.; Lemuel Todd, Penn.; Mark
Trafton, Mass.; Edward Wade, Ohio; Abram Wakeman, N. Y.; David S. Walbridge,
Mich.; Henry Waldron, Mich.; Cadwallader C. Washburne, Wis ; Elihu B. Wash-
burn, 111.; Israel Washburn, Jr., 'Me.; Cooper K. Watson, Ohio; Wm. W. Welch;
John M. Wood, Me.; John Woodruff, Conn.; James H. Wbodsworth, 111.

Here the Republicans who make such an outcry against Mr. Fillmore for
signing a Fugitive Slave Law, the spirit of which is recognized by the con-
stitution, vote for the same thing to be extended over a territory where the
constitution never anticipated its extension. " Consistency is a jewel!"

Hollinger Coi
pH8.5