# ■ 
 
 
 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 https://archive.org/details/controversybetwe1855broo 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
^Lvcv^tw ^ o <A\3 , 
 
THE 
 
 CONTROVERSY 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 SENATOR BROOKS 
 
 AND 
 
 “f J O H N,” 
 
 ARCHBISHOP OF HEW YORK. 
 
 GEOWING OUT OF THE SPEECH OF SENATOR BROOKS ON THE 
 
 CHURCH PROPERTY BILL. 
 
 IN THE N. Y. STATE SENATE, MARCH 6th, 1855. 
 
 ARRANGED FOR PUBLICATION, 
 
 WITH AN 
 
 t 
 
 INTRODUCTORY PREFACE, 
 
 BY 
 
 W. S. TISDALE. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 DE WITT & DAVENPORT, PUBLISHERS, 
 
 160 AND 162 NASSAU STREET. 
 
• *■ s * 
 
 •' ■ 
 
 jjjm mm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The people of the United States, to whom the intelligence of any event of import¬ 
 ance is conveyed with electric speed, are well acquainted with the circumstances 
 attending the visit of the Pope’s Nuncio, Bedini, to this country, under pretence of a 
 mission to Brazil, and the effort on his part to wrest the Church property of the 
 Roman Catholics from the hands of the Trustees, place it "in the individual hands of 
 the Bishops, and with the purpose of enforcing all the Canon Laws as now in force 
 at Rome. The people are also well aware of the fact that the Trustees of the St. 
 Louis Catholic Church, of Buffalo, protested against this measure—perhaps for the 
 reason that they had not been schooled in the one-man-power system of government, 
 so prevalent in other countries—having very likely become somewhat tainted with 
 Republicanism. 
 
 And here we will take occasion to mention, that, notwithstanding the “ anathe¬ 
 mas ” and “ excommunications ” hurled at the rebellious, protesting Trustees of the 
 Catholic Church of Buffalo, those gentleman still “live, move, and have their-being” 
 —that their digestion is unimpaired, their “insensible perspiration ” is unobstructed, 
 and their chances for salvation in the life to come bear a more promising aspect now 
 than ever before. 
 
 We mention this circumstance for the benefit of those very, very ignorant beings 
 who devoutly believe that a “ bull,” or “ anathema,” or “ curse,” emanating from 
 the weak-minded old gentleman called the Pope of Rome, possesses a power to injure 
 the person against whom the “ bull ” or “ curse ” is uttered. 
 
 The noble stand taken by the Trustees of the St. Louis Church, emboldened others, 
 who were justly alarmed at the terrible blow aimed at their method of managing 
 their church property—a method more in consonance with the spirit of our repub¬ 
 lican institutions,—and they very properly manifested their disapprobation of the 
 Pope’s interference in their affairs, through his accredited agent, the detested Bedini. 
 If the Catholics had cause to be alarmed at the enactment of so tyrannical a scheme, 
 how much more cause had the Protestants to fear the consummation of a measure 
 whose nature was in direct antagonism to that of their established usages ? Jealous 
 as the American Republicans are of all monster monopolies centred in the sole 
 possession of any one man, is it a matter of surprise that they looked upon this 
 audacious plan of Pius IX. (through his agent Bedini), with extreme jealousy ? 
 Is it astonishing, we ask, that the American Protestants were jealous of this plan 
 of the Roman Pontiff to get the power of wealth, the means of corruption, the 
 “ sinews of war," into the hands of the squad of his obedient t bishops, who are 
 obliged to visit him periodically, for the purpose of conferring with him in a social 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 viii 
 
 way on the temporal and spiritual state of this country, and to mark out plans for 
 future action? Indeed, it would be a matter for especial wonder, if the thinking, 
 | intelligent portion of the Catholics themselves were not aroused to a sense of the 
 impending danger, and to a determined action against the arbitrary steps of Bedini 
 and his coadjutors, the archbishops and bishops. 
 
 To that great apostle of the Protestant and American doctrines, Gayazzi, both the 
 liberal Catholics and the American Protestants are indebted for an exposition of the 
 base character of the Pope’s Nuncio Bedixi, the indirect cause of the Church 
 property contentions, the evil genius whose presence has created this discord. Thus 
 it was that Bedini’s attempt to change the plan of the Roman Catholic Church pro¬ 
 perty management, as adopted in this country, to a plan more in accordance with the 
 views and plans of Pius IX., gave rise to an exciting contest between the heads of 
 the Romish Church and the laity, and aroused the indignation of the Protestants 
 and independent Catholics of the United States. 
 
 In compliance with the wishes of some of the higher order of Catholics, and for 
 the purpose of faithfully representing the interests of his constituency, our American 
 Senator, Hon. James O. Putnam, introduced a bill providing for the vesting of the 
 title of lands dedicated to religious uses in lay Trustees of the congregation enjoying 
 the same. 
 
 Pending the passage of this important bill, the Hon. Ekastus Brooks, the Hon. 
 Thomas R. Whitney, and Hon. James 0. Putnam, representatives of the National 
 American Party, made the most able speeches which were made during the session; 
 nobly vindicating the rights of the American people, and sustaining, in the most 
 efficient manner the principles which they were instructed to carry out in their 
 legislative and representative capacites. 
 
 The Scriptural phrase of “Well done thou good and faithful servant” applies with 
 peculiar aptitude to each of these American Senators, and we trust that a grateful 
 constituency having a just appreciation of a faithful discharge of duties, will not allow 
 them to be forgotten in the future. 
 
 The Hon. Erastus Brooks, during the delivery of his able speech on the Church 
 Property Bill, delivered in the Senate, March 6th 1855, said, “ I suppose its ” (the 
 ‘ John Hughes ’ property) value to be in New York alone, not much short of Jive 
 millions of dollars which startling announcement drew from the Archbishop one 
 of those semi-political letters for which he is celebrated, if not notorious, and this 
 attack started the controversary. 
 
 It should be borne in mind that the + Bishop had just returned from Rome, the 
 residence of his “ Holy Father,” and was, consequently, greatly puffed up with an in¬ 
 ordinate estimation of his own importance, when our Senator’s heretical proceedings 
 came to his knowledge. With the glitter and show appertaining to the paraphernalia 
 of Rome’s spiritual royalty still gleaming before his eyes, he forgot that the American 
 people did not care a snap of their fingers for his Romish “ father’s ” grand flourish 
 respecting the “ immaculate ” nonsense ; and vainly believed that he could abash an 
 intelligent, free-born American, as easily as he could an ignorant, soul-suborned 
 Romish idolater. 
 
 Fresh from the court of Rome, where his “ Holy Father ” is •protected from the 
 people's affectionate caresses, ly an army of splendidly uniformed Frenchmen; newly 
 arrived from that scene of magnificent folly, in which the high dignitaries of the 
 Romish Church participated so luxuriously ; + Bishop Hughes could not all at once 
 realize that Senator Brooks, in his plain American dress, was just as good a man as 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 ix 
 
 t Archbishop Hughes, in all his scarlet robes and golden trappings. This he could 
 not realize, and was simple enough to believe that the “ t Archbishop of the Pro¬ 
 vince of New York,” as he lorded it in Rome, was pretty much the same consequen¬ 
 tial personage here in America ; and acting upon this presumption, he committed 
 the egregious blunder of attempting to sweep from his path a man whose mental 
 calibre he had as greatly underrated as he had vain-gloriously overrated his own. 
 
 So fully was f John impressed with the belief that he was all-powerful, while the 
 subject of his Christian scorn was comparatively impotent, that he seems to have 
 entertained the idea of at once annihilating the Senator by a puerile stroke of satirr 
 cal playfulness, eliminated from the bitterness of his soul. Never did a fallable 
 t Pontiff or a frail f Bishop make a greater mistake. The unpretending Senator was 
 more than a match for the pompous prelate; the “ vile insect ” has proved himself 
 “ the better man.” The American Senator, with his honest straightforwardness, his 
 rational argumentation, his gentlemanly bearing, and his calm, Christian temper, has 
 gained a most signal triumph over the Celtic t Archbishop, with his logical artifice, 
 his tortuous and subtle wanderings in the outskirts of the main fact, his ill-man¬ 
 nered, insulting, rude, querulous, angry, and un-Christian method of conducting the 
 controversy. 
 
 Heretofore, the cunning f John of this Province has succeeded in drawing off his 
 opponents from the immediate issue arising, by wandering away off and around 
 about the suburbs of the main point, thus, Jack-o’-Lantern-like, alluring his oppo¬ 
 nent into the muddy regions of sophism. In this instance, our f Jack-o’-Lantern has 
 been foiled in his attempts to lead the Senator off, and his irrevelant subjects have 
 been forced into the controversy to no purpose. 
 
 The effect and marked ability with which the Hon. Eeastus Brooks has handled 
 the philippics of “+ John, Archbishop of New York,” has been the most prominent 
 theme throughout the newspaper world for some time past, and if the Editors who 
 have no crosses in their “ cases,” have perceived the advantage gained by the hon¬ 
 orable gentleman over his arch adversary ; and have cried out “ liabet /” surely they 
 were-excusable for uttering the truth, even though that truthful shaft were aimed at 
 the mitred head of a great + dignitary of the Church of Rome. The few remarks 
 with which we have prefaced this controversy, may subject us to a severe rebuke, 
 which may be followed by a promise of forgiveness on certain conditions—but we 
 care so little for the reprimands of f Bishops, that such a fulmination would “ pass 
 by us as the idle wind which we regard not,” and as for the “ forgiveness,” we have 
 a shilling, for which we can be shriven by the first “ absolving ” priest at hand. 
 
 * \ 
 
SPEECH OF HON. E. BROOKS, 
 
 NEW YORK STATE SENATOR. 
 
 ON THE 
 
 CHURCH PROPERTY BILL. 
 
 The Papal Power in the State , and the Resistance to this 
 Power in the Temporalities of the Church, as recently seen 
 in the United States and Europe. 
 
 IN SENATE, MARCH 6th, 1855. 
 
 Mr. Chairman :—The consideration of questions affecting Church and State in a Legis¬ 
 lative body, is a novelty that may well awaken the interest of sects and of parties. The 
 apology for the fact, is found in the necessities of the times. One class of men fear that 
 the tendencies of the States are too irreligious. Another class apprehend that they are 
 too heretical. One pulpit fears the State is infidel, and another church assails it for 
 disturbing doctrines and dogmas sanctified by age and deemed essential to church supre¬ 
 macy. It is due to those who represent-the State to vindicate by their action, the 
 Legislative branch of the government from all such reproaches, and the more so as so 
 many have shown a disposition to assail our government for its infidel tendencies. 
 
 In the remarks I propose to make, I shall aim to show that the political State is 
 Protestant in its character, if not in its constitution—that its Republican success has been 
 mainly founded upon its Protestant religion, that other systems of faith are not in 
 harmony with true civil and religious liberty, that the bill before us is a legitimate sub¬ 
 ject of legislation, and that we are called upon to uphold and encourage all who are 
 seeking to secure civil and religious independence from the control of a despotic power. 
 The State Constitution and the Constitution of the Federal Government, though granting 
 complete tolerance, are founded upon this rock, and whosoever would remove it, would 
 destroy all that gives it moral permanence and security. 
 
 The petitioners, however, who pray for a change of law are here as Catholics. They 
 claim privileges belonging to them as American citizens. They have come to us as the 
 Catholics went to the British Parliament to be delivered from the act of 1699, which com¬ 
 pelled them either to be outlaws from their country, or enemies to their faith. They have 
 come as other British Catholics went to a Protestant Parliament to remonstrate in favor 
 of the Catholics. Since then, a more liberal and Catholic spirit has prevailed among 
 Protestants throughout the civilized world. 
 
 The petitioners pray the Legislature for the passage of a law enforcing, under sufficient 
 penalties, a faithful compliance with existing statutes, respecting the tenure of church 
 property. They say, that to the true Catholic it is painful to be brought in antagonism 
 with his Bishop and spiritual guide, but that such a law will prevent this unpleasant con¬ 
 dition of affairs. By no portion of our community, they add, will the enforcement of such 
 a statute be hailed with greater satisfaction than by intelligent and faithful Catholics. 
 
 They also state in their prayer, “ that for no higher offence than simply refusing to 
 violate the trust law of our State, we have been subjected to the pains of excommunica- 
 
12 CONTROYERSY BETWEEN 
 
 tion, and cur names held up to infamy and reproach. For this cause, too. have the entire 
 congregation been placed under him (the Bishop). To our members, the holy rites of 
 baptism and of burial have been denied. The marriage sacrament is refused. The priest 
 is forbidden to minister at our altars. In sickness, and at the hour of death, the holy con¬ 
 solations of religion are withheld. To the Catholic churchman, it is scarcely possible to 
 exaggerate the magnitude of such deprivations.” 
 
 “ We yield to none,” they, add, “ in attachment to our religion, and cheerfully render 
 to the Bishop that obedience, in spiritual matters, which the just interpretation of our 
 faith may require ; but in respect to the temporalities of our church, we claim the right 
 of obeying the laws of the State, whose protection we enjoy.” 
 
 They remonstrate, as free citizens, against the one-man dominion of Bishop Timon. 
 They decline to submit to the arbitrary decision of Father Bedini, sent to this State and to 
 the St. Louis church, by the Pope and Propaganda of the College of Rome, to decide for 
 one Bishop against nearly a whole congregation of believers. 
 
 I have never read a more earnest, eloquent, or seemingly truthful petition than this, 
 emanating from the trustees of the St. Louis church of Buffalo. I believe what is set 
 forth in the memorial to be the truth, and so believing, I should hold myself to be most 
 unworthy of the place I hold, if I was not ready to raise my voice and give my vote, in 
 so just a cause, for the weak against the strong. 
 
 I would do here for the Catholic Trustees of this or any other Catholic church, just 
 what I would do for the Protestant Trustees of a Protestant church—no more and no less. 
 I confess my education, my faith, my hopes of happiness, here and hereafter, to be founded 
 upon the Protestant religion. My prejudices, too, I am also free to say, are Protestant. 
 It would grieve me to the heart, to see a child of mine educated in the forms and doctrines 
 of the Romish church ; and if such a calamity were likely to befall me, I should pray God 
 most devoutly to let that cup pass from my lips. 
 
 Nevertheless, Mr. President, I would, as a legislator, grant all the rights to Catholic 
 believers, that I would grant to the believers of any other creed. They have the same 
 right to their faith that I have to mine. I distinguish, too, between men and sects, 
 between believers and systems of belief. I think that men may be better than their 
 system, as they may be worse. At least it is a cardinal principle of every true faith, that 
 as far as possible we ought to live in bonds of charity with all mankind. I believe, too, 
 that the practical lives of men in the church, in the State, in the family, in business, and 
 in the direction of an enlightened conscience, are of far more importance than any church 
 creed. The poet, paraphrasing what Bolingbroke wrote, inculcated a true philosophy, if 
 not the highest Christianity, when he uttered the thought— 
 
 “ For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight, 
 
 His can’t be wrong whose life is in the right,” 
 
 I am not prepared to say that men like Fenelon may not be as good Christians as the 
 best of us. But to come back to the subject. 
 
 The independent church movement, started in this State, and caused by occurrences 
 which have transpired at Buffalo, Rochester, and elsewhere, is sympathized with, and 
 encouraged, more or less, throughout the land. I recall the recent outrage upon Father 
 Brady, at Hartford, Connecticut, as an event addressing itself to the sympathies of the 
 civilized world. This man sickened and died in the discharge of his priestly duties. His 
 pathway to the grave was one of strife and battle. He appropriated $20,000 of his own 
 means, and all he could beg from others, to erect a house of worship. He was a good 
 man, beloved by his followers, and respected of all men who knew him. But he was 
 displeasing to his masters, and therefore banished from his flock, excluded from his own 
 church, and for a time denied the right of mass and sepulture, in the very church and 
 churchyard whose walls he had built, and whose altars he had consecrated. His wrongs, 
 at least, are not forgotten by his faithful followers, nor by those who cherish a true man, 
 no matter what his creed, if devoted to God and to duty. 
 
 In the same spirit, the Romish Bishop of Hartford has sought to establish a Romish 
 German church in the city of New Haven. The German Catholics there, who are of 
 sterner stuff than their Irish brethren (I quote their own words), have remonstrated, and 
 
 “ Resolved, That we Roman Catholics, earnestly protest against such proceedings, and declare to the Right 
 Rev. Bishop that we do not want a German Roman Catholic priest here in New Haven. 
 
 Resolved, That we have suffered already in our old fatherland too much from priestcraft and kingcraft ; 
 and that we are here* in our new home, thank our Lord and God, in at least thirty churches other than Ro¬ 
 man Catholic, that we are free from that yoke, and that every one of us can worship his God according to his 
 best belief and conscience.” 
 
 A mandate from Rome has just now removed four of the clergy from the Catholic Col" 
 lege of Chicago, and the people there, deeply aggrieved, as they say, by the departure 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 13 
 
 from amongst them of their beloved clergy, who have been endeared to them by a faithful 
 and exemplary discharge of duty for several years, unanimously resolve, as did the church 
 of St. Louis for a time : 
 
 “ That we bow with the most profound respect and reverence to our Church and Bishop, but as we do not 
 deem the reasons assigned for the removal of our clergy to be satisfactory, we humbly approach the Holy 
 See, as the unerring arbiter of justice in the matter.” 
 
 I shall not pause here to ask, who this unerring arbiter of justice is, but I may show 
 hereafter, that he is both a temporal and a religious prince, and demands obedience, hardly 
 more in reference to the dogmas of the church, than to sustain dominion in the state. 
 
 What is true of the members of the St. Louis church, is true of many in my own city, 
 of many, as we know, in New England, at the west, and in all parts of the land, and I 
 would fain hope throughout the world. Indeed, from the St. Lawrence to the Gulf of 
 Mexico, and from America to Italy the question of church independence, in matters of 
 temporal right and in the control of church property, is now engaging the earnest atten¬ 
 tion of the Christian world. Roman Catholicism, Mr. Chairman, in all matters of power, 
 is grasping and aggressive. It is wedded to principles of despotism. It makes the 
 Pope the supreme governor of the world, and second only to the Creator. His power as 
 a successor of St. Peter and Christ, as he claims to be, even at Rome, comes not from the 
 people of Italy, but from an assembly of cardinals convened at Rome. The Pope would 
 not consent, nor would the Cardinals consent, nor would the Bishops consent, that their 
 chief should part with his temporal sway and dominion. I propose to offer some proofs of 
 what I say. The present Pontiff in his ecclesiastical letter, dated Gaffa, in 1849, said : 
 
 “ The spiritual power could not be separated, nor do without the temporal dominion, it being necessary to 
 keep them united in order to maintain the splendor and grandeur of the Catholic Church.” 
 
 The Pope rejected the Roman Constitution, stealthily fled from the Vatican and from 
 Rome, from country, and from people, because, among other things, the first sentence in 
 that constitution declared “sovereignty is by eternal right in the people,” and because it 
 was also declared in that constitution that 
 
 “ The Roman Republic provides for the education of every citizen, in order that each one may meliorate his 
 own condition by industry, work and enterprise.” 
 
 The Pope was not willing to accept the condition of religious or church independence, 
 eagerly tendered him in the 7th and 8th constituent principles of the proposed republic, 
 and. what were they ? 
 
 1st. That the Catholic religion is the religion of the State. The use of civil and political rights does not 
 depend on religious creed. 
 
 2d. The head of the Catholic Church shall have from the Republic all necessary guarantees for the inde¬ 
 pendent exercise of his Spiritual Power. 
 
 But it is denied in Congress and elsewhere, that the Head of the Church of Rome exer¬ 
 cises temporal power. As well deny that the sun shines or that there is the See of Rome. 
 What was it but this Papal See that destroyed Frederick II. for defending his Civil Rights 
 against Ecclesiastical usurpations? Three generations passed away before the Secular 
 Power gained its ascendancy upon a field of blood, and in all ages there have been the 
 same examples of audacity. 
 
 . We feel this Papal Power far less In the United States than in Europe, because there it 
 is more associated with ignorance, superstition and despotism. Behold what it has done, 
 or rather left undone for Italy—for Spain—and for Ireland, and the evil it has wrought in 
 these countries it would do for ns, if it could. The system is relaxed here because free 
 educated men can not bear such restraints. 
 
 Already there are a cordon of Bishops, Priests and Vicar Generals, stretching from the 
 Atlantic to the Pacific. About 3,500,000 of its votaries are now in the United States, be¬ 
 sides sixteen hundred Priests, forty Bishops, seven Archbishops, one hundred colleges, 
 seventeen hundred churches, numerous convents and nunneries, and all these are banded 
 and combined, and not divided as are the Protestants into many sects. The supremacy of 
 the Church over the State, so far from being untrue, is almost a church dogma, and the 
 Romanist who to-day would, if need be, sacrifice the State for the Church would he 
 sainted, blessed and shrined at Rome. I have been amazed to hear any one deny this. It 
 is recorded in church canons and church bulls over and over again. It is written upon a 
 thousand pages of church history, and for many centuries of time. 
 
 In this free land the few Catholics born upon the soil, like those from Maryland, and of 
 which Charles Carroll was a type, and some few educated persons, under the influence of 
 more intelligent ideas of personal liberty and priestly authority, decline to submit to the 
 tyranny of Pontifical power. But all Priests know that the entire subjection of the world 
 
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 14 
 
 to the Pope, and by what is called divine right, is a doctrine promulgated to them, and 
 inculcated by them. Eternal damnation, indeed, by more than one Papal Bull is held to 
 be the certain punishment of unbelievers and heretics. Let me read extracts from some 
 of these oaths, anathemas and excommunications, here, and then let the intelligent judg¬ 
 ments of men answer what must be the moral and political effect of a power concentrated 
 all over the world, and built upon a foundation 6f Fear, Despotism and Ignorance. 
 
 I now read the curse pronounced by the Papal Church against all who leave it for any 
 evangelical church: 
 
 [See Spellman’s Glossary in Yale College for authority. See also, for further authority 
 —not only ‘-'Foxes and Firebrands,” in Usher’s works, but the antiquated form of it may 
 be found in Baronius, who thus concludes his account of it, “ Hactemus juramenturi, 
 &c.also, Labbeus Concil, Tom. 10, page 1504, and Tom. 11, page 1565; An. 723 and 
 1079. For this, also, we have authority of Rev. G. Bourne, in his Illustrations of Popery, 
 than whom no better on this subject is needed.] 
 
 OATH OF EXCOMMUNICATIOX. 
 
 “ By the authority of God Almighty, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the undefiled Virgin Mary, 
 mother and patroness of our Saviour, and of all celestial virtues, Angels, Archangels, Thrones, Dominions, 
 Powers, Cherubim and Seraphim; of all the Holy Patriarchs, Prophets, and of all the Apostles and Evangel¬ 
 ists, of the Holy Innocents, who, in the sight of the Holy Lamb, are found worthy to sing the new song of the 
 Holy Martyrs and Holy Confessors, and of all the Holy Virgins, and of all Saints, together with the Holy 
 
 elect of God—May he-be damned. We excommunicate and anathematize him from the threshold of the 
 
 Holy Church of God Almighty : We sequester him, that he may be tormented, disposed, and be delivered over 
 with Dathan and Abiram, and with those who say unto the Lord: ‘Depart from us, we desire none of thy 
 ways;’ as a fire is quenched with water, so let the light of him be put out for evermore, unless it shall repent 
 him and make satisfaction. Amen ! 
 
 “ May the Father, who creates man, curse him! May the Son, who suffered for us, curse him! May the 
 Holy Ghost, who is poured out in Baptism, curse him! May the Holy Cross, which Christ, for our salvation, 
 triumphing over his enemies, ascendant, curse him ! 
 
 “ May the Holy Mary, ever virgin and mother of God, curse him! May St. Michael, the Advocate of the 
 Holy Souls, curse him! May all the Angels, Principalities, and Powers, and all Heavenly Armies, curse him! 
 May the glorious band of the Patriarchs and Prophets curse him ! 
 
 “ May St. John the Precursor, and St. John the Baptist, and St. Peter, and St. Paul, and St. Andrew, and 
 all other of Christ’s Apostles together, curse him! And may all the rest of the Disciples and Evangelists, who, 
 by their preaching, converted the universe, and the holy and wonderful company of Martyrs and Confessors, 
 who, by their works, are found pleasing to God Almighty—May the holy choir of the Holy Virgins, who, for 
 the honor of Christ, have despised the things of the world, damn him! May all the saints from the beginning 
 of the world to everlasting, who are found to be beloved of God, damn him ! 
 
 “ May he be damned where he is, whether in t}ie house, or in the alley, or in the woods, or in the water, or 
 in the church ! May he be cursed in living and dying ! 
 
 u May he be cursed in eating and drinking, in being hungry, in being thirsty, in fasting, and sleeping, in 
 slumbering, and in sitting, in living, in working, in resting, and * * * * and in blood-letting! 
 
 “ May he be cursed in all the faculties of his body! 
 
 “ May he be cursed inwardly and outwardly! May he be cursed in his hair, cursed be he in his brains and 
 in his vertex, in his temples, in his eyebrows, in his cheeks in his jaw-bones, in his nostrils, in his teeth and 
 grinders, in his lips, in his shoulders, in his arms, in his fingers ! 
 
 “ May he be damned in his mouth, in his breast, in his heart, and purtenances, down to the very stomach! 
 
 “ May he be cursed in his brains and his groins, in his thighs, in his genitals, and in his hips, and in his 
 knees, his legs, and his feet, and his toe nails ! 
 
 “May he be cursed in all his joints, and articulation of the members; from the crown of his head to the 
 soles of his feet, may there be no soundness ! 
 
 “May the Son of the living God, with all the glory of His Majesty, curse him ! And may Heaven, with all 
 the powers that move therein, rise up against him, and curse and damn him, unless he repent and make 
 satisfaction! Amen ! So be it. Be it so. Amen!” 
 
 If it be true, that curses, like chickens, come home to roost, upon the power which has 
 involved such maledictions, curses have fallen like hailstones. The curse has returned to 
 plague the inventor. But let me read on, and first from the secret instructions of the 
 Jesuits, and then from their oath: 
 
 [Mr. Brooks then produced a copy of these secret instructions, in English and Latin, as 
 follows:] v 
 
 “ Let Kings and Princes be kept up in this principle, that the Catholic faith, as matters now stand, cannot 
 submit without the civil power, which must be managed with the greatest discretion. By this means, our 
 members will work themselves into the favor of persons in the highest post of government, and consequently 
 be admitted into their most secret councils.— Chap. Yl, paragraph 3d. 
 
 “Nor will it contribute a little to our advantage, if, with caution and secresy, we ferment and heighten 
 the animosities that arise among princes and great men, even to such a degree that they may weaken each 
 other. But if there appear any likelihood of reconciliation, then, as soon as possible, let us endeavor to be 
 the mediators, lest others prevent us.— Chap. 17,11, 5. 
 
 “ * * Our political schemes must be cunningly formed, according to the different posture of the times : 
 and princes, our intimates, whom we can influence to follow our councils, must be pushed on to embroil them¬ 
 selves in vigorous war witli one another, to the end; and society (as promoters of the universal good of the 
 world) may, on all hands, be solicited to contribute its assistance, and always employed in being mediators 
 of public dissentions; by this means, the chief benefices and preferments in the church will, of course, be 
 given to us, by way of compensation for our services.— Chap. 17, p. S. 
 
 “ Finally, the society must endeavor to effect this, at least, that, having got the favor and authority of 
 princes, those who do not love them, at least hear them. Chap. 17, ph. 7. (Copied from the English, Prince¬ 
 ton and New York editions. See, also, translation of Dr. Compton, Bishop of London.) 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 15 
 
 As appropriate to this, I now read the Jesuit oath as follows : 
 
 OATH OF THE JESUITS. 
 
 [See McGavan's Protestant , vol. 2, p. 256.] 
 
 “ I, A. B., now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed Michael the Arch¬ 
 angel, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, and all the saints and hosts 
 of heaven, and to you my Ghostly Father, do declare from my heart, without mental reservation, that his 
 
 Holiness Pope -is Christ’s Vicar General, and is the true and only Head of the Catholic or Universal 
 
 Church throughout the earth; and, by virtue of the keys of binding and loosing, given to his Holiness by my 
 Saviour Jesus Christ, he has power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths, and govern¬ 
 ments, all being illegal without his sacred confirmation, and that they may safely be destroyed: therefore, to 
 the utmost of my power, I shall, and will, defend this doctrine, and his holiness’s rights and customs, against 
 all usurpers of the heretical (or Protestant) authority whatsoever; especially against the now pretended 
 authority, and Church of England, and all adherents, in regard that they and she be usurpal and heretical, 
 opposing the sacred mother Church of Rome. I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to Protestants, 
 or obedience to any other inferior magistrates or officers. I do further declare, that the doctrine of the 
 Church of England, the Calvinists, Huguenots, and of others of the name of Protestants, to be damnable ; 
 and they themselves are damned, and to be damned, that will not forsake the same. I do further declare, 
 that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of his holiness’s agents, in any place wherever I shall be, in 
 England, Scotland, and Ireland, or in any other territory or kingdom I shall come to, and do my utmost to 
 extirpate the heretical Protestant’s doctrine, and to destroy all their pretended powers, regal or otherwise. I 
 do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I am displeased with, to assume any religion heretical, 
 for the propagating of the mother church’s interest, to keep secret and private all her agent’s counsels, from 
 time to time, as they entrust me, and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing, or circumstance 
 whatever, but to execute all that shall be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me by you my ghostly 
 father, or any of this sacred convent. All which I, A. B., do swear by the blessed sacrament I am now to 
 receive, to perform, and on my part to keep inviolable; and do call the heavenly and glorious host of Heaven 
 to witness these my real intentions to keep this, my oath. In testimony hereof, I take this most holy and 
 blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, and witness the same, further, with my hand and seal, in the face of this 
 holy convent, this day, An. Dom.. etc.” 
 
 I 
 
 SECRET OATH OF THE SANFEDISTI \ 
 
 A society established by the Papal government, in 1821, to discover those citizens who 
 professed liberal or heretical opinions, called the Santa Fedesti —from Holy Faith—and 
 with secret ramifications in all parts of Italy, and in foreign countries. The members have 
 the image of the Virgin Mary suspended from their necks, and apostolical warrants in 
 their pockets. They wear a medal with the head of the Pope stamped upon it, and bear 
 letters of authority from the holy congregation to sanctify their violent deeds. They take 
 an oath on the gospel, which is stamped upon their certificate, and reads as follows: 
 
 “ I, Son of the Holy Faith, No. —, promise and swear to sustain the altar and the Papal throne, to exter¬ 
 minate heretics, liberals, and all enemies of the Church, without pity for the cries of children, or of men and 
 women. So help me God.” 
 
 OATH OF THE IRISH RIBBON-MEN. 
 
 “ I, Patrick McKenna, swear by Saints Peter and Paul, and by the blessed Virgin Mary, to be always faith¬ 
 ful to the society of Ribbon-men ; to keep and conceal all its secrets, and its words of order; to be always 
 ready to execute the commands of my superior officers, and, as far as it shall lay in my power, to extirpate 
 all heretics, and all the Protestants, and to walk in their blood to the knee! May the Virgin Mary and all 
 the saints help me ! To-day, the 2d day of July, 1852. PAT. McKENNA, from Tydavmet.” 
 
 OATH OF THE BISHOFS. 
 
 “ I, G. N., elect of the Church of N., from henceforth will be faithful and obedient to St. Peter the Apostle, 
 and to the Holy Roman Church, and to our lord the lord N. Pope N., and to his successors canonically coming 
 in. I will neither advise, consent, nor do anything that they may lose life or member, or that their persons 
 may be seized, or hands anywise laid upon them, or any injuries offered to them, under any pretence what¬ 
 ever. The Counsel which they shall intrust me withal, by themselves, their messengers or letters, I will not 
 knowingly reveal to any to their prejudice. I will help them to defend and keep the Roman Papacy and the 
 royalties of St. Peter, saving my order, against all men. The legate of the Apostolic See, going and coming, 
 I will honorably treat, and help in his necessities. Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said lord, or 
 
 HIS AFORESAID SUCCESSORS, I WILL, TO THE UTMOST OF MY POWER, PERSECUTE AND OPPOSE. I Will COme to a Coun¬ 
 cil when I am called, unless I be hindered by a canonical impediment. I will by myself in person, visit the 
 threshold of the Apostles every three years, and give an account to our lord, and his aforesaid successors, of 
 all my pastoral office, and of all things anywise belonging to the state of my Church, to ihe discipline of my 
 clergy and people, and lastly to the salvation of souls committed to my trust; and will in like manner hum¬ 
 bly receive and diligently execute the Apostolic commands. The possessions belonging to my table I will 
 neither sell nor give away, mortgage nor grant anew in fee, nor anywise alienate, no, not even with the con¬ 
 sent of the Chapter of my Church, without consulting the Roman Pontiff. And if I shall make any aliena¬ 
 tion, I will thereby incur the penalties contained in a certain Constitution put forth about this matter. 
 
 “ So help me God and these Holy Gospels of G,od.” 
 
 [See Pontiff. Rom. Antwerp, Anno 1G26, p. 59, 86. See also modification of this form¬ 
 ula adopted in 1846, and compare modification with the original.] 
 
16 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 OATH OF THE PRIESTS. 
 
 “I, A. B., do acknowledge the ecclesiastical power of his holiness, and the mother Church of Rome as 
 the chief Head and matron above all pretended churches throughout the whole earth : and that my zeal shall 
 be for St. Peter and his successors, as the founder of the true and ancient Catholic faith, against all heretical 
 kings, princes, states or powers, repugnant to the same; and although I, A. B., further do declare not to act 
 or control any matter or thing prejudicial unto her, in her secret orders, doctrines, tenets or commands with¬ 
 out leave of its supreme power or its authority, under her appointed ; and being so permitted, then to act 
 and further her interests, more than my own earthly good and earthly pleasures, as she and her Head his 
 Holiness and his successors have, or ought to have, the supremacy over all kings, princes, estates, or powers 
 whatsoever, either to deprive them of their crowns, sceptres, powers, privileges, realms, countries’or govern¬ 
 ments, or to set up others in lieu thereof, they dissenting from the mother church and her commands.” 
 
 [The above is the oath taken at Maynooth where many priests are educated for the 
 United States.) 
 
 (See also the Gregorian Decretals, lib. 2d, tit. 24, cap. 4, for evidence as to the manner 
 in which the Pope doth more and more enlarge his power and enforce subjection. See 
 also the works of Dr. Isaac Borrow, vol. 7, p. 137.) 
 
 BULL OP EXCOMMUNICATION. 
 
 The following was also read by Mr. Brooks, as furnished him by Senor Casali, of New 
 York: 
 
 Issued by Pope Benedict Ylllth against William lid, King of Provence in France, and against his mother 
 
 for having seized certain ecclesiastical property, administered by the Monks of St. Giles. 
 
 May they never be redeemed from the fate of Judas, of Ann, Caiaphas, Pilate and Herod. 
 
 May they perish by the curse of the angels, and suffer the society of Satan in the loss of their flesh. 
 
 May they be damned in heaven, in earth, and in the regions below. 
 
 May they suffer the malediction of God, and of the world. 
 
 May they suffer continually in their body, may their mind become stupefied, and meet with all bodily pains, 
 and end in perdition. 
 
 May they be damned with the damned ones, and perish with the wicked. 
 
 May they be damned with the Jews, who did not believe in Christ, and who crucified him. 
 
 May they be damned with the Protestants, heretics, who wish to overthrow the Catholic Church. 
 
 May they be damned with the impious and sinners, should they not repent, and refuse to return the prop¬ 
 erty to the Monks of St. Giles. 
 
 May they be damned in the four parts of the world. 
 
 Cursed in the East—abandoned in the West—interdicted in the North—excommunicated in the South. 
 
 May they be cursed in the day, excommunicated in the night. 
 
 May they be damned while standing, excommunicated while sitting. 
 
 May they be damned in eating, excommunicated in drinking. 
 
 May they be damned in working, excommunicated in resting. 
 
 May they be cursed in Spring, and excommunicated in Summer. 
 
 May they be damned in the Autumn, and excommunicated in the Winter. 
 
 May they be cursed in the present, and excommunicated in the time to come. 
 
 Strangers will be allowed to possess themselves of their property, and may their women perish in sin, and 
 their children be destroyed by the sword. 
 
 May be damned every one who shall speak, trade, and have friendly relations with them. 
 
 May be excommunicated the Priest, who should administer to them the Sacrament of the Holy Communion. 
 
 May be cursed and excommunicated, the physician who shall visit them in their sickness. 
 
 May be cursed the grave-digger who shall bury their bodies. 
 
 In one word, may they be damned with all possible curses! 
 
 [Translated from Les Preuves de I'ftiatoire de la ville de Mantes in France.] 
 
 Look now to the Council of Trent for evidence of this supremacy of power. Picture 
 for a moment that city, which, from 1545 to 1563, was the scene of so many convocations, 
 ceremonials, and displays. About a day’s ride from Venice, amidst a delightful valley of 
 the Alps, and on the river Adige, is the spot selected by Paul the Third, and at the 
 moment when the Emperor Charles is making war upon the Protestants, to secure reforms 
 in the abuses of the church. And what is the Reformation produced by this labor of 
 eighteen years? Its very beginning is a solemn determination to extirpate all Heretics, 
 and its closing labors are the utterances of anathemas. “ Cursed be all heretics,” exclaims 
 Cardinal Lorraine. “ Cursed,” “ cursed,” cries the council of 255 Prelates. And what 
 are its decrees? That no Bible shall be held, or read, except by Priests. That ho Bible 
 shall be sold, without license, except upon the pains and penalties of that mortal sin 
 which is neither to be forgiven in this world nor the next 1 That tradition is of equal 
 authority with the Bible, that Episcopal power is of Papal origin, that anathemas shall 
 follow all dissenters, that original sin is confirmed, that the seven sacraments are church 
 law, that Luther and Zwingli, are enemies of God, because enemies of the Pope, that the 
 Pope shall decide upon the admission of the cup into the Lord’s supper, that he shall also 
 decide upon what books may be used, and what catechisms read, and that there shall be a 
 Purgatory, a worship of Saints, images, relics, monastic vows, fasts kinds of food, indul¬ 
 gences, &c., &c. The great doctrine, however, of this council was that the Pontiff alone 
 could determine the true signification of the Scriptures, and that these Scriptures could 
 alone be used by the Priests. 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 17 
 
 Need “we wonder that with such a creed, distinguished Bishops like Dr. Cahill in 
 England (soon to be among us, it is said, as a religious teacher), and Hughes, at home, 
 declare they have no confidence in a Protestant Bible ? Or that men like Brownson 
 write, as latterly, that “ Protestants have hardly made any serious attempts to defend 
 Protestantism as a religion, and seem now very generally prepared to abandon its defence, 
 save as a political and social order.” [See Brownson’s Quarterly Review, 1853, page 87.] 
 
 Protestantism there, through more than twenty pages, is argued not to be a religion 
 “ but a rebellion against God.” 
 
 Long before this council of Trent, fourteen hundred years ago, a like council is held, 
 and the Divine Maternity of Mary is declared against the Nestorians; thirteen hundred 
 years ago, her virginity against the Jovinians; more than three hundred years ago, her 
 exemption from venial sin by the Council of Trent, and now by Pope and Cardinals her 
 immaculate conception is made a church dogma. Anathemas and excommunications 
 follow those who do not believe all these things, though many wise and good men, belong¬ 
 ing to the church, declare in their hearts that they believe this church dogma opposed to 
 divine Revelation. 
 
 But as a legislator I do not quarrel with these dogmas any more than with the dogma 
 of the seven sacraments, or the decree that Peter was the successor of the Saviour, and that 
 Pio Nino speaks by the same authority as Jesus, being in the grade of apostolic succession. 
 Nor in this place have I aught to say of any of the dogmas against which Luther preached. 
 Calvin, Melancthon and Erasmus wrote, Wickliffe and Wesley protested, and which 
 dissenters in all times have opposed. They who can may believe all that has been 
 protested against, for hundreds of years, and trust their faith to one whom they esteem to 
 be the head of the oiJly true church. 
 
 Protestantism, I also know, has been aggressive and intolerant at times, but it is no part 
 of a true protestant faith to be bigoted or uncharitable. I defend no wrong in my own 
 faith because it is my own. Calvin could sentence Servetus to death for heresy, and not 
 only hear, unmoved, the shrieks of the affrighted martyr as the flames of fire were 
 consuming his body, but could, in the very refinement of cruelty, even contemplate with 
 cool philosophy the commission of such injustice. And even Melancthon with all his 
 exemplary mildness could justify Calvin for the martyrdom of Servetus. The bold and 
 intrepid Luther, the St. Paul of his time, the master spirit of the Reformation, the moral 
 hero of Germany and Europe, was at times a harsh minister of his faith. So was Cranmer, 
 who sent inoffensive men and women to the stake. So was John Knox. Even Huss, who 
 was' burnt to death by the Nominalists, at the council of Constance, had once been a 
 persecutor. The heroic Ziska, whose indignant spirit could not bear the persecutions of 
 Huss and Jerome, avenged his own wrong by putting the fanatical Beglards to fire and 
 sword. Just as Francis the First, whom the world called, and history records, as generous 
 and just, declared he would not spare his own children, if guilty of heresy, and permitted 
 six of his own subjects to be executed in the most shocking manner for heresy. 
 
 I know, also, that Protestants in their time, have passed many harsh laws, and I am not 
 here to defend them. In 1699, they made the saying of mass in England a crime, and 
 punished the offenders with life-time imprisonment. Teaching public or private by the 
 Romish partizans, was a similar offence, and met with like punishment. The same law 
 compelled the forfeiture of every Catholic estate to the nearest protestant kinsman, until 
 the offender should redeem it by professing a creed which his judgment and conscience 
 rejected. The Catholic was dispossessed of his property, and made an outcast and a 
 beggar. Of such times and such acts, in an age of infidelity, perhaps it was true, as Dr. 
 Johnson said, that they who would exclaim, “ Popery,” “ Popery,” would have cried “ fire,” 
 “fire,” in the midst of the General Deluge. The No Popery riots of 1780, so graphically 
 described by Dickens and others partook of something of the same intolerant spirit. 
 
 But let it be remembered, not as an excuse for these things, but as a fact, that the 
 intolerant spirit of Romish corruption had provoked such excesses, and that intolerance 
 and bigotry have not ceased. Both were seen in England when Queen Caroline com¬ 
 mended, not Walpole to the King, but the King to Walpole. The minister of Church and 
 State, was greater than the sovereign of the realm. Like a true Jesuit. Walpole promised 
 the Dissenters, there should be a day of deliverance from the obligations of the Test Act. 
 It was the word of promise to the ear, and broken to the hope. And when the final 
 impatient cry of the oppressed went forth: “ When will the day of deliverance come,” 
 the long delayed answer also came, “ never,” “ never ,” “never.” 
 
 In Protestant America, the human mind has become more tolerant. I certainly have no 
 desire to recall the past, except as it is wise and desirable to learn wisdom from experience. 
 
 As Lord Erskine said in the British Parliament at a period not altogether dissimilar to 
 the present, I will not call up from the grave of martyrs all the blood that has been spilled 
 in England or elsewhere, to save established government and reformed religion from the 
 secret villainy, and the open forces of the Papists. Let me add that if Protestants have 
 also been bigoted and oppressive, the hope that they will be so no more, and if need be let 
 
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 18 
 
 the strong arm of law reach them whenever faithless to the cause of religious freedom. 
 But it is said the canon law, which in truth is Legislation at Rome both as to ecclesiastical 
 and civil law, for all people and countries where the Pope is supreme, has its exemptions. 
 This is true iu Belgium, where the clergy are esteemed to be officers of Government, and 
 Churches and Church Revenues are the property of the nation. • It is true in France, 
 where Church property is held by the Municipal Power of the Communes. The civil 
 power is also, upon the surface, the controlling power in the Catholic Swiss cantons, and 
 in many of the German Catholic States. But such exercise of power is an exception to 
 the common law, and the best possible aspect which can be given to the relations of 
 Government is that of Innocent III, wherein he compares the Civil Power to the Moon, 
 and the Church to the Sun. “As,” says he, “the sun and the moon are placed in the 
 firmament, the greater as the light of the day, and the lesser of the night; thus are these 
 two powers in the church ; the pontifical, which, as having the charge of souls, is the 
 greater, and the royal, which is less, and to which the bodies of men only are trusted.” 
 But the truth is, this Papal power claims dominion over both. I will now add more 
 modern testimony of the power claimed by and for the head of the Church of Rome in 
 regard to the civil and temporal administration of affairs in Church and State, and read a 
 few paragraphs as specimens of the material of which this entire edifice is built. 
 
 [Mr. Brooks then read as follows from the volume of Brownson’s Review of 1853, from 
 the article, “ The Two Orders, Spiritual and Temporal,” vol. I, p. 48.] 
 
 ******** 
 
 “ The deposing power, there, is inherent in her (the Church) as the spiritual authority, as the guardian and 
 judge of the law, under which Kings and Emperors hold their crowns, and have the right to reign ; for, in 
 deposing a sovereign, absolving his subjects from their allegiance, and authorizing them to proceed to the 
 choice of a new sovereign, she does but apply the law of Christ to a particular case, and judicially declares 
 what is already true by that law. She only declares that the forfeiture has occurred, and that the subjects 
 are released from their oaths of fidelity, who are already released by the law of God.” 
 
 ******** 
 
 “ The Pope has the right to pronounce sentence of deposition against any sovereign, when required by the 
 good of the spiritual order.”—[p. 48.] 
 
 ******** 
 
 “ The power she (the Church) exercised over sovereigns in the middle ages was not a usurpation, was not 
 derived from the concession of Princes, or the consent of all people, but was, and is, hers by divine right; and 
 who so resists it, rebels against the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. This is the ground on which we defend 
 the power exercised over sovereigns, by Pope and council, in the middle ages.”—[p. 47.] 
 
 ******** 
 
 “ For every Catholic, at least, the Church is the supreme judge of the limits and extent of her own powers. 
 She can be judged by no one, and this of itself implies her absolute supremacy, and that the temporal order 
 must receive its law, at least its interpretation from her. So she also asserted by the mouth of all her holy 
 Doctors, her councils, and her Sovereign Pontiffs.”—[p. 47.] 
 
 ******** 
 
 “ Whenever the occasion occurred, she asserted her power, not in empty words only, but in deeds, to judge 
 sovereigns, kings, and Caesars, to bestow or take away crowns, to depose ungodly rulers, and to absolve their 
 subjects from their oath of allegiance.”—[p. 54.] 
 
 **■**■**•*■* 
 
 “ She (the Church) bears, by divine right, both swords ; but she exercises the temperal sword by the hand 
 of the Prince or Magistrate. The temporal sovereign holds it subject to her order, to be exercised in her 
 service, under her direction.”—[p. 60.] 
 
 ******** 
 
 “ When, then, we find a sovereign Pontiff judging, condemning, and deposing a secular Prince, releasing 
 his subjects from their obligation to obey him, and authorizing them to choose another King, we may regret 
 the necessity for such extreme measures on the part of the Pontiff, but we see in them only the bold and 
 decided exercise of the legitimate authority of the spiritual and the temporal; and, instead of blushing for 
 the chief of our religion, or joining our voice to swell the clamor against him, we thank him with our whole 
 heart for his fidelity to Christ; and we give him the highest honor that we can give to a true servant of God 
 and benefactor of mankind.”—[p. 611.] 
 
 ******** 
 
 “ A sovereign Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Vicar of God on earth, if, even through fear 
 of the secular power, whether royal or popular in its constitution, I forget to assert their rights as supreme 
 chief under Christ, my services, of the whole spiritual order, and as such supreme alike in spirituals and in 
 temporals, let my right hand forget her cunning, and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.”—[p. 621.] 
 ******** 
 
 From article “ The Spiritual not for the Temporal,” April, 1S53 (Brownson’s Review). 
 
 I am the more careful to read these extracts from the official Book, which I find in the 
 State library, because of the bold denial of Mr. Brownson to the authenticity of a para¬ 
 graph, less offensive than any one of these, credited to him by my friend from the 31st 
 (Mr. Putnam), and whose lead I am very happy to follow in his honest effort to correct a 
 public abuse. 
 
 Let me now link the chain of evidence as to the interference of this huge power in mat¬ 
 ters alien to all free religious worship. 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 19 
 
 [Mr. Brooks then read the following extracts :] 
 
 “ Blaeius, in his book, De Rom. Eccles. Dignitate , pp. 84, 83, 84, says: 1 Unicus Dei, Ac. The Pope is the 
 only Vicar of God, his power is over all the world, Pagan as well as Christian; the only Vicar of God who 
 has supreme power and empire over all kings and princes of the earth.’ 
 
 “ Bzovius, in his book, De Rom. Pontiff cap. 46, p. 621, ‘ Papa summan, Ac. The Pope has supreme power 
 even over kings and Christian princes, who may correct them, and remove them from office, and in their 
 place put in others.’ 'See Domoulin’s Papal Usurpations , p. 14, Ac., folio. 
 
 “ Mancinus, De jure princip. Bom., lib. 3, cap. i., 2, says: 1 Papa, Ac. The Pope is lord of the whole 
 world, The Pope, as Pope, has temporal power; his temporal power is most eminent. All other powers 
 depend on the Pope.’ 
 
 “ Moscovius, De Majestat. Eccles. Misit., lib. i. cap. 8, says: ‘ Pontifex, Ac. The Pope is universal judge: 
 he is king of kings, and lord of lords. God’s tribunal and the Pope’s tribunal are the same. Ali other 
 powers are his subjects.’ See also Phithou, Corpus. Jur. Canon., 29 Decret. Titul. 7, cap. 3; and Binii Con¬ 
 cilia, ix., 54. 
 
 “Scioppius, in his Eccles. Jacob. Mag. Brit. Beg. Oppos ., cap. 138,139,241,says: * Catholic! non tantum, 
 Ac. Catholics believe the Pope’s power to be not only ministerial, but imperial, and supreme, so that he 
 has the right to direct and compel, with the power of life and death.’ 
 
 “ Maynardus, in his book De Privileg. Eccles. artic. 5, sect. 19 and 21; artic. 6, sect. 1 and 11; artic. 13, 
 sect. 19, says, ‘ Magistrates are the Pope’s subjects.’ 1 The Pope has power in the whole world, in temporals 
 and spirituals.’ 1 Statutes made by laymen do not bind the clergy.’ 
 
 “ Turrecrementa, Card Ad. can. alius. 3, caus. 15; Quest. 6, and in his book De Eccles., lib. ii. cap. 
 14, says, 1 Papa potest. Ac. The Pope can depose emperors and kings ; he may lawfully absolve subjects 
 from their oath of allegiance. If the king (or chief magistrate) be manifestly a heretic ;’ that is, a Protest¬ 
 ant ; ‘ the church may depose him.’ 
 
 “ The sum of this argument is this: When the good of the Roman Church requires it (and the Pope is the 
 judge of that), ‘ the Pontiff can enact civil laws for a people; he can confirm them, and abrogate them at his 
 will, as supreme spiritual Prince; he can erect kingdoms ; transfer thrones, depose magistrates, kings, and 
 emperors, and, by divine right, he can rescind all obligations of citizens to their government, and all allegi¬ 
 ance of a people to their chief magistrate.’ 
 
 “ The glossa of John Semeca, in Gratian, asks, ‘ For what sins may the emperor (or a magistrate) be de¬ 
 posed ?’ The answer is this: ‘ Pro quolibet, Ac.; for any sin, if he be incorrigible, and not only for his sins, 
 but if he do unprofitably manage his regal power.’ See Glossa. ad Can. Si papa 6, Dist. 40. The power of 
 judging when a magistrate does ‘ manage his civil power unprofitably,’ is also vested in the Pope. See Can. 
 Allius, 2, Cap. 15, Ques. 5. Demoulin, p. 21. Pope Zachary acted according to the letter of this law, when 
 he deposed the King of France. 
 
 “By Canon law the Pope is invested with power to annul any civil law that may injure the papal interests. 
 Here is the law: Corpus. Jur. Canon, lib. vi. Decretal, cap. 9 : ‘Non valeat, Ac. All laws by which the 
 office of a heresy detecter is obstructed, or retarded, are null and void.’ 
 
 “ Again, cap. 19, p. 142. ‘ Bona, Ac. The goods of heretics are rightfully confiscated.’ ” 
 
 Thus in Austria, Spain, or in Mexico, whatever appeal the oppressed may make to the 
 civil law, it is all in vain. The ghostly tribunal confiscates his goods ; and not only is the 
 father, and protector of a family, torn away by the spiritual ruffians, but every article of 
 property, and even the last morsel of food, are abstracted from the mother, and her weep¬ 
 ing children. 
 
 Again, cap. 6, p. 135 : Ordinarii, &c. Prelates, vicars-general, and their delegates, and 
 inquisitors, may enforce persons, who have secular jurisdiction to execute their sentence 
 upon heretics.. Thus, according to the very letter of the Canon law, “priests are consti¬ 
 tuted judges in civil matters, and kings and magistrates are the Pope’s hangmen!’ ” 
 
 The following I copy from the famous Decretal of Pope Gregory IX, lib. V, Titul. 7, 
 cap. 13 : 
 
 “ Moneantur, Ac. Let the secular powers be admonished and induced, and, if necessary, let them be com¬ 
 pelled by church censures, that, as they desire to be esteemed among the faithful, so for the defence of the 
 faith, they publicly take an oath, that from the lands under their jurisdictions, they will, with all their might, 
 study to exterminate all heretics denounced by the church, Ac.” 
 
 In section sixth, the Pope utters his curse “on all civil powers who impose new taxes 
 without the consent of the Roman court.” 
 
 In the 15th section he curses.magistrates, who take away the jurisdiction of all benefices, 
 and tithes, or other spiritual causes, from the cognizance of the court of Rome. Hence, 
 if our courts take up a cause of quarrel between the priests or laymen, about moneys due 
 to '•'■ the church," or “any spiritual property," instead of referring it simply to the 
 foreign judge, they come under the papal curse. 
 
 In the 17th, he curses all who hinder priests and ecclesiastics from exerting their ghostly 
 jurisdiction, or who shall appeal to civil courts for redress, “to procure prohibitions and 
 penal mandates against these priestly courts, &c.” 
 
 In the 24th, he curses bishop and priest, who shall give absolution to any under these 
 dooms, “in face of these presents,” and he declares that he will proceed to severe spiritual 
 and temporal punishments, as he shall think most convenient. 
 
 If the use of temporal power and temporal interference in State and Church, or the 
 combination of Church and State are still denied, it is a brazen contradiction of a well 
 authenticated truth. Political events in every country are subjects of report from every 
 diocese at least once a year. Sardinia to-day is the victim of Papal oppression. Victor 
 Manuel, the young King there, is mocked in his calamities, though losing mother and wife 
 
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 20 
 
 in the space of eight days, by the whole order of Jesuits. The Pope censuies him for 
 favoriug religious toleration, and for not looking with a more kindly spirit upon the 490 
 convents, spread like cells in a honey comb, all over that small kingdom, and as full of 
 priests as the hive is full of bees. King and country are given over by the Pope for de¬ 
 claring all men equal before God, under the civil law. 
 
 Do you ask for additional evidence of Papal Supremacy or dominion with the govern¬ 
 ments of the earth ? Let me add, to what I have said, the words of the'great Machiavelli, 
 he who was strangled for uttering the truth, and for his endeavors to give deliverance - 
 to Florence, “ If Italy ,” says he, “ has always been the prey, not only of barbarians, 
 but also of any foreign power willing to attack it, we Italians are indebted for it to 
 the Popes alone.” Who, asked a brave man in the Sardinian Parliament the last month, 
 invited Pepin to Italy ? Stephen II. Who called Charlemagne ? Adrian I. Arnotf, the 
 German, the two Othos, Henry II, Conrad the Salic, Charles d’Anjou, were called by the 
 Popes. French, Saxons, Swedes, Spaniards, Germans, Swiss, Hungarians, and even 
 Turks, all of them were called to Italy by Pontiffs of Rome. Since the revolution of 
 1848, Austrians. Neapolitans, Spaniards and French have all been the guardians of 
 Italian tyranny, while Italians have been watched and hunted, exiled and imprisoned, 
 condemned and executed. 
 
 Look at Italy now, as seen in what are called the States of the Church. A little while 
 since, upon an area of 27,280 square miles, and with a population of less than 3,000,000 peo¬ 
 ple, there were 53,000 Priests, 1,825 Monasteries, 612 Nunneries, protected not by a Roman, 
 but by a Swiss soldiery of four or live thousand men. One day it is an Austrian army in 
 command ; another, Swiss hirelings, another, Neapolitan soldiers, and to-day it is the pro¬ 
 tection of French bayonets. Look even now at the city of Rome, with its Chapel of the 
 Madonna in the Church of St. Augustin, hung with dirks and knives (as another chapel 
 there is hung with human bones, formed into chandeliers and curious devices), given up 
 on condition of pardon and absolution for all past offences. 
 
 The little government of Sardinia, with a population of five millions of people, has 604 
 religious societies or houses, and these convents, with the church, possess a domain of 
 property valued at eighty-nine millions of dollars! It is proposed to suppress a few 
 religious orders of the most obnoxious character, but none of those whose duty it is to 
 administer to the sick, or to preach or teach. But the Pope threatens his Bull of Excom¬ 
 munication, and the Sardinian Bishops threaten their anathemas. No wonder, for their . 
 annual incomes are $25,000 to the Archbishop of Turin, $21,000 to the Archbishop of 
 Monota, more than $20,000 to the Archbishop of Sardinia and Oristano, $19,000 to him of 
 Mercelli, while the poor curates, who perform the really hard services of the Church, 
 receive only $95 a year ! 
 
 In a single dey in Rome, under French domination, there have been 120 assassinations 
 in twenty-four hours, and with a population of only 180,000 people ! 
 
 Compare this Papal city (Rome) with any in this Protestant land. Compare any of 
 the Catholic cities of Europe and South America with the Protestant' cities of Europe 
 and on this continent. Behold the city of Naples and the city of Brotherly Love ? The 
 city of Mexico and the city of Boston! The city of Rome, with its seven hills, and all 
 its glorious classic history, and little Manhattan Island, which makes up our own imperial 
 city ! Contrast the Empire of Rome, with the little island of Britain. Picture the time 
 when the mightiest of the Cmsars led the Roman army against the barbarian Britons. 
 What is Rome now, and what is Britain now ? And what has wrought these stupendous 
 changes? I will tell you. England is Protestant, and therein lies her gigantic strength. 
 America is Protestant, and therein is the chief source of her power. Italy is Priestridden, 
 and that is the canker-worm that has eaten out her very witals. We owe our govern¬ 
 ment, our liberty, our prosperity, mainly to our Protestant religion. If evidence was yet 
 needed of Papal domination in matters of civil government, look at Switzerland. Her 
 crags, and peaks, and ‘ cloud-capped towers,’ are all symbols of liberty, but there, only 
 nine years ago, the Holy See became the instrument of civil war, and colleges and con¬ 
 vents, even the convents of Nuns, were filled with arms which were used to deluge ihc 
 land of William Tell with fraternal blood. The little Republic of San Marino has been 
 haunted by the same fatal power, and was only saved from Roman cupidity a few 
 months since, by the merciful interposition of the French. Stand upon the Rialto of 
 Venice, and recall the days when Giulius II, Paul the V and Clement the V, let loose the 
 dogs of war upon that beautiful city of the sea. 
 
 The Romish Censorship of the Press, and its hostility to works of a liberal character, 
 show the anti-republican character of this illiberal power. Though it may sometimes be 
 done, it is not lawful to read Bacon, Locke, Hobbes, Kant, Des Cartes, Grotius, Machia- 
 yelli, Montesquieu, in books of philosophy ; Bufton, Copernicus, Gall, Cuvier, D’Alembert, 
 in science ; Milton, Lafontaine, Ariosto, Victor Hugo, in poetry and prose; nor Hume, 
 Gibbon, Roberston and Botta, in history. The works of our own Thomas Jefferson, are 
 also named among the books which it is not lawful to read. Eleven or twelve years ago, 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 21 
 
 October 11, 1843, Daniel O'Connell, in addressing his countrymen, in Dublin, at the Corn 
 Exchange, said : “ You should do all in your power to carry oat the pious intentions of 
 His Holiness, the Pope. Where you have the electoral franchise , give your votes to 
 none but those who will assist you in so holy a struggle.” 
 
 I have given in another speech, the time and manner, and place, where Bishop Hughes 
 harangued the populace “ to carry out the pious intentions of the Pope.” 
 
 And let me say before closing, and as my creed, that church property belongs to the 
 worshippers and not to the clergy. It would be a monstrous perversion of religious 
 liberty to admit that priests or bishops alone can own or control the temporalities of the 
 church. 
 
 The clergy of the church of Rome derived their power to hold church property from 
 the civil law^ and if the civil law originated the power, cannot the civil law' restore to 
 itself a power of its own creation? I speak this for Europe and not the United States. 
 Constantine the Great, great only in his sins, for he murdered his own wife, son, brother, 
 and brother-in-law, received his title of Great because he provided by a civil law, still 
 held sacred, that temporal power to the See of Rome, which made Dante sing, in the very 
 sadness of Italian song, and in language in entire harmony with the spirit of Petrarch, 
 Boccacio, and Cola de Rienzi, always opposed to the papal theocracy : 
 
 “ 0 Constantin di quanto mat fa matre, 
 
 Non la tua conversion, ma quella dole, 
 
 Che da teprese ilprimo ricco patre ?”* 
 
 The canon law of the Baltimore ordinance of 1852 is a step backward towards the dark 
 ages. That ordinance is not only at war with the spirit of the bill before us, with the 
 Revised Statutes and the State Constitution, but repugnant to the spirit of civil and 
 religious freedom. The anathemas of the Council of Trent are pronounced against all, 
 even the clergy, who will not resist, even the State itself, should the State attempt to give 
 laymen, or anybody but priests and bishops, the control of church property. I shall read 
 from this 16th Canon of the Council of Baltimore, held in 1852, beginning with the 
 words : “ Quoniam quae Deo ”—and from the fourth Canon of the Ordinance of 1849, to 
 show how far, in this land, a power emanating from Rome, undertakes to exercise influence 
 over church property. Nor shall it be said that this Canon Law is dead, obsolete or with¬ 
 out effect. The St. Louis Church in Buffalo presents a case in point, where an attempt 
 has been made to enforce this power. The Rochester church case, cited by the Senator 
 from the 27th (Mr. Bishop), is another case in point, for there the major curse of excom¬ 
 munication was not only pronounced against all Catholics who would not give the Bishop 
 control of church property, but the persons resisting this clerical usurpation were 
 assaulted and driven by brute force, and upon the Sabbath, from the very threshold of 
 the church which they had contributed to erect as a house for their own worship, and all 
 this because they would not make over this church property to the Bishop. 
 
 Let me remark here that the Senator from the 11th (Mr. Crosby), was mistaken in what 
 he said of Catholic Church property in the city of New York, with an exception or two, 
 and St. Peter’s Church for one. The churches there, as elsewhere, are held iu the name 
 of the Bishop, and not in the name of the Trustees. In the case of St. Peter's Church, 
 there are circumstances, I am told, connected with the ownership of the church, which 
 required the trust to be thus held. But even there the Bishop sits like a despot on his 
 throne, and the master of the Trustees. I find in the Register's office no conveyance by- 
 St. Peter's Church of their property in Barclay street, but the following conveyance is there : 
 
 “James It. Bailey and James B. Nicholson, new Trustees appointed by the Court, in place of Charles C. Pyce, 
 
 survivor and assignee of St. Peter’s Church: To 
 
 The Trustees of St. Patrick’s Cathedral (without warning such Trustees). This conveyance purports to be 
 made by the order of the Court, in a suit brought for partition of property, and conveys to the Trustees of 
 St. Patrick's Cathedral thirty-two lots of ground in 50th and 51st streets, iu two parcels, one 350 feet by 210 
 feet 10 inches, and the other 105 by So feet.” 
 
 I have taken occasion during a visit of a day in New York to secure references, taken 
 from the Register’s office there of the amount of property held by John Hughes fti that 
 city. I suppose its value to he in New York alone, not much short of five millions of 
 dollars. So far from this property being held, when in Churches, by Trustees there are 
 numerous transfers from Trustees to John Hughes ! Beginning with February 1842, and 
 continuing through 1854, a friend of mine copied fifty-eight entries of as many 
 distinct parcels of property made in the name of and for John Hughes, all iu the space 
 of twelve years!—not to John Hughes, Bishop, nor to John Hughes, Arch Bishop, nor to 
 John Hughes, as Trustee for the great Roman Catholic Church, but to plain John Hughes, 
 
 * “ O Constantine 1 how much evil originated, not from thy conversion, but from that grant from thee to 
 the first Pope whom you made rich. 
 
 2 
 
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 22 
 
 in his own propria persona. Some of these parcels of property cover whole squares of 
 land and nearly all of them are of great value. The rule of that church is never to part 
 with property, and to receive all that can be purchased. What is true of New York city is 
 true of the state, and fifteen or twenty eases of property assigned to Bishop John Timon 
 were named by the Senator from Monroe. 
 
 [To those who were curious in such matters, Mr. Brooks exhibited copies of the number, 
 book and page of these several entries in the city of New York in behalf of John Hughes.] 
 
 I now read from the two Baltimore papal ordinances of 1S49 and 1852, from translations, 
 which in spirit aud substance, I believe to be correct: 
 
 “ The fathers decree that all churches and other ecclesiastical property, acquired by gifts or through the 
 obligations cf the faithful, designed to be expended for charitable or religious uses belong to the ordinary 
 (Bishop), unless it appears and is certified in writing, that the same was given for the use of some religious 
 order or congregation of priests .”—Translated from the Law of 1S49. 
 
 “ Whereas, the things given to God for the use of divine warship and works of charity come under the 
 control of the church, whose duty it is to see that the pious will of the donors be faithfully executed, and 
 whereas, the sacred Canons have often defended them against the usurpations of laymen, we strictly forbid 
 the interference of laymen (laici), in the administration of those things without the free consent of Bishops 
 (Episcopalii). Hence, when not called to this by the Bishop they usurp the powers to use this property or 
 in any manner frustrate or defraud the will of the donors, or if they try to wrest from the Bishop’s hands, the 
 things committed to his trust and care, even by means of the State, we define and declare they fall ipso 
 facto , under the punishment inflicted by the fathers of the council of Trent (Section 23, chapter 11, Be 
 Reformatione), on the usurpers of ecclesiastical property .”—Translated from the Laic o/l$52.) 
 
 The section from the council of Trent above referred to begins, si quid clericorum. &c., 
 and anathematises all clerical and laical persons, ‘"be they even Emperors or Kings," who 
 do not concentrate all church property in the head of the church. Rents, rights, even 
 those held in fee or under leases, the fruits, emoluments, or any sources of reward whatso¬ 
 ever, belonging to any church or to any benefice, whether secular or regular,” &c , &c., 
 are properties over which supreme power is claimed. 
 
 The Papal power may and does absolve allegiance to a lawful sovereign, by the w ill of 
 one man. It claims power over the civil arm as well as over the religious life. 
 
 It was a question of Church Property, which brought Bedim to the United States. It 
 was a question of Property which prompted the ordinances I have read from Baltimore. 
 The seven millions of French citizens who voted to perpetuate the French dynasty, did so 
 with French bayonets on one side of the ballot box and French Priests on the other, and 
 the compensation was the continuance of the French army in Italy, to protect the See of 
 Rome. To-day, an American citizen and a Bishop, a favorite of the Diocese at Detroit, 
 over which he long presided, is immured in some European prison or Monastery, for no 
 crime to the country where he lived, and for no offence to the church where he officiated. 
 Here are subjects, political and temporal, combined with church government. 
 
 Sir, it is time to avert this monstrous usurpation, not by force, but by a law which shall 
 know no distinctions of sects in the control of church property, either as to devisements, 
 ownerships or investments. In civil matters, or in church temporalities, growing out of 
 trusts, there must be no sovereignty in Roman Pontiffs or in the John Timons and John 
 Hughes’ “ of the Province of New York.” We were a Province once, not of a Pope, but 
 of au Empire. Thank God, we are rid of that tyranny now. It may exist in Austria, 
 along the Danube, with Naples and other Italian States, along the Mediterranean and in 
 unhappy Ireland. You see the system and its bitter fruits iu those countries, and you see 
 almost the antipodes of it in Lutheran Germany and Norway, in Presbyterian Scotland 
 and Episcopalian England. 
 
 Italy pictures the whole system of superstition and oppression within her own borders. 
 The streams of fire which there and in Sicily, in times past, rolled like a flood over the 
 devoted cities of Catania, Pompeii and Herculaneum, are typical of the moral desolation 
 of such Governments. There is beauty upon the surface, but Etua and Vesuvius, with their 
 subterranean fires, are consuming all within. The great heart of the nation is filled with 
 dead men’s bones and all uucleanness. 
 
 I will not reproduce the great past in the history of Rome and of Italy. There are 
 memorials there, which though faded aud dwarfed can never die. 
 
 “ ’Tirere long to tell, and sad to trace 
 Each step from splendor to disgrace.” 
 
 I see Italy, beautiful even in her misfortunes, with the same soft blue and golden skies as 
 in the days of Virgil, Petrarch, Horace and Dante — still the land of the pencil and song, 
 as fruitful, too, in her history as in her luxuriant gardens. First in arts aud first in arms, 
 she is now indeed but “the Niobe of nations ” and “ the dead mother of lone empires.” 
 But Rome may rise again, when, and only when, an intelligent people shall rule in the 
 palace of th*e Caisars, as the Pontiff rules in the Church. She must cast off that moral 
 malaria which is more infectious to the miud and heart of the State than the pestilent 
 atmosphere of a thousand Pontine marshes. v 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 23 
 
 From Italy and from the old world let our land and continent learn wisdom. History, 
 even in its errors, like a lighthouse on the rock, or the North Star over a stormy ocean, is 
 the moral compass which, true as the needle to the pole, points to a haven of safety, 
 Behold what this Protestant land has already done for the emigrants and exiles of the old 
 world ! Let those who come from the desolated homes of their childhood, poor in purse, 
 crushed in spirit, condemned to exile, it may be, for indulging in an aspiration for civil 
 and religious freedom, ask themselves what sort of alchemy it is which has made 
 America a more prosperous nation within the single lifetime of some one citizen, born 
 upon the soil, than any European nation has become through long centuries of time. 
 More than to anything else, in my judgment, we owe this preeminent success to our Pro¬ 
 testant religion." “ We the people of the State of New York,” in the language of our own 
 Constitution, “ are grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, for the free exercise and 
 enjoyment of religious profession and worship,” for all that perfect independence, liberty 
 and equality of right, which can exist in no government not founded upon a true 
 Protestant faith. 
 
 Through the past we can learn the pathway of coming duty, and behold what it is 
 which constitutes the true glory of a Republican State and Government. In the future 
 for America, and I trust for all the world, there is hope. 
 
 “ The world is all before us where to choose 
 Our place of rest and Providence our guide,” 
 
 -- 
 
 SENATOR BROOKS, ARCHBISHOP HUGHES, AND A CHANCE TOR A 
 GREAT PUBLIC LIBRARY. 
 
 To the Editors of the Courier and Enquirer. 
 
 When an individual who never expected much from the favors of fortune, finds himself 
 unexpectedly and all at once the proprietor of immense wealth, it is, I trust, not unbe¬ 
 coming in him to expend a portion of it in promoting the welfare of his countrymen by 
 multiplying the opportunities for acquiring knowledge. Neither should feelings of grati¬ 
 tude be altogether disregarded in such expenditure ; and as I am mainly indebted to the 
 Hon. Erastus Brooks for the immense fortune which I now possess, I hope his modesty will 
 permit him to share with me in the immortality which will result to its founder from the 
 magnificence and perpetuity of the monument, “ otra perrenius,’’ which is to commemo¬ 
 rate my princely fortune, and his sagacity in finding out its existence. In a speech 
 delivered by Mr. Senator Brooks before that branch of our Legislature which has been so 
 enlightened by the flashing evidences of his erudition, and encouraged to habits of indus¬ 
 try by his pains-taking search after the titles of property vested in me, he has made 
 known that my property in the city of New York alone, is not much short of five millions 
 of dollars. His colleagues must have been as much edified as I have been surprised at 
 this announcement. Still it appears that Mr. Senator Brooks, like an honorable man, 
 who "wouldn’t deceive, furnished evidences from the records of property in New York to. 
 sustain his senatorial statement ; for towards the close of his speech he has inserted in 
 brackets the following words : 
 
 “ To those who were curious in such matters, Mr. Brooks exhibited to the Senate the number, book and 
 page of those several entries in the city of New York in behalf of John Hughes.” 
 
 So it seems certain, on the testimony of Mr. Brooks, that my property in this city alone 
 is not much short of five millions of dollars. Out of the city it should be proportionably 
 great, but of its extent Mr. Brooks has not given us any information. Like a strictly con¬ 
 scientious man, he testifies to only what he knows. The amount in his estimate would be 
 five millions ; but in order to avoid the possibility of error he leaves a little margin, and 
 declares it not much short of that amount. The paper called the “ Presbyterian” sets it 
 down at twenty-five millions of dollars, and I know not by what right Mr. Brooks should 
 have diminished the amount of my property, by striking out the surplus twenty millions, 
 so generously assigned me by the “ Presbyterian.” The reason may be that the “ Presby¬ 
 terian ” is not a Senator, and therefore (though I do not admit the validity of the reason) 
 less bound to be truthful in its statements, and accurate in its arithmetic than an honora¬ 
 ble Senator. Besides, the “Presbyterian” being a religious paper, allowance must 
 be made for its benevolent exaggerations, and its efforts to be liberal in dealing with per- 
 
| 24 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 sons of another creed. It seems, then, that I must bid good-bye to the twenty millions, 
 and satisfy myself with what Mr. Brooks allows—property not much short of five. Let us 
 state it at four millions. And now I have a proposition to make to Mr. Brooks which will 
 be intpresting- to him and to our fellow-citizens. In order to avoid being reduced to want 
 in my old age, I propose to set apart one-half of this amount, and to secure it out of the 
 estate, as a reasonable provision, against what is commonly called a “rainy day.” I 
 shall reserve to myself the right of expending the other two millions for the public good, 
 according to my own sense of what is likely to be most beneficial. 
 
 Much has been already done for the diffusion of knowledge; but the perusal of Mr. 
 Brook’s speech and other kindred documents, satisfies me that more is still needed. I pro¬ 
 pose, therefore, to found a Public Library for the use, not of any one profession or class 
 of men, but for all mankind. I think that with the surplus two millions which Mr. Brooks 
 has allowed me, I shall be enabled to erect a suitable building; and I propose to furnish 
 it with the best editions of books that can be found in Europe or America, to the number 
 of five hundred thousand volumes. According to a rough estimate, half a million will be 
 sufficient to put up the building, a million to furnish the books, and another half million 
 to be funded, so that the annual interest may be sufficient to meet current expenses,—such 
 as librarians’ salaries, gas-lights, provision of Croton water, tables, and the conveniences 
 for writing out any extract which visitors may think proper to make. It is to be open to 
 natives and foreigners, Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Gentiles, in short, a real pub¬ 
 lic library worthy of this immense city. And as an evidence of my gratitude to our honor¬ 
 able Senator, to whom I am indebted for the discovery of my immense riches, I would have 
 it called, that is if the gentleman’s modesty will permit me, the Erastus Brooks Library. 
 This designation should be engraven in large and gilded letters over its marble portals, 
 and I am sure the honorable gentleman will consent to have the apartment to be allotted 
 as the receptacle of curious pamphlets enriched by a copy of his speech, pronounced in the 
 Senate at Albany on the Cth of March, 1855. Thus posterity will know from the outside 
 of the building not only to whom they are indebted for so important a public institution, 
 but also from an investigation of its more precious treasures of literature within, what 
 manner of man their benefactor was. 
 
 I foresee that there may be a difficulty about the location of the edifice ; but without 
 waiting for the formalities which have to be gone through as regards other particulars, 
 we can settle this question immediately. Mr. Brooks, as a gentleman of veracity, assured 
 the Senate of New York, after having examined my property, that “ Some of the parcels 
 cover whole squares of land, and nearly all of them are of great value.” Now this is an 
 extroardinary discovery, and if it had not been asserted on the veracity of an honorable 
 Senator, I could not have believed it. I do not know where any of these squares of land 
 are situated ; but, of course, Mr. Brooks knows, and I pledge myself to give him a deed 
 of any one of them he may choose to select, provided he can only find it out—which is 
 more than I can do. This I am ready to do to-morrow, even though it should encroach 
 on that portion of my estate which I would reserve for ‘ pin-money.’ Mr. Brooks has 
 stated that within twelve years fifty-eight entries of as many distinct parcels of property 
 were made in my favor. Now this is more than I am aware of, for, in fact, I never 
 counted such entries. So, also, with regard to the whole squares of land of which 1 am 
 the owner, if Mr. Brooks has not made a statement at variance with truth. I am not 
 aware of such ownership. I do not know where those squares of land are situated. But, 
 of course, Mr. Brooks knows,—otherwise he would not have made the assertion. It is 
 possible that some persons have made over to me squares of land without giving auy 
 intimation of the fact, and I should be much obliged to Mr. Brooks if he would take the , 
 pains to consult documents in the Register's Office once more, and let me know where 
 those squares of land are. But there are some things which Mr. Brooks has stated with 
 regard to my property which I know to be incorrect and unfounded in truth. He says, 
 for instance, that in the Register’s Office there are numerous transfers from trustees to me. 
 Now, this statement I know to be untrue, inasmuch I have never received or accepted any 
 transfer of any property whatever from trustees. In this particular, at least, Mr. Brooks 
 allowed himself to be deceived, and contributed his share towards the deception ot his 
 fellow Senators and the public. But with regard to the whole squares of laud which, he 
 says are mine, I hereby authorize him to select whichever lie may choose as most appro¬ 
 priate for the site of the new Library ; or if none of them should suit, I authorize him to 
 sell any one of them at his option, for cash, pledging myself, as 1 do hereby, to give to 
 the purchaser such deed as 1 possess of the same. 
 
 You may suppose, gentlemen, that all this is written in playfulness. Now whether or 
 not, will depend upon the truth of Mr. Brooks’ statements, made in the Senate of New 
 \ork on the Cth of March. If Mr. Brooks was in earnest, so was 1. It Mr. Brooks, on 
 a matter of fact, spoke the truth, taking his assertion as the ground of my hypothesis, 1 
 speak the truth also. If my property is not much short of five millions, as Mr. Brooks 
 asserted, I pledge myself solemnly that there is no jest as to the project of the new 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 25 
 
 Library. But if on the other hand, Mr. Brooks did not speak the truth in the statements 
 which he made, the worse for posterity and the worse for him. The matter is reduced at 
 present to a question of veracity, and it is for Mr. Brooks to prove his assertion, or occupy 
 the position which his failure to do so has in reserve for him. 
 
 In sober seriousness, however, is it not melancholy to witness the multitudinous and 
 mendacious charges which are made from day to day against Catholics as a body, and 
 against individuals professing their religion? If there be an intention among the public 
 men of this country to disfranchise Catholics, to abridge them of their rights, in the name 
 of all that is honorable, I would say let it be done by a manly and noble declaration to 
 that effect. If Protestantism cannot thrive in this country unless it have some one or 
 more denominations to degrade and trample upon, as in Great Britain and Ireland, let. it 
 speak out candidly and make known the fact. If defamation in aggregate and in detail 
 can accomplish it, the Catholics of this country will soon be degraded enough in the 
 minds of their fellow-citizens. But even of this we should not have so much reason to 
 complain if the purpose were openly avowed, so that all parties would have fair and 
 timely warning. If that should be done, I have no hesitation in taking on myself to say, 
 that so far as Catholics are concerned, immigration will soon come to a dead stand, and 
 emigration would probably commence. 
 
 It is exceedingly painful to me to have to appear in the public press in reference to 
 topics of this kind ; but if the trustees of St. Louis Church, and even an honorable Sena¬ 
 tor, accuse me of acts which would be dishonorable, and even dishonest, if they were 
 true, have I not a right, is it not my duty, both to myself and to those who take any 
 interest in my reputation, to hurl back the false accusations in the very face of their 
 authors? If Messrs. Brooks and others make charges against me by name which I know 
 to be false, have I not a right to defend myself, and to denounce them as unreliable and 
 false witnesses? If not, I have studied the §ense of justice and fair play by which 
 Americans are actuated to very little purpose. If I have no right to defend myself when 
 assailed, personally and by name, by any man, against false accusation, then I have 
 studied the rights of an American citizen and the genius of American institutions to 
 very little purpose indeed. I respect the dignity of a Senator, but when an individnal 
 who is invested with the dignity, trifles with it at my expense, I claim the right to hold 
 him responsible for the accuracy of his statements. 
 
 For these reasons, I request Mr. Erastus Brooks, with all the respect which is due to 
 him, to meet the issue of veracity between him and me, and either to prove his state¬ 
 ments, or to retract them under the impulse of those high principles which constitute an 
 honorable man, whether he be a Senator or not. 
 
 fJOHN, Archbishop of New York. 
 
 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES, SENATOR BROOKS, AND A QUESTION OF VERACITY. 
 
 To the Editors of the JVew York Courier and Enquirer: 
 
 From the pressure of official duties at Albany, up to a late hour on Saturday evening, 
 I have only this moment been able to give a full perusal to the letter signed “ f John! 
 Archbishop of New York,” in reply to a speech of mine delivered in the Senate on the 6th 
 of March last. I write now, not to answer the question of veracity between the Archbishop 
 and myself, and not to comment upon the peculiar temper and language of .the Arch¬ 
 bishop’s epistle—but to say that I shall accept and demand, in behalf of the city and the 
 public, and in perfect good faith—if the promise was made in good faith—the offer of that 
 Public Library which is tendered in my name, i; not for the use of any one profession or 
 class of men, but for all mankind.” 
 
 As a condition of this pledge, I am to show that Archbishop Hughes is, or was, on the 
 6th of March last, the owner, in his own name, and in this city, of a large amount of Real 
 Estate; and to show, also, that this property is, or was upon the record, legally his own, 
 to dispose of by assignment, by will, or otherwise, as he may or might direct. 
 
 I assume, notwithstanding the reasons for believing otherwise, that in making his offer 
 the Archbishop does not mean to conceal the truth, omit the truth, or to resort to any 
 subterfuge whatever. I assume, too, that he agrees with me that the true definition of a 
 lie is an l: intention to deceive,” and that he also agrees with the moralist, William Paley, 
 who lays it down as an axiom, that one may state ninety-nine facts and yet not utter the 
 whole truth, because one truth added would change the basis of the ninety-nine facts. 
 
 On this presumption I shall maintain, at my earliest leisure, the spirit, substance, and 
 
26 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 reality of all that -was asserted by me in the speech now in controversy upon the subject of 
 Church property in this city. And in order that this question may be met fairly, at the 
 start, and in order that the City of New York may be put in possession of the promised 
 Public Library, I propose, preliminary to all public controversy, that one arbiter shall 
 be named by Archbishop Hughes, one by myself, and that the two thus selected, shall 
 jointly elect a third, whose duty it shall be to decide, not merely whether I have stated 
 the truth, or whether Archbishop Hughes has equivocated or omitted the truth, but also the 
 claim of New York City to that Public Library, in which I shall hereafter feel so deep an 
 interest. I am ready for the arbitration, and shall be ready with my facts. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 ERASTUS BROOKS. 
 
 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES, SENATOR BROOKS, AND THE QUESTION OF 
 
 VERACITY. 
 
 To the Editors of the J\Tew York Courier and Enquirer: 
 
 I proceed to reply to the letter of “ f John, Archbishop of New York,’ 7 in regard to 
 his ownership of real estate property in the city of New York. I have no time to waste 
 in humor, evasion, or words, and therefore, shall not follow the example of even so illustri¬ 
 ous a personage as the Archbishop in what he has to say upon irrelevant topics. “ The 
 Presbyterian' 7 can speak for itself as to the amount of property held by the Archbishop 
 throughout the entire State. What is said of “riches, 77 and “ provisions for rainy days, 77 
 of “ pin-money 77 and “ mendacity, 71 of “ defamation 77 and “ immigration, 77 and even of that 
 Public Library which the Archbishop now owes the city of New York, if he is a man of his 
 word, has nothing to do with the fact and extent of bis ownership of real estate. As the 
 guilty boy at school and the guilty man in Court endeavor to turn teacher and judge, 
 master and Court, from the contemplation of facts certain to lead to their conviction, so 
 my distinguished accuser, slippery as an eel, seems unwilling fairly to meet the facts as I 
 presented them to the Senate. I might rejoin by saying that when the head of a Church 
 leaves the pulpit and gospel to become personal and political in controversy, he ceases to 
 command that measure of respect which would otherwise be due his religious office. 
 
 This is not the first time the Archbishop has volunteered to participate in secular strife, 
 or lost his usual civility in defending what he esteems to be the rights of the Romish 
 Church. The Common School discussion found him alternately at the City Hall and Car- 
 roll Hall, addressing, in the latter place, amidst vociferous shouts, and in loud partizan 
 appeals, an excited Irish populace, who, with all other citizens, were directly appealed to, 
 to elect such men only to the Legislature, as would oppose the reading of the simple texts 
 of the Bible in the Common Schools of the city. The Common School question then, and 
 the Church Property question now, seem equally to have disturbed the amiability and 
 equanimity of the Archbishop. 
 
 Before entering upon the material part of this controversy, let me say, in answer to the 
 Archbishop 7 s sweeping assertion to the contrary, that at no time has any public man or party 
 in this State, attempted “ to disfranchise Catholics or abridge them of their rights. 77 The 
 charge is a fiction, unworthy the high clerical character of the man who makes it. Where— 
 when—by whom—has any such disfranchisement been attempted ? The Constitution of the 
 United States, and of this State, knowing no distinction of sects in religion, places the 
 believers of every faith upon that perfect equality, from which no man—certainly no true 
 American citizen—proposes to remove them. When, therefore, the Archbishop talks of 
 “ hurling back such false accusations, in the very faces of their authors,” I must respect¬ 
 fully advise him to stand from under, if he would not have his own blows fall upon 
 himself. 
 
 The Archbishop in his long epistle to my short rejoinder, is pleased to charge me with 
 “falsehood, 77 “ falsehood ,” “ falsehood.” A scullion can call names, and use epithets— 
 but names and epithets are not truth. The utterance of such language by an Archbishop, 
 and the bad temper displayed in the two letters to me, will carry conviction with all 
 impartial minds, that I have already made out my case, even though I have but begun 
 the work of exposition. The Prelate, not daring manfully to meet the issue I have raised, 
 finds relief in personality and rage. 
 
 I have proposed that upon the issue of veracity between the Archbishop and myself 
 that he should select one arbiter, I a second, and the two a third, and that these three men 
 should decide, upon the legal facts, to be presented for their consideration, which of the 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 
 
 27 
 
 two uttered the falsehood. The Archbishop declines the proposition, and declares 
 that ‘'-Arbitration is unnecessary .” I feared that it would come to this at the start, and 
 that the promised library was but a “ word of promise to the ear, to be broken to the 
 hope.” 
 
 But if I must lose a library for the city, I do not mean to lose my temper, nor to allow 
 the Archbishop to escape with mere denials of facts, however bitter and angry they 
 may be. 
 
 "What I meant and mean by the ownership of Real Estate, is what the law means by it, 
 and. therefore, we can have no misunderstanding of ideas. I mean that the legal title is 
 vested in John Hughes. I mean by John Hughes, the Archbishop of New York. I mean 
 by •“ ownership of Real Estate,” the legal right to control, possess, and use it, by assign¬ 
 ment, by will, or otherwise. I mean, that if the Archbishop, John Hughes, were to die 
 without a will, or to change his faith, or should choose to dispose of his property to his 
 own heirs, or for his personal advantage, that he has the legal power to do so, at his own 
 good will and pleasure. I mean that, in fact and in act, by the Baltimore Ordinances of 
 1849 and 1852, by prior claim and subsequent determination, he and other Archbishops 
 and Bishops, own, assume, control, and direct the temporalities of the church, its lands, 
 its estates, and its entire property. I mean, speaking now after an examination of legal 
 Records and Indentures, that the conveyances to the Archbishop are “ to him, his heirs, or 
 assignees and no others. I mean, of course, also, that no trust is specified in the deed, 
 and that the conveyances, without such specification of trust, would, in case of his death, 
 go to the next of kin. I think I am understood, and that no one will accuse me of seek¬ 
 ing a loop-hole of escape, or of any desire to occupy an equivocal position. 
 
 Now for the record, in part. 
 
 In the Archbishop’s letter of last week, charging me directly with deception and indi¬ 
 rectly with mendacity, I find the following : 
 
 S 
 
 “ But there are some things which Mr. Brooks has stated with regard to my property, which I know to be 
 incorrect and unfounded in truth. He says, for instance, that in the Register’s Office there are numerous 
 transfers from trustees to me. Now, this statement I know to be untrue, inasmuch as I have never received 
 or accepted any transfer of any property whatever from trustees.” 
 
 In the Archbishop’s letter of this week, the following appears : 
 
 “ The third falsehood was, that many of the conveyances of real estate to me were made by Trustees. 
 Now, I state that any one who asserts either of these three statements, asserts a gross, and towards me, an 
 injurious falsehood.” 
 
 I now offer proofs of my statement, from the legal records of the city, beginning with 
 the conveyance made to John Hughes from the Trustees of St. John’s Roman Catholic 
 Church : 
 
 CONVEYANCES TO JOHN HUGHES. 
 
 NUMBER 1, 
 
 Trustees of St. John’s 'l Lease. Dated July 17,1844. 
 Roman Catholic Church —999 years. Considera- 
 
 to tion one cent a year. Re- 
 
 John Hughes. corded in liber. 451, p. 
 
 J 249, July 20, 1844. 
 
 All those three certain lots, pieces or parcels of 
 lands, situate in the 16th (late 12th) Ward of the 
 City of New York, which taken together are bounded 
 and contain as follows, namely : beginning on the 
 northerly side of 30th street, 100 feet from the west¬ 
 erly side of the 7th avenue, running thence northerly 
 and parallel with the 7th avenue 100 feet, thence 
 westerly and parallel with 30th street, 75 feet thence 
 southerly and parallel to 7th avenue 100 feet, to the 
 northerly side of 30th street, thence easterly and 
 along the northerly side of 30th street 75 feet to be¬ 
 ginning. 
 
 NUMBER 2. 
 
 Patrick Doherty ) Indenture of Lease dated July 2, 
 to v 1842.—Recorded in liber. 448, p. 
 
 John Hughes. ) 17, April 13, 1844, conveyed to 
 
 P. Doherty by the Mayor, Aldermen, &c. of the City 
 of New York, and by him conveyed to John Hughes. 
 Consideration $24 17-100. Leased for assessment 
 tax. Yide page 15, 20 years. 
 
 Lot, piece or parcel of land, known and distin¬ 
 guished on the assessment map for the opening of 
 117th street, from 4th avenue to Harlem river, by the 
 
 numbers 5, assessed to St. Paul’s Church, situate on 
 the north side of 117th street, between 4th avenue 
 and the Old Post Road, being 100 feet front, for which 
 he has paid the sum of $7 94-100. 
 
 number 3. 
 
 Date of Deed, February 
 6, 1S45. Recorded in 
 liber 455, p. 446, Feb¬ 
 ruary 21, 1845. Con¬ 
 sideration $2,000. 
 
 George Wildes, merchant,' 
 and Agnes, his wife, by 
 W T m. C. Pickersgill, his 
 attorney, 
 to 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 All those two certain lots, pieces or parcels ^of 
 ground, situate, lying and being in the City of New 
 York, on the northerly side of 25th street, between 
 the 8th and 9th avenues, and known and distinguish¬ 
 ed on a certain map of ground situated at Greenwich 
 in the City of New York, belonging to Thomas B. 
 Clark, made by Amos Corning and Uzal W. Freeman, 
 City Surveyor, and filed in the Register’s Office, by 
 the numbers 230 and 231, and being taken together 
 are bounded by the said map as follows, to wit: be¬ 
 ginning at a point on the said northerly side of 25th 
 street, 300 feet easterly from the north-east corner 
 of the 9th avenue and 25th street, thence northerly 
 on line parallel with the 9th avenue, along lot dis¬ 
 tinguished on said map by the number 232, 98 feet 9 
 inches, thence easterly parallel with 25th street, along 
 the rears of lots distinguished on said map by the 
 numbers 206 and 207, 50 feet, thence southerly, par¬ 
 allel with the 9th avenue, along lot distinguished on 
 
28 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 said map by the number 229, 98 feet 9 inches to 25th 
 street, and thence westerly along the northerly side 
 of 25th street 50 feet, to the place of beginning. 
 
 NUMBER 4. 
 
 Andrew Byrne ) Date April 30th, 1S41. Record— 
 
 to >- liber 456, p. 487. March 29,1845. 
 
 John Hughes. ) Consideration, $5,400. Convey¬ 
 ance of lease for IS years and 9 months. No descrip¬ 
 tion of premises. 
 
 Robert Lane, and 1 Conveyance date, March 5th, 
 EfTe Maria, his wife, ( 1S45. Record, liber 459, p. 
 
 to | 125. Consideration, $15,- 
 
 John Hughes. J 500. 
 
 All those three certain lots of land situated in 6th 
 Ward of the City of New York, which on a certain 
 map of property, belonging to the estate of George 
 Janeway, in the 6th Ward of the City of New York, 
 made by Joseph Bridges, City Surveyor, surveyed 
 (as to part lots on said map) in January, 1S3S, are 
 distinguished by the numbers 17, IS, and 19. Said 
 lot, No. 17, being situated at the corner of City Hall 
 Place and Duane street, and said three lots are 
 bounded as follows, that is to say, beginning at the 
 easterly corner of City Hall Place (late Augustus 
 street) and Duane street, thence running southerly 
 in front along Duane towards Chatham, 75 feet to 
 other ground of the estate of the said George Jane¬ 
 way ; thence running northeasterly on the one side 
 along the ground of the estate of the said George 
 Janeway, 67 feet 2 inches, to other ground of estate 
 of said George Janeway, and formerly leased by him 
 to Mrs. Phillips; thence running northwesterly in 
 the rear along the said ground leased to Mrs.^phil- 
 lips as aforesaid, 75 feet to City Hall Place (formerly 
 Augustus street), aforesaid ; thence running south¬ 
 westerly on the other side along City Hall Place 
 aforesaid 67 feet to place of beginning. 
 
 NUMBER 5. 
 
 David Dudley Field, and Date of Con. Feb. 7th, 
 Stephen J. Field, Trustees 1S45. Record (liber 
 
 of wife, and Harriet D. 460, p. 497. Consider- 
 
 Field, wife of D. D. Field, ation, $2,000),May 23d, 
 
 to 1S45. 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 All those two certain lots, pieces or parcels of land, 
 situated in the 16th Ward of the City of New York, 
 known and distinguished on a map of lands in the 
 16th Ward of the City of New York, the property of 
 the heirs of Mary Clarke, deceased, made by George 
 
 B. Smith, City Surveyor, and dated April 6th, 1S37, 
 
 (a copy on file in Register’s Office) by numbers 228 
 and 229, and bounded, taken together, as follows: 
 beginning at a point on the northerly line of 25th 
 street, distant 350 feet easterly from northeast corner 
 of 25th street and 9th avenue, running thence east¬ 
 erly along said northerly line 50, thence northerly, 
 parallel with 9th avenue, 9S feet 9 inches, to middle 
 of the block between 25th street and 26th street, to a 
 point equidistant from the two ; thence westerly, 
 parallel with 25th street, 50 feet; thence southerly 
 in a straight line to place of beginning. 
 
 NUMBER 6. 
 
 Wm. Patton, D. D.,! Date of Con. May 9th, 1S45. 
 and Mary his wife, ! Rec. (in liber 460, p. 550) 
 to f MaySl,l$45. Consideration, 
 
 John Hughes. J $75. 
 
 All and singular, the equal undivided half-part 
 (being the S. part thereof,) of a certain vault or 
 place for the deposit of the dead, situated in and 
 upon the premises formerly owned by the 2d avenue 
 Presbyterian Church, on the easterly side of, and 
 fronting on the 2d avenue, between 2d and 3d streets. 
 (Wm. Patton, liber 460, p. 551, same.) 
 
 NUMBER 7. 
 
 Geo. Wildes, 'I Date of Convey. Feb. 6,1845. 
 
 and Agnes, his wife, | Record, liber 465, p. 513. 
 
 to ( Sept. 23, 1845. Considera. 
 
 J. Hughes. J tion, $2,000. 
 
 All those two certain lots, pieces or parcels of 
 ground, situate, lying and being in 16th Ward of 
 
 City of New York, on northerly side of 25th street, 
 between Sth and 9th avenues. (Same as other in 
 liber 455. p. 416.) 
 
 NUMBER 8. 
 
 Bartholomew O’Connor, ~\ Date of Conveyance 
 Trustee to Christ Church, Feb. 7, 1845 ; Record! 
 
 to f liber 405, p. 514, Sept! 
 
 23,1S45; Consideration, 
 
 John Hughes. J $42,090. 
 
 All four lots of ground, situate, &c., in the 4th 
 lYard, City of New York, bounded and containing as 
 follows: Westerly by James street, 100 feet; South- 
 erjy by ground now or lately belonging to Walter 
 Bowne, 100 feet; Easterly, in the rear, partly by 
 
 ground now or late of-Gardner, 100 feet; and, 
 
 Northerly, by ground now or late belonging to 
 Samuel Milbank, 100 feet. I.iber 466, p. 422, quit 
 claim for land described in liber 460, p. 497 • consi¬ 
 deration, $1,000. 
 
 NUMBER 9. 
 
 George Plammann, and 
 
 Catharine A., his wife ; „ 
 
 Thomas Ward, and ® ate of r C°n- 
 
 Margaretta, his wife, veyance, Feb. 6, 
 
 Nat. P. Bailey, and his wife, et ctl., 
 
 to Feb. 19,’ 1S47; 
 
 Nicholas Dean, of the 2d part, non* aU ° n — 
 
 and $ou,uuu. 
 
 John Hughes, of the 3d part. 
 
 RLV de"gyman yrne ’] Date of Conve yance, Dec. 
 clergyman, 1 6> 1S4g R ec01 -ded in liber, 
 
 to [ p . 178, Feb. 10, 1S44. Con- 
 
 John Hughes, Bishop. J sidel ' alioD ’ *3.S25- 
 
 All those three certain lots of land, together with 
 the buildings thereon erected, situate, lying, and 
 being in the (now or late) 11th Ward of the City of 
 
 New York, and being part of the estate of Mangle 
 Minthorne, deceased, and are known and described 
 on the map of the said estate, now on file in the 
 Register’s Office, of the said City of New York, by 
 lots numbers 71, 72, 73 ; fronting westwardly on the 
 
 2d Avenue, and are bounded as follows: north¬ 
 wardly, by lot No. 74; eastwardly, by lot No. 76, and 
 land formerly called the Hilyer estate; southerly,by 
 land of the said Hilyer estate; and, westerly, by the 
 
 2d Avenue aforesaid. The said three lots being in 
 length, on each side, 100 feet; and the said lots, 
 numbers 72 and 73, being each in width, in front and 
 rear, 25 feet; and the said lot, number 71, being in 
 width, in front, 25 feet; and in width on the rear 24 
 feet and 11 inches, as the said lots are laid down 
 and numbered on the said map. Being the same 
 premises whereon the Church of the Nativity now 
 stands; subject, however, to a mortgage, by the 
 party of 1st part, to Rev. John Corry, to secure the 
 payment of $5,000 and interest. 
 
 NUMBER 10. 
 
 Same 'J j) a te of Conveyance, 6th December, 1S43 
 to Recorded February 10th, 1S44. Considera- 
 
 Same.J tion ’ $3,S25. 
 
 All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, situate, 
 lying, and being in the 17th Ward (late 11th) of the 
 
 City of New York, fronting on the easterly line of 2d 
 Avenue, between Second and Third streets, begin¬ 
 ning at a point distant 64 feet seven inches from the 
 northeast cjorner of said 2d Avenue and Second 
 street; running thence eastwardly and parallel to 
 
 Second street 75 feet; thence northwardly and par¬ 
 allel to the said 2d Avenue 21 feet and 6 inches to 
 the place of beginning; the said lot being part of 
 lots known and distinguished by the letters C and D 
 on a map of property in the llth and 13th Wards of 
 the City of New York, belonging to the estate of 
 
 Henry Eckford, deceased, filed in Office of Register, 
 and numbered 230. Also, all that certain other lot, 
 piece, or parcel of land, situate, lying, and being in 
 the 17th (late llth) Ward of said City of New York, 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 
 
 fronting on the northerly line of Second street, be¬ 
 tween the 1st and 2d Avenues. Beginning at a point 
 distant 75 feet from the northeast corner of 2d Ave¬ 
 nue and Second street, and running thence north¬ 
 wardly parallel to 2d Avenue aforesaid S6 feet; 
 
 29 
 
 thence eastwardly parallel to Second street afore¬ 
 said 25 feet; thence southwardly parallel to 2d Ave¬ 
 nue aforesaid S6 feet; thence westw-ardly along the 
 said line of Second street aforesaid 25 feet to the 
 place of beginning. 
 
 This is but the beginning of the end. It is only the basis of my claim to that promised 
 public library which the Archbishop owes to the City of New York, and which, for the 
 next fifty years, if he and I should live so long, I shall demand in the name of the people 
 of this city, “ for the use, not of any one profession or class, but for all mankind.” The 
 amiable archbishop—and he is arch in more senses than one—is pleased to say, if my 
 modesty will permit, that this great library shall bear the name of “ The Erastus Brooks’ 
 Library, engraven in large and. gilded letters over its marble portals.” I have no such 
 ambition to have my name handed down to posterity; and, grateful at this new display of 
 the Archbishop’s new-born zeal for public libraries and letters, for intelligence and history, 
 I prefer that this library, which will exist, I fear, only in the broken promises of an irrita¬ 
 ble prelate, if ever founded at all, should bear the name, not in '• large and gilded letters,” 
 but rather in large letters of brass, corresponding with the brazen denials of the man, the 
 name of “t John, Archbishop of the Province of New York ” 
 
 For to-day, I am, very respectfully, yours, 
 
 ERASTUS BROOKS. 
 
 New York, April 18th, 1855. 
 
 SENATOR ERASTUS BROOKS IN AN AWKWARD POSITION. 
 
 To the Editors of the Courier and Enquirer : 
 
 I am glad to perceive by his attempted defence in your paper of this date, that Mr. 
 Brooks begins to realize vaguely the position in which he has placed himself. He 
 commences his pitiable defence by misrepresenting the state of the question. He says it is 
 “ in regard to my ownership of property in the city of New York.” The question is not 
 in regard to any such thing, and this Mr. Brooks knows as well as I do. The question is 
 in regard to the truth or falsehood of certain statements made by him in the Senate of 
 New York, on the 6th of March ; in reference to my ownership of real estate property, as 
 Mr. Brooks calls it, there is no question. The title of many Catholic Churches in the 
 city of New Y'ork is vested in me, and so far I am the owner. My intention, even, is to 
 add to this property by purchasing such additional lots, or accepting the gift of them, as 
 I may find from time to time to be desirable for providing religious instruction for the 
 wants of the Catholic flock committed to my charge. If Mr. Brooks will examine the 
 records of the city of New Y T ork three months from this time, he will probably find con¬ 
 veyances made to me by parties who have the right to sell or bestow as they think proper. 
 
 But I shall 'waive all controversy regarding matters introduced into Mr. Brooks's reply, 
 in order to direct his wandering attention to the real state of the case. On the 6th of 
 March he asserted that my property in the city of New York alone was not much short of 
 five millions. This was falsehood No. 1. He asserted that of this property, numerous 
 transfers had been made to me by Trustees. This was falsehood No. 2. He asserted that 
 some of the parcels conveyed to me covered whole squares of land. This was falsehood 
 No. 3. 
 
 Now, we shall take these falsehoods in their order. Mr. Brooks, in maintaining false¬ 
 hood No. 1, has copied out ten entries as found in the Register’s books of this city. He 
 heads the list with the •words— 
 
 “ CONVEYANCES TO JOHN HUGHES.” 
 
 The first conveyance is a lease, which shows, so far as the ownership of real estate is 
 concerned, that the very heading of the entries is not correct. 
 
 The second is also a lease, showing the same thing. - 
 
 The third is from George Wildes and Agnes his wife, and it remains for Mr. Brooks to 
 show that Mr. Wildes and his wife had been Trustees of a Catholic church. 
 
 The fourth is from Andrew Byrne, and is the conveyance, not of real estate, but of 
 lease also. 
 
 The fifth is from David Dudley Field and Stephen J. Field, Trustees of Wife and 
 Harriet D. Field, wife of D. D. Field. (I copy from Mr. Brooks’ report of these matters 
 in your journal, but I decline all responsibility for their accuracy). Mr. Brooks does not 
 inform us whether these parties had been Trustees of Catholic church property or not. 
 
30 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 The sixth is from the Rev. Win. Batten, D. D., and Mary his wife. Mr. Brooks does not 
 say that the Rev. Dr. and his wife had been Trustees of any Catholic church. 
 
 Here Mr. Senator Brooks seems to have become desperate, and gives a duplicate under 
 head No. 7, of the conveyance made by George Wildes and Agnes his wife, as already 
 recorded under head No. 3. I was not aware that Mr. Wildes had given me two deeds of 
 ihe same property. But Mr. Senator Brooks is a man of singular enterprise, and he has 
 made the discovery, and has attempted to impose upon the public, by a falsehood, so 
 easily to be detected. 
 
 No. 8 is from Mr. Bartholomew O'Connor, who, if Mr. Brooks is to be believed, is named 
 in the record as Trustee to Christ’s Church—the truth being that Mr. Bartholomew 
 O'Connor, in that case was only the Assignee of a bankrupt Board of Trustees. 
 
 No. 9 is from George Plammann, and Catharine A. his wife; Thomas Ward, and Marga- 
 retta his wife ; Nathaniel P. Baily, and his wife, et al. to Nicholas Dean, of the Second 
 part, and John Hughes, of the third part. Under the same No. 9 we find immediately 
 following, Andrew Byrne, Clergyman, to John Hughes, Bishop. 
 
 No. 10. is a specimen of Mr. Brooks’s eloquent brevity of style. It is entitled, “ Same 
 to Same." Here again Mr. Brooks duplicates the same conveyance, so that in the simple 
 copying from the Register, by way of defence for older falsehoods, he invents new ones, 
 and in two instances copies the same conveyances—I suppose by way of guarding against 
 mistakes. 
 
 I hope the respectable gentlemen and their wives here mentioned, will hold Mr. Brooks 
 and not me responsible for having their names paraded in a public newspaper. The 
 extract of all these entries is brought forth by Mr. Brooks, to substantiate what I have 
 taken the liberty to call his falsehood uttered in the Senate of New York, when he alleged 
 in his official capacity, and as one having taken pains to be well informed on the subject, 
 that the value of my real estate in the city of New York alone was not much short of five 
 millions. We have just seen that Mr. Brooks has counted two conveyances each twice 
 over, and that instead of ten conveyances there are in reality only eight on the very record 
 which he professes to have examined. None of these conveyances of real estate are from 
 Trustees of Catholic Churches. 
 
 Is it not lamentable to think that a man who has been Senator of the State of New 
 York, should so misrepresent the records of entries which are open to the inspection of all, 
 in the Register’s office ? 
 
 But the question is not whether I am the owner of some portion of real estate, but 
 whether Mr. Brooks did not utter a falsehood when he stated that the value of my property 
 in the city of New York alone, was little short of five millions of dollars. The gentleman 
 attempts to make his extract honest-looking by describing the boundaries of each section 
 of property thus conveyed with a minuteness very uninteresting to the public, but with an 
 exactitude becoming a Conveyancer’s apprentice. One would suppose that he imagined 
 himself copying a list of arrivals at the hotels, to be published in that meanest of all 
 printed newspapers, the New York Express, of which he is one of the editors. 
 
 Now the difference between the value of the eight conveyances cited by Mr. Brooks, 
 and a little short of five millions of dollars, will be the measure of the difference between 
 the truth of his present defence and the falsehood of his assertion in the Senate on the 6th 
 of last March. I suppose the gross value of the eight conveyances enumerated, to be two 
 hundred thousand dollars, and deduct two hundred thousand dollars from a sum little 
 short of five millions—say four millions seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars, there 
 remains a difference between truth and falsehood of four millions five hundred and fifty 
 thousand dollars, which Mr. Brooks has still to account for. In other words, by a strict 
 arithmetical calculation, there is a difference of two thousand two hundred and seventy- 
 five per cent between the truth, if we can call it so, of Mr. Brooks’s defence and the 
 original falsehood of his statement. This is a large percentage, but Senator Brooks may 
 yet have means of reducing it. So far, I think, it is quite clear that the^charge of false¬ 
 hood No. 1 has not been refuted. However, small work is enough for the Senator during 
 one day, and as he signs his letter “for to-day, yours very respectfully,” we must wait to 
 see what he has in reserve for to-morrow. I would only beg him not to attempt filling up 
 his schedule by enumerating the same conveyance twice as he has done “ for to-day.” 
 
 Falsehood No. 2, as found in his speech of the Cth of March, is that among the convey¬ 
 ances there are numerous transfers from trustees to John Hughes. Mr. Brooks has done 
 nothing as yet by way of attempt to sustain this falsehood, lie has not shown one single 
 such transfer, and accordingly we may say there is little short of five millions per cent, 
 between his impotent defence and his false assertion on the Cth of March, in the Senate of 
 New York. But, we must be indulgent, aud allow him time to examine the records for 
 them. 
 
 The statement in his speech that we marked as falsehood No. 3, that some of the parcels 
 of property conveyed to me cover whole squares of land, Mr. Brooks “ for to-day ” has 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 31 
 
 not had time, T suppose, to indicate, as he has done in other instances, in what part of the 
 city all these certain lots or whole squares of land lie, and are situate. But we must give 
 him time. He has made ten entries for the newspapers out of eight in the Register’s 
 hooks—and to a man who can do this, powers of originality cannot be denied. 
 
 On the whole I think Mr. Brooks has been very unsuccessful in his attempt to substan¬ 
 tiate the three propositions which I have indicated as falsehoods Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 
 
 In the present melancholy predicament in which Mr. Brooks has contrived to place 
 himself, I think he might dispense with all moralizing as regards proprieties of language. 
 They are out of season for his pen. He is not satisfied at my using the word falsehood 
 in regard to any of his assertions, however injurious to me or mischievous to others. Now, 
 falsehood is the only word that could express my meaning. To gentlemen of more refined 
 sensibility than the Senator, a gentler term would have been sufficient to arouse that 
 quick and. honorable resentment, either to prove the assertion advanced or to apologize 
 manfully for having been betrayed into it. On the other hand, if a stronger expression 
 had been used, it would have implied a direct violation of the courtesies of life, even in 
 regard to one by whom truth had been so outraged. Mr. Brooks is very severe upon me, 
 as he imagines, when he says that “ a scullion can call names, and use epithets, but names 
 and epithets,” says Air. Brooks, “ are not truth.”—Fray where did Mr. Brooks learn this 
 philosophy ? I can assure him that names and epithets rightly applied are truth, and 
 oftentimes, truth in its condensed form. Nor do they cease to be truth when they are 
 rightly employed even by scullions. The only philosophy which would be profitable to 
 Senator Brooks, is that by which in ins dealings with his fellow men, whether in the 
 Senate Chamber or elsewhere, he should take those precautions becoming an honorable 
 gentleman, to see that it should not be in the power of friend or foe, of scullion or pre¬ 
 late, to apply to him any name or epithet which should unfortunately be too well founded 
 in truth. 
 
 I confess it is anything but pleasant to me to be obliged to employ them. But when 
 Mr. Brooks has so gratuitously gone out of his way to impress upon the minds of his 
 colleagues in the Senate, and of his fellow citizens elsewhere, the belief of statements 
 utterly at variance with truth, he cannot deny me the privilege of calling upon him for 
 the proof of his statements, if he has any, and of stigmatizing them as falsehoods, if he has 
 not. 
 
 I do not know that I have anything more to say until Mr. Brooks brings out the results 
 of another day’s investigation of the records. 
 
 f JOHN, Archbishop op New Yoke. 
 
 New York , April 19,1S55. 
 
 TEMPORALITIES OF THE ROMISH CHURCH. 
 
 To the Editors of the JV. Y. Courier <Sf Enquirer: 
 
 I have no time to bandy words with John Hughes. In personality and vulgarity he has 
 reached an elevation to which I do not aspire, and if he is content with that elevation, and 
 of his position under it, as the Archbishop of a powerful Church, I am more than content 
 as his antagonist. I could not see without regret a friend in so bad a position, nor desire 
 to put an enemy in a worse one. I shall therefore leave all that part of the Archbishop’s 
 third letter, which is irrelevant to Church Property, and the facts at issue, to answer 
 itself. 
 
 My statements in the Senate were : 
 
 First :—As to the fact of the property owned by John Hughes,—meaning the Arch¬ 
 bishop. 
 
 Secondly :—As to the value of the property thus held by John Hughes,—meaning the 
 Archbishop. 
 
 Thirdly :—As to the transfers from Trustees to John Hughes,—meaning the Arch¬ 
 bishop. 
 
 J am charged with falsehood in these, my several asseverations. 
 
 I proposed to settle the question of fact, as to the veracity of the spirit, substance and 
 reality of my statements, and the truth of the denial of his, by reference to an umpire of 
 
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 32 
 
 three persons.—one to be selected by each of ns, and one by these jointly. The Arch¬ 
 bishop sneered at my proposition, and declined the offer. 
 
 The Archbishop conveyed the idea, and meant to convey the idea, and was so under¬ 
 stood by the public,—that he was not the owner of Church Property in this city and 
 elsewhere. Driven from this position by the records transcribed from the Register's Office, 
 showing the actual conveyances of property to him, he now, with more boldness than ever, 
 admits the truth of what I said on this point, and declares that the question between us 
 “ is not in regard to any such thing as his ownership of Real Estate Property in this 
 city ! He adds to this the following declaration :— 
 
 “ In reference to my ownership of real estate property, as Mr. Brooks calls it, there is no question. The 
 title of many Catholic Churches in the city of New York is vested in me, and so far I am the owner. My 
 intention, even, is to add to this property by purchasing such additional lots, or accepting the gift of them, as 
 I may find from time to time to be desirable for the purpose of providing religious instruction for the wants 
 of the Catholic flock committed to my charge. If Mr. Brooks will examine the records of the city of New York 
 three months from this time, he will probably find conveyances made to me by parties who have the right to 
 sell or bestow as they think proper.” 
 
 Truly —“ Truth is a great thing.”. 
 
 But I am also charged with falsehood, because I asserted that there were transfers from 
 Trustees to John Hughes, notwithstanding I gave the record of the Transfer of:— 
 
 “ The Trustees of St. John's Roman Catholic Church to John Hughes. Lease 999 
 years ; Consideration, ONE CENT a yeab.” 
 
 The Archbishop answers me, and this record, thus : 
 
 “ The first conveyance is a lease, which shows, so far as the ownership of real estate is concerned, that the 
 very heading of the entries is not correct. 
 
 The second is also a lease, showing the same thing. 
 
 The third is from George Wildes and Agnes his wife, and it remains for Mr. Brooks to show that Mr. Wildes 
 and his wife had been Trustess of a Catholic Church.” 
 
 What will lawyers,—what will laymen,—what will Christian men,—think of such a 
 denial as this? Is not a lease for 999 years at one cent a year in all true senses, moral 
 and legal, equal to a conveyance in fee ? A mortgage of Real Estate property is a 
 conveyance in a more limited sense, but often results by foreclosure and otherwise to a 
 conveyance in fee. How dare the Archbishop assert, in the face of the public record and 
 of all truth—that I “ have not shown one single transfer from Trustees to the Bishop ?” 
 
 Let me add one more extract from his last letter : 
 
 “No. 8 is from Mr. Bartholomew O’Connor, who, if Mr. Brooks is to be believed, is named in the record as 
 Trustee to Christ Church—the truth being that Mr. Bartholomew O’Connor in that case was only the 
 Assignee of a Bankrupt board of Trustees." 
 
 Here, too, is an unintentional admission that John Hughes received property from 
 Bartholomew CEConnor, “ the Assignee of a Bankrupt Board of Trustees /” It came, 
 by admission, from Trustees, through the Assignee, to John Hughes! Is it not a quibble 
 beneath an Archbishop, or the poorest layman, to say that such property did not come 
 from Trustees? 
 
 Let me quote further : 
 
 “ Under the same No. 9 we find immediately following, Andrew Byrne, Clergyman, to John Hughes, Bishop. 
 
 “No. 10 is a specimen of Mr. Brooks’ eloquent brevity of style. It is entitled ‘Same to Same.’ Here 
 again Mr. Brooks duplicates the same conveyance, so that in the simple copying from the Registry, by way 
 of defence for older falsehoods, he invents new ones, and in two instances copies the same conveyances—I 
 suppose by way of guarding against mistakes.” 
 
 It is the Archbishop who duplicates—not I. It is the Archbishop also who mistakes the 
 record—not I. If he will look again, he will see that there were two transfers to him 
 from Andrew Byrne—that one conveyance covered part of the Mangle Minthorue’s 
 Estate, and conveyed three lots of property, and that the second conveyance was of two 
 parcels of property, and one of the Henry Eckford Estate. 
 
 The Archbishop owes to himself, if not to me and the public, an apology for this erro¬ 
 neous (I will not say false) record, and I owe it to the public to state that a transfer of 
 property was twice cited by me by mistake, because it was so written, and had the con¬ 
 veyance of William C. Pickersgill, recorded Feb. Cth, 1845, and of George Wildes, 
 September 23d, 1845. The one was probably a conveyance by Attorney in February, and 
 the other in person in the following September. John Hughes would, therefore, seem to 
 have had two deeds of the same property, even though he does not know it. 
 
 But I have not done with my record of property or values. I have only, indeed, given 
 the beginning of the end. 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 
 
 33 
 
 I do not wish to pry unnecessarily into the temporalities of the Archbishop in this city 
 and throughout his Diocese, but his plump denials make it necessary to do so in order to 
 convict him of the want of veracity in his accusations against me. It is no slight thing 
 to charge a man with falsehood, and if the war is carried into Africa, as I intend it shall 
 be, in my prosecutions of this investigation, the Archbishop has himself to thank for com¬ 
 pelling an exposure of his affairs, which, but for his denials, might never have come to 
 the light of day. 
 
 From the “ Metropolitan and Catholic Almanac, and Laity’s Directory of 1855 ”—pub¬ 
 lished at Baltimore, by Lucas, Brothers, and purporting to be “ sold by all Catholic 
 Booksellers,” I find that in this city, and. a few of the River towns, 38 in" all, there are 
 280,000 Roman Catholics, 55 Churches and Chapels (27 of which are in this city), 30 
 Stations, 82 Clergymen on the mission, 26 otherwise employed, besides Asylums, Semina¬ 
 ries, Literary Institutions, &c. Among these are :— 
 
 The Redemptorist Convent, 3d street. 
 
 College of St. Francis Xavier, West 15 th street. 
 
 Community of Brothers, &c*., Canal street. 
 
 Academy of the Holy Infant Jesus, Manhattanville. 
 
 Convent of the Sacred Heart, near Manhattanville. 
 
 Sacred Heart Academy, near Harlem. 
 
 Convent of Sisters of Mercy, Houston and Mulberry. 
 
 Academy of St. Vincent, 107th street. 
 
 St. Mary’s School, East Broadway. 
 
 The Archconfraternity of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. 
 
 The Confraternity of the Rosary, &c., &c. 
 
 This record, with many other facts appended thereto, the book tells us, was furnished 
 from the Most Rev. the Archbishop. 
 
 ■•The Diocese of Brooklyn ” has fifteen Churches in the city of Brooklyn, and twenty- 
 four on Long Island, besides eleven Stations, thirty Clergymen, the School of St. 
 Alphonsus, conducted by the Nuns of the Order of St. Dominic, and other institutions 
 under the care of “ the Sisters of Charity ” and “Brothers of the Christian Schools.” 
 
 The dioceses of Albany (87 Churches) and Buffalo (100 Churches) are larger as to the 
 number of Churches, some of which are gorgeous and costly edifices. The rule there, as 
 here, is to place the temporalities of the Church in the hands of the Bishops. 
 
 I am not complaining of all this, or of the Roman Catholics, or of their faith. I am 
 not even complaining of the numerical force or great riches which make up the 
 temporalities of the Romish power in the city and State. I am showing in whose hands, 
 and under w'hose control most of these temporalities are. 
 
 On the matter of values, too, I shall not fall much, if any, short of the amount men¬ 
 tioned in the Senate of New York on the 6th of March last. With such estates as these at 
 Fordham, costing seventy thousand dollars, and now worth four or five hundred thousand 
 dollars,—as the McGowan property on the middle Island Road, and known as McGowan’s 
 Pass, the Jacob Lorilland property, of one hundred acres,—the valuable property, com¬ 
 mencing on 51st street, opposite the Deaf and Dumb Institution, added to church 
 property, it will be easy to count up millions in present value. 
 
 One word just here, of this last piece of property. 
 
 When the directors of the Deaf and Dumb Institution earnestly begged the Common 
 Council of this city, and as a matter of public charity to enable them the better to educate 
 the Deaf and Dumb of the City and State, for a part of the tract of land, at a nominal 
 rent, now occupied by them, they were refused. They had to pay $28,000 to the Corpo¬ 
 ration for the balance of a block between 49th and 50th street, and the balance of a block 
 between 48th and 49th streets. The Common Council so decreed, and the Mayor so 
 approved. A prayer from Protestants, for a great and noble Christian charity benefit- 
 ting all sects, was met by adverse rejoorts and adverse acts, even when the Common 
 Council of the City, for one dollar, conveyed to John Hughes, President, and V. O. 
 Donnelly, Secretary, lor the Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum, one of the most valuable 
 pieces of land in the city, and on a square quite large enough for that “ Erastus Brooks’ 
 Library,” which the Archbishop now owes the City of New York. The Deaf and Dumb 
 were compelled to pay, for a much smaller piece of ground. $28,000. The Archbishop 
 and the Roman Catholics, for an estate bounded by the Fifth avenue, 51st and 52d streets, 
 paid the sum of one dollar ! The particulars of all this may be found in the Book of 
 Deeds, marked A., page 271, and those who are more curious may turn to a Common 
 Council report, where they will find the rejection of the prayer of Protestants for the Deaf 
 and Dumb, and the grant of the prayers of the Roman Catholics. The city property thus 
 given for one dollar is worth to-day from $150,000 to 250,000, and in view of its value I 
 cite these not very pleasant facts for those who made the grant in the one case, and 
 declined it in the other. 
 
 The Fordham property also is a princely estate, owned by John Hughes. The deeds, I 
 
34 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 understand, arc in his name. Negotiations connected with the property are conducted in 
 his name. I have had the copy of one before me, which begins thus ; 
 
 “This indenture, made on the 1st of December, 1S54, between Most Reverend John Hughes, Archbishop of 
 New York, and the Harlem Railroad Company,” &c., 
 
 And a very funny document it is for “ John Hughes, his heirs and assignees” 
 
 One article covenants that he, his heirs or assignees shall have a free pass over the 
 Harlem Railroad , with fifty pounds of Baggage daily. If the Bishop does not choose 
 to avail himself of this liberal grant,—for I learn from all quarters that he is good at 
 driving a bargain,—he is to name the person who shall receive the benefit. The dead¬ 
 head system is thus formally covenanted for over a public highway between Fordham and 
 New York, by the distinguished “fJohn Archbishop of the Province of New York.” 
 
 But all this is only preliminary to more important matter which follows, and in con¬ 
 tinuation of the record I cite the following : 
 
 CONVEYANCES TO JOHN HUGHES. 
 
 KUMBER ELEVEN. 
 
 Zacharias Kuntze, 
 to 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 1 Date of Con., March 24th, 1S48. 
 [ Recorded in liber 500, p. 509, 
 May 10th, 1S48. Considera- 
 J tion, one dollar. 
 
 erly and parallel with Avenue B 24 feet 4 inches, 
 thence running west and parallel with 8th street, 100 
 feet to avenue B, and thence running north along 
 Avenue B, 24 feet 4 inches, to place of beginning. 
 
 NUMBER FOURTEEN. 
 
 All and singular those two several lots, pieces or 
 parcels of iand, situated, lying and being on the N. 
 side of 31st street, between 6th and 7th avenues, in 
 16th (late 12th) Ward of City of New York, and laid 
 down and distinguished upon a certain map—is an¬ 
 nexed to the report of Fred. DePeyster and others, 
 commissioners appointed by order of Court Chan¬ 
 cery of State of New York, in a certain suit before 
 Vice Chancellor of 1st Circuit, brought by Moulton 
 Bullock, Compt. agt. Thomas Burlock, and other de¬ 
 fendants, to make partition of certain lands and 
 premises held in common between the parties, among 
 which were lands and premises laid down on said 
 map—on which map the said 2 several lots, pieces or 
 parcels of land, hereby intended to be conveyed, are 
 known and distinguished as numbers 7 and 40. The 
 lots in dimension, when taken together, are speci¬ 
 fied on said map to be 159 feet 6% inches in depth 
 on the westerly side thereof, and 25 feet width in the 
 rear, and 165 feet and 1 inch in depth on easterly 
 side ; said 2 lots, pieces or parcels of land, lying and 
 being on easterly side of and next adjoining to pre¬ 
 mises now occupied for a Catholic Church. 
 
 NUMBER TWELVE. 
 
 James Foster, Contractor, | 
 and Emilia, his wife, 
 to 
 
 John Hughes. ■ 
 
 Date of Con., Feb. 21st, 
 1S4S. Recorded in li¬ 
 ber 502, p. 241, Feb. 29, 
 1S4S. Consideration, 
 $4,400. 
 
 AH those 2 certain lots of land situate, lying and 
 being in 11th Ward of City of New York, on S. E. 
 corner of Sth street and avenue B ; taken together, 
 bounded and described as follows: Beginning at the 
 point formed by the intersection of the southerly 
 side of Sth street with the easterly side of avenue B, 
 running thence southerly along the E. line of avenue 
 B 4S feet and S inches, thence E. on a line parallel 
 with S. side of Sth street 100 feet, thence N. in a line 
 parallel with easterly line of avenue B 4S feet S 
 inches, thence westerly along southerly side of Sth 
 street 100 feet to place of beginning. 
 
 NUMBER THIRTEEN. 
 
 Sarah Remsen J Date of Con. May 1,1S48. Record- 
 to V cd in liber 503, p. 542, May 2,1S4S. 
 John Hughes. ) Consideration, $2,175. 
 
 All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, situ¬ 
 ate, lying and being in the 11th Ward of the City of 
 New 1 ork, on E. side of avenue B, between, 7th and 
 Sth streets, in said city, and which is bounded and 
 described as follows, that is to say: beginning at a 
 point on easterly side of avenue B, distant 73 feet 2 
 inches southerly from southeast corner of avenue B 
 and Sth street, and running thence easterly and par¬ 
 allel with Sth street, 100 feet, thence running south¬ 
 
 Geo. W. Hall, of Buffalo, 
 to 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 I Date of Con., Mayl,lS43. 
 | Record, June 19, 1S4S, 
 | in liber 50S, p. 9S. Con- 
 J sideration, $10. 
 
 All that certain lot, piece or parcel of ground, 
 situate, lying and being in the 8th Ward of the City 
 of New York, on the west side of Mulberry street, 
 known and distinguished on a certain map or chart 
 thereof made by Casimer II. Goerch, late City Sur¬ 
 veyor, by part of lot number S2—bounded eastwardly 
 in front on Mulberry street aforesaid, northerly by 
 lot No. S3, westerly, in rear, by lot No. 108, and 
 southerly by remaining part of said lot No. S2. Con¬ 
 taining in width in front 25 feet 2 inches, and in 
 rear 24 feet, and in length 120 feet. 
 
 NUMBER FIFTEEN. 
 
 James Rea, of Macon, Georgia, 
 to 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 1 Recorded in liber 
 | 50S, p.100. June 
 
 f 19, 1S4S. Con- 
 j sideration, $1. 
 
 All and singular, the one equal undivided fifth 
 part of the following lot, piece or parcel of land, with 
 buildings thereon, situate, lying and being in the 
 14th (formerly Sth) Ward of the City of New York, 
 and late part or parcel of the estate of Alderman 
 Dickerson, deceased, known and distinguished on a 
 certain map or chart thereof, made by Casimer H. 
 Goerch, late City Surveyor, bearing date Feb. 12, 
 1795, by lot No. S4, bounded and containing as fol¬ 
 lows, to wit:—Beginning at a point on south side of 
 Houston street, distant 116 feet and 6 inches wester¬ 
 ly from southwest corner of said Houston and Mul¬ 
 berry streets, and running thence east along said 
 Houston street, about 40 feet 11 inches to laud for¬ 
 merly belonging to John r. Schemerhorn, thence 
 running east along S. line of said Schemerhorn s 
 land, about 75 feet S inches to Mulberry street, afore¬ 
 said, thence running S. along said Mulberry street, 
 27 feet 6 inches to N. line of No. S3 on said map, 
 thence W. along N. line of said lot No. S3, 120 feet 
 to W. line of said lot No. S4, thence N. along said W. 
 line of lot No. S4, 20 feet 3 inches to place of begin¬ 
 ning. 
 
 NUMBER SIXTEEN. 
 
 Geo. W. Hall and his wife, 
 
 Amelia W., 
 to 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 All those 6 certain lots, pieces, parcels of land 
 with the buildings thereon situated, lying and being 
 in the 14th Ward of City of New York, on SW. cor¬ 
 ner of Houston and Mulberry streets, in said city, 
 bounded and*lescribed as followsBeginning at a 
 
 >aie cm i_on., April im, 
 1S43. Record in liber 
 608, p. 101, June 19, 
 1848. Consideration, 
 $32,700. 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 
 
 35 
 
 point forming the intersection of SW. corner of Hous¬ 
 ton and Mulberry streets, aforesaid, running thence 
 S. along W. side of Mulberry street, to the land late 
 belonging to Moses Leon, now deceased, 65 feet and 
 9 inches, thence W. along said last-mentioned land, 
 120 feet to land formerly belonging to Luke Usher*, 
 thence N. along said last-mentioned land and land 
 of Geo. Hayden Lesse to Houston street, aforesaid, 
 45 feet, thence easterly along said Houston street 116 
 feet and 6 inches to place of beginning. Also, all 
 those certain pieces or parcels of land beginning at 
 a point on W. side of said Mulberry street, formed 
 by intersection of said W. side of Mulberry street 
 with S. line of land late of Leon, deceased, and 
 which point is supposed to be distant S. from the 
 SW. corner of said Houston and Mulberry streets 
 90 feet and 11 inches, thence along western side of 
 said Mulberry street 48 feet and 2 inches to along, 
 and including the land conveyed by Nathan Bangs, 
 and others, executors, &c., and Elizabeth Sanford, to 
 said Geo. W. Hall, by deed dated April 15, 1836; 
 thence west along said southern boundary of last- 
 mentioned land 125 feet to land formerly belonging 
 to Wm. Jones ; thence north 45 feet and 6 inches to 
 said land late of Moses Leon, deceased ; thence east 
 along southern boundary of last-mentioned land 120 
 feet to said Mulberry street, the place of beginning. 
 
 NUMBER SEVENTEEN. 
 
 * 
 
 George Washington Coster,'! Date of Con., July 19, 
 and [ 1848. Recorded in 
 
 Henry Arnold Coster, y liber, 510, p. 60, July 
 to I 28, 1848. Consider- 
 
 John Hughes. J ation, $11 64-100. 
 
 All that certain strip, piece, or parcel of land, 
 situate, lying, and being on east side of Avenue B, 
 
 * commencing at a point on east side of said Avenue 
 B, distant 118 feet 8 inches southerly from the south¬ 
 east corner of Sth street and said Avenue B, and 
 running thence east, and parallel with said Sth street, 
 100 feet; thence running south, and parallel with 
 said Avenue B, 2 inches; thence running west, and 
 parallel with said Sth street, 100 feet, to said Avenue 
 B; thence running northerly along easterly side of 
 said Avenue B, 2 inches, to place of beginning. 
 
 ning east at right angles to Madison Avenue, along 
 
 grounds now or late belonging to-Sanler. Same 
 
 as Release of Dower. 
 
 NUMBER NINETEEN. 
 
 John J. V. Wester- \ Date of Con., June 14th, 1S49. 
 velt, Sheriff, ( Recorded in liber 522, page 
 
 to f 444, June loth, 1S49. Con- 
 
 John Hughes. ) sideration, $950. 
 
 Four certain lots of ground, situate, lying, and 
 being in the 12th Ward of the City of New York, and 
 known and distinguished on a map of the property 
 of Peter Poillon, made by J. F. Bridges, City Sur¬ 
 veyor, bearing date Sept. 1826, and now on file in 
 Register’s Office, as lots numbers 541, 542, and 543, 
 and taken together, are bounded as follows: North, 
 by the central line between 117th and USth streets; 
 west, by a line parallel to 4th Avenue, on the east 
 side thereof, 160 feet therefrom; southerly, in front, 
 by HTth street; and east, by a line drawn parallel 
 to 4th Avenue, on the east side thereof, at a dis¬ 
 tance of 260 feet therefrom ; each of said lots being 
 25 feet in width, in front and rear, and about 100 feet 
 deep on each side, with the church edifice erected 
 thereon. 
 
 NUMBER TWENTY. 
 
 Richard Kein, 
 Clergyman, 
 to 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 Date of Con., Dec. 1,1848. Record 
 in liber 527, p. 279, Sept. 19,1849. 
 Consideration, $2,000. 
 
 All that certain lot, piece, or parcel of land, situ¬ 
 ate, lying, and being in the 11th Ward of the City of 
 New York, and is bounded and described as follows, 
 that is to say : Beginning at a point on east side of 
 Avenue B, distant 48 feet 8 inches, more or less, 
 south from the south line of Sth Avenue, and run¬ 
 ning thence east, and parallel with 8th street, 100 
 feet; thence running south, and parallel with Ave¬ 
 nue B, 24 feet 4 inches, more or less; thence run¬ 
 ning west, and parallel with 8th street, 100 feet, to 
 Avenue B ; and thence running north along Avenue 
 B, 24 feet 4 inches, more or less, to place of beginning. 
 
 NUMBER TWENTY-ONE. 
 
 NUMBER EIGHTEEN. 
 
 Mary Ann Gaffney, ' 
 Bernard Gaffney, 
 and Arthur J. Donnelly, 
 Executors, 
 to 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 Date of Con., Nov. 8,1848. 
 Recorded in liber, 510, 
 ■ p. 532, Nov. 14th, 1848. 
 Consideration, $10,622, 
 37-100. 
 
 All those certain lots, pieces, or parcels of ground, 
 situated, lying, and being in the 18th Ward of the 
 City of New York, on the east side of Madison Ave¬ 
 nue and south side of 27th street, and taken together, 
 bounded as follows, viz.: Beginning at a point east 
 side of Madison Avenue, distant 98 feet 9 inches 
 south from the south side of 27th street, thence run- 
 
 Gregory Dillon ) Date of Con., Aug. 20th, 1S50. Re- 
 to > corded in liber 551, p. 291, Aug. 
 John Hughes. ) 21,1850. Consideration, $10. 
 
 All those 5 certain lots, pieces, or parcels of land, 
 together with the building thereon, known as St. 
 Peter’s Church, situated, &c., in 3d Ward of City of 
 New York, contiguous to each other, being part of 
 the lands commonly called and known by the name 
 of the Church Farm, distinguished on map thereof 
 by numbers 85, 86, 87, 88, 89; bounded N. by Barclay 
 street, W. by Church street, and S. and E. by the 
 other lots, part of said Church Farm; the whole 
 being in extent, towards Barclay street, 100 feet; to¬ 
 wards Church street, 125 feet; on S. side 100 feet, 
 and on E. side, 125 feet. 
 
 It is to be lemembered that the value of property, at the time these conveyance were 
 made, is very different from its value now. What cost $70,000 a few years ago, is worth 
 $400,000 now; and what cost $10,000 then has sold for $40,000 since. Let the Archbis¬ 
 hop possess, his soul m patience. Before the end, he shall hear not only of his dealing 
 with the living, but with the dead, iu whose decease and burial he profits. 
 
 Very respectfully, for to-day, I am yours, &c., 
 
 New York, April, 20th, 1855. 
 
 ERASTUS BROOKS. 
 
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 SENATOR CROOKS MULTIPLYING THE AWKWARDNESS OF HIS POSITION. 
 
 To the Editors of the Courier and Enquirer : 
 
 There is a moral of general utility involved and in process of increasing development 
 in the controversy between Senator Brooks and myself, which the public will do well to 
 store away in its memory. If I dare make a suggestion for the benefit of the rising 
 generation who are now receiving instruction in the public schools. I would urge the 
 teachers to impress upon the children the possibility of their giving utterance to some 
 falsehood,—since to err is human,—but to caution them at the same time against the 
 culpability and dangers of attempting to maintain a falsehood, if by any misfortune they 
 should have asserted it. And as an illustration, they might say to the classes—“ Just look 
 at the condition of Senator Brooks, who is actually in this predicament.” The Senator 
 begins his unfortunate defence in the Courier and Enquirer of this morning, by the fol¬ 
 lowing assertion : 
 
 “ My statements in the Senate were : 
 
 “ First .—As to the fact of the property owned by John Hughes—meaning the Archbishop. 
 
 “ Secondly .—As to the value of the property thus held by John Hughes, meaning the Archbishop. 
 
 “ Hardly .—As to their transfer from Trustees to John Hughes—meaning the Archbishop.” 
 
 He adds : “ I am charged with falsehood in these my several asseverations.” 
 
 It is not true that these were Mr. Senator Brooks’ statements in the Senate. It is not 
 true that Mr. Brooks has been charged with falsehood in these his several statements. Mr. 
 Brooks knows that neither of these assertions of his is true. And Mr. Brooks knows that 
 he shall be my witness to prove that he knows that they are not true. 
 
 In his speech in the Senate, after having professed to make himself acquainted with the 
 amount of property held by John Hughes, in this city, as taken from the Register's office, 
 he goes on to say : 
 
 “ I suppose its value to be, in New York alone, not much short of five millions of dollars. So far as this 
 property being held, when in Churches, by Trustees, there are numerous transfers from Trustees to John 
 Hughes. Beginning with February, 1S42, and continuing through 1S54, a friend of mine copied fifty-eight en¬ 
 tries of as many distinct parcels of property made in the name of land for John Hughes, all in the space of 
 twelve years !—Not to John Hughes, Bishop, not to John Hughes, Arch+Bishop (sic.), nor to John Hughes 
 as trustee of the Roman Catholic Church, but to plain John Hughes in his propria persona. Some of these 
 parcels cover whole squares of land, and nearly all of them are of great value.”— Speech of Mr. Brooks 
 delivered in the Senate of New York on the Mh March , 1S55. 
 
 When Mr. Brooks attempts in his letter of this morning to substitute another set of 
 statements instead of these, and declares them to be the statements made by him in the 
 Senate, he does that which an honorable man, with the knowledge which he has, would 
 have shrunk from doing. He furnishes, like a broken-down witness under cross-examina¬ 
 tion, the very testimony which is fatal to himself. 
 
 The charge of falsehood was made against his statements as found in his speech, and 
 not against the silly subterfuge of statements as set down in his letter of this morning. 
 Having disposed of this point in which Mr. Brooks is witness against himself, we must 
 proceed to examine the result of his labors in trying to make up for the two thousand 
 two hundred and seventy-five per ct. which his account, after his first day's investigation of 
 the Records, left as a balance to be still accounted for, betwen the truth of his defence 
 and the falsehoods of his speech. 
 
 I shall endeavor to allow a great many trifling things to pass to the credit of Mr. Brooks, 
 so as to relieve him, if possible, from the weight of burden ander which he labors. He 
 begins by alleging that he is borne out in regard to conveyances from trustees by the 
 fact that the trustees of St. John’s Roman Catholic Church gave me a lease of their prop¬ 
 erty. Now one of two thiDgs :—A man who has a lease is either the owner of the prop¬ 
 erty or he is not. If lie is not the owner, the property has not been conveyed to him in 
 the sense of Mr. Brooks’ statement, that numerous transfers of property were made to me 
 by trustees: and, in that event, Mr. Brooks has failed to prove his assertion. He has only 
 proved that I am the tenant of the trustees of St. John's Church ; and, if he thinks this 
 warrants his statement, then a lease, according to Mr. Brooks, will be equivalent to a deed 
 in tee simple. This is Radicalism. Fourierism, such as has not been put forth before. Blit 
 besides, it so happens that this St. John’s Roman Catholic Church has been always, and now 
 is managed, in its temporal afiairs, by lay trustees, and the Archbishop has never meddled 
 with them, except when they attempted, once or twice, to disregard the discipline of the 
 diocese in other respects. 
 
 The next pretended trustee is Mr. Bartholomew O'Connor, who became legal assignee of 
 one of our bankrupt boards of lay trustees, and who transferred it according to law, and 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 37 
 
 entirely in bis civil capacity as an agent of the law. The Archbishop purchased it at the 
 highest price it would bring, paid its debts, and preserved it for the use of religion to the 
 conoregation by whose exertions it had been built, and by whose lay trustees it would have 
 been ruined, if the Archbishop had not taken it in hand. 
 
 Mr. Brooks demurs as to the question of conveyance from Andrew Byrne, and denies 
 that be duplicated. But he corrects his error in a way which surprises me. He says now 
 that the transfers were made, not by Andrew Byrne to me, but by me to Andrew Byrne. 
 His words are :—“ If he, the Archbishop, will look again, he will see that there were two 
 transfers from him ” (the Archbishop) “ to Andrew Byrne.” Now, if this-be so, it will tell 
 against Mr. Brooks, and actually increase, instead of diminish the per-centage of difference 
 between the truth of his defence, and the falsehoods of" his speech in the Senate. He 
 acknowledges, howeverj that in the case of Geo. Wildes, and Agnes his wife, he, Senator 
 Brooks, did duplicate, and counted the same transfer twice ; and in reference to this, I am 
 proud to see him acknowledge the truth. He says: 
 
 “I owe it to the public to state that a transfer of property was twice cited by me by mistake, because it was 
 so written.” 
 
 Well, well, whether it was so written or not, this little confession will do him no harm. 
 
 But, unfortunately, Mr. Brooks shows scanty signs of penitence; for although he 
 acknowledges that he duplicated, he does not omit to add the false citation to the number 
 of entries. In his preceding letter, the conveyances, according to Mr. Brooks, amounted 
 to ten. Now strike out from ten, one entry which he duplicated, and let us suppose him 
 correct in stating as he does in his letter of this date, that two other entries which he had 
 adduced as from Andrew Byrne to John Hughes, were in reality from John Hughes to 
 Andrew Byrne, his ten entries of yesterday are reduced to seven “ for to-day.” Still, 
 after acknowledging these mistakes, Mr. Brooks dashes on, and counts his conveyance for 
 to-day at No. 11 instead of No. 8. This is from Zachariah Kuntz to John Hughes, and is, 
 no doubt, the ground on which the St. Francis’ Church, in 31st street, now stands. 
 
 No. 12, according to Mr. Brooks, but No. 9, according to his corrected statement, is from 
 James Foster and his wife to John Hughes. The Senator does not say that Mr. and Mrs. 
 Foster had been Trustees of a Catholic church. 
 
 No. 13 is Sarah Remsen to John Hughes. 
 
 No. 14 is George W. Hall, of Buffalo, to John Hughes. 
 
 No. 15 is from James Rae, of Macon, Georgia, to John Hughes. 
 
 No. 16. George W. Hall to John Hughes. 
 
 No. 17. G. W. and H. A. Costar to John Hughes. 
 
 Here I must pause to point out an instance of the exceeding exactness and scrupulosity 
 with which our Senator describes the dimensions of this particular lot. He says it is 
 between 7th and 8th streets, and is “ one hundred feet by two inches .” See what it is to 
 be exact. A few more discoveries of this kind will mount up towards the five millions. 
 One hundred feet by two inches! 
 
 No. 18. Mary Anne Gaffney, B. Gaffney, and A. J. Donnelly to John Hughes. 
 
 No. 19. John Y. Westervelt, sheriff, to John Hughes. 
 
 No. 20. Richard Ivein, clergyman, to John Hughes. 
 
 No. 21. Gregory Dillon to John Hughes. 
 
 Thus closes Senator Brooks’ second day’s labor in finding out the entries of property 
 conveyed to me. I shall not examine them minutely, but just take them as the Senator 
 has presented them. I shall only claim that he shall strike out three from twenty-one, as 
 mistakes acknowledged by himself—then there will remain eighteen. But in his speech 
 at Albany he asserted that he had “ copied fifty-eight entries of as many distinct 
 parcels of property made in the name of land from John Hughes.” Out of these he 
 has discovered, so far, but eighteen ; and he has forty more to find out, if he would sup¬ 
 port the false statement of his speech. But Mr. Brooks begins to despair of the Recorder’s 
 Office, and I shall not trouble him further at present in regard to it, except to say that I 
 shall hold him accountable for the forty other entries which would be necessary to change 
 the statement in his speech from a falsehood into a fact. He hopes to prove, however, 
 from the Catholic Almanac, what the Register’s office fails him in. He says the diocese of 
 Brooklyn has fifteen churches, and insinuates that I am the owner of them all. The 
 diocese of Buffalo has a hundred churches, and that of Albany eighty-seven, and Mr. 
 Brooks arranges his defence so as to insinuate that these churches belong to me. I may 
 tell him that all church property in the diocese of Brooklyn, Albany, anil Buffalo belong 
 to the Catholic people of each. 
 
 But Mr. Brooks is determined that I shall be rich whether I will or not, and he enume¬ 
 rates not as from the Register’s office, but as from the Catholic Almanac, among other 
 items of property, “ The Confraternity of the Rosary, &c., &c.,” The Arch-Confrater¬ 
 nity of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” He does not tell us by whom conveyances were 
 
 

 38 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 made to us of these parcels of property. We may suppose, however, that they are from 
 John Doe and Richard Roe and their wives, as found recorded in Lib. 1579, page, a little 
 short of 5,000,000. 
 
 Our veracious Senator next enumerates as my property : 
 
 “ The Redemptorist Convent, 3d street. 
 
 “ The College of St. Francis Xavier, West 15th street. 
 
 “ Community of Brothers, Canal street, 
 
 “ Academy of the Holy Infant Jesus, Manhattanville. 
 
 “ Convent of the Sacred Heart, near Manhattanville. 
 
 “ Sacred Heart Academy, near Harlem. 
 
 “ Convent of Sisters of Mercy, Houston and Mulberry. 
 
 “ Academy of St. Vincent, 107th street. 
 
 “ St. Mary’s School, East Broadway.” 
 
 I must tell Air. Brooks, that in this long list of institutions I have not the slightest 
 portion of property, as he will find if he takes the trouble to examine the records of the 
 Register’s Office a little more minutely. 
 
 In the Senator’s next effort I would suggest to him, if he can do it honestly, to diminish 
 the large per centage of difference between whatever is of truth in his defence and the 
 falsehood of statements made by him in his speech at Albany, by slipping in to my 
 account, towards making up the five millions, a large slice of the real estate which it is 
 generally understood is owned by William B. Astor, Esq.—Of course I have said, if this 
 can be done honestly. It will save the Senator the trouble of going out of this city, either 
 to the diocese of Albany, or Buffalo or Brooklyn. 
 
 Let us now come to the arithmetic of the matter. We allowed him for his first day’s 
 labor in the Register's Office a discovery of property to the amount of two hundred 
 thousand dollars. For his second, and just to encourage him in making out his five 
 millions, we will allow his discoveries to be worth two hundred thousand more. Let us 
 state it thus: 
 
 According to Senator Brooks in the Senate of New York, on the 6th of last March, the 
 property of Archbishop Hughes, in the city of New York alone, was worth $4,750,000. 
 
 Mr. Crooks’ first day’s investigation of the Archbishop’s real estate, 9ay . . . $200,000 
 
 Second day’s ditto. 200,000 
 
 Deduct.. $400,000 
 
 Balance between truth and falsehood still to be accounted by the Senator .... $4,350,000 
 
 Besides this, Mr. Brooks will have to account for the forty missing entries on the 
 Register’s books, which he paraded before the Senate on the day and date above 
 mentioned. And I hope he will not give up the Register’s Office for the Catholic 
 Almanac, or enumerate any more “Confraternities of the Rosary ” among the parcels of 
 my property. But what has become of the whole squares of land which the Senator says 
 were mine? Verily the Senator’s case furnishes a moral, and should be held up as a 
 beacon, cautioning youth especially against an attempt to sustain any statement which 
 they know to be untrue. How easy would it have been for Mr. Brooks to have come out 
 at first with the old saw, humanum est errare? How much less humiliating than his 
 present position, if he had said that he had been misled by the false statements of the 
 Trustees’ Petition from St. Louis Church, Buffalo; that for a moment the anti-popery 
 mania had taken possession of his will, memory and understanding; that he had been 
 carried away by the passions of the hour, and did not reflect on what he was saying, 
 &c., &c. » 
 
 His letter of this date shows that in his zeal to make up the difference between truth and 
 falsehood, he does not overlook the smallest things. We have seen already the minuteness 
 with which he has set down that valuable property of mine, which, according to him, is_a 
 hundred feet one way by two inches the other. He has discovered, also, that by a deed in 
 the Recorder’s office, I am entitled to a free seat in the Harlem Railroad cars from the 
 City Hall to Fordham, and from Fordham to the City Hall as often as I choose to ride. 
 It is uugonerous in Mr. Brooks to quote this, because in his speech he spoke of my property 
 in the city of New York alone, whereas, if he reflects for a moment, he will perceive that 
 this property of a free scat in the Harlem Railroad cars, is only partly in the city. It is 
 in the city from the Park to Harlem Bridge, and all beyond that is out of the city. This 
 is a small matter, but Mr. Brooks is so nice and scrupulous in his enumerations ot my pro¬ 
 perty, that I think he must have overlooked it through inadvertency. 
 
 The public will perceive that in all I have hitherto written I have not embarrassed tne 
 question by any explanation of the circumstances under which property has been entered 
 in my name. I reserve to myself the privilege of giving a full and candid account ol suen 
 matters for the information of those who may take an interest in the question, so soon as 
 Mr. Brooks shall have accounted for the balance of my property constituting the ditlcrence, 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 
 
 39 
 
 if he is to be believed, between $400,000, for which we have given him credit already, and 
 84,750,000 which he said my property in the city of New York alone was worth, on the 6th 
 of last March. But I cannot close the present communication without again directing the 
 attention of the public to the dangers not so much of making a false and foolish statement 
 in a senatorial speech, as Mr. Brooks has done, but of persevering as Mr. Brooks does, in 
 the attempt to sustain it by new subterfuges. 
 
 fJOHN, Archbishop of New York. 
 
 tTew York, April 21. 
 
 SENATOR. BROOKS VS. ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. 
 
 TEMPORALITIES OF THE ROMISH CHURCH. 
 
 To the Editors of the Courier 8f Enquirer: 
 
 I am still accused by “fJohn, Archbishop of New York,” of uttering and maintaining 
 falsehoods. My defence is called unfortunate, my statements false, foolish and silly 
 subterfuges, my position humiliating, my testimony fatal to myself, and to sum up all 
 in a sentence, I have done that which “an honorable man would shrink from doingP 
 This is a heavy load for an Archbishop to buckle on the shoulders of an humble layman 
 like myself, but if his Arch Highness is content with the progress of the controversy, so 
 am I. If he is satisfied with his string of epithets, I am content with my record of facts. 
 If I was “ in an awkward position,” in the beginning, and have multiplied “ the awkward¬ 
 ness of that position,” in the continuation of this correspondence, so much the worse for 
 me, and so much the better for the Archbishop. 
 
 I shall proceed in the debate as I have begun, hoping, for the sake of a good cause, 
 neither to loose my temper nor my manners. The charges of “ falsehood ” and “ folly,” 
 of “dishonor” and “humiliation,” fall harmless at my feet. They neither disturb my 
 nerves by day, nor my rest at night. Each of us is addressing an intelligent people, who 
 are capable of deciding questions of veracity between man and man, upon the record 
 which His Grace and myself are furnishing the public. I have but a single regret in all 
 the controversy so far, and that is, that all those whom the Archbishop addresses through 
 the public press I am not also permitted to speak to, in the same way. In that “ meanest 
 of all printed newspapers the New York Express,”—as the amiable and gentlemanly 
 Archbishop is iileased to style a Journal in which my name is associated with others, he 
 has had a hearing, in full, which I have in vain called for from the press under his control. 
 This may be deemed fair play at Rome, but fair men in America, whether Catholic or 
 Protestant, will regard it as at least wanting in magnanimity and justice. 
 
 I have been trying to find an apology for the irritability and personality of the gentle¬ 
 man who styles himself |John, Archbishop of New York.” The Legislature preceding the 
 present were asked to pass a special Act for the benefit of him, his sect and party, not 
 only in violation of the spirit of the State Acts of April 6, 1784, March 7, 1788, March 17, 
 1795, and all these Acts combined in one, and which became the law of the State in 1813, but 
 in violation of the 38th article of the old Constitution, which declared in terms that the People 
 and State were “ required by the benevolent principles of rational liberty not only to expel 
 civil tyranny, but also to guard a,gainst that spiritual oppression and intolerance where¬ 
 with the ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind.” 
 
 The Legislature came near forgetting the old law, the old Constitution, and that equal 
 and exact justice which is the rock of our existence as a free Republic. But reason 
 prevailed over error. The Legislature not only refused additional power to the Archbishop 
 and his Party then, but they, the successors of that Legislature, have taken steps to restore 
 to Church Trustees, Congregations, Corporations and individual worshippers, the power of 
 which they were robbed by the Baltimore Ordinances of 1849 and 1852, and by the 
 demands of the Archbishop himself. 
 
 Before I have done with the Archbishop, and his accusations of falsehood against me, 
 I shall have occasion to show that, immediately after the Baltimore Council of Bishops 
 decreed, in 1849, that all the Churches and other ecclesiastical property acquired by gifts 
 or through the obligations of the faithful, designed to be expended for charitable or 
 religious uses, belong to the Bishop, unless it is certified in writing that it was given for 
 some religious order or congregation of priests, Archbishop Hughes set about securing 
 conveyances of Church Property to himself, in all parts of the State. I have such con¬ 
 veyances from Erie and elsewhere, which will appear all in good season. 
 
 My offence is, in the eyes of the Archbishop, that I voted for, and spoke for, the Church 
 
40 
 
 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 * 
 
 Property Bill of Mr. Putnam, so unlike that Church Property Bill, for the benefit of him 
 and his, which was before a previous Legislature. I have shown the Archbishop’s zeal to 
 possess the temporalities of the people of his Diocese and of the State. I have pointed to 
 his titles and his deeds, and overhauled a long list of records to him, his heirs and 
 assignees, I have, I think, through these records, made the Archbishop hateful in his own 
 eyes, and certainly a reproach even among many of his own people, whose sympathies and 
 encouragement I have. He reads in the Church Property Bill a law of the State, over¬ 
 throwing the decrees of his Council of Bishops, and putting an end to those transfers of 
 Church Property, whether of trustes or persons when conveyed to fJoha Hughes. That 
 law puts an end to Grants, Conveyances, Devises and Leases to persons in ecclesiastical 
 offices, or to their successors, and it grieves the Archbishop to the quick, to see his 
 enormous accumulations checked by law, and the people whose spiritual leader he is, 
 placed even in control of those walls of brick and mortar, which have been built by the 
 labor of their own hands. He may deny a Priest to those who comform to the law, and 
 threaten a hundred churches as he did the St. Louis Church at Buffalo, that he will see 
 their edifices, brick by brick, tumble to pieces before he will grant them a spiritual teacher, 
 or priest. Or, he may fulfil, his declared intention of defeating the law of the State, if he 
 can. through those professional gentlemen■’ who “may discover some defect in the 
 framing and wording of the enactment, which will render it inapplicable !” But let 
 me whisper to him, thus early, that other Legislatures will fill the chinks and crannies 
 which his crafty mind thus opens in advance, and which skilful lawyers may aid him in 
 keeping open for a season. The law has a spirit as well as a letter, and in this land the 
 rule of conduct with all good citizens, is that the la?v must be obeyed,—even by Archbishops. 
 
 I begin my additional record to-day with another conveyance “ from Trustees to John 
 Hughes,” and preface it with the Archbishop’s repeated declaration, recorded in the 
 Express, recorded in the Courier, and recorded in the Times, on two different days of two 
 different weeks, that I was guilty of falsehood, in declaring that Church Property had 
 been conveyed to him by Trustees :— 
 
 LOOK ON THIS PICTURE. 
 
 Statement in the Ap.chbishop’s First Letter. 
 
 “ I have never received or accepted any tranfer 
 of any properly whatever from, Trustees. 
 
 * * * Mr. Brooks’s statement ‘ I know to be 
 UNTRUE.’ ” 
 
 Statement in the Archbishop’s Second Letter. 
 
 “ Any one who asserts that many of the con¬ 
 veyances of real estate to me were made by Trustees, 
 asserts a gross, and towards me, an injurious 
 falsehood!” 
 
 AND XOW ON THIS. 
 
 The Archbishop Against the Record. 
 
 See the conveyance of the— 
 
 “ Trustees of St. John's Roman Catholic Church 
 to John Hughes, dated July 17th, 1S44, 999 years. 
 Consideration, one cent a year ! 
 
 I now place— 
 
 The Archbishop against himself.— See his tetter, 
 April 19th. See by his own comment upon con¬ 
 veyance No. 8, cited by me, where he admits that 
 Mr. Bartholomew O’Connor (in the case of his transfer 
 to John Hughes) “ was only the Assignee [to him] 
 of a Bankrupt board of Trustees 1” 
 
 But the end is not yet, though this might do for a poor layman, like myself, in a 
 controversy with a distinguished Archbishop. But, as I said, there were more conveyances 
 than one to John Hughes from Trustees. I am, perhaps, bound to cite mere than the two 
 of this class already named, albeit I could not see the cause of the Archbishop s soreness 
 on this point until the truth flashed upon my mind, that all such conveyances Irom 
 Trustees to John Hughes were illegal and void! 
 
 Trustees have no authority to convey Church property to Archbishop. Bishop, or Priest, 
 except upon application to the Supreme Court, which, I believe, has, in no instance, in 
 the record before me, been done. This is the law. and the Archbishop has, therefore, 
 received and holds property in violation of law, which belongs to the trustees, or iliose 
 for whose benefit the trust was held! Will the possessor return this property to the legal 
 owners? 
 
 But let me give another of the Archbishop’s examples of avoiding issues and facts. 
 He says:— 
 
 “ He (Mr. Brooks) begins by alleging that be is borne out in regard to conveyances from trustees by the 
 fact that the trustees of St. John’s Roman Catholic Church gave me a lease of their property, bow, one of 
 two things : A man who has a lease is either the owner of the property or lie is not. If he is not the owner, 
 the property has not been conveyed to him in the sense of Mr. Brooks’ statement., that numerous transfers of 
 property were made to me by trustees; and, in that event, Mr. Brooks lias failed to prove his assertion. 
 He has only proved that I am the tenant of the trustees of St. John’s Church ; and, if he thinks tins 
 warrants his statement, then a lease, according to Mr. Brooks, will he equivalent to a deed in fee simple. 
 This is Radicalism, Fourierism, such as has not been put forth before.” 
 
 My answer is, that that is property which the law makes property, and a conveyance for 
 999 years, at one cent a year, to John Hughes, his heirs, and assigns, makes the pro¬ 
 perty his, morally, legally, actually. It is in his name, at his disposal, under his control. 
 It is so recorded, and nothing but his will and pleasure can change the record. 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 41 
 
 If tbe Archbishop will leave off calling names long enough to refer to the 2d Revised 
 Statutes he will find, pages 162 and 171, last edition, sections 1 and 58, the following to 
 be the law of the case: 
 
 “ The term ‘ conveyance, 1 as used in this chapter, shall be construed to embrace every instrument in writ¬ 
 ing by which any estate is created, aliened, mortgaged, or assigned, or by which the title to any real estate 
 may be effected in loan and equity, except last wills and testaments ; leases for a term not exceeding three 
 years, and executory contracts for the sale or purchase of lands.” 
 
 The following extract from the Revised Statutes, will show that property held in the 
 Bishop’s name is his also, unless thus held in violation of other Statutes : 
 
 “Every conveyance of real estate, within this State hereafter made, shall be recorded in the office of the 
 Clerk of the County where such real estate shall be situated, and every such conveyance not so recorded 
 shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser in good faith, and fo>- a valuable consideration of the 
 same real estate or any portion thereof, whose conveyance shall first be duly recorded.” 
 
 The Archbishop, as badly off in law as in fact, must now fly to some other technicality 
 to find means of escape. One cannot but marvel to see His Grace misquote my speech 
 (as where he twice puts land for and), and feel pity for him when he misstates my letter 
 in regard to the conveyance from Andrew Byrne. The record stated that the transfer was 
 to John Hughes, and I proved from that record that two distinct conveyances, of two dis¬ 
 tinct parcels of property, were made to him, John Hughes. He is welcome to the 
 advantage of an obvious typographical error. A resort to such straws shows the 
 weakness of his cause and the desperation of his mind. Dealing with one who uses such 
 weapons, and hides himself behind such a refuge, I almost forget that I am dealing with 
 one who is styled the “ Most Rev. John Hughes, D.D., Archbishop of the Province and 
 Archdiocese of New York.’ 7 
 
 But I have not done with the conveyances of property to John Hughes—meaning the 
 Archbishop, nor with the conveyance of Trustees to him. I am called over and over 
 again a falsifier on this point, and here is a continuation of my answer to such courteous 
 denunciations: 
 
 CONVEYANCE OF TRUSTEES TO JOHN HUGHES. 
 
 RECORD NUMBER TWENTY-TWO. 
 
 From the Register's Office, City of Few York. 
 
 The Trustees of ] Date of Con., Dec. 9th, 
 Transfiguration Church I 1851. Recorded in liber 
 to f 591, page 26S. Consi- 
 
 John Hughes. J deration, one dollar. 
 
 All those two certain lots of ground, situate, lying, 
 and being on north side of Chambers street, in the 
 City of New York, and which, on a map or survey 
 made by Cassine H. Goerch, City Surveyor, dated 
 May Tth, 1795, are known and distinguished by lots 
 numbers 16 and 17, adjoining each other, and are 
 together bounded S. by Chambers street, N. by lots 
 number 36 and 37 on said map, and W. by lot number 
 15, and E. by lot number 18 on said map, being to¬ 
 gether ,Jront and rear, 50 feet in breadth, and in 
 length 75 feet 7% inches, agreeably to said map; and 
 also all that certain messuage or dwelling-house, and 
 lot, piece, or parcel of ground, situate, lying, and 
 being in Reade street, in the city of New York, de¬ 
 scribed in a certain Indenture of deed recorded in 
 liber 133 of Conveyances, page 11, as follows, viz.: 
 All that certain lot, piece, or parcel of land, situate, 
 lying, and being in Reade street, in the Sixth Ward 
 of the City of New York, known and distinguished 
 by No. 28, bounded N. in front by Reade street, 
 aforesaid, S. in the rear by land claimed by John 
 Agnew, W. by ground belonging to Geo. Brincker- 
 hoff, and E. by ground claimed by heirs of Peter 
 Nailor, containing in breadth, in front and rear, 25 
 feet, and in length, on each side, 75 feet 7 inches. 
 
 NUMBER TWENTY-THREE. 
 
 Peter Johnston, and] Date of Con., March 3d, 1853. 
 Martha his wife, ( Recorded in liber 623, page 
 to f 498, March 4th, 1853. Con- 
 
 John Hughes. J sideration, $3,700. 
 
 All those certain two lots, pieces, or parcels of 
 
 ground, situate, lying, and being in the 18th Ward of 
 the City of New York, and bounded and described as 
 follows: Beginning at a point on the south line of 
 15th street, at the distance of 250 feet westerly from 
 southwest corner of 15th street and Avenue B, thence 
 running northwest along said south line to 15th street, 
 50 feet; thence running southwest, at right angles, 
 to said south line, and parallel with west line of 
 Avenue B, 103 feet 3 inches, to a line equidistant 
 from 14th street and 15th street, thence running 
 along said last-mentioned line southeast and paral¬ 
 lel with said south line of 15th street, 50 feet; and 
 thence running northeast and parallel with said 
 west line of Avenue B, 103 feet and 3 inches, to place 
 of beginning. 
 
 NUMBER TWENTY-FOUR. 
 
 Michael McKeon, 
 and 
 
 Eliza, his wife, 
 to 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 Date of Conveyance, June 13th, 
 1853. Recorded in liber 650, 
 page 324, November 5th, 1853. 
 Consideration, $S,000. 
 
 All those two certain lots, pieces, or parcels of 
 land, situate, lying and being in the 9th Ward of the 
 City of New York, known and distinguished, on a 
 map or chart of the property of Trinity Church, 
 called the 3d R. N. Division of the Church farm, by 
 the numbers 215 and 216, the said lots lying together, 
 and taken together, being bounded and described as 
 follows: Beginning on the south side of LeRoy street, 
 at a point distant 100 feet eastwardly, from the cor¬ 
 ner formed by its intersection with the easterly side 
 of Greenwich street; running thence southerly, at 
 right angles to LeRoy street, 100 feet; thence east¬ 
 wardly, parallel with LeRoy street, 50 feet; thence 
 northwardly at right angles to LeRoy street, 100 feet 
 to LeRoy street; and thence westwa.rdly along the 
 south line of LeRoy street, 50 feet, to place of begin¬ 
 ning ; each of said lots being 25 feet front and rear, 
 and 100 feet on each side. 
 
42 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 NUMBER TWENTY-FIVE. 
 
 Thomas E. Davis, and'l Date of Con., April 27,1S53. 
 Anne, his wife. 1 Recorded in liber 631, p. 
 
 to [ 43S, May 26, 1S53. Con- 
 
 John Hughes. J sideration, $500. 
 
 All that certain lot, piece, or parcel of land, situ¬ 
 ate, lying, and being on the north side of 117th street, 
 in the 12th Ward of City of New York, and bounded 
 and described as follows, viz.: Commencing at a 
 point on the said north side of 117th street, distant 
 260 feet east from northeast corner of 117th street 
 and 4th Avenue; running northerly and parallel 
 with 4th Avenue, 100 feet to the centre line of the 
 block between 117th and 118th streets; thence east 
 and parallel with 117th street, 25 feet; thence south 
 and parallel with 4th Avenue, 100 feet to said north 
 side of 117th street; and thence westwardly, along 
 said north side of 117th street, 25 feet, to point or 
 place of beginning. 
 
 NUMBER TWENTY-SIX. 
 
 James R. Bay ley and 'j Assignment of Lease.—Re- 
 James B. Nicholson, I corded in liber 5S6, p. 4S6, 
 to f Dec. 17, 1851. Considera- 
 
 John Hughes. J tion, $3,600. 
 
 Trustees appointed by the Supreme Court, in place 
 of Charles C. Rise, D.D., Surveying Assignee, &c. 
 
 NUMBER TWENTY-SEVEN. 
 
 Thomas Lennon 1 Date of Con., Aug. 30,1S51. Re- 
 to > corded in liber 5S2, page 378. 
 
 John Hughes. ) Consideration, $1. 
 
 All and singular those four certain lots, pieces, or 
 parcels of land, situate, lying, and being in the 19th 
 Ward of City of New York, and severally known and 
 distinguished, on a certain map drawn, February 10, 
 1851, by D. Ewen, City Surveyor, and filed in Regis¬ 
 ter’s Office, as numbers 41,42,43, and 44, which said 
 four lots, taken together as one parcel, are in the 
 aggregate described as follows, that is to say: Begin¬ 
 ning at a point on the southwest line of S4th street, 
 distant 800 feet southeast from intersection of south¬ 
 east line of 5th Avenue with the southwest line of 
 84th street; thence running northwest,but along the 
 southwest line of 84th street, 100 feet; thence south¬ 
 west, but parallel to 5th Avenue, 102 feet and 2 
 inches; thence southwest, but parallel to 83d street, 
 100 feet; thence northeast, but parallel to 5th Ave¬ 
 nue, 102 feet and 2 inches, to place of beginning. 
 
 NUMBER TWENTY-EIGHT. 
 
 Henry Grinnell, and'l Date,February 1st, 1S53. Re- 
 Sarah M., his wife, I corded in liber 626, p. 505, 
 to { March 1st, 1S53. Consider- 
 
 John Hughes. J ation, $12,000. 
 
 All those certain lots, pieces, or parcels of land, 
 situate, lying, and being ou north side of 14th street, 
 in the ISth Ward of City of New York, being part of 
 certain premises conveyed to said Henry Grinnell 
 by Elephalet Nott and wife, by deed, bearing date 
 August 1st, 1851, and recorded in Register’s Office, 
 in liber 579, page 424, as the same are laid down and 
 designated on the diagram annexed to said deed, by 
 numbers 203, 204,205, and 206, which taken together, 
 are bounded and described as follows: Beginning at 
 a point on the north side of 14th street, distant 250 
 feet west, from northwest corner of 14th street and 
 Avenue B; running thence west along north side of 
 14th street, 100 feet; thence north, on a line parallel 
 with Avenue B, 103 feet 3 inches, to centre line of 
 block between 14th and 15th streets; thence east, 
 along said centre line, 100 feet; thence south, and ou 
 a line parallel with Avenue B, 103 feet and 3 inches, 
 to place of beginning. 
 
 NUMBER TWENTY-NINE. 
 
 George N. Lawrence,'! Date of Con., December 10th, 
 and 1852. Recorded in liber 
 
 Mary Ann, his wife, >- 626, page 192, February 
 
 to 8th, 1853. Consideration, 
 
 John Hughes. J $2,400. 
 
 All those six certain lots, pieces, or parcels of 
 ground, situate, lying, and being in the 12th Ward of 
 the City of New York, and known and distinguished, 
 on a map of property belonging to Hicks, Lawrence 
 & Co., surveyed December 27th, 1S53, and on file in 
 Register’s Office, by numbers 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, and 
 66. Said six lots, being taken together, are bounded 
 and described as follows: Beginning at a point on 
 the northwest corner of 131st street and Bloomingdale 
 road, running thence west along north line of 131st 
 street, 143 feet; thence north and parallel with llih 
 Avenue, 99 feet 10 inches; thence east and parallel 
 with 131st street, 134 feet to Bloomingdale road ; and 
 hence south, along west side of Bloomingdale road, 
 to place of beginning. 
 
 NUMBER THIRTY. 
 
 Samuel Newby, and ] Date of Con., February 2d 
 Sarah, his wife, ( 1S52. Recorded in liber 594 
 
 to f p. 237, February 17th, 1852 
 
 John Hughes. J Consideration, $6,000. 
 
 All those four certain lots, pieces, or parcels of 
 land, situate, lying, and being on N. E. side of 42d 
 street, between Sth and 9th Avenues, in City of New 
 York, and known and distinguished on a map on file 
 in the Register’s Office, by numbers 5S6,587,588, and 
 5S9, the said lots containing each 25 feet in width, 
 in front and rear, and 100 feet 4 inches in depth, on 
 each side, and bounded S. W. by 42d street, N. E. by 
 lots numbers 550, 551, 552, and 553, S. E. by lot No. 
 585, N. W. by lot No. 590. 
 
 The Archbishop will see that, while he is abusive in words, I am not idle in facts. He 
 will see that I have proved what I said in the Senate, in regard to his large possessions of 
 property in this city. He will see that I have proved what I said in regard to conveyances to 
 him from Trustees. He will see that I am reporting pretty rapid progress, too. in regard to 
 the value of the Church Property held by him in this city. He might see, if he would, the 
 difference in value between property in this city ten and twelve years ago and now ; but 
 as he wont see without my aid, I shall furnish him with a pair of spectacles to do so, 
 by-and-by. He might make a clean breast of the magnitude of his possessions in Real 
 Estate, il he would, and thus save himself the mortification of seeing his duplicity publicly 
 exposed, and me the trouble of exposing that duplicity. But to quote John Hughes, 
 , humanum est errare. I am more in pursuit of a principle than a man, and my object 
 has been, is, and will be, to show how anti-Republican. in a Government like this, it is for 
 any man, and most of all, the Archbishop of a great church, to be engaged as a broker in 
 Real Estate—to be employed in buying houses and lands, churches and vacant lots, espe¬ 
 cially when some of those lots, reduced to 4 by 4, and 8 by 8, and 16 by 16, are speculated 
 in as burial-places for the dead. 
 
 For to-day, again, I am, 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, &c.. 
 
 ERASTUS BROOKS. 
 
 New York, April 23d, 1855. 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 43 
 
 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES TO SENATOR BROOKS- 
 
 SENATOR EROOKS RESIGNING HIMSELF NOT ONLY TO THE AWKWARDNESS, BUT ALSO TO THE 
 MORAL DEGRADATION OF HIS POSITION. 
 
 To the Editors of the Courier and Enquirer : 
 
 I have charged Senator Brooks with falsehoods, uttered deliberately by him in the 
 Senate Chamber of New York, and calculated, if not intended, to inflict injury on my 
 reputation. I have sustained -the charge already to some extent by facts, and pledge my¬ 
 self to the public that other facts shall not be wanting to complete the proof of my charge. 
 In the meantime, Senator Brooks affects to ignore the evidences that brand him as no 
 honorable man would suffer himself to be branded, as nothing more than idle epithets that 
 have no meaning. If I call a man a thief, or the receiver of property stolen from me, he 
 may say (provided he is innocent) that the charge of theft, or the receiving of stolen 
 goods, 'falls harmless at his feet—that if I am satisfied with my “ string of epithets,” he is 
 content with his “ record of facts.” But if I show on his person the very property which 
 has been stolen from me, it is too late for him to say that “ my charges fall harmless at 
 his feet.” 
 
 I use this illustration not as intended to degrade] Mr. Brooks in any way, but to point 
 out to him that when I charge him with falsehood, it is because he has been guilty of 
 falsehood, and if he dare deny the charge I am quite prepared to prove it. 
 
 Our Senator, therefore, must see the necessity of standing up for his reputation. The 
 matter is too serious for that philosophy which he attempts to put on. He should know 
 that his friends, his constituents, the Legislature of New York, and the people of the 
 State and Country at large, have an interest in his reputation which he has no right to 
 trifle with. No man is the absolute owner either of his life or character. Neither the one 
 or the other is his property in any seDse that would authorize him to destroy or damage it. 
 His life is the property of God. His character belongs to his fellow men. His relation to 
 either is that of a trustee, and society has a right to require that he shall net as a faithful 
 guardian for the preservation of both. Mr. Senator Brooks, therefore, is not at liberty to 
 affect the philosophy of indifference when the charge of falsehood is brought against him 
 on responsible authority. He has no right to let himself down to a position of acknow¬ 
 ledged degradation, without making an effort to sustain himself against charges which 
 are damaging to his character only in so far as, unhappily for him, they are too true. 
 
 Again, Mr. Brooks may not attempt to throw dust into the eyes of that “ intelligent 
 people ” whom we both address, by copying out extracts from the Register’s Office as 
 regards property conveyed to me. This is not the question. If Mr. Brooks had stated 
 before the Senate that certain conveyances had been made to me in the City of New York, 
 or elsewhere, he would have stated what I myself was the first to proclaim,—what is 
 known to the whole community of New York, and what requires no proof. It is known to 
 all that for the last twelve or fourteen years, property designed for Catholic church 
 purposes has been vested in the Bishop,—said property being in all other respects for its 
 uses, its income, its expenditures, as much the property of the several congregations, as if 
 it had been invested in lay Trustees, the only difference being that there is no authority 
 whereby such property can be mortgaged and brought into jeopardy by irresponsible lay¬ 
 men without the knowledge and concurrence of the Bishop. By copying extracts from 
 the Register’s Office, therefore, Mr. Brooks is attempting to prove what is not in dispute, 
 what is admitted, and what is known to all as a general fact. 
 
 But even in his undertaking to prove what everybody knows as to the general fact 
 Mr. Brooks is not justified in falsifying the records from which he pretends to give extracts’. 
 In this he shows the moral danger of any attempt to sustain a primary falsehood, since 
 every such attempt involves the necessity of having resourse to secondary, and in main¬ 
 taining these, to certify falsehoods ad infinitam nauseam. The fiat of the Almighty at 
 the Creation, in reference to plants and trees, ordaining that each should bear fruit and 
 seed according to its kind, is perfectly applicable to truth and falsehood. Each bears 
 fruit according to its kind. 
 
 To elucidate this principle, it will be sufficient to state that in human thought or human 
 language there are but three kinds of propositions possible. First, the proposition which 
 yields fruit according to its kind, requiring nothing but truth to sustain it. Second, the 
 proposition which is false, and in like manner yields fruit according to its kind, making it 
 necessary that other falsehoods should be invented and employed for its support. Third, 
 a mixed proposition, which is partly true and partly false ; but which, when it comes to 
 be analyzed, and the portion which is true divided from the portion which is false, will * 
 produce distinct corresponding fruits, each according to its kind. The portion which is 
 
 / 
 
 / J 
 
44 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 false will require falsehoods for its support, and the portion which is true will rest exclu¬ 
 sively for support on the fruits which it bears, according to its kind. In other words, 
 falsehoods cannot be maintained by truth, nor does truth ever require to be maintained by 
 falsehood. 
 
 Having premised these observations, I proceed to say, that of the primary falsehoods 
 contained in Mr. Brooks’ speech in the Senate of New York, the first 1 shall notice is the 
 statement that “ The value of Archbishop Hughes' property in the city of Mew York 
 alone is not much short of Jive millions of Hollars.” As Mr. Brooks is engaged in an 
 attempt to sustain this falsehood, I shall reserve for another communication the proofs 
 that it has already borne fruits according to its kind. 
 
 The second is the statement in his speech that he “had copied from the records fifty- 
 eight entries of as many distinct parcels of property made in the name of and for John 
 Hughes.” The Senator extracts from the Register's office, are an attempt to sustain the 
 statement, and although he has falsified the entries, and counted, at least, one entry twice 1 
 over, as shall be shown more fully hereafter, he has as yet reached only No. 30 out of 
 fifty-eight, leaving twenty-eight distinct entries to be still accounted for. In regard to 
 the fifty-eight entries, we find in his speech the following statement, embodied by way of 
 annotation : “ To those who were curious in such matters, Mr. Brooks exhibited to the 
 Senate the number, book, and page of these several entries in the city of Mew York.” 
 This was on the 6th of last March. He has in his pretended extracts from the Register's 
 office, counted some entries twice; he has falsified others, and yet having arrived, 
 according to his own calculation, at No. 30 out of fifty-eight, for which he had day and 
 date, book, and number, and page to flourish in the face of his brother Senators more' than 
 seven weeks ago, he now acknowledges himself as minus habens, and begs for somebody 
 to help him out of his difficulty. This may be seen from the following advertisement in 
 that meanest of all printed newspapers, which it is unnecessary to mention : 
 
 CONVEYANCES TO AJICHCISHOP HUGHES. 
 
 The friends of the Rights of Church Trustees and the Laity, against the usurpations of -Archbishop 
 Hughes and his Associates, are requested to send abstracts of Conveyances of Church Property to him, to 
 the office of the “ New York Express.” Our object is to elicit the truth as to the amount and value of the 
 Church Property owned by the Archbishop and his associates in office. 
 
 So, then, Senator Brooks is now begging that somebody may furnish him with evidences 
 to support a statement made by him on the 6th of March, accompanied with a pretended 
 exhibition of number, book, &c., which contained' the official proofs of the statement in 
 his speech! Verily, the Senator's propositions are bearing fruit each according to its 
 kind! 
 
 The third of the primary falsehoods of his speech was that “ some of these parcels 
 cover whole squares of land, and nearly all of them are of great value.” 1 take it for 
 granted that Senator Brooks admits the falsehood of this statement, inasmuch as hitherto 
 he has made no allusion to it. If, however, he does not admit its falsehood, surely he 
 will not withhold from the public the whereabouts of these whole squares of land. 
 
 The fourth primary falsehood which I pointed out in the speech of the Senator is, that 
 “numerous transfers of this property, or parcels of land, were made by trustees to John 
 Hughes.” 
 
 I have always denied that I ever asked, sought, received, or accepted any property 
 from lay trustees. This denial I repeat to-day with increased emphasis. My words in a 
 public document, published before 1 had seen the speech of Senator Brooks, were, •• that 
 I never recognize in them ” (trustees of the Catholic Church property) “ the right of 
 ownership ; * * * that they could not make over to me the title of such property; 
 that it was not theirs in such a sense or for such a purpose, that they could not do it if they 
 would.” Mr. Brooks affects to believe that he has invalidated this statement by the fact 
 that the trustees of St. John’s Church made to me a lease of their property for 999 years. 
 Now to prove the truth of my statement in this particular, it is ouly necessary to mention 
 two facts. The one is, that this transfer was that of a lease, and not of property in fee 
 simple, as the false statement in the Senator’s speech implied. The second is, that so far 
 from accepting this property, as giving me any right of ownership, I have never meddled 
 with the management of its temporal affairs, directly or indirectly—that it is now, and 
 always has been, administered by lay trustees, just in the same manner as if no such 
 transfer of lease had ever been made. 
 
 I wish it to be understood that every report of extracts which Mr. Brooks has hitherto 
 put forth as frqrn the Register’s records, shall be specifically and critically examined by a 
 professional gentleman, with the view of showing, number by number, how the several 
 primary falsehoods of the Senator’s speech have borne fruit, each according to its kind, 
 in his attempt to save them. The Senator has obtained from “ The Trade ” a series of 
 opinions extracted from various newspapers favorable to his position. He forgets that 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 45 
 
 the matters in debate between him and me are matters of fact, and not of opinion. What 
 if the Legislature of New York and the Supreme Court of the United States gave an 
 opinion either in his favor or in mine, it would not be worth a straw, inasmuch as the ques¬ 
 tion is not one of opinion but one of fact. Two and two make four. This is a fact. And if 
 any man were to say that they make five or seven, the endorsement of other men, possibly 
 as blinded as himself, would not alter the state of his case one iota. 
 
 Besides, these worthy confreres of Senator Brooks are under a mistaken view of the 
 subject. They seem to suppose that if any property had been conveyed to me, then 
 Senator Brooks is right and I am wrong. They seem to suppose that' I denied the owner¬ 
 ship of any property. But this pretended ignorance must be a piece of affectation. 
 They did not forget that in my very first letter I admitted the ownership of property, nor 
 was I at all parsimonious in reserving a sufficient amount to myself out of the unexpected 
 fortune of twenty-five millions bestowed on me by the Presbyterian, which Mr. Brooks 
 had the cruelty to reduce to a sum barely short of five millions. 
 
 They do not forget taking this diminished appropriation of the Senator as the standard 
 of calculation, I reserved the amount of two millions as a provision against want in my 
 old age, and devoted the surplus £2,750,000, to the establishment of a great institution, 
 which was to bear the title of “ The Erastus Brooks Library ”—that is, on the hypothesis 
 that the Senator should point out where all this immense property was. The Senator has 
 attempted to change the issue, and he writes little squibs himself, or gets others to write 
 them for him, or accepts them if spontaneously offered, to the effect that he has triumphed 
 over me, because he has proved that some conveyances of land have been made in my 
 favor, which was never denied. But let these kind editors help him out in showing the 
 amount of property—the fifty-eight entries—the whole squares of land, which, in his 
 speech at Albany, on the 6th of March, he stated were mine. If they do not help him in 
 this way they do not help him at all, although their little squibs may fill up a portion of 
 the JYcw York Express, and induce its readers to think that Senator Brooks imagines 
 himself to be making gredt progress. 
 
 Having disposed sufficiently of the Senator's last effort, at least, till a reliable investi¬ 
 gation of the Records shall have been made, I will lose sight of the Senator, and address 
 the remaining portion of this communication to the good sense and candor of my fellow- 
 citizens, Catholics and Protestants, whose esteem I value, and who may have been misled 
 in their judgment on the subject involved. 
 
 First .—It has been the practice, especially since the bankruptcy of no less than four 
 Boards of Catholic Lay Trustees in this city alone, to invest the title of new churches in 
 the Bishop. This was conformable to the discipline of the Catholic Church as regulated 
 by the Provincial Councils of Baltimore. It was also in conformity with the wishes of 
 the Catholic people, at least, in this city, whose temporal interests and reputation as a 
 religious community had been almost destroyed by the bad management of lay trustees. 
 It is understood among Catholics that whatever may be the form of legal tenure by which 
 church property is held, being once recognized as church property, it belongs not to the 
 Bishop, or the trustees, or the parishes, or the people, but that it is to be regarded as the 
 property of God, set apart for religious uses, and enjoyed for the common benefit of all. 
 
 Secondly .—Under these circumstances, they look upon the Bishop as the natural guar¬ 
 dian of property which has been created, not by any gift or donation of the State, but by 
 their own voluntary contributions of Charity. And whatever law the State may pass, 
 there is one thing certain, that nothing less than coercion will induce the Catholics to 
 discontinue or withdraw the confidence which they have in their Bishops as the natural 
 guardians of such property. They never dream that the Bishop is the owner of their 
 church and church property, merely because the deed thereof may be recorded in his 
 name. Neither will less than coercion induce them to put their property and their repu¬ 
 tation as a religious community at the irresponsible disposal of lay trustees, armed with 
 legal power to mortgage their property and impose upon them, as has been done already, 
 the burthen of debts by which their churches may become bankrupt, and sold for the bene¬ 
 fit of creditors. 
 
 ■ Thirdly .--It was in this full understanding on all sides, that they, the Catholics of New 
 York, contributed to redeem no less than four churches from the disgraceful consequences 
 of bankruptcy, through bad management on the part of lay trustees. These churches 
 were sold, under process of law, for the benefit of their creditors. The amount which they 
 brought would not have been more than some thirty or forty cents in the dollar. But 
 when, the Bishop consented to put himself at the head of the Catholic body, and accept 
 the title of this property, they rallied around him, and, by imposing sacrifices on them¬ 
 selves, they paid not only the thirty cents on the dollar, which the law of the state had 
 secured to the creditors, but they went beyond law, and conformed to justice, by paying 
 one hundred cents to the dollar - . There is no spirit of repudiation of honest debts among 
 Catholics, but they are not willing that lay trustees shall have power of mortgaging—I 
 will not say their property only, but also their upright and honorable fame. 
 
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 46 
 
 Fourthly. —It is in this spirit, and with this understanding, that the Bishop is invested 
 with the titles of whatever church property is recorded in his name, either in the city of 
 New York or throughout the diocese. Each church belongs, practically, to the Catholic 
 congregation worshipping therein. All the churches of the diocese belong, in the same 
 way", to all the Catholics of the diocese. To suppose that the Bishop should alienate them, 
 mortgage them, or in any other manner abuse his trust for his own use and benefit, is to 
 suppose something that has never entered the minds of the Catholic people. And, for 
 myself, I can say, that my support, since I have been appointed Bishop of New York, has 
 been derived from the free and voluntary offerings of the flock committed to my charge. 
 Not so much as one farthing has accrued to me from the nominal ownership of church 
 property. 
 
 Fifthly .—It must not be inferred from this that I am not sufficiently provided for, 
 whether as regards my personal expenses or the much weightier expenses incident to my 
 position as Catholic Archbishop of New York. In that respect, I feel that I am very rich 
 —rich in the confidence and affections of the people committed to my care—rich in the 
 moderate but sufficient sum which is provided annually for the support of my person and 
 my position—rich in the consolation derived from witnessing the increasing piety, har¬ 
 mony, union, zeal, and mutual charity of the people committed to my care—rich in the 
 consciousness that, from the moment I was reluctantly induced to accept the office in the 
 Church of which I then felt and still feel myself so unworthy, I made an offering of my 
 mind and heart, and life, for the glory of God, in- promoting the spiritual and temporal 
 welfare of the flock over whom I was placed as Pastor by the great Bishop and Shepherd 
 of our souls. 
 
 Sixthly .—Having thus shown how rich a man I am, it is but fair now that I should state 
 how poor. Fortunately, the temporal affairs of my diocese are in good order, so that my 
 successor, were I to die to-morrow, will only have to look at the private archives to under¬ 
 stand, at a glance, the actual condition of matters and things. As representative of the 
 diocese, I am personally indebted to the amount of thirty thousand dollars. But by way 
 of assets, I have in my personal right an amount of property which I suppose, if its value 
 could be realized, could cover the debt. Hr. Brooks and his associates may feel an interest 
 in knowing of what these assets consist, and I will tell him. They are partly bequests, 
 partly donations, partly the hope of a favorable decision in regard to a suit which was in 
 chancery before chancery was abolished. Besides this property, which I consider as 
 assets against my debts, I am the owner of a library which would be of little use to many 
 of those who take an interest in the question of my property, hut which to me is very 
 valuable. I am the owner of a part of the furniture of the house in which I live—but only 
 a part. Let us now sum up. All that is church property in Manhattan Island, whether 
 the title be invested in me or not, belongs to the Catholics of Manhattan Island, and not 
 to me. When this deduction is made, I am left the owner of my library and a part of the 
 furniture in my dwelling. But I am not the owner of one square inch of ground within 
 the city of New York. I am the owner of the bed I sleep on, but not the roof or the walls 
 that protect me against the inclemency of the season. I do not, however, complain of my 
 poverty, for I am not poor. I know that any one invested with the office which I hold in 
 the Church of God is the more honored in proportion as his condition assimulate to that 
 of his Divine Master, who had not whereon to lay his head. And it would be an especial 
 reproach to me to be the successor of the devoted and disinterested Bishop Dubois, who 
 died so poor that the Catholics of his cathedral had to bear the expenses of his funeral, if 
 I disgraced the inheritance of his office by grasping at and appropriating to my own use 
 any more of the things of the world than are necessary to provide me with daily food and 
 raiment. 
 
 But notwithstanding all this, Senator Brooks will have to give some account of the four 
 millions seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars which he said was the value of my pro¬ 
 perty, on the Cth day of last March. 
 
 t JOHN, Archbishop of New York. 
 
 New York, April 28th. 
 
 <»t> 
 
 THE “ PARCELS OF PROPERTY ’’—THE “ SQUARES OF LAND ’’—THE CON¬ 
 VEYANCES FROM TRUSTEES, &c., &c. 
 
 To the Editor of the N. Y. Courier and Enquirer : 
 
 I congratulate the Archbishop upon that degree of recovery of “ a near relative of his ” 
 which enables him to resume his pen. I am sorry, however, to see that the Archbishop is 
 neither improved in temper nor refreshed in style by the brief suspension of his labors. 
 He continues to pile up epithets, like a pyramid, and to-day outdoes himself. He charges 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 47 
 
 me, now, with “ falsehoods, uttered, deliberately ,” “ brands me as no honorable man 
 would suffer himself to be branded ,” uses the words “ thief ” and “ theft," to illustrate 
 the temper of his mind, and heads his letter, like a showman, “ the moral degradation of 
 my position.” If I had no respect for myself and none for the truth of the case at issue, 
 I might give lie for “ lie ” and brand for “ brand.” But in dealing with an Archbishop I 
 choose rather to remember his high and holy calling than his low example. If it is either 
 good manners, sound logic or true religion to answer a proven fact with such words as 
 the Archbishop makes familiar to his lips and pen, he is more than welcome in this con¬ 
 troversy to the advantage they give him. 
 
 Once upon a time a Scotch Professor of King’s College, Cambridge, setting an example 
 which an Archbishop might imitate with honor, was asked what he would do if a man 
 told him he was a liar ? “ What would I do,” said he, “ I would not knock him down, 
 but I would tell him to prove it, prove it, prove it. And I would say to him that if he 
 couldn’t prove it, he’d be the liar, and then I should have him!” The Archbishop may 
 make the application, and the public will judge upon the evidence given, and coming, 
 whether I have John Hughes or John Hughes has me. 
 
 In vindication of my veracity, and to relieve myself from the charge of falsehood, I 
 have given from the record the legal conveyances to John Hughes of thirty pieces or 
 parcels of Property. I add eleven more to-day, and the end is not yet. What I said in 
 the Senate on the 6th of March last, qualified by “ a supposition of fact,” and from data 
 recorded by the searches of “ a friend of mine,” as to the main fact,—which the Archbishop 
 twice directly misstates to-day, will turn out to be a soberer reality than the Archbishop 
 or myself ever dreamed of when I called public attention to his possessions, and when he 
 pronounced my statements false. The work of investigation is only fairly commenced, 
 and I shall proceed with it disregarding all irrelevancy and abuse. 
 
 First, now, as to “ the parcels of property,” and “ squares of land.” I enumerate the 
 thirty-two lots of ground on 50th and 51st streets, in two parcels, one 350 feet by 210 
 feet 10 inches, and the other 105 by 85 feet. This would make one or two handsome 
 squares, each sufficiently large for that “ Eeastus Brooks Library,” which the Arch¬ 
 bishop now seeks to get rid of by an open plea of poverty. The pretence comes too late, 
 is not warranted by the record, was not denominated in the bond, and I therefore claim 
 the fulfillment of a promise so carefully considered and so deliberately made. The Cathe¬ 
 dral Property also rests upon a very spacious and pretty spot of ground, and upon one 
 quite large enough both for the Cathedral, and in its vacant lots, for the Library. The 
 Archbishop may preside over the one, and, with his permission, some friend of mine, over 
 the other. There is also another very pretty square at Manhattanville, which would 
 answer very well for the library, if it were not so far out of town, and another Square, 
 also under the control of his Grace, between the First Avenue and Avenue A, which might, 
 by permission, be exchanged for some property more favorably situated, for a public 
 Institution designed “ for the use not of any one profession, or class of men, but for all 
 mankind.” 
 
 If the Archbishop is still doubtful about those “ squares of land,” I will direct his at¬ 
 tention to conveyance No. 8, 100 by 100 feet, No. 19, which is quite as large, No. 23, from 
 which a very handsome square can be selected, No. 24, 100 by 100, No. 27, 100 by 102 feet 
 and two inches. (The Archbishop will see I am particular now as to the two inches.) No. 
 28, 100 by 103 feet three inches , No. 29, 143 feet by 99 feet ten inches, one way, and 134 
 feet the other.—No. 30,100 by 104 feet, &c., &c. It would weary the public, the Arch¬ 
 bishop and myself, to cite all those parcels of property recorded in his name, which would 
 answer very well for an edifice so honorable to his promised bounty, and which would per¬ 
 petuate his name, as well as mine, “ in large gilded letters,” to the latest posterity. 
 
 I have not yet deemed it necessary to enumerate all the Archbishop’s church and other 
 possessions in this city and elsewhere. By a confession of his, altogether unexpected, to 
 myself, he admits, what it was almost the sole purpose of this branch of my speech in the 
 Senate to show, that he was a large owner of church property. This, I believe, is 
 what the lawyers call the plea of “ confession and evidence,” or an acknowledgment of 
 the truth, when there was no longer power to evade or avoid the issue. Here is “ the 
 confession and evidence : ”— 
 
 “ la reference to my ownership of the real estate property, as Mr. Brooks calls it, there is no question. 
 The title of many Catholic Churches in the city of New York is vested in me, and so far I am the owner. 
 My intention, even, is to add to this property by purchasing such additional lots, or accepting the gift of 
 
 them, as I may find from time to time to be desirable for the purpose of providing religious instruction for 
 the wants of the Catholic flock committed to my charge. If Mr. Brooks will examine the records of the city 
 of New York three months from this time, he will probably find conveyances made to me by parties who have 
 the right to sell or bestow, as they think proper.” 
 
 This admission is made still broader in the letter of to-day. The “title of ownership,” 
 
 then, is vested in the Bishop. The pulpits are his. The keys are his. Doors are open and 
 shut at his own good will and pleasure. Priests come and go, speak and act, at his bid- 
 

 48 
 
 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 ding. The congregations are his servants. One may not even say Mass over the soul of 
 the dead, except the dead are buried where the Archbishop prescribes and commands. 
 Greenwood and Cypress Hills, Protestant burial places everywhere, are now all un¬ 
 sanctified or accursed ground. The Archbishop seeks to be the master of the living, aud 
 to prescribe just where the dead shall be laid, and what price shall be paid for the pri¬ 
 vilege of interment. But more of this hereafter. I am dealing with a living man, and his 
 estates now,—and with one who, in the space of a few years, has come into the possession 
 not merely of the honors of an Archbishopric, but of princely possessions, and all as the 
 head of a church, whose office, I had supposed, pledged him to poverty. It is not every 
 minister of the Gospel who can thus suddenly be transformed from extreme poverty, to 
 luxury, with country seats, retainers, aud bountiful provisions for relatives and friends. 
 Good catholics tell me,—and the fact seems probably enough from the record, however 
 violently denied,—that the Archbishop is more attentive to the fleece than to •• the flock 
 committed to his charge.” 
 
 I must remind him, too, of that other “confession and evidence ” of his,—more than two 
 years old,—embodied in his Circular Letter of the 16th of March, 1852, and printed in the 
 New York Freeman's Journal, wherein, as by public advertisement, he claimed for himself 
 and others, a full legal ownership in even more than the churches of their respective Dio¬ 
 ceses. The Archbishop then said :— 
 
 “ That the Catholic Bishops of New York, Albany and Buffalo^ARE NOW OWNERS IN FEE SIMPLE of 
 nearly all religious and charitable property existing within their respective Ecclesiastical jurisdictions ! !’* 
 
 When the Archbishop again charges me with falsehood he will realize what a compound 
 of accusations he makes against himself. In self-defence I turn him over now to his cir¬ 
 cular letter of 1852, and to his recent declarations, above quoted :— 
 
 “ The title is vested in me. 
 
 “ I AM THE OWNER,” &C., &C. 
 
 It is because the title is vested in him, and in others of similar power and state, that 
 Trustees of his own Church have prayed the Legislature for redress. Those who build 
 Churches themselves claim the right, having paid for them with their own money, of 
 governing the Church temporalities as they please. The Legislature of this State have 
 answered their prayers affirmatively, and hence the anathemas which he has, in his ebuli- 
 tious of temper, exhausted upon me rather than upon the State. 
 
 But I shall continue my record of conveyances to-day, and hereafter, to show how far 
 the Archbishop has been justified in accusing me of falsehood. I hope to be excused for 
 thus furnishing him with small doses at a time. It is a rule of practice with skillful men 
 of the Faculty, I believe, not to kill but to cure, and hence the necessity of continuing 
 these prescriptions from day to day. I may not restore the Archbishop to a sane state ot 
 mind, nor to equanimity of bearing, but it is enough for me to know that if I have opened 
 public wounds, so that the community can behold them, as they are, the exposure may 
 lead to a speedier cure of the disease than would have resulted from concealment. 
 
 CONVEYANCES TO JOHN HUGHES. 
 
 NUMBER THIRTY-ONE. 
 
 Thomas Fan-ell,! Date of Con. June 7th, 1S54. Re- 
 Clergyman, I cord in liber 663, p. 366, June 15, 
 to f 1S54. Consideration, one dol- 
 
 J ohn Hughes. J lar. 
 
 All those certain two lots, pieces or parcels of 
 ground, situate, lying and being in the 13th Ward of 
 the city of New York, on east side of Pitt street, be¬ 
 tween Delancey and Rivington streets, known by the 
 street numbers 54 and 36 Pitt street, said lots being 
 each 24 feet in width in front and rear, and 100 feet 
 in depth, be the said dimensions more or less. 
 
 THIRTY-TWO. 
 
 Edw’d C. Richards, and' 
 Emily M., his wife, 
 to 
 
 John Hughes. J 
 
 Deed dated Dec. 1, 1S52. 
 Consideration, $2,500. 
 Recorded in liber 622, p. 
 101 . 
 
 THIRTY-THREE. 
 
 Charles Toal, and 
 Ann, his wife, 
 to 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 (April 15th, 1S5-, date of Con.) 
 Record in liber 658, p. 669, 
 May 8th, 1854, Consideration 
 $ 20 , 000 . 
 
 All that certain lot of land situate, lying, and be¬ 
 ing in the 4th Ward of the City of New Y'ork, and 
 the building thereon erected, now known as the 
 Mariner’s Church, being lot No. 1067 on the Tax 
 Commissioner’s map of 4th Ward, and bounded and 
 described as follows:—Beginning on W. side of 
 Roosevelt street, at a point distant 157 feet and 11 
 inches N. from NW. corner of Roosevelt and Cherry 
 streets, running thence W. and at right angles to 
 Roosevelt street, 61 feet and 4 inches thence N. and 
 parallel with Roosevelt, 71 feet 4 inches thence E. 
 60 feet 10 inches to W. side of Roosevelt street, 
 thence S. along W. side of Roosevelt st. 71 feet 4 
 inches to the point or place of beginning. 
 
 TniRTY-FOCR. 
 
 Mathew Flynn, and 
 Margaret, his wife, 
 to 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 Date of Con. April 6th, 1S54. 
 Record in liber 661, p. S6, 
 April 7th, 1S54. Considera¬ 
 tion $6,000. 
 
 AU those two certain lots of land situate, lying, 
 and being in 16th Ward of the City of New York, 
 and bounded taken together, as follows:—Beginning 
 at a point on the N. line of 25th st., distant 400 feet 
 E. from NE. corner of 9th avenue and 25th street, 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 
 
 49 
 
 running thence E. along said N. line 50 feet thence 
 N. parallel with 9th avenue, 9S feet 9 inches to mid¬ 
 dle of block between 25th and 26th streets, and to 
 a point equi-distant from the two, thence W. paral¬ 
 lel with 25th street 50 feet, thence S. in a straight 
 line to place of beginning. 
 
 THIRTY-FITE. 
 
 Jas. D. Oliver, and) Date of Conveyance, May 1st, 
 
 Sarah, his wife, I 1S50. Record in liber 599, 
 to ( p. 700, May 1st, 1S52. Con- 
 
 John Hughes, j sideration, $3,500. 
 
 All that certain lot or parcel of land, situate in 
 city of New York, on north side 19th street, former¬ 
 ly a part of the old Warren road, which was closed 
 by Corporation of the City of New York, and known 
 and distinguished on map No. 10, of an atlas made 
 by Edwin Smith, City Surveyor, in the month of 
 April, 1S35, and entitled atlas of that part of the 12th 
 Ward of the City of New York, between 14th and 
 21st streets, by the number 2,495, bounded on the 
 south, in front, by 19th street, on the west by lot 
 number 2,494, on the north, in the rear, by lot num¬ 
 ber 2,805 on said map, and on the east by the centre 
 line of the old Warren road, being about 20 feet 
 wide, more or less, in front and rear, and about 90 
 feet 1 inch deep, more or less. Also, all that certain 
 other lot or parcel of land situate in City of New 
 York, adjoining the lot or parcel above’described, 
 bounded on the south in front by 19th street, on the 
 west by lot number 2,493 on the aforesaid map, on 
 the north in the rear by lot belonging now or late to 
 John F. Winslow, and on the east by lot number 2,- 
 495, being about 26 feet 7 inches wide (more or less) 
 in front, about 23 feet 4 inches wide on rear, about 
 90 feet deep on the west side, and about 90 feet 1 
 inch deep on the east side. 
 
 THIRTY-SIX. 
 
 Stephen C. Burdett, 1 Date of Con., Nov. 27th, 1S52. 
 and Eliza, his wife, 1 Record in liber 609, p. 305. 
 to ( Dec. 1st, 1S52. Considera- 
 
 John Hughes. J tion, $4,800. 
 
 All those certain lots, pieces or parcels of land, 
 situate, lying and being in the former 12th, late 16th, 
 now ISth Ward of the City of New York, which said 
 lots are bounded and described as follows, to wit:— 
 Beginning at a lot on the southwest side of 29th st. 
 distant 100 feet northwest from southwest corner of 
 3d avenue and 29th street, running thence south¬ 
 west on a line parallel with 3d avenue 93 feet and 9 
 inches to the centre line of the block between 2Sth 
 and 29th streets, thence running northwest along 
 said centre line 45 feet, thence northeast on a line 
 parallel with 3d Avenue 98 feet and 9 inches to 29th 
 street, and thence southeast along 29th street 45 feet, 
 to place of beginning. 
 
 THIRTY-SEVEN. 
 
 Wm. H. De G-root, and ) Date of Con., April 15,1S53. 
 
 Alice, his wife, ( Recorded in liber 641, p. 
 
 to ( 79, April 19, 1S58. Con- 
 
 John Hughes. ) sideration, $1,400. 
 
 All those two certain lots^ pieces, or parcels of 
 land, situate, lying, and being in the — Ward of the 
 City, County, and State of New York, Bounded and 
 described as follows: Beginning at a point on the 
 southerly side of 84th street, distant 220 feet westerly 
 from the southwest corner of 84th street and 4th 
 Avenue, running thence westerly along the south 
 side of S4th street 50 feet, running thence south and 
 parallel with 4th Avenue 102 feet and 2 inches, run¬ 
 ning thence east and parallel with 84th street50feet, 
 and thence north and parallel with the 4th Avenue 
 102 feet andf2 inches, to place of beginning. 
 
 THIRTY-EIGHT. 
 
 Daniel Camming, silversmith, 
 and 
 
 Mary, his wife, 
 to 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 Date of Con., April 
 28, 1S53. Record 
 in liber 640, p. 3S2, 
 May 2,1S53. Con¬ 
 sideration, $8,000. 
 
 All that certain lot, piece, or parcel of land, situ¬ 
 ate, lying, and being in the 6th Ward of City of New 
 York, and now known by street number 29 Mott 
 street, and bounded and described as follows, on a 
 map thereof, made by Edward Ludlam, City Survey¬ 
 or, dated New York, December, 1S4S, and filed in 
 Office of the Register of City and County New York, 
 24th April, 1S50, that is to say: Easterly in front, by 
 westerly side Mott street, 19 feet and 9 inches ; 
 southerly, by land now or late of Zion Church, 86 
 feet 10 inches ; westerly by land now or late of Lu¬ 
 ther Baldwin, and lands now or late of the estate of 
 Cornelius Schenck, 26 feet and 2 inches ; and north¬ 
 erly by land now or late of John G. Flammer, 87 feet 
 and 7 inches, as laid down on said map. 
 
 THIRTY-NINE. 
 
 Henry Heyward, and ) Date of Con., November 27, 
 Tefa, his wife, ( 1S52. Recorded in liber 
 
 to ( 609, p.342. Consideration, 
 
 John Hughes. ) $8,000. 
 
 All those four certain lots, pieces, or parcels of 
 land, situate, lying, and being on former 12th, late 
 16th, now 18th Ward of City of New York, which said 
 lots, taken together, are bounded and described as 
 follows, to wit: Beginning at a point on N. side 23th 
 street, distant 120 feet W. from N.W. corner of 2Sth 
 street and 3d Avenue, running thence N. and paral¬ 
 lel with 3d Avenue, 93 feet and 9 inches to centre 
 line of block between 2Sth and 29th streets ; thence 
 W. along said centre line, 25 feet; thence again N. 
 and parallel with 3d Avenue, 98 feet and 9 inches to 
 the S. side 29th street; thence again W. along S. 
 side 29th street, 50 feet; thence S. parallel with 3d 
 Avenue, 9S feet 9 inches to the centre line of the 
 block; thence E. along said centre line, 25 feet; 
 thence again S. parallel with 3d Avenue, 98 feet and 
 9 inches to N. side of 2Sth street aforesaid; and 
 thence again E. along 2Sth street, 50 feet to place of 
 beginning; each of said lots being 25 feet in width, 
 on front and rear, and 98 feet 9 inches in length, on 
 each side. 
 
 FORTY. 
 
 Watson B.trentiss ) Date of Con., August 1st, 1S53. 
 
 f Recorded in liber 645, page 
 ( 201, August 31st, 1S53. Con- 
 
 John Hughes. ; sideration, $4,700. 
 
 All that certain lot, piece, or parcel of land, situ¬ 
 ate, lying, and being on S. side of Sth street, in 11th 
 Ward of City of New York, and which is bounded and 
 described as follows, viz.: Commencing at a point on 
 said S. side of Sth street, distant 115 feet S.E. from 
 the corner formed by the intersection of the E. side 
 of Avenue B and the S. side of Sth street, and run¬ 
 ning thence S.W., and in a line parallel with Avenue 
 B, 97 feet 4 inches to centre line of block between 
 7th and Sth streets; thence southeast along said 
 centre line of the said block, and in a line parallel 
 with 8th street, 25 feet to the line of a lot numbered 
 on the Ward map of the said 11th Ward as 2551; 
 thence northeast along the line of said last-men¬ 
 tioned lot, and in a line parallel with Avenue B, 97 
 feet 4 inches, to the south line of Sth street; and 
 thence northeast along said south line of Sth street, 
 25 feet, to the place of beginning. 
 
 FORTY-ONE. 
 
 Rector, Wardens, and ) Date of Con., April 30th, 
 Yestry of Zion Church, f 1853. Recorded in liber 
 
 to ( 640, p. 380, May 2d, 1S53. 
 
 John Hughes. ; Consideration, $30,000, 
 
 All that certain piece or parcel of ground, situate 
 
 in Mott street in 6th Ward of city N. Y., with the 
 church edifice and school-house thereon erected, 
 bounded and containing as follows: E. in front by 
 Mott street, W. in rear partly by ground now or late 
 of James Miller, partly by ground now or late of 
 James Wellers; and partly by ground now or late of 
 James McKay; S. by Cross street; and N. by ground 
 
 now or late of-Williams, containing together in 
 
 breadth in front on Mott street, S3 feet 4 inches, in 
 the rear 86 feet, and in length on each side S5 feet. 
 
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 50 
 
 I have nothing to do now with the Archbishop’s elaborated charges against the “bank¬ 
 ruptcy of no less than four boards of Catholic lay trustees in this city alonebut I claim 
 much for the extorted admission, that “ it has been the practice ,” since this bankruptcy, 
 “ t 0 invest the title of new churches ix the bishop,” and that— 
 
 “ This was conformable to the discipline of the Catholic Church as regulated by the Provincial Councils of 
 Baltimore.” 
 
 But the Archbishop goes on to threaten nullification or disobedience to the Church Pro¬ 
 perty Law. The other day, he told the public that “professional gentlemen were to dis¬ 
 cover some defect in the framing and wording of the enactment, which will render it 
 inapplicable .” Now we are more boldly informed that nothing— 
 
 “ Less than coercion will induce them to put their property, and their reputation as a religions community, 
 at the irresponsible disposal of lay trustees, armed with legal power to mortgage their property, and impose 
 upon them, as has been done already, the burden of debts by which their churches may become bankrupt, 
 and sold for the benefit of creditors.” 
 
 And again: 
 
 “ And whatever law the state may pass, there iB one thing certain, that nothing less than coercion will 
 induce the Catholics to discontinue or withdraw the confidence which they have in their bishops as the natu¬ 
 ral guardians of such property.” 
 
 We shall see whether the one-man power of the Archbishop, or the sovereign law of the 
 People of the State of New York will prevail. 
 
 Nor do I believe that the Archbishop’s churches in this city are so poor in means or in 
 men, that Catholic lay Trustees cannot be found of sufficient capacity and integrity to ad¬ 
 minister the dollar and cent Temporalities of the Church, quite as well as one who, to¬ 
 wards the end of a letter,—beginning with such words as “ deliberate falsehoods,” “ brand,” 
 “ theft,” &c., &c.—tells us in w'ords of meekness that he has made “ an offering of his 
 mind and heart and life for the glory of God in promoting the spiritual and temporal wel¬ 
 fare of the Cock over whom he (I) was placed as a Pastor by the great Bishop and Shep¬ 
 herd of our souls.” 
 
 The text and context, in the judgment of even worldly men, will not harmonize with 
 each other. 
 
 But while acknowledging titles in churches and other property, the Archbishop now 
 seeks for sympathy by pleading poverty. He owns, he tells us, “ a library, and part of the 
 furniture of the house in which he lives.” It almost excites one’s commiseration to read 
 such doleful, lamb-like statements as the following :— 
 
 11 1 am the owner of the bed I sleep on, but not of the roof or the walls that protect me from the inclemency 
 of the seasons. I do not however complain of my poverty, for I am not poor. I know that any one invested 
 with the office which I hold in the Church of God is the more honored in proportion as his condition assimi¬ 
 lates to that of his Divine Master, who had not whereon to lay his head.” 
 
 Alas! that one thus invested with the office of Bishop “ in the Church of God,” should 
 so far forget the precepts and example of “ his Divine Master ” as to indulge in the foul 
 language 1 have quoted, and in a denial of the statements I have proved. 
 
 The Archbishop in this Diocese has assumed a power over Church Property and Catho¬ 
 lics, unknown to the priesthood in many of the Catholic Governments of Europe. The 
 oppression and despotism exercised here would not be tolerated there. It is an arbitrary 
 exercise of power, both over the living and the dead. We exhibit, therefore, in a Gov¬ 
 ernment eminently Protestant, which separates Church and State, and which forbids all 
 interference in matters of faith, the strange anomaly of a Priesthood not only holding 
 property worth millions in value, but ruling the members of his church with a rod of iron. 
 
 But the wolf now clothes himself in lamb’s wool, and cries humility, penance, and pov¬ 
 erty. He who has time and money to visit the island of Cuba, the gem of the seas, to 
 pass a season of delightful luxury amidst tropical fruits and flowers, when thousands of 
 liis poor dock are cold and hungry at home,—who spends days and weeks of delightful 
 ease within the walls of Rome,—whose steps are familiar with the interior splendors of 
 the Vatican and the Quirinal,—who has studied Theology from the Laocoon, and Poverty 
 in the summer gardens of the Pope,—to whom the Sistine Chapel, decorated with Ra¬ 
 phaels and Michael Angelos, are as household objects,—who can fly for pleasure from the 
 city to Newfoundland, to the Lakes, to the Springs, or to Newport,—who has a town resi¬ 
 dence and a country seat,—now appears before the people to state, “ how poor I am,” and 
 to declare that his bed, his books, and his furniture, in part, are his only worldly fortune ! 
 
 But enough for to-day. 
 
 Very respectfully yours, 
 
 ERASTUS BROOKS. 
 
 New York, April 30, 1855. 
 
 A 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 
 
 51 
 
 SENATOR BROOKS NOT ALTOGETHER DEAD TO THE MORAL DEGRADA¬ 
 TION OF HIS CONDITION. 
 
 To the Editors of the Courier and Enquirer: 
 
 Our Senator has a vague idea of respectability, under the influence of which he intimates 
 that falsehoods, with the deliberate utterance of which he is charged, and with which no 
 honorable man would suffer himself to be branded, are by no means complimentary to him. 
 But it is impossible to relieve him from these charges. Falsehood he has been guilty of in 
 almost every paragraph of his speech on the 6th of March, and of his writings in reference 
 to it since. 
 
 For the present, I shall only enumerate the last falsehood from his pen. It is found in 
 the following words, viz.: 
 
 “ First, now as to the parcels of property and squares of land, I enumerate the thirty-two lots of ground, on 
 50th and 51st streets, in two parcels; one three hundred and fifty feet by two hundred and ten feet ten inches, 
 and the other one hundred and five feet by eighty-five.” 
 
 When Mr. Brooks wrote this, he knew as well as I do, that I am not the owner of a soli¬ 
 tary square inch of ground on 50th or 51st street; and, with this knowledge in his mind, 
 Mr. Erastus Brooks has exhibited himself in the light of a man who has no regard for 
 veracity, and who is, therefore, utterly unworthy of notice. I take him, consequently, with 
 covered hands, to the nearest open sash of a window, and send him forth, with the single 
 mental observation— “ Go hence, wretched and vile insect: the world has space for you 
 as well as for me.” 
 
 t JOHN, Archbishop of New York. 
 
 New Yoke, May 1st, 1855. 
 
 THE PARCELS OF PROPERTY—SQUARES OF LAND—THE WAY AN ARCH¬ 
 BISHOP DISMISSES AN ANTAGONIST. 
 
 To the Editors of the Courier and Enquirer : 
 
 The Archbishop is as profuse of epithets as ever. To-day, he is brief in words and 
 abundant in accusations. In a single paragraph he dismisses me, not for good I hope, in 
 the following laconic and amiable manner: 
 
 I take him consequently, with covered hands, to the nearest open sash of a window, and send him forth, 
 with the single mental observation— c Go hence, wretched and vile insect : the world has space for you as 
 well as me.’ 
 
 “ t John, Archbishop of New York.” 
 
 Preliminary to this, are charges that “ almost every paragraph of my speech on the Cth 
 of March, and of my writings in reference to it since, are false.” I am “ branded,” too, 
 again and again, as “guilty of deliberate falsehood.” a 3 “no honorable man,” &c., &c. 
 Having sufficiently damned and accursed me with his official f. I am taken with covered 
 hands to the nearest window, and dismissed “ as a wretched and vile insect .” 
 
 But, good Archbishop, I am not to be so dismissed. You commenced the war, and I 
 intend to end it. If the insect has stung you, and you have been unable either to heal the 
 wound or have the sting extracted, it is your fault, not mine. There is somethin^ to me 
 even more ludicrous than wicked, if possible, in the bitterness and boldness of your denials 
 of the truth, and in the frequency of your personalities. Early in life, I was taught that, 
 in controversies and intercourse among men, no gentleman ever insults another, and 
 nobody else can. I know the advantage I have over you in this respect, and mean to 
 maintain it to the end, by an absence of all foul epithets, and all exhibitions of bad tem¬ 
 per. You forced me into this controversy, by reiterated charges of falsehood. You 
 endeavored to hold me up to contempt, by satire and ridicule, and finding that your curses 
 upon me, Lke chickens, have come home to roost upon yourself, and that your satire and 
 ridicule have rebounded to the point from whence they started, you now, “ with covered 
 hand,” would throw the insect from the window into the street—that is, if he would let 
 you. I shall buzz under you window, during my own good time, and, may be, find ingress 
 again within your Grace’s quarters. ° 
 
 This controversy commenced in an attempt to show that you were a large owner, law¬ 
 fully, and in your own name, of property, and that it was repugnant to the spirit of our 
 
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 Government for Ecclesiastics to Be large possessors of Church Property. It was inciden¬ 
 tally stated by me that you received some of this Property from Trustees. ’ It was also 
 stated that you owned several plats and squares of land, nearly all of them of great value. 
 I named several parcels of this character, in the recorded conveyances of the city, as, for 
 example, Nos. 8, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, Arc. These more than made good my declara¬ 
 tion in the Senate. 
 
 I also alluded to the thirty-two lots opposite the Deaf and Dumb Institution, which, after 
 great trouble, I found, through a friend, recorded, not in the Register’s office, but in the 
 office of the Comptroller.—[Book A of Deeds, page 271. Date, August 1st, 184G.] I 
 found your name acknowledging the gift of this splendid public property from this city, 
 for the benefit of the Roman Catholics over whom you are the Chief. I found a receipt 
 for this property signed “John Hughes,” President, and by your Secretary, M. O. 
 Donnelly. 
 
 Now, sir, though I was warranted in saying you owned this property, after your circular 
 letter of the llith of March, 1852, declaring that you did own “ in fee simple,” ‘L nearly 
 all charitable and religious property existing in your Diocese,” and after your admis¬ 
 sion, in a letter to the public, that “ titles were invested in me ”—John Hughes—“ I,” 
 John Hughes—“am the owner,” and “my intention is even to add to this property by 
 purchasing additional lots,” &c., I did not, as you very well know r , rely upon this rich 
 possession, received by you, to prove your ownership in City Property generally, or in 
 squares. The public, who read your letters and mine (and it is my highest wish that they 
 should read both sides of the discussion), will condemn yon both for the omission of the 
 record of Conveyances, and the parade you make of these thirty-two lots of ground, 
 which, with the Property made over to you, your heirs, and assignees, you call the 
 “property of God,” aud thus evade the real, and almost the only point'at issue. 
 
 It was only on the last Sabbath, when speaking, in Brooklyn, of the question of tempo¬ 
 ralities, you declared to the congregation that it would be “ a calamity for them and the 
 sanctuary to have persons placed between thetn and the sanctuary of this holy temple, as 
 middle men, touching with profane hand the sanctuary of which they should stand in 
 awe, and sinking your church in debt even though you (they) had freed it from all 
 responsibility.” 
 
 And again you said :— 
 
 “ But you, in the meantime, should he faithful to Almighty God, and not permit men—well meaning men if 
 you please, but incompetent between the clergy and the faithful laity of the Catholic Church—between you 
 and the devoted pastor whom you so much respect.” 
 
 Herein is shown your disrespect for popular intelligence and popular right, and your 
 determination, notwithstanding the law of the State, not to allow Lay Trustees to con¬ 
 trol the Temporalities of the Church. 
 
 But let me compromise with you in regard to the squares on 50th and 51st streets, by 
 substituting, if you prefer it, the property in Manhattauville, adjoining C. W. Lawrence’s 
 residence. This property covers four acres of ground, cost $ 32 , 500 , aud has the dwelling 
 and grounds of the Archbishop—though he would probably call it, “the property of 
 God ”—while making the best possible use of it for himself and friends, as he does with 
 the most beautiful portion of the property at Fordham. 
 
 I now add—the “ Catholic Almanac,” for the current year being my authority—the fol¬ 
 lowing record of Romau Catholic Church Property in this city at this time. I take the 
 word of the Archbishop himself, that he is, by the Baltimore Ordinances of ’49 and '52— 
 by his Circular Letter of March, 1852, by his Sermon on last Sabbath, against “ middle 
 men touching with profane hands, the sanctuary of which they should stand in awe ” 
 —the controller, director, and practical owner, even where the title does not rest in him, 
 of all this property. Added, to what has not before been enumerated, the reader will be 
 enabled to form some estimate of its value, by the price it would command in market, if 
 offered for sale. I think the value of the whole “ is not much short of live millions of 
 dollars,” aud that the value of the Property, owned or controlled by the Archbishop, even 
 in his territorially very limited Diocese, is worth a great deal more. 
 
 Cathedral of St. Patrick, between Prince and Hous¬ 
 ton streets. 
 
 St. Peter’s, Barclay street. 
 
 St. Mary’s, corner of Grand and Ridge street. 
 
 St. Joseph’s, 6th Avenue, corner of West Washing¬ 
 ton Place. 
 
 St. James’, James street. 
 
 Transfiguration, Mott street. 
 
 St. Nicholas’, Second street. 
 
 St. Andrew’s, Duane street, corner of City Hall 
 Place. 
 
 Church of the Nativity, 2d Avenue. « 
 
 St. Vincent de Paul, Canal street. 
 
 Church of the Most Holy Redeemer, Third street. 
 St. John Baptist, 80th street. 
 
 St. Columba’s, 25th street. 
 
 St. Francis’, 31st street. 
 
 St. Alphonsus’, Thompson street. 
 
 St. John’s, Evangelist, 50th street. 
 
 St. Paul’s, Harlem, 117th street. 
 
 St. Bridget’s, corner of 8th street and Avenue B. 
 St. Stephen’s, Madison Avenue, corner of 27th 
 street. 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 
 
 53 
 
 St. Francis Xavier’s, 16th street, between 5th and 
 6th Avenues. 
 
 St. Ann’s, 8th street, between Broadway and 4th 
 Avenue. 
 
 St. Lawrence’s, 84th street. 
 
 Church of the Holy Cross, 42d street. 
 
 Convent of the Sacred Heart, Manhattanville. 
 
 St. Catharine’s Convent of Sisters of Mercy, Hous¬ 
 ton and Mulberry streets. 
 
 Mount St. Vincent’s Mother House, between 5th 
 and 6th Avenues. 
 
 Manhattanville Church of the Assumption. 
 
 I have how to add the following to the City 
 
 CONVEYANCES TO JOHN HUGHES. 
 
 NUMBER FORTY-TWO. 
 
 Abner Benedict, and 
 Hannah Catharine, his wife, 
 
 Date of Con., March 
 8, 1S44. Recorded 
 in liber 443, p. 446, 
 March 16th, 1844. 
 Consid., $1,950. 
 
 to 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 All and singular those six several lots, pieces, par¬ 
 cels, and gores of land, situate, lying, and being on 
 north side of 31st street, in the 16th (late 12th) Ward 
 of the City of New York, and laid down and distin¬ 
 guished upon a certain map made Sept. 18th, 1S35, 
 by Sami. S. Doughty, City Surveyor, and filed in the 
 office of the Clerk of the Court of Chancery, and upon 
 which said map the said several lots, pieces, parcels, 
 and gores of land, hereby intended to be conveyed, 
 are known and distinguished as numbers 4, 5, 6, 41, 
 
 42, and 43, the dimensions of the several lots, pieces, 
 parcels, and gores of land above mentioned being 
 laid down and particularly specified on the map 
 above referred to. 
 
 NUMBER FORTY-THREE. 
 
 Michael Curran, jr., ) Date of Con., Oct. 30th, 1849. 
 
 to V Record, in liber 529, p. 173, 
 
 John Hughes. ) Oct. 30th, 1849. Consid., $1. 
 
 All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the 
 improvements thereon, situate, lying, and being in 
 the 12th Ward of the City of New York: Beginning 
 at the N.E. corner of 5th Avenue and 50th street, 
 and running thence N. along the E. side of 5th Ave¬ 
 nue, 100 feet and 5 inches to a point equi-distant 
 from 50th and 51st streets; thence E. and parallel 
 with 50th street, 100 feet; thence S. and parallel 
 with 5th Avenue, 100 feet and 5 inches to 50th street: 
 thence W. along 50th street, 100 feet, to place of 
 beginning. 
 
 NUMBER FORTY-FOUR. 
 
 Wm. Wood and Edward Wood,) Date of Con., May 
 
 Executors of John Wood, 1, 1S50. Record. 
 
 + n J- in liber 37S, page 
 
 372, June 12th, 
 
 John Hughes. J 1851. Con., $700. 
 
 All that certain piece or parcel of ground, situate, 
 lying, and being in the 4th Ward of the City of New 
 York, in the interior of the block, being in the rear 
 of the building now fronting on James street, called 
 Christ Church, and partly in the rear of an alley or 
 passageway leading along the N. side of the church, 
 bounded as follows : Beginning at a point distant 100 
 feet E. from James street, and 100 feet N. from Madi¬ 
 son street, thence E. parallel with Madison street, 32 
 feet 6 inches, to ground, formerly the Jew’s burying- 
 ground, now belonging to party of 2d part, thence 
 N. parallel with James street, 26 feet 3 inches, to 
 ground late of Robert Brown, thence W. parallel with 
 Madison street 32 feet 6 inches, and thence S. par¬ 
 allel with James street 26 feet 3 inches, to place of 
 beginning. 
 
 NUMBER FORTY-FIVE. 
 
 Thomas Smith and Ann, his wife,' 
 
 of Baltimore, Maryland, Date of Convey., 
 
 Patrick Smith and Mary, his wife, Oct. 8th, 1850. 
 
 of Ohio, and Record, in lib. 
 
 Peter Smith and Ellen, his wife, < 553, page 369, 
 
 of Brooklyn, Oct. 9th, 1850. 
 
 to Con., $5,500. 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 All that certain house and lot of land, situated on 
 west side of Oliver street, in the 4th Ward of City of 
 New York, which said house is now known as No. 23 
 
 in said street, and which said lot is designated as 1 Number. 
 
 lot No. 5, on a map, dated January 13th, 1S32, made 
 by Thomas R. Ludlum, City Surveyor, the said lot 
 being on file in Register’s Office, in the case No. 57, 
 the said lot being more particularly described as fol¬ 
 lows : Beginning in the said west side of Oliver 
 street, aforesaid, at l point at the middle or centre 
 of the brick part of the party wall, which divides the 
 said house from the adjoining house, known as No. 
 25 in said street, said adjoining house being on the 
 lot designated as No. 6, on map aforesaid ; running 
 thence north from said point along west side of Oli¬ 
 ver street, 21 feet 11 inches, to a point in the centre 
 of the brick part of the party wall which divides the 
 said house hereby conveyed from adjoining house 
 known as No. 21 in said street, said house being on 
 lot designated as No. 4 on said map; thence west, in 
 a straight line through the said middle of the said 
 brick part of the said party wall, and the south side 
 of the said lot designated as No. 4,69 feet and 1 inch, 
 to land now or late of Samuel Milbank ; thence south 
 along the said last-mentioned land, 21 feet 11 inches 
 to the adjoining lot first above mentioned; thence 
 east in a straight line along north line of said lot, 
 and passing through the middle or centre of said 
 brick part of party wall first above mentioned, 70 
 feet 1 inch, to place of beginning. 
 
 RECAPITULATION IN PART. 
 
 Conveyances to John Hughes. Lots. Place. 
 
 Trustees St. John’s R. 0. Church 
 
 s 
 
 16th. Ward 
 
 Patrick Doherty. 
 
 1 
 
 117th street 
 
 George Wildes, et. als. 
 
 2 
 
 25th street 
 
 Ebbe Marie. 
 
 3 
 
 6th Ward 
 
 D. D. Field, et. als. 
 
 2 
 
 16th Ward 
 
 Wm. Patton, D. D., et als. 
 
 i 
 
 2d avenue 
 
 B. O’Connor, fr. Trust. Christ Ch. 
 
 6 
 
 James street 
 
 George Cammann, et. als. 
 
 1 
 
 See No. 9 
 
 Andrew Byrne. 
 
 3 
 
 11th Ward 
 
 Andrew Byrne. . 
 
 1 
 
 17th Ward 
 
 Z. Kuntze. 
 
 2 
 
 16th Ward 
 
 Jas. Foster. 
 
 2 
 
 llth Ward 
 
 Sarah Remsen. 
 
 1 
 
 11th Ward 
 
 James Rea. 
 
 1 
 
 14th Ward 
 
 G. IV. Hall... 
 
 6 
 
 14th Ward 
 
 Geo. W. Coster. 
 
 1 
 
 Avenue B 
 
 Mary Ann Gaffney, et. als. 
 
 2 
 
 Madison Av 
 
 Westervelt, Sheriff. 
 
 4 HTth & 118th sts 
 
 R. Klein. 
 
 1 
 
 llth Ward 
 
 Gregory Dillon. 
 
 5 
 
 3d Ward 
 
 Trustees Transfig. Church. 
 
 2 
 
 Chambers St 
 
 Peter Johnson, et. als. 
 
 2 
 
 18th Ward 
 
 Michaei McKeon, et. als. 
 
 2 
 
 9th Ward 
 
 T. E. Davis, et. als. 
 
 1 
 
 12th Ward 
 
 Jas. R. Bayley. 
 
 1 
 
 Lease 
 
 Thomas Lennon. 
 
 4 
 
 19th street 
 
 H. Grinnell. 
 
 4 
 
 14th street 
 
 G. W. Lawrence. 
 
 6 
 
 12th Ward 
 
 S. Newby, et. als. 
 
 4 
 
 42d street 
 
 Thomas Farrell. 
 
 2 
 
 13th Ward 
 
 Wm. H. De Groot. . 
 
 2 
 
 4th Av 
 
 D. Cummings, et. als. 
 
 1 
 
 Mott St 
 
 Zion’s Church. 
 
 1 
 
 6th Ward 
 
 Henry Hayward, et. als. 
 
 4 
 
 ISth Ward 
 
 Walson B. Prentiss. 
 
 1 
 
 llth Ward 
 
 Charles Toal, et. als. 
 
 1 
 
 4th Ward 
 
 Walter Flynn, et. als. 
 
 2 
 
 9th av& 25th st 
 
 Jas. D. Oliver, et. als. 
 
 1 
 
 19th street 
 
 Stephen C. Burdett. 
 
 2 
 
 18th Ward 
 
 Edward C. Richards. 
 
 1 
 
 3d Avenue 
 
 Thomas Smith, et. als. 
 
 1 
 
 4th Ward 
 
 Abner Benedict, et. als. 
 
 6 
 
 16th Ward 
 
 Michael Curran, jr. 
 
 1 
 
 sqrel2th Ward 
 
 Wm. Wood, et. als. 
 
 1 
 
 4th Ward 
 
 101 
 
 4 
 
54 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 I am now, Messrs. Editors, in the condition of one who has been an expected heir to a 
 lar'm fortune, from a rich citizen, the expectancy being founded upon conditions on my 
 part, and promises on his. The conditions imposed upon me were three in number (both 
 agreeing, at the start, that the fortune should go to found a Public Library.) 
 
 First.—that I would prove the promised donor to be the rich citizen I had previously 
 declared him to be. 
 
 Secondly,—that I would show that he had received conveyances of Property from 
 Trustees. And 
 
 Finally,—that I would prove this rich citizen,—meaning Archbishop Hughes, all the 
 time,—had a great fortune in this city. 
 
 The promise was that if I proved all this, the city of our common residence should 
 have a public edifice to be called “ The Erastus Brooks Library.” 
 
 My records to day and before give good evidence that I have offered good proof as to 
 the first, second, and third of my propositions. The only doubt there can be is as to 
 the second, and I therefore put the Archbishop’s statements and my facts side by 
 side: 
 
 STATEMENT. 
 
 <c I have always denied that I ever asked, sought, 
 received, or accepted any property from lay trus¬ 
 tees. This denial I repeat to-day with increased 
 emphasis.—[5th letter of John Hughes. 
 
 “ I have never received or accepted any transfer 
 of any property whatever from Trustees.”—[1st let¬ 
 ter of John Hughes. 
 
 FACT. 
 
 “Trustees of St. John’s Roman Catholic Church 
 to 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 Lease 999 years—consideration one cent a year— 
 liber 451—page 249—July 20, 1844.” 
 
 “ Trustees of the Transfiguration Church to 
 John Hughes.” Liber 591, p. 26S. 
 
 “ Bartholomew O’Connor,” Assignee of a Board 
 of Trustees, to John Hughes. 
 
 And now, where are the promises of the Archbishop ? Where is the Public Library ? 
 What is to become of the People’s interest in this controversy, and which, in order 
 that I might win an Institution for them, was with me the grand motive, for prosecuting 
 it in so much detail, and at so much length. 
 
 Encouraged by the hope of seeing this Public Library established, I have resorted, first 
 to the Books, to see what is meant by Property, and finding it to mean “ownership,” “pos¬ 
 session in one’s own right,” “that to which a person has a legal title, whether in his 
 possession or not," an estate, whether in lauds, goods, or money,” I have investi¬ 
 gated the case on this basis, and claim the reward. 
 
 But have I proved my case? Fortunately the Depository of the Records of Private 
 Property—in order that every man owning an estate may record and show his claim,— 
 is open for public inspection. I have resorted to the office of the Sworn Register of the 
 City, and among the Deeds and Conveyances, I find, in the first place, a large number of 
 Conveyances of valuable Property to John Hughes, his heirs and assignees. They 
 include all kinds of Property, ecclesiastical and secular. So far all is well. 
 
 I look further and find a lease for 999 years, consideration one cent a year, from 
 the Trustees of St. John’s Roman Catholic Church. This lease I had called “ Property,” 
 because law and custom so described it. I look further, and I find a conveyance “ from 
 the Trustees of Transfiguration Church ” to the same John Hughes, and if I could be 
 mistaken about the fact, that a 999 years lease, at one cent a year, is Property, I am no 
 longer in error, for here is no limitation of time. Pursuing my investigation. 1 also 
 find a conveyance from one Bartholomew O’Connor, who is .acknowledged to be the 
 Assignee of a “ Board of trustees,” to John Hughes. 
 
 And I might enumerate almost without limit. But cui lotto l I claim that the Arch¬ 
 bishop shall make good his promise. I demand, for the people of the city, the Public 
 Library. If the Archbishop will not trust me, I renew the offer to leave the case out to 
 Arbitration. 
 
 I propose again that John Hughes shall name one person, I a second, and the two 
 selected, shall elect a third, to decide, not so much upon this question of veracity between 
 us,—for that is a matter more personal than public,—but what is more important, whether 
 I, upon the record, have not made out a good claim to that Public Library promised, upon 
 certain conditions specified, in the Archbishop’s first letter. I rely upon the record and 
 the fact. I know no distinction between John Hughes, and f John Hughes, Archbishop. 
 The record is of Property, which he claims and acknowledges to be his, or which is in his 
 own name, and that of his heirs and assigns. It is his to give away, will away, sell 
 away, and dispose of as he pleases. The following record of a conveyance from him to 
 others, will show that he is as prompt to sell as to buy :— 
 
 DEED MADE THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY, 1865. 
 
 JOHN HUGHES 
 
 TO 
 
 HARLEM RAILROAD COMPANY. 
 
 Consideration of $46,000. 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 55 
 
 All those certain lots, pieces, or parcels of land, situated, lying, and being in the ISth Ward of the city of 
 New York, on the easterly side of Madison avenue, and the southerly side of 27th street. 
 
 Recorded April 2d, 1853, in liber 616, p. 640. 
 
 If this, which was Church Property, was “ the property of God,” how could John Hughes 
 sell it ? If it was not his own property, how could he deed it away in fee to others ? 
 Would not the Harlem Railroad Company do well to look to the validity of a title re¬ 
 ceived from a man who sells “ the property of God,” and conveys away property which 
 he declares he does not own ? 
 
 Yours respectfully, for to-day, 
 
 ERASTUS BROOKS. 
 
 New York, May 2d, 1855. 
 
 
 A CARD TO THE PUBLIC. 
 
 The citizens of New York and of the United States must have seen, and the decent por¬ 
 tion of them must have regretted, the progress of what seems to be a controversy between 
 the undersigned and Mr. Erastus Brooks, Senator of the State of New York. The point 
 involved is a point of veracity, in which Senator Brooks is responsibly charged with false¬ 
 hood. Although the case would warrant it, the charge has not been extended to a more 
 degrading term. The undersigned, although not born in this country, is far from being 
 insensible or indifferent to the necessity of maintaining an honorable character for those 
 who represent its high functions in the Legislature, the Judiciary, or the Executive. And 
 it is no pleasure to him, but directly the reverse, that Senator Brooks has placed it in his 
 power and made it an obligation for him to prove as he is quite prepared to do, that he, 
 the said Senator Brooks, is a man of falsehood. 
 
 All this shall appear in less than ten days from the date of this card. 
 
 In the meantime the undersigned feels humbled at the necessity of saying or writing 
 anything which should bring infamy or disgrace upon his country, even though the false¬ 
 hoods of a person like Senator Brooks should be the immediate occasion of it. 
 
 The physical and material powers of the United States are becoming more and more re¬ 
 cognized, from day to day, by the civilized nations of the world. Unfortunately, the 
 moral attributes of our progressive greatness are, in the estimation of the same nations, 
 sinking from day to day. And what with the unfavorable portion that is perhaps true in 
 this unsettled account, and the prejudices of foreign nations who are unprepared to 
 believe any favorable report in our regard, the probability is that, whether we like it or 
 not, our course in the esteem of the civilized world has at this moment a rather down¬ 
 ward tendency. 
 
 The undersigned is but a cypher, yet he feels an interest in the reputation, and honor, 
 and prosperity, and progress of the United States, which makes it a very painful duty for 
 him to charge any one who has officiated as a Senator of the country at large, or of a 
 particular State, with falsehood. 
 
 But under present circumstances there is no alternative. He charges Senator Brooks 
 with multiplied and deliberate falsehoods, and he only solicits from the right-mindedness 
 and patience of the American public a suspension of judgment for ten days. 
 
 In the meantime it would be unbecoming and perfectly disgusting to the eye if foreign 
 journalists and his countrymen at home, as well as humiliating and painful to his own 
 feelings, to see and read in the American journals that a Roman Catholic Archbishop, 
 who claims to be an American, and who, if he is not an American, has no right or claim 
 on any other country in the world, should appear an accuser of an American Senator, 
 whose place of nativity is unquestioned,—charging upon the same Senator falsehoods 
 deliberately and repeatedly uttered. This is the issue to which Mr. Erastus Brooks has 
 urged and brought me. I meet it. And whilst I would shield as much as possible the 
 dignity of character which is implied by the word Senator, I hope that the justice of 
 American public opinion will give me full liberty to repel and expose the falsehoods of the 
 man called Erastus Brooks. I appeal with entire confidence to the patience as well as 
 justice of that American public opinion—which has never disappointed me in matters of 
 truth and justice—for a suspense of ten days or two weeks. 
 
 f JOHN, Archbishop op New York. 
 
 New Yoke, May 3d 1S55. 
 
56 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 THE ARCHBISHOP HIMSELF AGAIN. 
 
 To the Editors of the jXew York Courier and Enquirer: 
 
 The Archbishop is not content to leave the “ wretched and vile insect,” “ Senator 
 Brooks,” where he thrust him in his letter of Wednesday last—“outside of the nearest 
 open sash of a window.” As I expected, I am again “ worthy of the notice ” of the 
 Archbishop. I am recalled to his closet to be blessed again with such amiable epithets as 
 “ falsehood,” “deliberate falsehoods,” repeated, and even duplicated six times, in seven 
 brief paragraphs. 
 
 All this has been said so many times, and in so many ways and forms of phrase, that 
 the Archbishop seems to be apprehensive that the public will forget the harsh names he 
 has called me. I admit that he has called me all these things, and that the public may 
 not forget them, I intend to have them stereotyped. I admit their high, official origin— 
 “ f John, Archbishop of New York.” I have recorded their frequency by quotation, and 
 by the republication of all the Archbishop's epistles—but I have not been so impressed 
 with their appropriateness, coming from one who so recently formally proclaimed that he 
 was “ invested with an office in the Church of God, which assimilated to that of his 
 Divine Master, who had not whereon to lay his head.” 
 
 It is more than three weeks since the Archbishop addressed his first contemptuous letter 
 to me—because of a paragraph in my speech of the 6th of March last, wherein I ventured 
 to “ suppose ”—that was the word, sir—that “ the value of the amount of property held 
 by John Hughes in this city was worth not much short of five millions of dollars ”—and 
 wherein I stated, as proofs in part, that “ a friend of mine ” had copied fifty-eight 
 entries of as many distinct parcels of property held in this name.” I was careful of my 
 statement, and of my authority, who in this case, was a city lawyer, in good standing, a 
 member of a Christian Church, and a gentleman. It was his copies of “ the number, 
 book, and page ” of the Register’s office that I exhibited, as stated in my speech to the 
 Senate, along with a huge volume, rare with American readers, but familiar to you, I 
 suppose, entitled “ Corpus Juris Canonici Academicum,” and a book, equally rare among 
 Protestants, known as the “Pontificale Romanum,” from both of which I may have some¬ 
 thing to read to the public by and by. 
 
 How I could be justly charged with falsehood for a supposition of fact as to your 
 wealth, founded upon such a record, passed my dull comprehension. If I should suppose 
 William B. Astor worth $10,000,000, and his property, in value, should turn out to be 
 even greatly less, I could hardly be called, by a Christian or a gentleman, a liar. If I 
 should state the authority and reason for that supposition, an intelligent and honest pub¬ 
 lic or person would hardly see the justice for reiterating, from day to day, and from 
 week to week—all the time without auy proof to the contrary of the supposed fact—the 
 cry of “falsehood.” 
 
 But, as three weeks have not afforded time enough to prove that “ Senator Brooks is a 
 man of falsehood,” the Archbishop now, in “A Card to the Public,” desires “the citizens 
 of New York and of the United States,” to suspend their judgment for “ ten days or two 
 weeks longer” By all means. As many days or weeks as you please. Confined to my 
 room and bed for some days past, by an illness contracted in Albany, I shall be better 
 able to meet you then than now, though God giving me strength, I am ready now, to meet 
 you step by step, and day by day, as long as you please. 
 
 I have two or three letters more in preparation as to your property, and practices in 
 regard to it, in and out of the city, which, as convenience may suit me, I may or may 
 not publish in advance of your promised concentrated labor of “ ten days or two weeks ” 
 against me. 
 
 I am, for to-day, very respectfully yours, 
 
 ERASTUS BROOKS. 
 
 New Yoke, May 4, 1S55. 
 
 THE “SINKING CONDITION OF OUR COUNTRY ”—THE PROPERTY IN 
 CALVARY CEMETERY", &c., &c. 
 
 To the Editors of the JX. Y. Courier and Enquirer : 
 
 The following are the texts of the Archbishop's “ Card to the Public :” 
 
 “ Unfortunately the moral attributes of our progressive greatness are, in the estimation of the civilized 
 nations of the world, sinking from day to day.” * * * “ Whether we like it or not, our course in 
 
 the esteem of the civilized world has at this moment a rather downward tendency. 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 
 
 57 
 
 “The undersigned, although not born in this country, is far from being insensible or indifferent to the 
 necessity of maintaining an honorable character for those who represent its high functions in the Legislature, 
 the Judiciary or the Executive.” 
 
 The American public ought to appreciate the zeal of a high official personage not born 
 in this country, but who has grown rich and powerful in it, who thus undertakes to de¬ 
 grade it in the eyes of “ the civilized world." If the United States is “ sinking from day to 
 day,” and if our government has “ that downward tendency ” so much deplored, the best 
 thing the Archbishop can do is to shake the American dust from his feet and leave this 
 land for the country where he was born, and which perhaps can better appreciate him than 
 America. 
 
 “ True Patriots they, who be it understood, 
 
 Leave their country, for their country’s good.” 
 
 It is you, “ f John, Archbishop of the Province of New York,” who have recently given 
 us poor, “sinking,” “downward-tending” Americans some dim idea of Imperial Rome 
 which you have pictured as so “ splendid that none ought to attempt to describe it.” The 
 greatest ruin there I know is the ruin of the national character. But I know, also, that it 
 is very beautiful, and that you have passed a delightful winter there, while so many 
 thousands of your flock have been fed or clothed, or fed and clothed, from the charity of 
 the nation at large, whose good name you abuse, and the calumnies upon which you 
 reiterate in your Card to the Public. With almost equal assumption in your controversy 
 in regard to the Bible in our Common Schools you said as Bishop Hughes, “We come 
 here denied of our rights." Then as now you held your commission from Rome,—from 
 the Crowned Ruler of the States of the Church, and not from the country which, if it is 
 in any sense going “ morally downward,” has sunk by the influence and power of such 
 foreign-born men as yourself and your coadjutors. If this great city of the new world, or 
 this free land of ours, has not ample room and verge enough for you, do not abuse us any 
 more, but take your leave peaceably and in good temper. The Vatican is the largest 
 palace in Europe, and in the 4,420 halls and galleries, filled with ancient and modern art, 
 there must be a welcome for an Archbishop flying from this sinking land. The Church of 
 St. Peter tells its own history, in the fact that it cost .3160,000,000, and was 111 years in 
 building. Your mind must be dwelling upon St. John’s of Lateran, where Cardinals who 
 would be Popes, and Bishops who would be Cardinals, witness the regal ceremonies of the 
 Pontiff s coronation. The score and a half of your churches here, in a city of more than 
 three times the population of Rome, are counted there by hundreds, with monasteries, 
 gardens, squares and palaces, almost without number. It must have been in anticipation 
 of enjoying such a residence, or possessing such dominion as this, that you have ventured 
 to speak of our sinking character and of our moral degeneracy. 
 
 But all this has more reference to yourself than it has been the object of my letters to 
 occupy space with. When you speak of me, whether as editor, man, senator or otherwise, 
 I smile at your anger. Your epithets, frequent and foul as they are, have left neither 
 remembrance nor sting, beyond the regret that the Archbishop of an entire diocese, and 
 the head of scores of Churches,—filled, many of them, I doubt not, with devout worship¬ 
 pers,—should have made use of them. When, however, you publish at home the evil 
 opinions of “ the civilized world ” towards the United States, and send them officially as 
 cards to the public, I feel that your have grown proud and arrogant in the country where 
 you have been elevated to the highest position in the Roman Catholic Church of America. 
 Learn to speak well of the bridge that has given you a safe passage. 
 
 If, however, it be true that we have been arrested as a nation in “ the moral attributes 
 of our progressive greatness,” I think the cause is to be found in the elevation of men who 
 deem it not undignified to use the highest church office and its symbol of humility for the 
 purposes which have characterized your correspondence. When an Archbishop conde¬ 
 scends to charge me with numberless falsehoods, in numberless times and ways, and adds 
 to such epithets, others equally vulgar and personal, there is indeed sad evidence of moral 
 degradation. 
 
 But it is for deeds not words, for acts more than language that you are addressed in a 
 correspondence begun by yourself. 
 
 In Spain and Italy, as in most other countries where the supremacy of the Papal See is 
 recognized, they refuse the customary rites of burial to the dead, if the deceased are. 
 Protestants. There is not only a denial of all religious ceremonies over the bodies of 
 Protestants when dead, but a cruel interdiction of religious services even for the sick and 
 dying, as well as for those who are living and in health. In Madrid, the other day, a 
 Protestant minister, with a small, peaceably assembled congregation, was brutally out¬ 
 raged for daring to engage in divine worship. In some parts of Italy out of reach and 
 view of what is called consecrated ground, the dead, rather by stealth than by right, are 
 allowed to be entombed, but rarely with any of those attentions which are due to the 
 
58 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 memory of the dead, and which afford so much consolation and satisfaction to the living. 
 The recent treatment of the Madai family in Italy illustrates the feeling of European 
 Catholics towards Protestants there, and the following extract shows the spirit of one of 
 their leading presses here towards Protestanism throughout the civilized world : 
 
 “ For our own part, we take this opportunity to explain our hearty delight at the suppression of the 
 Protestant chapel in Rome, This may be thought intolerant, but when, we ask, did we ever profess to be 
 tolerant of Protestanism, or to favor the question that Protestantism ought to be tolerated ? On the contrary 
 we hate Protestanism—we detest it with our whole heart and soul, and we pray our aversion to it may never 
 decrease.”—[Pittsburgh Catholic Visitor, 1S48. 
 
 In this country the Roman Catholics are protected in their Archbishops and Bishops, 
 their Priests and Convents, their Churches and Property, and in every form and ceremony 
 of their faith. They are allowed their own burial places, permitted to consecrate them, 
 and to regard all other places of interment as unsanctified or accursed. But in this city they 
 have privileges granted to no other denomination. Of this I complain, as I did in a 
 recent letter, of the gift to them, without any consideration whatever, of the valuable City 
 Property (thirty-two-lots of ground) between Fifty and Fifty-first streets, while a Pro¬ 
 testant Benevolent Association were denied their prayer of relief, and charged by the same 
 City Government $28,000 for a much smaller tract of land in the immediate neighborhood. 
 
 PARTICULARS AS TO CALVARY CEMETERY. 
 
 CONTROLLED BT ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. 
 
 This Cemetry ground covers eighty acres, cost $18,000, and is situated in Newtown, 
 Queen’s County, Long Island. The Archbishop who regulates not only the religious affairs 
 of men before they die, but the price and place of burial when dead, in the form of grave 
 fees, tomb-stone fees, fees for re-opening graves, Ac., &c., has established the following 
 rates:— 
 
 Price of graves 3 feet wide and 7 long, -------- $T 
 
 Right to erect a tomb-stone, - ... - - - - - - - $io 
 
 Cost by acre, at $13,000, ------- $225 
 
 Cost as sold per order John Hughes, at $14 a grave, $30,000 ! 
 
 Cost of whole at this rate, --------- $2,400,000!! 
 
 Deduct 50 per cent, for gifts, excess, &c., - $1,200,000!!' 
 
 The people of New York will see the justice of the complaint that the Dead, when of 
 the poorer class, and of those unable to pay anything by themselves or by friends, are 
 buried like dogs in trenches, four or six bodies one upon another. Those who have seen 
 the horrible spectacles of burying the dead at Naples, or at the Campos Santos, near 
 Havana, can realize the cruel inhumanity of such interments here. The expenses of new 
 ground and tomb stones, even among a class with means to secure a respectable burial, 
 often lead to the interment of more than one body in one grave. 
 
 The Germans, in 1840, bought a piece of land in the same town of Newtown, as a Burial 
 Place for their own people, in order to escape the impositions practised by the Archbishop 
 in the Calvary Cemetery. They began to bury their dead there, feeling that they had 
 the right even as Catholics to commit their friends to the earth which they had purchased 
 with their money, and consecrated in their hearts. But the Archbishop was resolved to 
 prove himself both-their master in temporal as well as spiritual matters. He refused to 
 consecrate the ground thus bought, and the Germans were compelled to abandon it as a 
 place of rest for their dead. Hence, the value of this consecrated property, at Calvary, 
 nominally under the title or name of “ The Trustees of St. Patrick’s Cathedral,” but in 
 reality, the Archbishop’s own property. Hence, too, the reason for crowding the poor in 
 trenches, four and six deep, and which led to the complaint to the Board of Health, to a 
 petition from the people to the Legislature for the enactment of a law to restrain such 
 modes of interment. I now wish to know of the Archbishop, if, in his own case, the 
 ordinances of the corporation have been complied with, in regarjj to the Burial of the 
 Dead. I wish to know if the City Inspector has “ granted permits for the removal of the 
 bodies of deceased persons from the city,” to the Archbishop’s burial ground, as is 
 required from all sextons and churches. I wish to know if the 9th aud 11th sections of 
 the City Ordinance, of April 23d, 1839 (amended June 2d. 1842), have been complied 
 with in regard to Calvary Cemetery, and whether dead bodies have not been conveyed 
 out of the city 11 without having first received a certificate, stating the name, apparent 
 age, birth-place, date and place of death, and the disease he or she shall have died of, 
 signed by the attending physician, or in case no physician shall have attended such 
 deceased person, then by some of the family of the deceased ; or, in case of au inquest hav¬ 
 ing been held, by the Coroner, which certificate shall be deposited with the return in the 
 office of the City Inspector.” 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 59 
 
 Has the Archbishop anil his responsible subordinates conformed to this ordinance? Are 
 they exempted from paying the $250 imposed upon others for each and every violation of 
 this just local law? In one Sabbath last summer, I am told, there were 236 Roman 
 Catholic funerals from this city. The dead were iuterred on Long Island, in the Arch¬ 
 bishop’s Cemetery, and the receipts for the benefit of the owner of this property were 
 large in proportion to the number of funerals. I have been told, too, and from those who 
 ought to know, that the sums received have been, upon some such occasions, as the one I 
 have named, two or three thousand dollars a day. 
 
 One-third of all the persons who dee in the city are buried in the Arch¬ 
 bishop’s Cemetery. It is unlawful and against the discipline of the Archbishop to bury 
 anywhere else. About eight thousand bodies were buried from this city in this 
 cemetery last year. During the month of August, 1854, there were twenty-two 
 hundred interments, of which I have a record before me. From January 6th, to April 
 28th, of the present year—sixteen weeks—there were 2,643, varying from 144 to 188 each 
 week. 
 
 To return to the City Ordinances for a moment, I wish to know if the ordinance I have 
 quoted, has not been set aside, even when some of its provisions have been compulsory, 
 through neglect, evasion, or otherwise, on the part of those conducting the funerals to 
 Calvary Cemetery? Under the ordinance of 1839, every Sexton in this city has to apply 
 to the City Inspector for burial permits, and all this being merely inconvenient for the 
 extensive business of the Archbishop, an amendment or exemption from the law was 
 passed August 3, 1848, as follows :— 
 
 “ Amendment to ordinance entitled, ‘ Of the Interment of the Dead,’ passed April 23, 1839, by adding— 
 
 “ Section 12. ‘ It shall be the duty of the City Inspector to grant a general permit to the Sexton of 
 Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, for the Removal of Dead Bodies to be interred in the new Roman 
 Catholic Cemetery, in Newtown, Long Island, provided that the said Sexton comply with the ninth section 
 of this chapter, and all captains, agents, or other persons attached to any steamboat, ferry-boat, sailing or 
 other vessel, or to any stage, railroad, or other conveyance, shall convey said dead bodies to be interred 
 “ upon the Certificate of the said Sexton.” ’ ” 
 
 Here is a special city ordinance, granting a general permit, in favor of Archbishop 
 Hughes and his cemetry, the earth of which he disposes of at the enormous profit I have 
 named. When the Archbishop buys land, houses and other Property, it is made over to 
 him, his heirs and assignees for all time, but when he disposes of Property in his cemetry, 
 he only gives an acknowledgement of so much money received. He demands a deed in 
 the one case, and places it upon record, according to law. He gives a mere receipt in 
 the other case, and the man who possesses it feels no certain assurance, that what he has 
 paid for is his own. The loss of a receipt is a loss of title. New York Roman Catholics have 
 complained of this to me, both in Albany ai.d at home, and of the ruling of the Archbishop 
 in this matter as a most selfish and unjustifiable proceeding. A receipt for money paid for 
 land may be lost, whereas a deed and conveyance can be placed beyond all such accidents. 
 Some of the Calvary lots, 16 by 16, are sold for $200, and 8 by 8, for $150, and in pro¬ 
 portion for smaller lots. 
 
 But once more, while upon this ordinance, let me ask,—why should Roman Catholics or 
 the Archbishop’s Sexton be exempted from labors imposed upon other Sects and Sextons. 
 If others are required to secure “ Permits ” of burial from the City Inspector, why 
 should not he and they. The City Ordinance was passed not only to secure order and 
 regularity in regard to the burial of the dead, but to enable the City Coroners and others 
 to investigate the causes of death. One may die the victim of a riot, or foul play, or be 
 put out of the way by some summary means to gratify the vengeance or passion of an 
 enemy. All that is necessary is for the Sexton to secure a nurse’s or physician’s certificate 
 of death, and to return a general record of deaths to the City Inspector at the end of a 
 week. The thousands who die in this City, and who are interred at Calvary Cemetry, are 
 placed beyond the reach of Coroners, and in a measure beyond the reach of our entire 
 City authorities. The partial exemption is unjust to others, unsafe in itself, and ought 
 to be removed by the repeal of the Act of 1848. 
 
 The wrongs perpetrated by the Archbishop in regard to the Calvary Cemetry Property, 
 and which so many Roman Catholics complain of, those who believe in the spiritual power 
 of the Archbishop, but not in his temporal power, ought to reform, as friends of the dead 
 and of justice between man and man. 
 
 It ought to shock the moral sense of every Roman Catholic,—as it does that of 
 almost every other man in the community,—to see an Archbishop engaged, through 
 his subordinates, and for his own benefit, in the business of selling graves and lots in a 
 grave-yard, — receiving all prices, from two hundred dollars down, according to the 
 place used or the size of the lot. 
 
 Is it not bad enough to rob the poor of their tithes and offerings when alive, without 
 following them, through their friends, to the very grave when dead ? 
 
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 60 
 
 It is impossible to name the sums received per annum by the Archbishop for the 
 burials at Calvary Cemetry. The lowest sum I have heard is an average of five dollars 
 for each interment, and eight thousand interments, at five dollars each, amounts to forty 
 thousand dollars a year! I suppose it to be more. Many of the very poor are buried 
 at small cost, or without cost, and buried like dogs in pits, as at Naples and Havana, but 
 then the rich pay for the luxury of riches, at the rate of $200, to possess not a deed of 
 the land they pay for, but merely for holding a receipt of the money they paid. 
 
 As the Archbishop compels all Roman Catholics of the city to be buried in a prescribed 
 place—refusing peremptorily to consecrate any other—so, like a true monopolist, as he is, 
 he commands his own price and terms for lots, land fees, headstone fees, &c., Ac. 
 
 That I may do him and his no wrong in this matter. I furnish the following letter in this 
 connection, sent to me by a responsible person, in business in the city, who is a Roman 
 Catholic, and telling its own story. 
 
 LETTER TO MR. BROOKS. 
 
 “I have for some time been at a loss to discover wherein lies the blame of much of the evil incident to our 
 lives as Roman Catholics—whether it is to be attributed to the Bishop or to the Priests. Inquiry of my friends 
 has not enlightened me, but from facts such as follow, the public, as well as myself, can judge. 
 
 “ Recently, it was my misfortune to lose my father, and, by request of my surviving parent, I was induced 
 to call upon the ‘ Canal Street Jesuits,* whom I politely invited to perform the last act of earthly respect over 
 the body of the dear deceased, in accordance with the ritual of the Roman Catholic Church. In making appli¬ 
 cation, I was first asked : ‘ Where are you going to bury your father?’ I replied, 1 In the family lot in Green¬ 
 wood, where lie other members of the family.’ The priests then positively refused, saying that it was 
 contrary to their rules, and that + John Hughes had forbidden them to go to any funeral except where the 
 body should be buried in the Catholic Cemetery, in Williamsburg. I then told them that I would call upon 
 the minister of another creed, to which I got answer that, if I did so, the whole population of New York would 
 blame my family for ever. They also advised me to bury my father secretly. Knowing that the priests had 
 no power to disgrace me or mine, I went to a Protestant minister, (Mr. Verien, of Franklin street), since which 
 time, the Canal street gentlemen have been at much pains relative to the character of my family, and have 
 gone so far as to refuse to offer up ‘ mass for the dead,’ as is customary, saying that they ‘ pray alone for those 
 buried at the Williamsburg Catholic Cemetery.’ Their anger has even descended to my niece, a girl fifteen 
 years of age, who, according to custom with R. C.’s, went to communion at Easter. At her confession to the 
 Jesuit, he recognizing her, and, though having naught against the child to prevent her from communing, 
 asked her if she had eaten meat during Lent. The girl, in her innocence, told the truth, saying : ‘Yes, father;’ 
 
 upon which he told her to 1 Go away; you will go to h--with all your family; and I pity you, my poor child, 
 
 to belong to the family of M-S-.’ 
 
 “ The above statement of facts I send you, that the public may judge of some of the doings of John Hughes, 
 relative to the dead, for the benefit of his temporalities. ** **.” 
 
 The Archbishop is also the controling power of the Roman Catholic burial place in 11th 
 street, where large fees are had for interment. 
 
 On 123d and 124th streets, there is a burial ground covering eight lots, belonging to 
 the Church of St. John the Baptist, built on 30th street. The owners were Gprmans. They 
 built a church and selected a suitable place for the burial of their dead. For some time, 
 without restraint from the Archbishop or others, they were permitted to inter the members 
 of their congregation in these grounds, which were sacred both to the memory of the 
 dead and to their friends. The Archbishop interposed, aud prohibited the use of the 
 grounds for this purpose. The congregation, in a spirit of German independence, con¬ 
 tinued to bury their dead there, nothwithstanding the prohibition of the Archbishop. It 
 was then announced by authority from the pulpit, that burial services would not be 
 permitted there any longer. Still the congregation persisted in exercising their rights as 
 men, and in discharging their duty to the dead. For a time the dead were buried without 
 the usual funeral cei^monies or services. The Archbishop in the exercise of his high¬ 
 handed power, then took the Priest from the congregation, and, as a consequence, the 
 Church had to be closed, and was closed for some time. Submission to the Archbishop, or 
 the denial of a Pastor, was the only alternative, and tyranny in the end prevailed over 
 right, but not without protests and heartburnings which are still felt as an exercise of 
 Priestly power against general justice. 
 
 It may be said, perhaps, of Calvary Cemetery, that as it is not within the limits of New 
 York City, it is not Property owned by the Archbishop in the city. But I am dealing 
 with a Principle now, and not a quibble, nor a technicality. It is unworthy of an Arch¬ 
 bishop to attempt to escape after the manner of his previous epistles. The dead referred 
 to died in the city. The friends of the dead live in the city. The money for the Arch¬ 
 bishop’s land is supplied in the city, where also the Archbishop lives, and where he 
 receives the money for the land sold by his agent, and at his bidding. What the value 
 of this land is, from which so many thousands of dollars are annually received, the 
 Archbishop cau inform the public by opening his books for their inspection. It is fair, 
 however, to judge the value from the monopoly and profit. 
 
 Very respectfully, for to-day. 
 
 ERASTUS BROOKS. 
 
 Nzw York, May 7th, 1S55. 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. Cl 
 
 PROPERTY IN BROOKLYN.—THE CONVEYANCES TO AND FROM 
 
 JOHN HUGHES. 
 
 To the Editors of the Courier and Enquirer : 
 
 Under date of April 21,1 find a letter to me signed “ f John, Archbishop of New York,” 
 which contains this statement: 
 
 “ I may tell him (Mr. Brooks) that all church property in the dioceses of Brooklyn, Albany, ancl Buffalo , 
 
 BELONG TO THE CATHOLIC PEOPLE OF EACH.” 
 
 Now, so far as Brooklyn is concerned, this statement is not correct, and the Archbishop 
 ought to have known it. Every man of sound mind must certainly know the truth or 
 falsity of every statement, which he makes upon his own responsibility. Therefore, every 
 person who misstates or perverts a known truth, especially when charging another with 
 falsehood, does that which the Archbishop has done in his controversy with me.. 
 
 A cursory examination of the records in the Register’s office in King’s County, shows 
 that the following conveyances have been made to John Hughes: 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 Nicholas Luauer and Sarah L., his wife, to Right Rev. 
 John Hughes of the city of New York. Deed 
 dated 1st Oct., 1851. Recorded in liber 275, page 
 3. Consideration, $2,500. 
 
 Conveys five lots of ground on the northerly side 
 of Luquer street, 6th Ward, Brooklyn. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 Charles Constantine Pise, pastor of the Roman 
 Catholic Church of St. Charles Borromeo, to the 
 Most Reverend John Hughes, Catholic Archbishop 
 of New York. Deed dated 6th March, 1852. Re¬ 
 corded liber 274, page 210. Consideration, $1. 
 
 Conveys brick dwelling and lot of ground south¬ 
 easterly corner of Sidney place and Livingston 
 street. Lot 27 by 105 feet. 
 
 No. 3. 
 
 Francis Weeks and Ellen J., his wife, to Most Rev. 
 John Hughes, Archbishop of New York. Deed 
 dated 20th June, 1851. Recorded liber 250, page 
 88. Consideration, $2,800. 
 
 Conveys eight lots of ground, 9th Ward, Brooklyn? 
 known as Nos. 13S, 139,140,141,142,143, 144 and 
 145, on map of land formerly belonging to Cornelius 
 Yan Cleef. 
 
 No. 4. 
 
 William T. Dugan and Eliza, his wife, to Most Rev. 
 John Hughes, Archbishop of New York. Deed 
 dated 20th of June, 1851. Rec. lib. 250, page 91. 
 Consideration, $2,800. 
 
 Conveys eight lots, 9th Ward, known as Nos. 146, 
 147, 148, 149, 150,151,152 and 153, on same map. 
 
 No. 5. 
 
 Isaac Allen and Charity, his wife, to Most Rev. John 
 Hughes, Archbishop of New York. Deed dated 
 May 16th, 1851. Rec. lib. 246, page 339. Consid¬ 
 eration, $2,500. 
 
 Conveys lot 40 feet by 100 feet, on the east side of 
 Jay street, 4th Ward. [A large brick building, called 
 “ St. James’ School,” has recently been erected on 
 this lot.] 
 
 No. 6. 
 
 Smith W. Anderson and wife, and Aaron Clark, to 
 the Most Rev. John Hughes, Archbishop of New 
 York. Deed dated Oct. 12th, 1S50. Rec. lib. 228, 
 page 44. Consideration, $40. 
 
 Conveys a small strip of land in 8th Ward. 
 
 No. 7. 
 
 Sylvester Malone (Rev.) to John Hughes, of New 
 York. Deed dated Sept. 8th, 1S50. Rec. lib. 226, 
 page 47S. Consideration, $1. 
 
 Conveys lot, with three story brick dwellingthere- 
 on, southerly side of South Third street, between 
 Second and Third streets. Lot 25 feet by 75 feet. 
 
 No. 8. 
 
 Rev. Edward Briardy, to the Most Rev. John Hughes, 
 Bishop of New York. Deed dated June 5th, 1S50. 
 Rec. lib. 220, page SI. Consideration, $1. 
 
 Conveys five lots of ground in the town of New 
 Utrecht, and on which a church has been erected. 
 
 No. 9. 
 
 Same to Same. Deed dated 5th June, 1850. Rec. 
 lib. 220, page 84. Consideration, $1. 
 
 Conveys section of land with church, situate in 
 Flatbush. 
 
 Dan. H. Arnold and wife, and others, to the Right 
 Rev. John Hughes, of New York. Deed dated 1st 
 Dec., 1849. Rec. lib. 209, page 58. Consideration, 
 $ 10 , 000 . 
 
 Conveys three lots and church, easterly side of 
 Sidney Place, between State and Livingston. 
 
 No. 10. 
 
 James Duffy and wife, to the Right Rev. John Hughes, 
 Bishop of New York. Deed recorded lib. 200, 
 page 464. Consideration, $2,700. 
 
 Conveys a piece of land at Flatbush, containing 
 17 acres, 2 rods, and 5 perches of land. 
 
 No. 11. 
 
 Rev. Charles Smith, to John Hughes, the Right Rev. 
 Bishop of New York. Deed dated Nov. 184S. Rec. 
 lib. 194, page 149. Consideration, $1. 
 
 Conveys lot westerly side of Jay street—No. 367 
 Lands Map. 
 
 No. 12. 
 
 Same to same. Deed dated Nov., 1848. Rec. lib. 
 194, page 150. Consideration, $1,500. 
 
 Conveys lot westerly side of Jay street—No. 369 
 Lands Map. 
 
 [Mr. Smith was formerly pastor of St. James’ 
 Roman Catholic Church, and erected a beautiful 
 Gothic School House on the above lots.] 
 
 No. 13. 
 
 George Hall and wife, to John Hughes. Deed dated 
 8th July, 1848. Rec. lib. 181, page 339. Consid¬ 
 eration, $675. 
 
 Conveys six lots in 8th Ward. 
 
 No. 14. 
 
 James Feeny and wife to John Hughes. Deed dated 
 25th July, 1846. Rec. lib. 151, page 45. Consid¬ 
 eration, $700. 
 
 Conveys lot in 9th Ward. 
 
[ C2 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 Since the appointment of John Loughlin to the diocese of Brooklyn (so called), this 
 John Hughes has conveyed the property named to him ; hut that does not alter the mis¬ 
 statement contained in the paragraph above quoted ; and the power to convey, no doubt, 
 embodied the power to get back again. But how can property be said to belong to “ the 
 Catholic people ” of Brooklyn, when the Bishop is the owner thereof in fee simple abso¬ 
 lute ? This is the question for the Archbishop to settle. Here is property, too, in houses, 
 property in single lots, 40 by 100 feet, in strips of land, property in eight lots, in eight 
 lots again, in parcels of five lots, property in lots and churches upon it; property in a 
 quantity of more than seventeen acres, used as a burial place, at Flatbush, and controlled 
 by the Bishop as Calvary Cemetery is, and made a source of large revenue, and the richest 
 of all the conveyances. The “ Catholic People ” are buried here, and in that sense only 
 is it conveyed to them. In city and country, places for living in, and burying in, the fee 
 simple is complete in the man, and not in the Trustees or Church. 
 
 I now give a record, from Queens County, of conveyances to John Hughes. 
 
 Roman Catholic congregation at Fushing. Deeds 
 dated 1st May, 1S49. Rec. liber 79, p. 111. Con¬ 
 sideration, $1,700. 
 
 Conveys lot No. 12 and part of No. 13, on above 
 map, and bounded as follows, to wit: Beginning at 
 the southeast corner of No. 11 on said map, and run¬ 
 ning thence northerly 109 feet 3 inches, thence east- 
 wardly, 81 feet, to place of beginning. 
 
 No. 4. 
 
 John Titus of North Hempstead, and Sarah P. Titus, 
 his wife, to John Hughes, Bishop, Ac., and his suc¬ 
 cessors in office. Deeds dated 17th Feb., 1851. 
 Rec. liber S7, p. S4. Consideration, $140. 
 
 Conveys two acres, near the Westbury Railroad 
 Depot. This deed conveys property in trust for the 
 benefit of the Roman Catholics of Westbury. 
 
 No. 5. 
 
 George Clancy and Jane, his wife, tb John Hughes 
 of the City of New York. Deed dated 14th August, 
 1S51. Recorded in liber 193, p. 136. Considera¬ 
 tion, $10. 
 
 Conveys lot 25 by 100, in Hicksville. 
 
 No. 6. 
 
 Andrew Brady and Margaret, his wife, to John 
 Hughes, Right Rev. Bishop. Deed dated 13th 
 April, 1853. Lib. 195, p. 410. 
 
 Conveys a lot at Rockaway, opposite Marine Pavi¬ 
 lion, of the dimensions of 150 feet by 75 feet. 
 
 THE FORDHAM PROPERTY 
 
 Is one of the richest estates in this neighborhood. I have traced it from its conveyance 
 by John M. Bixby and Alexander Watson to Andrew Carrigan, recorded liber 86, July 19, 
 1839, Clerk's Office, County of Westchester, to the conveyance of Andrew Carrigan and 
 wife to John Hughes. Deed dated August 9, 1839, and recorded as above lib. 92, p. 125, 
 con. S29,500. Excepting eight acres and 103 perches reserved to himself, 98 acres, 1 rood 
 and 5 perches of this splendid property is nominally held from John Hughes for St. John's 
 College. The Archbishop, however, as I have shown, is the Supreme head and Director of 
 this property, even to the regulation of its grounds, fences, switches for the railroad in 
 front, and even for a covenant for free travel to and from the College daily, with fifty 
 pounds of baggage for himself or any one person he may name. Its value, as property is 
 and has been sold in the neighborhood, is estimated at $350,000. 
 
 And now, if the Archbishop will excuse me,—as 1 am in the pursuit of knowledge 
 under difficulties,—I want to know on what terms the possessors are allowed to hold or 
 use this St. John’s College Property, secured from, and controlled by, the Archbishop. I 
 understand that the said Archbishop is paid annually for the privilege the interest on 
 $60,000. I believe that besides this interest, which may be paid into the College for the 
 education of Priests as bold and skillful as the Archbishop, a collection is taken up once a 
 year in all the Churches of the Diocese for the support of the Seminary. Some persons of 
 the Archbishop’s own faith, would also like to know the use to which the reserved grounds 
 are put, and who pays for the support of the occupant,—whether it comes from Church 
 contributions, and, if it is a fair business transaction, all about it. Honest, intelligent 
 Roman Catholics are the authority for the facts stated by me in this paragraph. 
 
 County Clerk’s Office, Queen’s Co. 
 No. 1. 
 
 David O’Connor and Margaret, his wife, to John 
 Hughes, Bishop, Ac. Deed Warranty dated 8th 
 January, 1841. Recording lib. 533, p. 445. Con¬ 
 sideration, $650. 
 
 Two houses and lots on Liberty street, in Flushing; 
 dimension, 40 feet front and rear, by 120 feet. 
 
 This property was conveyed by Hughes to Andrew 
 Ryan, on the Cth June, 1S41, for $600, by a like deed 
 of warranty. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 Daniel Higgins, John Leonard, and Michael N. Bren¬ 
 nan, Trustees of R. C. Church, in town of Flushing, 
 to John Hughes, Bishop, Ac., and his successors, 
 for the Catholic Congregation of the town of Flush¬ 
 ing. Warranty deed, 1st May, 1S49. Considera¬ 
 tion, Love and Affection, and $1. 
 
 Lots Nos. 16, 15, 14, and part of 13, on a map 
 made by Samuel S. Doughty, of city of New York, 
 surveyor, August, 1S38. Bounding and containing 
 as follows : Beginning at the southeast, and running 
 thence northerly to the west side of Union street, 
 110 feet 4 inches ; thence westerly, 144 feet 10 in.; 
 thence southerly, 100 feet 6 inches; thence easterly, 
 155 ft 2 inches. 
 
 No. 3. 
 
 Alfred C. Smith and Elizabeth T., his wife, to John 
 Hughes, Bishop, Ac., and his successors, for the 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 63 
 
 But to leave this part of the State, for the present, I find full deeds of Conveyance to 
 Archbishop Hughes, and in his own name, of two and a half acres of land in the town of 
 Watertown. Also conveyances from him (from the Clerk’s Office of Jefferson County) of 
 two valuable tracts of land, originally conveyed to Bishop Dubois for “love of God, 
 veneration for the holy Catholic religion and the sum of one dollar,” and two acres of 
 land in the village of La Fargeville, Jefferson County, to Bishop McCloskey. 
 
 The Archbishop seems to have spotted himself all over the State, and to have had an 
 eye to the useful and beautiful as well as the profitable, wherever he indulged in his love 
 of what the politicians call “ Squatter Sovereignty.” Thus I find in September and 
 October last, the counsel of the Archbishop in this city, advertising, in your columns, 436 
 acres of this Jefferson County Property, good for agriculture, good for a dairy, with a 
 garden of three acres with a limestone wall, a stone mansion fifty feet square, two barns, 
 and everything of the most complete and susbtantial character. No artist could picture a 
 brighter scene then this, and a history is connected with it which may be given hereafter. 
 “ One of the most valuable farms in the State,” as it ^ called, may have been secured for 
 that Jefferson County College, which was originally designed for the Claremont or Catholic 
 College. 
 
 Erie County furnishes the following record, besides Thirty-four Conveyances to John 
 Timon, since 1847. I select those held in the name of the Archbishop of this Diocese. 
 
 No. A. 
 
 James Milnor to the Right Reverend John Hughes, 
 of the City of New York. Deed dated 20th Feb., 
 1S44. Liber 74, p. 378. 
 
 All that certain piece or parcel of land, being a 
 part of outer lot No. 116, in the city of Buffalo, and 
 bounded and described as follows : Beginning at the 
 point of intersection, of the southerly line of Batavia 
 street, with the westerly line of Pine street, 212 feet, 
 thence easterly at right angles, and parallel with 
 Batavia street, 132 feet, thence northerly, parallel 
 with Pine street, 212 feet to the southerly line of Ba¬ 
 tavia street, and thence easterly along the southerly 
 line of Batavia street, 132 feet, to the place of begin¬ 
 ning. 
 
 No. B. 
 
 Theodore Nathan to the Right Rev. John Hughes. 
 Dated June 19th, 1845. Liber 80, p. 17. 
 
 All that certain piece or parcel of land, situate, 
 lying and being in the town of Surherst, County of 
 Erie, and State of New York, and being part of lot 
 
 No. 102, in the 12th township and 7th range of the 
 Holland Land Company Survey, and bounded as fol¬ 
 lows, to wit: Beginning at the southeast corner of 
 said lot, 102, and running thence west on the south 
 line of said lot, 20 rods, thence at right angles east, 
 20 rods, and thence at right angles 16 rods west, to 
 the place of beginning. 
 
 No. C. 
 
 Conrad Moritz, and six other Trustees, to the Right 
 
 Rev. Dr. John Hughes. Dated Nov. 3d, 1845. 
 
 Liber SO, p. 411. 
 
 All that certain piece or parcel of land, lying and 
 being in the town of Hamburg, Erie County, being 
 part of lot No. 2, in the 9th township, 8th range, and 
 commencing on the township line, and running on 
 the said township line 2 chains and 75 links ; thence 
 north, S5% deg.; west 3 chains; thence south 2 
 chains and 75 links ; thence south 85% deg., along 
 centre of highway, 3 chains, to place of beginning, 
 together with the house of worship heretofore erected 
 thereon. 
 
 And now may I here ask, what was the La Fargeville property bought for, and why 
 was it advertised for sale ? When and where was the purchase-money for this property 
 obtained ? Was not each priest in the diocese assessed for its purchase, and why was it 
 not used for the purpose for which it was bought by this tax upon the people ? These are 
 questions which interest men of your own faith more than me, and they interest men also 
 who would like to have some fuller account of your stewardship than you are in the habit 
 of giving them through your official organ or elsewhere. 
 
 1 am, for to-day, very respectfully yours, 
 
 ERASTUS BROOKS. 
 
 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES’ LETTER ON THE CHURCH PROPERTY LAW- 
 AMOUNT OF REAL ESTATE IN THE HANDS OF THE BISHOP. 
 
 <!**** jf a t er yeritatis dies non permissura sit longum fraudibus regnum .”—Grotius de Imp. 
 S. P ., 100 J. 6. 
 
 “ * * * * Light, the mother of Truth, will not permit deception to enjoy a long reign.” 
 
 TO THE PUBLIC. 
 
 During the last session of the New York Legislature, a petition was presented by the 
 trustees of St. Louis Church, Buffalo, complaining of pretended grievances which they 
 had suffered, as they alleged, at the hands of their ecclesiastical superiors, and praying 
 
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 G4 
 
 for an act of civil legislation on the part of the State, by which their religious grievances 
 might be brought to an end, and similar ones henceforth prevented in other congregations. 
 In that petition they avowed, among other numerous falsehoods, that “ Bishop Hughes 
 had attempted to compel them (the trustees) to make the title of their church over to 
 him.’’ The Hon. Mr. Putnam drafted a bill of contingents, confiscations, and penalties 
 against the Catholics of this State, unless their bishops should henceforth govern and 
 regulate all matters affecting church property according to the provisions of the act. 
 The undersigned denied that there was one word, or syllable, or letter of truth in the 
 statement quoted from the petition, and Mr. William B. Le Couteulex has since admitted 
 its entire falsehood, even while attempting to vindicate his own course and that of his 
 fellow-trustees. Notwithstanding the falsehoods of the statement in the petition, they are 
 entirely adopted by Mr. Putnam, and the one already mentioned is specially incorporated 
 in his speech in favor of the bill. There is no evidence that Mr. Putnam was then aware 
 of the falsehood which he had adopted from the text of the petition. But he must be 
 aware of it now. 
 
 Mr. Senator Brooks of this city also made a speech on the same side. By him the 
 falsehood or falsehoods of the Buffalo petition, adopted by Mr. Senator Putnam, were 
 entirely thrown in the shade by the gigantic scale on which he projected his. According 
 to him, Bishop Hughes was the owner, in his own personal right, of an immense amount 
 of real estate in the city of New York. He supposed its value to be little short of 
 $5,000,000. It consisted, according to him, of no less than fifty-eight distinct parcels of 
 real estate—some of them covering “ whole squares of land,” and all recorded in the Regis¬ 
 ter’s office, to the number of fifty-eight entries. Of this property there were, according 
 to Mr. Brooks, “ numerous transfers from trustees,” and lest any Senator should doubt his 
 veracity, he sported a pretended reference as from the records in the Register’s office, 
 giving book, number, and page for the correctness of his statements. 
 
 One is at a loss whether to be surprised more at the boldness of this man’s falsehoods, 
 or at the imbecile credulity of a public calling itself enlightened, who nevertheless 
 seemed to receive his statements as so many gospel truths. 
 
 Shortly after my return from Europe, I called the attention of Senator Brooks to the 
 wantonness and extravagance of his assertions. My letter was written in a spirit of play¬ 
 fulness. I intimated that, after reserving to myself, against the wants of old age, out of 
 this property, little short of $5,000,000, as Mr. Brooks had asserted, the sum of 
 $2,000,000, I should appropriate all the balance, say $2,750,000, to the founding of a 
 magnificent library, which should be worthy of New York ; and as I was indebted to the 
 Senator for my immense fortune, it should bear his name, and be called “ The Erastus 
 Brooks Library.” 
 
 I intimated, however, in a tone sufficiently serious to attract his attention, that his 
 statements were uutrue, and called upon him either to prove or retract them. He chose 
 the alternative of proof, and the public will see how desperate is the condition of a man 
 who undertakes to prove a falsehood, since truth will ever scorn to be a handmaid in such 
 an enterprise, and will leave him entirely dependent on his ingenuity for the inventing of 
 secondary falsehoods in support of those which were primary. 
 
 Out of this grew the late controversy between Mr. Brooks and myself. It was not my 
 business to prove that the statements of his speech were false. It was his to prove them 
 true. It was but fair that he should have full scope to accomplish this awful task in his 
 own way, and the public have witnessed the industry with which he has prosecuted the 
 work. 
 
 It has been matter of surprise to some that I should not have had at any moment my 
 proofs at hand to refute both the primary and secondary falsehood of Mr. Brooks, in 
 other words, that I was not prepared to prove a negative, which no man has ever done by 
 argument, and which no man can ever do. The proof of a negative must always be by 
 deduction from argument which is positive ; and how could I bring my proofs of a nega¬ 
 tive through the medium of positive facts to a close until Mr. Brooks should have 
 completed his whole winding and tortuous career of mendacity. I believe he has done 
 this at least, and now it is time for me to bring my positive facts to bear upon his 
 positive falsehoods, scatter them to the winds, and leave him standing before the community 
 a self-degraded, self-ruined man. 
 
 But before I commence, it is proper to state that whatever property may be found on 
 the records of the Register’s books, in the city of New York, in my name is, in equity and 
 truth though not in a legal form, the property of the several congregations, to be enume¬ 
 rated hereafter ; that the management of this property has been by a rule of the dioceses, 
 dating as far back as 1843, in the hands of the respective pastors of each congregation, 
 who are required to associate with them one or two respectable and competent lay¬ 
 men, to assist them in the administration of the temporalities of their church — to keep 
 regular accounts of its income, its expenditures, &c.—to make and publish, from time 
 to time, at least once a year, a report of the condition of the church, to be distributed 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 65 
 
 among their pew-holders, and a copy of the same lo be forwarded to the archiepiscopal 
 residence, in order to have it inserted in a diocesan register, kept for that purpose. The 
 title of these church lots was vested nominally in the bishop. But he never considered 
 this as giviDg him any more right to the ownership in the sense of Mr. Brooks, than 
 he would have to regard as his own an offering of charity handed to him for the benefit 
 of the orphan asylum. Neither has he ever received so much as one farthing of revenue 
 or income from this property, in consequence of his nominal ownership. Neither has he 
 troubled himself with the management of the temporalities of these congregations, 
 except in so far as to prevent the church property from being mortgaged or exposed 
 to alienation, as had been the case under the irresponsible management of lay trustees, 
 Whenever the clergyman and his advisers reported to the Bishop the expediency of their 
 doing something in regard to such property, he acquiesced as often as his judgment 
 approved of their proposal. In this way deeds, and titles, and transfers, and mortgages, 
 &c., were brought to him from time to time for signatures, and, as a matter of course, he 
 went through the legal formality of appending his name. So also when new lots were 
 purchased for the erection of new churches required by the increasing numbers of the 
 faithful, the deed was made out in the Bishop’s name, and the local pastor and his asso¬ 
 ciates managed all the rest. 
 
 It is hardly to be wondered at, therefore, that the Bishop himself should have been 
 almost taken by surprise by the display of documents exhibited by Mr. Brooks, purport¬ 
 ing to be extracts from the records in the Register’s office. The Archbishop was perfectly 
 aware, in a general way, that Mr. Brooks had entered boldly on a career of falsehood; 
 but he was not prepared to suppose that a Senator of the State of New York, in order to 
 brazen it out against him, would have dared to falsify the public records. This, how¬ 
 ever, Mr. Brooks has done. 
 
 Before proceeding to exhibit the secondary falsehoods of Mr. Brooks more at length, I 
 shall give a statement of all the property recorded in my name in the Register’s office on 
 the day of the Senator’s speech. It is the same to-day, as nothing has been added to or 
 taken from it since. 
 
 The property, then, which is recorded in my name is the aggregate of lots on which 
 fifteen different Catholic congregations have their places of worship, their priests’ resi¬ 
 dences, and in some instances their schools. The number of these lots is seventy-seven 
 (77), giving a fraction over five lots each for the church edifices of these fifteen con¬ 
 gregations. I am told by competent judges that if these lots»were to be sold, the 
 buildings on them, though exceedingly valuable to the Catholics as places for the purposes 
 of Divine public worship, would not add to their value in the estimation of purchasers. 
 I am further told by competent judges that, scattered as they are at various points, from 
 Barclay street to Manhattanville, they would not fetch more, one with another, than §5,000 
 each lot. This would produce, as the total value of property recorded in the Register's 
 office in the name of the 
 
 Archbishop, the sum of. $385,000 
 
 But in the same Register’s office there- are recorded, as incumbrances on these 77 lots, 
 mortgages to the amount, in the aggregate, of. :. $245,640 
 
 Reducing the net value of property recorded in the name of Archbishop Hughes, 
 to the alarming sum (not of a little short of $5,000,000 but) of. $139,360 
 
 It is to be observed that, before *the Archbishop could realize even this sum, it would 
 be necessary for him, not only to become a dishonest man, but also to go through the 
 process of turning fifteen Catholic congregations, with their respective priests, into the 
 streets of the city. 
 
 Such are the length, and breadth, and height, and depth, of all the real estate recorded 
 in the name of Archbishop Hughes, in the books of the Register’s office. I trust the 
 Protestant community will breathe more freely in consequence of knowing this fact. I 
 trust also that our Catholic laity will be better prepared to give an answer when the supposed 
 immense wealth of their Archbishop is made a reproach to them. 
 
 I may as well add here, that the property of the Cathedral, including Calvary Cemetery, 
 is managed by the trustees of St. Patrick’s Church—that they receive and expend and keep 
 an account of all income and all outlays connected with their trust—that the Archbishop's 
 relation to it is precisely the same as that of his predecessor—that he has no personal 
 income even to the amount of one farthing from these revenues, except what is annually 
 appropriated by the board for his decent maintainance ; that the sum thus appropriated, 
 though sufficient, is yet moderate enough; and that if it is not more, the reason is, that 
 the Archbishop has- more than once declined to accept a larger amount. 
 
 There was a period during the late controversy between Mr Brooks and myself when I 
 almost doubted w'hether falsehood would not gain the victory over truth. A perfect novice 
 as regards deeds, and titles, and formalities of law, I should not have known where to com- 
 
66 
 
 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 mence ray refutation of the man of falsehood. Accordingly I referred the matter to two 
 respectable legal gentlemen, namely, Messrs. T. James Glover and W. C. Wetmore. When 
 I asked the public to suspend their judgment for ten days or two weeks, it was that these 
 gentlemen might have time to examine the records in the Register’s office. This they have 
 done. They have followed Mr Brooks, number by number. They have examined every¬ 
 thing alleged by him as on the authority of the public records. And from their reliable 
 statements now submitted I shall be able to show that Mr Brooks has been guilty of 
 numerous deliberate and wilful falsehoods, including the daring experiment of perverting 
 and falsifying the very records which he pretended to cite. Here are the letter and 
 report of Messrs. Glover and Wetmore :— 
 
 To the Most Rev. Archbishop Hughes:— 
 
 In compliance with your request, we have examined the various records of conveyances to you mentioned 
 in the several letters of Senator Brooks, as well as others made by you; and we beg leave to present to you, 
 as the result of such examination, the accompanying report, upon the accuracy of which you may confidently 
 rely. 
 
 We have only to observe that the respective deeds are numbered to correspond with the numbers used by 
 Senator Brooks, and that those which are not noticed are correctly cited by him, except some inaccuracies of 
 reference. 
 
 We have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servants, 
 
 T. JAMES GLOVER. 
 
 New Tore, May 11th, 1S55. W. C. WETMORE. 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 No. 1 is a lease for 999 years at a nominal rent, but with a covenant on the part of the lessee to maintain a 
 church according to the rights and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 No. 2 is an assignment of a lease affecting the same premises mentioned in No. 19. The lots belonging to 
 St. Paul’s Church at Harlem were assessed for the opening of 117th street, in 1S40. They were sold to 
 P. Doherty, for non-payment of the assessment, and the same not being redeemed, were leased to him by the 
 Mayor, &c., of the City of New York, for twenty years. This is the lease assigned by P. Doherty to the Right 
 Rev. John Hughes, as stated in No. 2. The identical premises were conveyed by the Sheriff, in an execution 
 sale against the Trustees of St. Paul’s Church, to the Right Rev. John Hughes, as set out in No. 19. The two 
 deeds convey but one and the same piece of property. 
 
 No. 3 is between the same parties, and for the same premises mentioned in No. 7. 
 
 No. 6 is a deed by Patton and wife, of the half part of a vault for burial on the premises mentioned in 
 No. 10. 
 
 No. 7 is the same as No. 8, as above stated. 
 
 No. 8 is correctly stated as follows: 
 
 Bartholomew O’Connor, of the first part, to Right Rev. John Hughes of the second part. Deed dated 7th 
 Feb., rec. 22d Sept., 1845, lib. 465, p. 514. 
 
 This deed cites a conveyance by the Trustees of Christ Church to Bartholomew O’Connor, dated 5th Jan., 
 1S43, whereby the trustees, with the consent of the Court of Chancery, assigned their lands, &c., upon trust 
 to sell the same, and out of the proceeds to pay their creditors. It then, in consideration of $42,000, conveys 
 the four lots on James street, and also the vestments, church furniture, and organ. Mr. O’Connor is nowhere 
 styled Trustee to Christ Church, nor Trustee of Christ Church, nor was he such in fact or in law, nor can he 
 with propriety be so styled. He was simply an assignee for the benefit of creditors, by virtue of an assign¬ 
 ment made January, 1843, and conveyed the premises in February, 1S45, to the Right Rev. John Hughes, in 
 the same manner as he might have done to any other purchaser. 
 
 No. 9 is a conveyance of the property of the Sacred Heart, at Manhattanville, the whole of which was 
 subsequently conveyed to Aloysia Hardy, by deed dated 10th February, 1S47, recorded on the 17th of Janu¬ 
 ary, 1848, lib. 497, p. 292. 
 
 No. 11. The premises mentioned in this deed, executed by Z. Kantze, though separately numbered on the 
 map, really form but one lot, having a front on the street of 25 feet by about 160 feet deep. 
 
 Nos. 14,15,16 all relate to the property of the Convent of Mercy. No. 14 is an assignment of a lease for 
 life of one lot on Mulberry street. No. 15 is a confirmation of a previous deed by the attorney; in fact, of 
 Mr. Rea to W. H. Butler, the power of attorney having been tost. No. 21 is the main source of title to this 
 property. The whole of it was conveyed by the Right Rev. John Hughes to the “ Institution of Mercy,” a9 
 soon as incorporated according to law, by deed dated 1st June, 1854, recorded 15th June, 1854, lib. 663, 
 page 368. 
 
 No. 17 is a conveyance of a “ strip of land,” not a lot, being only two inches in width by 100 feet in depth, 
 adjoining another lot. 
 
 No. IS is the conveyance of an irregular piece of land on the corner of 27th street and Madison avenue ; on 
 the preceding page of the record, is a release of dower in the same premises, in consideration for the $3,377 
 63-100. The whole of this piece of land was conveyed by the Most Rev. Archbishop to the Harlem Railroad 
 Company, by deed dated 6th January, 1853, recorded 2d April, 1S5S, lib. 616, page 640. 
 
 No. 19 is the Sheriff’s deed mentioned above, under the head of No. 2, and conveys the same premises. 
 
 No. 22 is a deed of confirmation of the same premises described in No. 46. The latter (No. 46) is a deed 
 from the Rev Felix Varella to the Most.Rev. John Hughes, of the property known as Transfiguration Church. 
 It bears date April 23d, 1S50, and was recorded on the 1st day of November, 1S50, in liber 554. page 4S6. The 
 conveyance No. 22 bears date December 9th, 1851, and was recorded in lib. 591, page 26S. This deed recites 
 upon its face an order of the Supreme Court, dated 22d November, 1851, authorizing the trustees to execute 
 it in confirmation of the title of the grantee. The whole of those premises mentioned in the above deed was 
 conveyed by the Most Rev. Archbishop to L. J. Wyeth, by deed dated 2d May, 1S58, recorded the same day, 
 lib. 640, page 644. 
 
 No. 26 is an assignment of a lease for the nnexpired portion of a term, having originally only three years 
 and six months to run, from November 1,1S50. 
 
 No. 41 is a conveyance from the corporation of the Protestant Episcopal Church, known as Zion Church. 
 
 No. 43 is a conveyance of four lots on the corner of Fifth Avenue and 50th street, being 100 feet 5 inches on 
 the Avenue, by 100 feet in depth. It is not a conveyance of a “square of land,” in the sense in which the 
 term is used, nor indeed in any sense. 
 
 But the entire premises described in this deed were conveyed by the Most Rev. Archbishop Hughes to the 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 
 
 67 
 
 trustees of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, by deed dated February Sth, 1853; recorded March 9th, 1S53; lib. 630 
 page 337. 
 
 No. 46 has been already disposed of. 
 
 The deed of the Orphan Asylum property is correctly stated as follows : 
 
 The Mayor, Aldermen, &c., of the City of New York, of the first part, to the Roman Catholic Orphan Asy¬ 
 lum Society in the City of New York, of the second part, deed dated August 1,1846, recorded in book A of 
 Deeds, p. 271, Comptroller’s Office, conveys a piece of land on 5th Avenue, between 51st and 52d streets, and 
 extending easterly 450 feet, upon condition that the parties of the second part erect thereon, within three 
 years, a building to be approved by the Mayor, and that they keep the premises for the purposes contem¬ 
 plated by their charter. The counterpart is signed by the President and Secretary of the Board of Trustees 
 of the Asylum. 
 
 T. JAMES GLOVER, 
 W. C. WETMORE. 
 
 The foregoing authentic statement, taken from the records, will warrant me in summing 
 up the result of the examination made by Messrs. Glover and Wetmore as follows :— 
 
 I. Mr. Brooks has falsified the record by styling Bartholomew O’Connor “trustee to 
 Christ church.” 
 
 II. He falsely cited the deed from the trustees of Transfiguration church, executed in 
 1851. The falsehood consisted in suppressing what appears on the face of that deed—that 
 it was simply in confirmation of a title previously vested in the Archbishop. The 
 premises had been, in truth, conveyed by Rev. F. Varella, in 1850. 
 
 III. He intentionally falsifies when he declares that the deed by Michael Curran con¬ 
 veyed a “ square of land.” 
 
 IV. He wilfully counts the following premises twice; 
 
 1. The property of St. Paul’s church—in one case under the lease from P. Doherty, and 
 again under the deed from Westervelt. 
 
 2. The half part of a vault for burial under the deed from Patten and wife, the same 
 being embraced in the premises conveyed by Rev. Andrew Byrne. 
 
 3. The lot described in deed from Mr. Rea—in one case under that deed, and again 
 under deed from G. TV. Hall. 
 
 4. The Transfiguration church property—first under the Varella deed, and again under 
 the deed of confirmation. 
 
 V. He includes the following property, though conveyed away by the Archbishop :— 
 
 1. The property of the Sacred Heart, at Manhattanville. 
 
 2. The property of the Institution of Mercy. 
 
 3. The property at the corner of Madison Avenue and twenty-seventh street. 
 
 Senator Brooks will not deny that he knew the Archbishop had conveyed away this 
 
 property, for he cites the deed to the Harlem Railroad Company in the very letter in 
 which he falsely attributes to the Archbishop the ownership of it. 
 
 4. The property of the Transfiguration church. Not content with setting it down as 
 still vested in the name of the Archbishop, though it had been conveyed away, Mr. Brooks 
 counts it twice. 
 
 5. The four lots at the corner of Fifth avenue and Fiftieth street. 
 
 VI. He counts the following as entire lots :— 
 
 1. The half of a vault for burial. 
 
 2. The strip of land two inches wide, conveyed by Costar’s executors. 
 
 3. A piece of land 15 feet by 97 feet 4 inches, conveyed by R. Kein. 
 
 4. A piece of land 26 feet 3 inches by 32 feet 6 inches, conveyed by Wood’s executors. 
 
 VII. He counts the leasehold lot assigned by J. R. Baily, although the term had expired 
 on the 1st of May, 1854. 
 
 VIII. He counts the property conveyed by Z. Kantz as two lots, the same fprming in 
 truth but one. 
 
 This reduces the number of deeds of lots now vested in the Archbishop from fifty-eight, 
 as stated in his speech of the 6th of March, and from forty-six as stated in his false reports 
 purporting to be from the records, to thirty-two ; and the number of lots is reduced from one 
 hundred and one, as reported by Mr. Brooks, to seventy-seven. Thus, between the state¬ 
 ment of his speech in the Senate as regards the number of entries, and the truth as at¬ 
 tested by Messrs. Glover and Wetmore of twenty-six, and between the number of lots 
 as reported by him after a pretended investigation to the records and his truth, as attested 
 by the same gentlemen, a difference of twenty-four lots appears. Thus the whole number 
 
 of lots stated by Mr. Brooks... 101 
 
 Strike out the following ;— 
 
 1. Lease, St. John’s. 3 
 
 2. Lease, J. R. Bailey, expired May, 1854. 1 
 
 3. Lease, P. Doherty, counted twice.. 1 
 
 4. Deed, Patten, do. do. 1 
 
 5. Deed, Jas. Rea, do. do. 1 
 
 6. Deed, Trustees of Transfiguration Church, do. 2 
 
 7. Deed, Cammann, conveyed away. 1 
 
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 68 
 
 8. Deed, G. W. Hall, do. do. 6 
 
 9. Deed, M. A. Gafney, do. do. ... 2 
 
 10. Deed, Rev. F. Varella, do. do. 2 
 
 11. Deed, Mich’l Curran, do. do......square. 1 
 
 12. Deed, Costar's executors, a strip. 1 
 
 13. Deed, R. Kein, part of lot. 1 
 
 14. Deed, Wood’s executors, part of lot. 1 
 
 Making in all.■ • ■ •.—24. 
 
 Which substracted from 101, as reported by Mr. Brooks, leaves a 
 
 balance, as has been elsewhere mentioned... 77. 
 
 It would require a small volume to develop at length all the circumstances of meanness 
 that characterize the falsehoods of which Mr Brooks has been guilty. I may say in 
 general that all falsehoods range themselves under either one or other of these two heads, 
 namely :—1st. The assertion of something that has no existence in reality ; or second, 
 the denial of something which has. It follows, therefore, that falsehood has no real existence 
 except as the negative of truth, and conseqently what is called public opinion has no 
 power either to create truth from falsehood, or to destroy truth and render it false. Public 
 opinion to be worth anything, as regards things which exist, or things which do not, ought 
 to be the legitimate offspring of truth—its creation, not its creator. 
 
 A friend of mine has preserved some four columns of scraps taken from different news¬ 
 papers, published for the most part in the interior, and copied into the Express of this 
 city, as evidence of public opinion in regard to the issue of the late controversy between 
 Mr. Brooks and myself. The generality of the press, however, and especially iu the large. 
 cities, have had the kindness to abstain from pronouncing a judgment on the question of 
 veracity until the evidence should be all in, and the testimony closed on both sides. For 
 this just course of forbearance, pending the controversy, and especially since I solicited a 
 suspension of judgment for ten days or two weeks, I now make my grateful acknowledg¬ 
 ments. But I have no such acknowledgments to make to the journals which have pro¬ 
 nounced a premature judgment, and whose hasty opinions have been eagerly gathered into 
 the columns of the Express. Having endorsed Mr. Brooks without waiting to know what 
 they were about, it was but consistent that they should vilify Archbishop Hughes, which 
 they have not failed to do. I do not ask them to retract what they have said. I do not 
 ask them to recall or change their opinions on the subject; but I do ask them, as the only 
 reparation which it is in iheir power to make, to publish this letter in their respective 
 papers. If they are honourable men they will do so. If I were their enemy, which I am 
 not, I could not desire to inflict on them a more humilitntiug punishment for their unfair 
 and rash judgment. If they only publish this letter, they may, of course, if they choose, 
 still continue to encourage falsehood and the falsification of public documents by their 
 continued endorsement of Mr. Senator Brooks. 
 
 It is customary throughout nearly all Christendom for a Catholic bishop to prefix the 
 sign of the Cross to his signature. Most of the editors just now referred to, and who have 
 been fabricating public opinion for the New York Express, seem to be too poor in the 
 resources of their printing offices to possess any type which would represent the symbol of 
 Christianity, and as the next substitute thereto, or rather in ridicule thereof, they have 
 adopted the symbol of the assassin—the dagger. They imagine, apparently, that this 
 substitute will make tremendous havoc on the reputation of Archbishop Hughes. But 
 they seem to forget that the sign of the Cross is the sign of man’s redemption ; that symbol 
 in which St. Paul gloried, and the symbol which, when represented by a dagger, they are 
 giving over to the scandal of youth, the ridicule of the infidel, and the scoffer at Christianity. 
 And yet our type founders are not surely so barren of ingenuity as not to be able to invent 
 something outside of the alphabet which would give a grave and decent idea of the sign of 
 His Cross. Every civilized nation is familiar with symbolic language. Nor are we, as a 
 people, at all deficient in this respect, with the single exception which I have just men¬ 
 tioned. Outside the alphabet we have our symbolic type to represent, for instance, a sec¬ 
 tion of railway, a steam engine, a tree, a house, a stray horse, or a runaway negro. Iu \ 
 fact, we have in our printing offices symbolic type for almost everything except the sign 
 of the cross. Surely it cannot be that our printers are so excessively American, according 
 to the late and improved sense of that term, that they reject the sign of the cross, because 
 it symbolizes a foreign religion. Alas, if all Americans were like some of our modern 
 legislators, Christianity—the thing symbolized, as well as its type—would be foreign 
 enough. Be this, however, as it may, I will forgive those editors if they will only publish 
 this letter, and allow their readers to see and study the melancholy evidences it exhibits 
 of the humiliating position into which their rash, hasty, unjust conclusions in my regard, 
 and their blind reliance on the veracity of Senator Brooks, have betrayed them. Their 
 readers will perceive that the Hon. Senator has left no species of falsehood unemployed. 
 Being, no doubt, acquainted with the rules of evidence, they will perceive that he has 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 69 
 
 perpetrated falsehood direct —assertio falsi —which, if such a term can he applied in such 
 a case, is manly and undisguised falsehood—as, for example, the “ whole squares of land” 
 which, in his speech, he said were mine. This is the out and out assertio falsi, without a 
 shadow of mitigation. The next species is the insinuation of what is false— suggestio falsi. 
 Take, for example, the case in which he intimates and would have the public to believe 
 that the property given to the Orphan Asylum by the corporation of the city, was given 
 to me, on the plea that my name, as President of the society, and that of its Secretary, 
 were signed to the conditions on which the conveyance had been made. The third species 
 is the suppressing of the truth— suppressio veri. This has been exemplified by our 
 Senator ; for instance, in the case of the deed which has on its face, as certified by Messrs. 
 Glover and Wetmore, “ in confirmation” of a previous title. If the first species of false¬ 
 hood here alluded to be regarded as at least bold, open, manly and out-spoken, the second 
 and third, wherever a question of veracity is involved, are always looked upon as low, 
 sneaking and base. On the w'hole, it appears from records and testimony, which Mr 
 Brooks will not dare deny, that he is an expert in every department of falsehood, and that 
 we can say of him, but in a different sense, what the poet said of Sheridan—he 
 
 * * * * Kan 
 
 Through each mode of the lyre, and was master of all. 
 
 Time will not permit me to go into further details on this melancholy subject. I pre¬ 
 sume the public is disgusted with the exhibition which Senator Brooks has rendered it my 
 painful, but imperative duty thus to furnish, on the authority of witnesses and records, 
 which he cannot gainsay. The reader, however, cannot be more disgusted with it than 
 the writer is; and if he will cast his eye back over the correspondence which has taken 
 place, he will see that I left nothing undone, at an earlier stage of its progress, to warn 
 and save Mr. Brooks from results which he was determined on realizing to the bitter end. 
 I spoke of the bad example to our youth which would result from his course. I reminded 
 him that his reputation belonged not to himself but to his country, and that he was not at 
 liberty to trifle with it. I tried to rouse him to the dangers of his career by language ap¬ 
 proaching insult, in order to bring him to an issue on some specific question of veracity, 
 before he should have accumulated on his head this mountain, which not only hides but 
 crushes. It was all in vain. If I was content with my “ epithets,” he said, he was content 
 with his “facts”—and by this bold but desperate course, Mr. Brooks must have flattered 
 himself that he should carry a large portion of the public with him, or at all events, that 
 he should so befog the question as to enable him to escape detection and exposure. That 
 mass of “public opinion,” so called, which has been gathered from various newspapers 
 into the columns of the Express, shows that for a brief period Mr. Brooks succeeded in 
 his purpose. But should he ever enter on a controversy again, let him not forget the 
 motto prefixed to this letter, in which the great Dutch philosopher proclaims an important 
 principle, namely, “Light the mother of Truth, will not permit deception to enjoy a long 
 reign.” 
 
 Before closing this communication, I must be allowed to say a few' words in reference to 
 the style of vituperation employed towards me by those editors whose adverse opinions 
 have been garnered in the columns of the Express. They hold it as an impertinence for 
 a foreigner like myself to venture on any criticism of the language which a native bom 
 American Senator may think proper to employ to his prejudice. They have endorsed the 
 career and position of Mr. Brooks in reference to the issue of the late controversy, and in 
 opposition to facts and truths. I hold their opinions, therefore at a very low estimate. 
 Nevertheless, I must tell them that I am not a foreigner. I renounced foreignism on oath, 
 nearly forty years ago. I have from the proper court a certificate of political and civil 
 birthright, as an American citizen ; and I am not disposed to relinquish one jot of the 
 privileges to which, on the faith of the country, it entitles me. But if I renounced 
 foreignism, I did not renounce humanity. And whilst I hold myself to be as true and 
 loyal an American as ever claimed the protection of the national flag, I would not ex¬ 
 change the bright memories of my earlier boyhood, in another land and beneath a different 
 sky, for those of any other man living, no matter where he was born. These editors who 
 fabricate public opinion for the New York Express say that I am not an American ; but 
 they are mistaken. If principles and feelings which are theorized, though perhaps, not 
 always realized, in our system of free government, constitute an American, they were 
 mine from earliest memory. They were innate—they were inherited—they were a portion 
 of my nature. I could not eliminate them from the moral constitution of my nature and 
 being, even if I would. In this sense, I was an American from birth. I revered justice 
 and truth, as it were by instinct. I hated oppression and disposed falsehood. I cherished 
 both for myself, and as far as practicable for all mankind, a love for the largest liberty 
 compatible with private rights and public order. Of course, then, when penal laws 
 enacted on account of my religion, had rendered my native land unfit for a life-long 
 
 5 
 
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 70 
 
 residence, unless I would belong to a degraded class, America, according to its professed 
 principles, was the country for me. But I came not merely to be an inhabitant, but a 
 citizen of’the United States. I have, therefore, been an American. I am an American. 
 I will be an American. I shall be an American in despite of all the editors that have 
 rushed into the New York Express, with only half the evidence before them, to record 
 judgment in favor of Senator Brooks, and against Archbishop Hughes. 
 
 In regard to the recent enactment of our Legislature, forcing an unsolicited bill on the 
 Catholics of the State of New York, out of which the late controversy with Senator Brooks 
 arose, it is not, perhaps, becoming for me to say much. It is, I think, the first statute 
 passed in the Legislature of New York since the Revolution, which has for object to 
 abridge the religious and encroach on the civil rights of the members of one specific 
 religious denomination. Hitherto, when any denomination of Christians in the State 
 desSed the modification of its laws affecting church property, the Legislature waited for 
 their petitions to that effect—took the same into consideration, and when there was no 
 insuperable objection, modified the laws so as to accommodate them to the requirements of 
 the particular sect or denomination by whom the petition had been presented. Thus the 
 law of 1784’, though still on the statute book, had become practically antiquated and 
 obsolete. From its odious and oftentimes impracticable requirements, the Episcopalians, 
 the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Dutch Reformed Church, the Quakers, and perhaps 
 others besides, have at various times solicited exemption at the hands of the Legislature, 
 and obtained special enactments more in accordance with their faith and disciplines 
 respectively. Now this antiquated law is the one which is revived, re-invigorated, 
 strengthened by provisions for contingent confiscation of church property, and forced upon 
 the Catholics of the State of New York as sufliciently good for them. They had not 
 petitioned for it—they did not desire it—they will not have it, if they can lawfully 
 dispense with its enactments. 
 
 I am indebted to the kindness of a friend perfectly competent to form a judgment on 
 the subject, for the following synopsis of the hardships provided for in the different 
 sections of this Church Tenure bill:— 
 
 
 1. It makes void a deed of land, if intended for religious worship—that is to say, it takes from every man 
 (ecclesiastical or layman) the right either to give to any individual, or to buy a lot, to devote it to the highest 
 purpose to which it can be devoted—the adoration of the living God. 
 
 2. It avoids a last will of any real estate so used. It thus makes it unlawful for any man to leave such 
 property by will to any person, even his own children, and this, notwithstanding he may have purchased it 
 and built a church upon it with his own money. 
 
 3. It attempts to affect lands held in fee simple absolute, with a newly created trust in law, by a usurpa¬ 
 tion of judicial functions, which, if tolerated, would destroy the judiciary, and make the Legislature supreme , 
 and despotic. 
 
 4. It would thus not only impair the validity of a vested title, in violation of the constitution of the United 
 States, but it would deprive a man of his property without judicial process, in violation of our State constitu¬ 
 tion and bill of rights. 
 
 5. By a short summary sentence it would wrest from the individual, and from his heirs and devisees, all 
 title to such property on his death (no matter how lawfully acquired), declaring by a stretch of power equalled 
 only by the assumed omnipotence of parliament, that on his death it shall vest in the State. 
 
 The constitution declares that the entire and absolute property in lands is vested in the individual owner, 
 subject only to the law of escheat for defect of heirs. Yet here we have a statute above the constitution—a 
 statute of confiscation and c f usurpation. Moreover, it is the legislation of the strong against the weak—the 
 legislation of political and religious animosity, forcing, in the nineteenth century, and in this free land, upon 
 one religious body a system of church management hostile to their church discipline. How many are the 
 private rights hitherto deemed sacred aDd inalienable, which are stricken down by this bold enactment? 
 Surely there is matter in this act to make thinking men pause, and wonder that the transition from unre¬ 
 stricted freedom to absolute despotism is so easy and so rapid. • 
 
 Suck is a synopsis of the effects contemplated by what is called the Church Tenure bill. 
 And the reader who has had the patience to peruse the whole of this communication, will 
 have seen by what means it was introduced, and by what means its enactment has been 
 accomplished. 
 
 f JOHN, Archbishop of New York. 
 
 New York, May 14, 1855. 
 
 THE FACTS—THE EVIDENCE—THE RECORD, AND THE LAW. 
 
 To the Editors of the Courier and Enquirer: 
 
 My statements in the Senate of New York, which the Archbishop has, so many 
 times, and in so many ways “ branded ” as “ falsehoods,” were as follows: 
 
 “ I have taken occasion during a visit of a day in New York, to secure references, taken from the Register’s 
 office there, of the amount of property held by John Hughes in that city. 1 sitpose its value to be in New 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 71 
 
 York alone, not much short of Jive millions of dollars. So far from this property being held, when in 
 Churches, by Trustees, there are numerous transfers from Trustees to John Hughes I Beginning with 
 February, 1S42, and continuing through 1S54, A friend of mine copied fifty-eight entries of as many dis¬ 
 tinct parcels of property made in the name of and for John Hughes , all in the space of twelve years! 
 —not to John Hughes, Bishop, nor to John Hughes, Archbishop, nor to John Hughes, as Trustee for the 
 great Roman Catholic Church, but to plain John Hughes, in his own propria, persona. Some of these par¬ 
 cels of property cover whole squares of land, and nearly all of them are of great value. The rule of that 
 ohurch is never to part with property, and to receive all that can be purchased. What is true of New York 
 city is true of the State, and fifteen or twenty cases of property assigned to Bishop John Timon, were named 
 by the Senator from Monroe. 
 
 “ [To those who were curious in such matters, Mr. Brooks exhibited copies of the number, book, and page 
 of these several entries in the city of New York in behalf of John Hughes.]” 
 
 The Archbishop has never once quoted the first paragraph fully, and he has more than 
 once misquoted it, and with a coolness that has astonished the intelligent readers of our 
 joint correspondence. He has taken pains to omit the words “ I suppose its value to be,” 
 &c., “ a friend of mine copied,” &c., and to change the word “ Property ” in regard to 
 Leases, to the words Real Estate. I carefully and designedly used all these words— 
 ‘•'suppose,” “a friend of mine,” and “Property.” The one statement was a belief 
 founded upon the information, furnished by a friend, and the other was the use of the 
 word Property in order that there should be no opportunity of using even a technicality 
 against me. The law held a lease for three years to be Property, and common sense holds 
 a lease for 999 years, at one cent a year, to be Property held on terms equal to a fee 
 simple possession. But even the idea of calling it Property at all the Archbishop has said 
 in his letter of April 21, is— 
 
 “ Radicalism and Fourierism suck as has not been put forth before.” 
 
 In regard to “ the number, book, and page of the several entries in the city of New 
 York,” I have them before 'me now, as they were presented by me to the Senate, in 
 March last, and they can be seen by the Archbishop, or by any of his friends, as a part of 
 the notes, from which I then addressed the Senate. 
 
 There has been so much equivocation in the Archbishop’s letters, thus far, that I design 
 in this letter to place him on record against himself. I mean to prove, in the first place, 
 that, in this country, it is a part of his creed for the Archbishops and Bishops to own and 
 control the temporalities of the Church, including not only the Churches proper, but all 
 other ecclesiastical property, acquired by gift, acts of fidelity, lease, purchase, or other¬ 
 wise, except when, by writing, it has been confined to some Order of Monks or 
 congregation of Priests for their own use. 
 
 I mean to show that the Council of Bishops, convened at Baltimore, in 1852, forbid the 
 interference of the Laity in any Church matters, except as they were directed by the 
 Bishops. 
 
 I mean to prove that not only the Baltimore Ordinance of 1852, especially sets the 
 State power at naught, if interposed against the Authority of this Council of Bishops, but 
 ‘ that-Archbishop Plughes himself has issued an official Circular Letter, in direct opposi¬ 
 tion to the State Law of 1784, providing for the Incorporation of Religious Societies, 
 which law, in spirit or in letter, has been upon the Statute Book, from that time to the 
 present. 
 
 I mean to show that the Archbishop is preparing to evade or avoid the Church 
 Property Law of this State, and to concentrate the entire temporalities of the Church, 
 equally with its spiritualities, in the hands of the one “Archbishop,” and the “eight 
 Suffragan Bishops,” over whom, with “ close upon five hundred Priests, and near one 
 million of Catholics,’’'’ he assumes authority in what he is pleased to call “ the Ecclesias¬ 
 tical Province of JVew York.” 
 
 I mean to show that there has been the widest contradiction of statement by the Arch¬ 
 bishop, in his different published letters, in regard to the same facts. Read and judge. 
 
 I put his “titles,” “investments,” “fee simples,” “Real Estate,” and boasted pomp and 
 power, side by side, with his Records of Property, and his avowals that he owns nothing 
 but “the bed upon which he sleeps,” “a part of his furniture,” and “his library.” 
 
 The alternate denials and admissions of ownership and non-ownership of property on the 
 part of the Archbishop have puzzled the public not a little, as well as the alternate 
 avowals of Poverty and Riches. I find an explanation of this double-dealing where I 
 would be glad to know that none existed, in a book on Church Property, as well as other 
 matters, known as the “ Secreta Monita Societatis Jesu," where it is enjoined—in 
 Chapter 1, Section 8—“ in every Province to let none but the Provincial (or Principal) be 
 fully apprised of the real value of our revenues, and let what is contained in the treasury 
 of Rome be kept as an inviolable secret.” 
 
 And now let me address myself to you, my amiable antagonist, with a little more direct¬ 
 ness of purpose. 
 
 I have quoted the Revised Statutes to show that leases for a very limited period are pro- 
 
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 perty. &nd that you, the Archbishop, are recorded as the owner of such leases. You cannot, 
 by a quibble, equivocation, or any sort of evasion, get over this fact any more than you 
 can get rid of such a “wretched and vile insect" as myself, by the mere volition of 
 casting him, “with covered hands,” from your upper window upon the pavement below. 
 Amiable man—your power is not equal to your will, and you will have to address the 
 public, myself, or somebody else, many times, before this Church Property Controversy is 
 closed. I am not boastful, I hope, but in a war thus forced upon me. my motto is that of 
 Old Grip (rather a large “ insect,’’ perhaps)—the Raven of poor Barnaby Rudge, when he 
 cried—•• JVevcr say die.” The cause I represent, you will have to consider both with 
 clean and covered hands before the end. 
 
 “ You little thought that day of pain, 
 
 When launched as on the lightning’s flash, 
 
 You bade me to destruction dash. 
 
 That one day I should come again. * * 
 
 But time at last sets all things even ; 
 
 And if we do but watch the hour, 
 
 There never yet was human power 
 Which could evade, if unforgiven, 
 
 The patient search and vigil long 
 Of him who treasures up a wrong.” 
 
 Personally, however, I bear no malice towards you, my antagonist, and from first to last 
 I have felt that you were your own worst enemy. I have, on more than one occasion, had 
 demonstrated the fact, that there are men of your own faith, in this city, who, while they 
 fear you, dare expose you to me, and'through me to the public. And but for anathemas, 
 excommunications, and persecutions, through life and death—or where your will is law, 
 you are alike merciless towards the dead and living—many of them would relate their 
 own unvarnished tales before the public, and reveal a state of fact and of despotic power 
 which would shock the moral sense of the whole community. 
 
 It was an honest believer in the creed of the Romish Church who went to Albany to tell 
 me of your cruel and mercenary rule in regard to the dead, in Calvary Cemetery. It was 
 a believer in the same Church who exposed to me the existence of the property at La 
 Fargeville, so long occupied by one bearing your own name and of your own family. I 
 hear, too, of your recorded possessions all over the Island and all around it, and I also 
 hear of them' far in the interior. You have felt yourself so much a man of power, as 
 either to transcend the law or to come short of it, as suited your convenience. 
 
 All this I have this morning deemed pertinent as preliminary to my rejoinder to the 
 “ ten days or two weeks’’ labor of yourself, and those “ professional gentlemen” whom you 
 have several times announced as employed to aid you in answering the letters of “ a vile 
 insect’’ like myself. We shall see whether you have made good your promise to the public, 
 “ to prove Senator Brooks a man of falsehood,” and “ guilty of multiplied, deliberate, and 
 repeated falsehoods.” I am no lawyer, and therefore denied the wisdom taught by Black- 
 stone. Coke, and Mansfield, and the more important advantages of measuring swords with 
 skilful men of the profession. But though not bred to the bar, I think I can tell a hawk 
 from a handsaw, and show that a lease conveyed to John Hughes for 999 years, at one cent 
 a year, is Property, and that a legal conveyance of sundry parcels of land and other pos¬ 
 sessions to the same distinguished person, is Property also. 
 
 Let me ask you, sir, if in giving Mortgages, on Property, of which you were, or are, 
 owner, if you did so by order of Court, as required by the statute ; or whether you acted 
 in regard to such Property, as if it were absolutely your own ? If you have not conformed 
 to the order of the Court, and there is no evidence that you have done so, then even in 
 regard to this Property there is abundant evidence that you have used your own name for 
 property which belonged to Trustees. Worse than this even. You have conveyed Pro¬ 
 perty to Bishops personally, which stood recorded as belonging to Trustees, and yon have 
 also conveyed Property to the Bishops, personally, which you have also declared “belonged 
 to the Catholic People of the Diocese.” If those “middle men.” the “laity” of your 
 Church, whom you speak of so contemptuously, in the pulpit and out of it, as unfit to 
 govern the Temporalities of the Church, were to take you in hand, they would make you 
 amenable to the laws of the State, if not to that Sovereign of “ the State of the Church," to 
 whom you owe your highest allegiance, and whom you so recently visited in all the pride 
 and pomp of state at his Imperial Palace. 
 
 Indeed, I rejoice that you, as my opponent, have invoked the aid of counsel, as a careful 
 reference to their statements will confirm the material portions of my own record in 
 regard to conveyances of Property to John Hughes. The principle embodied in my 
 speech as to the ownership of Property in you, is over and over again admitted, and yet 
 you persist I see in the same clerical temperament and language as in previous epistles. 
 It was not enough to “ brand” me scores of times as guilty of “ falsehoods” in your pre- 
 i vious letters, but in this, your last card, your usual flowers of rhetoric adorn the whole 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 
 
 73 
 
 garden which you have planted and watered during nearly-two weeks of very careful labor. 
 Prose and poetry are both invoked to impeach my veracity. I am treated with epithets 
 like the following :— 
 
 “ Self-degraded and self-mined mam." 
 
 “ Primary and secondary falsehoods." 
 
 “ Tortuous career of mendacity.” 
 
 “ Bold career of falsehood. ’ 
 
 “An expert in every department of falsehood." 
 
 “ Numerous deliberate and wicked, falsehoods." 
 
 “ No species of falsehood unemployed&c.,&c., &c. 
 
 “ TVe can say of him, but in a different sense, what the poet said of Sheridan,—he 
 
 * * “ran 
 
 Through each mode of the lyre. 
 
 And was matter of all.” 
 
 These are the texts of one who uses “ the symbol of Christ,” and claims to be “ the 
 Shepherd of Souls.” And not content with assailing me personally, you assail the Ameri¬ 
 can Press, mind and people, in style and epithet most offensive to them, and to the coun¬ 
 try. 
 
 Now let me in perfect equanimity review your very long labor, and see where you 
 stand. I intend to condemn you, not by epithets, but by facts, and out of your own 
 mouth. I shall follow you through all the windings of your unfair and contradictory as¬ 
 sertions, and shall begin with the statements signed by Messrs. Glover & Wetmore, which, 
 let me hope the reader will, just here, again peruse in full. This statement declares that 
 Nos. 9, 16, 18. and 22, were subsequently reconveyed, and that one lot, though separately 
 numbered on.the map, is the same, and that a conveyance, cited by me, has expired. 
 Granted. In what respect does all this impugn ray veracity ? I had charged you, the 
 Archbishop, with doing this very thing in order to show that you were a General Broker 
 in Real Estate. I had even published conspicuously your sale and conveyance of property, 
 “ the property of God,” as you called it, “ to the Harlem Railroad Company,” for $46,- 
 000, in January, 1853, and recorded in April of the same year [lib. 616, p. 640.] 
 
 More than this. Unused to the skillful examination of legal papers, I did not even trust 
 myself to investigate the Records. A gentleman in good practice at the bar, and of high 
 legal and moral standing in society, performed this service for me, and gave me authority 
 for what I stated in the Senate, and an exact copy of all the city records I have published 
 conveying property to John Hughes. I knew with whom I was dealing when I thus re¬ 
 lied upon truthful and competent gentlemen to search the records. 
 
 I now propose to give from gentlemen, and legal gentlemen, too, of undoubted veracity, 
 a thorough endorsement of the spirit and substance of all I said in the Senate, and of all 
 I have written since touching the Conveyances of Property to John Hughes. Here are 
 my witnesses: 
 
 LETTER FROM MORTIMER DE MOTTE, ESQ. 
 
 237 Broadway, New York, ) 
 
 16th May, 1S55. ) 
 
 Hon. Erastds Brooks. 
 
 Dear Sir :—In reply to your note of this date, I would state that the memorandum of the property held 
 in the name of John Hughes, stating the book and page of the several entries, as stated by you in the Sen¬ 
 ate, was the result of my own personal examination of the book in the Register’s Office of, and containing 
 the names of the grantees of real estate in this city. It was my original design to procure not only a full 
 list of the conveyances to, but description and value of the property, the title to which was vested in John 
 Hughes, but my engagements would not permit, and lienee simply the memorandum of the book and page re¬ 
 cording such conveyances. Whatever inaccuracies there were in that memorandum, as to the number of the 
 conveyances, if any, are attributable to me alone, and arose from want of time, in which to identify the 
 grantee as the Rev. John Hughes, Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church in New York. 
 
 The result, however, shows the memorandum given by me to you to be correct, as to the number of convey¬ 
 ances made to the Archbishop, with a trifling diminution, and the number of conveyances to him, vesting in 
 him absolutely the title in fee simple, fully establishes tire principle asserted by you. 
 
 In this connection I would say that I regard the. Church Property Bill as one of the most important acts 
 ever passed by our State Legislature. The rapid and constant accumulation of property by the Prelates of 
 the Romish Church, to descend and be added to by them in perpetual succession, would, in the first place, 
 carry into operation the principle of entailment, wisely forbidden by our National Constitution, and, in the 
 next place, would in time concentrate in them an amount of property and power which would render them 
 formidable adversaries to cope with. 
 
 With this communication, in compliance with your further request, I send you the statement_of Mr. Hanson 
 C. Gibson, a young man of character and intelligence,—a student in our office, to whom I entrusted the ex¬ 
 amination of the records from the memorandum prepared by me for the purpose of obtaining a description 
 of the parcels mentioned in said conveyances. 
 
 I have the honor to be very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 MORTIMER DE MOTTE. 
 
74 
 
 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 LETTER FROM H. C. GIBSON, ESQ. 
 
 16th Mat, 1S55. 
 
 Hon. Erastcs Brooks : 
 
 Dear Sir— In pursuance of your request, through Mortimer De Motte, Esq., I hereby state and certify 
 that I received a memorandum containing minutes of records of conveyances, and at his request tvent to the 
 office of the Register in and for the City and County of New York, and examined the books of conveyances, 
 and took therefrom the descriptions of property, which have been published in your paper; and I further 
 state and certify that the extracts taken by me from such records are true copies of the same, to the best of 
 my knowledge and belief. Your ob’t servant, 
 
 H. C. GIBSON. 
 
 Let me now come to analysis : 
 
 [From his letter of May 15.] 
 
 1. Mr. Brooks has falsified the record, by styling 
 Bartholomew O’Conner “ Trustee to Christ Church.” 
 
 Messrs. Glover and Wetmore say:—“This deed 
 cites a conveyance by the Trustees of Christ Church 
 to Bartholomew O’Conner.” 
 
 Isn't this a beautiful distinction upon which to hang such a charge as “falsified the 
 records /” 
 
 [From the Archbishop’s 2d letter, April 19.] , 
 
 1. “ Mr. Bartholomew O’Conner in that case was 
 only the Assignee of a Bankrupt Board of Trus¬ 
 tees." 
 
 2. See Mr. Brooks’s record of conveyance, April 
 23d, for answer to this charge. 
 
 3. This is the property of which I gave the entire 
 history as given by the city, in 1S46, and received 
 by the President John Hughes and his Secretary. 
 
 4. One of these four relate to the Transfiguration 
 Church, which see April 23—another to half a burial 
 lot—the 3d is first of a lease and second of a con¬ 
 veyance, and Nos. 14 and 15 of Records will show 
 that the conveyance of one party was June 19th, 
 the other April 1st, 1S4S—and that the lots are en¬ 
 tered as six in one case and one fifth part in anoth¬ 
 er. 
 
 2. He falsely cited the deed from the Trustees of 
 Transfiguration Church, executed in 1S51— the false¬ 
 hood consisted in suppressing what appears upon 
 the face of that deed, that it was simply in confirm¬ 
 ation of a title previously vested in the Archbishop. 
 
 8. He intentionally falsifies when he declares 
 that the deed of Michael Curran conveyed “ a square 
 of land.” 
 
 4. lie wilftUly counts the following (four) premi¬ 
 ses twice. 
 
 This is what is called “ a wilful falsehood.” 
 
 So in regard to the vault under the deed from Patten, I am assured to-day, from one who 
 knows what the facts are, that there were two conveyances as stated, two parties being 
 owners. 
 
 Below, also, is something inexplicable, and which needs explanation from the “ Report 
 of Counsel.” 
 
 “ No. III. is between the same parties, and for the same premises mentioned in No. VII. 
 
 “ No. VII. is the same as No. III., as above stated.” 
 
 No. 3 is the same as No. 7, and No. 7 is the same as No. 3! There is something wrong 
 here. 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 75 
 
 And now let us go back a little and leave words for facts, and mere statements for 
 recorded truth. It is with no pleasure that I place the Archbishop on record against him¬ 
 self, although I should be warranted in using any language, becoming a Christian and a 
 gentleman, after the assaults he has made upon me. Here are the records : 
 
 CLAIM TO CHDRCII AND ALL OTHER ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY. 
 
 LOOK ON THIS PICTURE. 
 
 From the 7th Provincial Meeting of the Roman 
 Catholic Council of Bishops, held in Baltimore.— 
 Decree of 1349. 
 
 “ The Fathers ordain, that all Churches, and all 
 other Ecclesiastical property, which have been ac¬ 
 quired by donations or acts of the faithful, for reli¬ 
 gious or charitable use, belong to the Bishop of the 
 diocese ; unless it shall be made to appear, and be 
 confirmed by writings, that it was granted to some 
 religious order of monks, or to some congregation of 
 priests for their use.” 
 
 DECREE OF A SIMILAR COUNCIL, HELD IN 1852. 
 
 “ We strictly forbid the interference of laymen 
 {laid) in the administration of those things without 
 the free consent of Bishops (Episcopalii). Hence, 
 when not called to this by the Bishop, they usurp 
 the powers to use this property or in any manner 
 frustrate or defraud the will of the donors, or if they 
 try to wrest from the Bishop’s hands, the things 
 committed to his trust and care, even by means of 
 the State, we define and declare they fall ipso facto, 
 under the punishment inflicted by the Fathers of the 
 Council of Trent. (Ses. 23, chapter 11, De Refor- 
 matione) on the usurpers of ecclesiastical property.” 
 
 The section above referred to from the 
 
 COUNCIL OF TRENT, 
 
 Anathematizes Emperors, Kings, and all persons, 
 clerical and laical, who do not concentrate all church 
 property in the head of the church. Rents, rights, 
 even those held in fee and under leases are included 
 with all fruits, emoluments or sources of reward. 
 
 From Archbishop Hughes’ Circular Letter, March 
 16,1852. 
 
 “ The Catholic Bishops of New York, Albany and 
 Buffalo, ARE NOW OWNERS IN FEE SIMPLE of 
 nearly all religious and charitable property exist¬ 
 ing within their respective Ecclesiastical jurisdic¬ 
 tions.” 
 
 From the Archbishop’s Pastoral Letter. 
 
 “It has been ordained as a statute of the Diocese, 
 that no Board of Trustees shall be at liberty to vote, 
 expend or appropriate for contracts, or under any 
 pretext, any portion of the property which they are 
 appointed to administer (except the current expenses 
 as before alluded to) without the express approval 
 and approbation of the Pastor in every case ; and 
 it is further ordained that even the Trustees of the 
 churches, with the approbation of the Pastor, shall 
 not be at liberty to expend an amount larger than 
 the sum of one hundred dollars in any one year, 
 without the consent of the Bishop , approving or per¬ 
 mitting such expenditure.” 
 
 confirmation of the above by archbishop hughes 
 
 HIMSELF. 
 
 “It has been the practice, especially since the 
 bankruptcy of no less than four boards of Catholic 
 trustees, to invest the titles of new churches in 
 the Bishop.”— [Letter of April 28th. 
 
 “Nothing less than coercion will induce the Ca¬ 
 tholics to discontinue or withdraw the confidence 
 which they have in the Bishops as the natural guard¬ 
 ians of such property.”—[Same letter. 
 
 “The title of their church lots was vested nomi¬ 
 nally in the Bishop.”—[Letter of May 14th. 
 
 AND ON THIS. 
 
 “ I am the owner of a library which would be of 
 little use to many of those who take an interest in 
 the question of my property, but which to me is very 
 valuable.”—[Letter of April 28. 
 
 “ I am the owner of a part of the furniture of the 
 house in which I live—but only a part.”—[Same 
 date. 
 
 “It appears to be a foregone conclusion, in the 
 minds of the framers, that the law (Church Property) 
 will accomplish in practice the results which are out¬ 
 lined in its theory. This is not so certain. Profes¬ 
 sional gentlemen may discover some defect in the 
 framing and wording of the enactment which will 
 render it inapplicable.” — [Letter of Archbishop 
 Hughes against the Church Property Act. 
 
 BOAST OF POWER IN NEW YORK, BY ARCHBISHOP 
 HUGHES. 
 
 “We have, gentlemen, been anxious, for a long 
 period of time, to establish among us the Society of 
 the Propagation of the Faith ; but the circumstances 
 in which we find ourselves have precluded us from 
 so doing in every diocese. The Priests of the Coun¬ 
 cil of New York have resolved to take immediate 
 measures to propagate it throughout their diocese, 
 and they hasten to communicate to you this resolu¬ 
 tion, unanimously adopted at their first session. 
 * * * (jod forbid that we should be discouraged! 
 
76 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 “ In reference to my ownership of Keal Estate pro¬ 
 perty, as Mr. Brooks calls it, there is no question. 
 The title of many Catholic churches in the City of 
 New York is vested in me, and, so far, I am the 
 owner. My intention, even, fs to add to this proper¬ 
 ty by purchasing such additional lots, or accepting 
 the gift of them, as I may find, from time to time, to 
 be desirable for the purposes of providing religious 
 instruction for the wants of the Catholic Church 
 committed to my charge. If Mr. Brooks will examine 
 the records of the City of New York, three months 
 from this time, he will probably find conveyances 
 made to me by parties who have the right to sell or 
 bestow, as they think proper.”—[Letter of April 19. 
 
 “ So, also, when new lots were purchased for the 
 erection of new churches, required by the increasing 
 numbers of the faithful, the deed was made out in 
 the Bishop's name.”—[Letter of May 14th. 
 
 CHARGES OF FALSEHOOD. 
 
 “ I have never received or accepted any transfers 
 of any property whatever from trustees. In this 
 particular, Mr. Brooks allowed himself to be de¬ 
 ceived, and contributed his share towards the decep¬ 
 tion of his fellow Senators and the public.”—[The 
 Archbishop’s first letter, promising “ the Erastus 
 Brooks Library.” 
 
 “ The matter is reduced at present to a question 
 of veracity, and it is for Mr. Brooks to prove his as¬ 
 sertion, or occupy the position which his failure to 
 do so has in reserve for him.”—[Same letter. 
 
 “ Mr. Brooks has done nothing as yet by way of 
 attempt to sustain this falsehood. He has not shown 
 one single such transfer ” [of property from trustees]. 
 —[Letter of April 19th. 
 
 “ I have always denied that I ever asked, sought, 
 received, or accepted any property from lay trustees. 
 This denial I repeat to-day, with increased empha¬ 
 sis.”—[Fifth letter. 
 
 Immaculate Mary is our potent and glorious protec¬ 
 tress, and the already increased extension of Catho¬ 
 licity among us is a pledge of the merciful views of 
 God towards our Church. 
 
 “ Thirty years ago, throughout the vast territory 
 constituting at present the Ecclesiastical province 
 of New York, there were only two Bishops, eleven 
 Priests, and about forty thousand Catholics. At the 
 present time, we have an Archbishop, with eight 
 Suffragan Bishops, and close upon five hundred 
 priests, and near one million of Catholics.”—[Letter 
 written in the name of the first Provincial Council 
 of New York, to Messrs, the members of the Coun¬ 
 cils of the Propagation of the Faith, dated New 
 Y T ork, Oct. 9,1854. 
 
 PLEA OF POVERTY. 
 
 “But I am not the owner of one square inch of 
 ground within the city of New York. I am the 
 owner of the bed I sleep on, but not the roof, or the 
 walls that protect me against the inclemency of the 
 season.”—[Letter of April 28. 
 
 “ As representative of the diocese, I am person¬ 
 ally indebted to the amount of thirty thousand dol¬ 
 lars. But, by way of assets, I have in my personal 
 right an amount of property which, I suppose, if its 
 value could be realized, could cover the debt.”— 
 [Same date. 
 
 “ I am left the owner of my library and a part of 
 the furniture of my dwelling.”—[Same date. 
 
 PROOFS OF FACT. 
 
 Trustees of St. John’s Roman Catholic Church to 
 John Hughes. Lease dated July 17,1844. 999 years. 
 Consideration, one cent a year. Recorded liber 451, 
 page 449, July 20th, 1S44. Three lots of land in 16tli 
 Ward, 100 by 75 feet. 
 
 CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT. 
 
 “ Mr. Bartholomew O’Connor, who became legal 
 assignee of one of our Bankrupt Boards of Lay 
 Trustees, and who transferred it according to law, 
 and entirely in his civil capacity as an agent of the 
 law.” — [Archbishop’s Letter, April 21st. 
 
 ANOTHER CONVEYANCE. 
 
 The following is from the books of record in the 
 office of the N. J. County Clerk, Hudson County: 
 
 The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church of St. 
 Peter’s, Jersey City, to the Right Rev. John 
 Hughes, Bishop. Bate of Con,, A.B., 1S42, Nov. 
 Sth. Lease, 999 years. Consideration, $1 per an¬ 
 num. Liber 8, p. 406. 
 
 The Trustees of St. Peter’s Church, in New Brigh 
 ton, Staten Island, to the Right Rev. John Hughes, 
 Bishop of New York, his executors, administrators, 
 and assigns. Lots IS, 19, 20, 77, 73, 79, 21, 22, 28, 
 SO, SI, and part of 82. Leased for 999 years, at the 
 yearly rent of two dimes. Recorded lease, March 
 14th, 1S4S. Lib. 16, p. 585. 
 
 Nor have I closed my record of Conveyances to you, John Hughes. I shall admit 
 errors wherever they are discovered, and insist upon the record wherever it is found. I 
 am not so ambitious of proving a literal, technical fact, such as, to use one of your illus¬ 
 trations “ two and two make four,” as I am to prove the greater truth, that you hold 
 large amounts of property in fee simple, that your Estates are scattered far and wide, that 
 they are of other kinds of property than Church lands and edifices. I wish to show, that 
 you sell this property, the Property of God, that you deal in Bonds and Mortgages, that 
 you speculate out of living men and in the dead. I wish to show that while pleading the 
 poorest poverty, and warring upon laymen, even of your own faith, you are rich and fare 
 sumptuously, that you are proud and arrogant, abusive and insulting, to all those who 
 dare speak the truth of you and yours. I wish to show the necessity of passing such a 
 Church Property Law, as the Legislature has enacted, when any Prelate of any denomina¬ 
 tion, undertakes to control not only millions of Church Property, but to prevent his 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 77 j 
 
 fellow-citizens of the same faith from administering its temporalities. To this end I add 
 now the following additional conveyances, in the course already numbered, and admitting 
 the corrections I have made, while they may take from the number 58, in one case, they 
 will far exceed that number by the claims and admissions of yourself, as to the ownership 
 “ in fee simple ” of the respective Churches in the Diocese. 
 
 Office, as Nos. 541, 542, 543, 544, and taken together 
 and bounded as follows, viz.: N. by centre line 
 between 117th and USth streets; IV. by a line drawn 
 parallel to 4th avenue on E. side thereof, at the dis¬ 
 tance of 160 feet therefrom; S. in front by 117th st., 
 and E. by a line drawn parallel to 4th avenue, on 
 the E. side thereof at the distance of 260 feet there¬ 
 from, each of said lots being 25 feet in width on 
 front and rear, about 100 feet depth on each side. • 
 
 NUMBER FORTY-EIGHT. 
 
 John Mullen to John Hughes. Conveyance of lease. 
 Record in liber 422, page 420, Feb. 23d, 1842. Con¬ 
 sideration, $5,400 
 
 NUMBER FORTY-NINE. 
 
 Lispenard Stewart, to John Hughes. Date of Con¬ 
 veyance March 19,1855. Recorded in liber 679, 
 page 399. Consideration, $1. 
 
 Commences at a point where a line drawn parallel 
 with 7th avenue, at the distance of 328 feet south¬ 
 east therefrom, would intersect a line drawn parallel 
 with 31st street, at a distance of 148 feet, 6 inches 
 N.E. from said 31st street, running thence S.E. in a 
 line parallel with 31st street 50 feet; thence N.E. on 
 a line at right angles with 31st street 11>- feet, and 
 thence N.W. in a straight line to place of beginning. 
 
 Now Sir, it amuses me to see with what cool assurance you persist in asserting that a 
 lease for 999 years is not a lot, or three lots, and not property, when even your counsel, 
 Messrs. Glover and Wetmore, admit the fact thus at the start. 
 
 “ REPORT. 
 
 « No. 1, is a lease for 999 years, at a nominal rent, but will be covenant on the part of the lessee to main¬ 
 tain a Church according to the rites and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church.” 
 
 You also strike out, No. 13' and number 14, because they are parts of lots, and No. 
 12 because it is a strip of land, and Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 because they have been con¬ 
 veyed away by you, as if that interfered with the statement that they had been conveyed 
 to you, as stated by me in the Senate, since 1842. 
 
 Look at this whole record,—analyze it,—turn it over and over again and again,—and 
 see if, with all the aid of counsel, you have corrected any material fact or principle in all 
 the cases furnished to me, and cited by me, on the authority of “ professional gentlemen ” 
 of skill, ability, and uprightness. Even your “ professional gentlemen,” Messrs. Wetmore 
 and Glover, say: 
 
 “ We have only to observe that the respective deeds are numbered to correspond with the numbers used 
 by Senator Brooks, and that those which are not noticed are correctly cited by him, except some inaccura¬ 
 cies of references.'' 1 
 
 And yet upon such flimsy pretences you deduct 14 from the 46 conveyances, and 24 
 from the 101 lots!! 
 
 You also say: 
 
 “ The property, then, which, recorded in my name, is the aggregate of lots on which fifteen different Ca¬ 
 tholic congregations have their places of worship, their priests’ residences, and in some instances their schools. 
 The number of these lots is seventy-seven (77), giving a fraction over five lots each for the church edifices 
 of these fifteen congregations.” 
 
 _ Here you put down 15 churches when you know there are nearly twice that number in the 
 city, besides those in the rest of your diocese, over which you claimed, even as far back as 
 1852, a fee simple ownership. It is in this, and other ways, you are endeavoring to con¬ 
 vince the public that you now possess but $385,000 worth of property, with two-thirds of 
 this sum mortgaged against you, or $245,000 in all! 
 
 Now, sir, it was only on the 28th of April you wrote, after several days 1 delay and deli¬ 
 beration, the following: 
 
 ADDITIONAL CONVEYANCES OF CITY PRO¬ 
 PERTY TO JOHN HUGHES. 
 
 NUMBER FORTY-SIX. 
 
 Rev. John Ryan, to John Hughes. Date of Con. 
 April 17th, 1350. Record in liber 546, page 150, 
 May 29th, 1850. Consideration, $14,400. 
 
 All that certain piece or parcel of land, situate, 
 &c., in 15th Ward in city of New York, bounded and 
 described as follows: Beginning at a point on the 
 southerly line of 16th street, distant east from cor¬ 
 ner of 16th street and 6th avenue 245 feet, running 
 thence east along the said northerly line of 16th 
 street 90 feet, thence south on a line parallel with 6th 
 avenue 105 feet, thence west on a line parallel with 
 16th street 90 feet, thence north on a line parallel 
 with 6th avenue 105 feet, to the point or place of 
 beginning. 
 
 NUMBER FORTY-SEVEN. 
 
 Rev. Philip G-illick, Watertown, N. Y., to John 
 Hughes. Date of Con. Aug. 19, 1842. Record in 
 liber 443, page 194, Feb. 10th, 1S44. Consideration, 
 $1,665. 
 
 All those four certain lots of ground situate, &c., 
 in 12th Ward of the city of New York, and known 
 and described on a certain map on file in Register’s 
 
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 
 
 78 
 
 “ As representative of the Diocese I am personally indebted to the amount of thirty thousand dollars 
 But by way of assets, I have in my personal rights an amount of property which I suppose, if its value could 
 be realized, could cover the debt.” 
 
 Let the public put these two declarations of April 28th and of May 15th together, and 
 behold the broad and unqualified contradictions between them. 
 
 Declared indebtness, April 2S.$ 30,000 
 
 Declared indebtness, May 15 .. ... 245,400 
 
 Difference . .$215,000 
 
 Declared Assets, April 2S. 30,000 
 
 • Declared Assets, May 15 . 139,000 
 
 Difference.-.• . $109,000 
 
 Again, while you anathematize me as guilty of falsehood, I perceive you equally wrong, 
 Mr. Le-Couteulux when you charge him with “ admitting that he told a falsehood.” You 
 know that as late as April 21, in his very last letter to you and the public, and in vindi¬ 
 cation of “ The Trustees of the Church of St. Louis,” his language was, “ Our letters 
 are before the public, and I leave it to them to decide which of us two has been 
 guilty of falsehood.” Equally groundless are your assaults upon Senator Putnam, 
 one of the brightest ornaments of the State, and of the Senate. Upon the Church 
 Property Bill which he introduced and you assail, I do not now dwell, nor upon your 
 harsh and bold attacks upon the American Press and its editors. But let me say with 
 Hamlet: “ After your death you were better have a bad epitaph, than their ill report 
 while you live.” 
 
 Of your first letter, conditionally promising the city a Library, you now say: 
 
 “It was written in a spirit of playfulness ! ” m 
 
 Then you said: 
 
 “I pledge myself solemnly there is xo jest as to the project of the new Library. 
 
 What am I to think of a man, and an Archbishop, too, who thus, like a child, promises 
 me a boon, and when I claim the pledge, tells me, like a child again, that he was only 
 in fun! 
 
 Again, April 28, where you speak so derisively of “ Bankrupt Boards of Catholic Lay 
 Trustees,” and of “ irresponsible lay trustees,” you declare that your “ income has 
 been derived from the free and voluntary offerings of the flock committed to your charge.” 
 So I supposed, and that under the rule which is called Cathedraticum, each large church 
 of your diocese paid $100 per annum for your support, and the smaller churches $50 
 per annum. But now you tell us your income comes from “ the Board of trustees of St. 
 Patrick's Church,” “ including Calvary Cemetery.” They it is, you now say, “ who pro¬ 
 vide for your decent maintenance.” Do you not receive support from more sources than 
 these ? 
 
 Heaven and earth knows there are abundant means to provide “ a decent maintenance,” 
 from the princely incomes wrung from the friends of the thousands of poor Germans and 
 Irish, whose bones are yearly buried in Calvary, at the rate of $7 for one grave, eight or 
 nine feet long, two feet and three-quarters wide, and nine feet deep, with five bodies 
 sometimes piled one top of another, and seven dollars additional exacted as often as the 
 the one piece of ground is opened, for each body interred, besides ten dollars paid fo* a 
 head-stone, which head-stone alone can preserve the one grave from the intrusion of 
 other bodies! For such a piece of earth from $17 to $45 is paid. My calculations, the 
 other day, Roman Catholics come to inform me, were far short of the astounding fact of 
 which they complain to one another, and some of them in the very bitterness of soul. Nor 
 did I make a duly large allowance for the dead, who are thrown, like dogs, into 
 trenches, at $3 a head! The Potters’ Fields of Italy, where a pit is opened and closed 
 every day in the year, there being 365 in all, and in which the dead, when ‘stripped,’ are 
 offensively crowded, like carcasses on a battle-field, present a scene hardly more revolting. 
 
 But I must close, and in doing so, let me remember, kind and considerate Archbishop, 
 your advice to one whom, two weeks since, you thrust, “ with covered hands,” into the 
 street. You say: 
 
 “ But, should he (Mr. Brooks) ever enter on a controversy again, let him not forget the motto prefixed to 
 this letter, in -which the great Dutch philosopher proclaims an important principle, namely: ‘ Light the 
 mother of truth, wiU not permit deception to enjoy a long reign.’ ” 
 
 Now, Sir,—by what authority do you claim to give me, whom you have discarded, 
 branded, and a hundred times pronounced guilty of “ falsehood,” advice ? By what 
 
SENATOR BROOKS AND f JOHN. 79 
 
 authority also do you speak iu so ex cathedra a manner to the American Press and 
 People? Who made you, “ f John, Archbishop of N. Y., or of the Province of New York.” 
 Did not your title come from a foreign power,—from the Pope and King of “ the States 
 of the Church ?” In the United States of America, and in the State of New York, in 
 which you bear yourself in so lordly a manner, freemen possess no titles, and acknowledge 
 no human masters. We have religious liberty, <; without discrimination or preference ” 
 of sect, guaranteed to us in the Constitution of the State, and in the Constitution of the 
 United States; but the holding “ of any office, or title of any kind whatever, from any 
 King, Prince, or Foreign State," without the consent of Congress, is in violation of the 
 Constitution of the United States ! 
 
 Yours is a title from a foreign power, and under it you receive conveyances, sell' 
 property, regulate the temporalities of the Church, become an Ambassador to Rome, sum¬ 
 moned there by the Pope, and owe more allegiance there than here. 
 
 I deny that in any enlarged, liberal, national, just sense, you are an American. No 
 Autocrat could be more despotic, and no man, clothed with place and power, less. 
 Republican. 
 
 Sir, you profess to be a worshipper of Truth. Let the God of all truth judge between 
 us, our motives, our records, and our acts. It is not by what Grotius says, but by what 
 you and I say and do, that we are to be judged by men and by the Judge of men. The 
 Spirit of Truth, it has been well written, is the Spirit of Meekness, and needs not the 
 service of passion. I have endeavored to speak and write the truth without prejudice or 
 passion ; and for to day again I leave my cause with the public. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 ERASTUS BROOKS. 
 
 
 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 It would require another book of the size of this one of the Controversy, to contain all 
 the matter adverse to the position of f John, which has been published by the Press 
 throughout the country ; we are, therefore, obliged to omit the great mass of editorial 
 comments in our possession. The following extracts form an average reflex of the opi¬ 
 nions set forth by those terrors of the f Bishop—the intellectual fraternity of Editors. 
 
 The New York Journal op Commerce, of May 18, devotes a column and a fourth of 
 its great length to a searching article on the subject of the Controversy. The Journal 
 says: 
 
 The palpable special pleading of all of Archbishop Hughes’ productions, contributes even more than his 
 unchristian bitterness to shipwreck every cause that he presents to the public. He seldom advances a pro¬ 
 position which is not refuted on the page that contains it, and he couples cajolings and sneers no oftener 
 than assertions and their opposite. His letter of the 28th of March last, on the subject of Mr. Putnam’s Bill, 
 was full of contradictory statements. The letter to Mr. Hammond, disclaiming partisanship for Mr. Seward, 
 was a broadcast electioneering manifesto to Catholics in favor of that Senator; and his productions in the 
 Brooks’ discussion teem with contradictions. A conclusive proof of the Archbishop’s insincerity, is seen in 
 the appeal he has made to Messrs. Glover and Wetmore’s Report, after having rejected the fair proposition 
 of Mr. Brooks, that the matter under discussion should be submitted to umpires, one to be chosen by each 
 of the disputants, and a third by the two individuals thus appointed. He adopted the suggestion of appeal¬ 
 ing to third persons, but chooses them all himself, and, in his last letter, presents to the public a certified 
 flaw, discovered in an unessential part of his opponent’s evidence, and calls upon the community to receive 
 it as proof that Mr. Brooks is a premeditated liar. This is not only dishonest; it ipcludes also the assump¬ 
 tion of utter imbecility on the part of the public who are to pass judgment upon the controversy. 
 
 The New York Observer, with its accustomed ability, handles the subject of the con¬ 
 troversy, in its issue of May 17 : 
 
 The Senator and Archbishop. —The Archbishop, in his controversy with Senator Brooks has flatted out 
 in'the same style in which he broke down in his controversy some years ago with Kirwan. After again and 
 again charging and declaring that he had proved Mr. Brooks to be guilty of falsehood, and having formally 
 dismissed him as beiDg altogether beneath his notice, he returns to the charge by publishing a card, and 
 asking a suspension of the public opinion for ten days or a fortnight, until he shall have had time to gather 
 the proofs of that which he has repeatedly insisted upon that he has proved abundantly.; 
 
 ************* 
 
 Senator Brooks has done great service to the cause of truth and justice, by drawing out the great facts 
 which he has exhibited to the public, and which he has established by the most irrefragable proofs. He is 
 now in a condition to compare his original statement in the Senate, which the Archbishop impugned, with 
 
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 the testimony which he has adduced in support of it, and it will be readily perceived that he has more than 
 made good this charge, which was received with so much astonishment at the time it was put forth. 
 
 ************* 
 
 In this controversy, if it were possible for the Archbishop to sink to a lower depth than he occupied before, 
 he must have found it now. The language to which he has descended cannot be equalled for vulgarity and 
 intemperance in the annals of respectable newspaper discussion, while his facts have all failed him, and the 
 opinion of the public, so far as it can be gathered from the press, and conversation, is united in his condem¬ 
 nation. We presume there are very few who now have any confidence whatever in the representative of 
 Pius IX in the diocese of New York. 
 
 The New York Evangelist says: 
 
 The Archbishop has damaged himself and his cause irreparably. In the present instance, we are con¬ 
 vinced that he has made many blunders, from the effort of which he will not readily rally. With great fair¬ 
 ness, Mr. Brooks has published in his own paper all that has been written on both sides. We are compelled 
 also to say that the prelate has betrayed an irritability of temper throughout the controversy, not becoming 
 an ecclesiastic. He has indulged in The use of language, not to the credit of his training or his taste. He 
 •has resorted, as it seems to us, to quibbles and sophistries, unworthy of one who ought to wear on his 
 frontlet that apostolic direction—" In simplicity and Godly sincerity, not by fleshly wisdom, but by the 
 grace of God." 
 
 After all, he has left his case in a position, which “ casts ominous conjecture on the whole success.” In 
 his first letter he accuses Mr. Brooks of falsehood. Notwithstanding this charge, he enters into controversy 
 with that gentleman. He does not yet deem him beneath his notice, but corresponds with him. Several 
 letters pass between the parties, the Archbishop reiterating the first charge of falsehood against his oppo¬ 
 nent. Proof being advanced rapidly and incontestably by Mr. Brooks in support of his assertion, the Arch¬ 
 bishop became restive and excited, like the author, under the peltings of criticism of Mr. Sheridan's 
 rehearsal. 
 
 The Independent, speaking of f John, says : 
 
 Returning from the Vatican to proclaim to the faithful the glorious triumph of the Church in the doctrine 
 of the Immaculate Conception, he finds his own inclosure invaded and the church trodden under foot by the 
 profane. In sudden choler he issues a manifesto declaring that good Catholics will not regard the law, and 
 threatening swift retribution upon its authors. Finding that this insolent document is met with a universal 
 jeer, he proceeds to assail the Hon. Erastus Brooks, of the Senate, charging him with falsehood, in the asser¬ 
 tion made by him in debate, that the Archbishop holds five millions of property. Mr. Brooks went quietly to 
 work, and produced from the records of deeds the indisputable proof of his statement. 
 
 * * * * * * * * * * *|* * 
 
 Mr. Brooks has kept his temper and maintained the courtesies of debate, persistently reiterating the 
 facts with the evidence. 
 
 ************* 
 
 Mr. Brooks has acquitted himself with great credit. This is his first appearance in the political arena, 
 and he bids fair to become a man of mark.” 
 
 The New York Day Book, in posting up the subject, says : 
 
 It appears to us that the Bishop would have done much better if he had come out in the first place and 
 proven Mr. Brooks’ speech in the Senate false, and not wait until the Senator has piled up forty-five facts 
 to sustain his assertion. 
 
 Now, after he has proved what he said in the Senate, and what Bishop Hughes said was a lie, the Bishop 
 refuses to give up the property, but sticks to it that Brooks lies, and that all decent people will say so. In 
 our opinion, there must be but very few decent people in New York, if all of them believe that Brooks has 
 not proven the Bishop a falsifier. We are afraid that about nine-tenths of the reading community will say 
 that the Bishop has come out of this controversy rather shabbily, and look upon him as a “ used-up man.” 
 
 FROM THE NEW YORK SUNDAY TIMES. 
 
 This controversy will have an immense effect upon the country at large. The clothing of the lamb has 
 been stripped from the shoulders of the wolf. Americans perceive that there must be some cause for the 
 recent upheavings of the masses against foreign influence and religious subtlety—that there is truth in some 
 of the warnings against that influence of religion over politics which the latter has undertaken to destroy by 
 the use of its own weapons. It is a great thing for the world at large, too, that the head of the Romish 
 Church in America turns out to have been a blackguard in disguise, to whom equivocation is a charitable 
 word for personal application. For drawing to a head a secret fester on the body politic of the country, Mr. 
 Brooks should receive the thanks of the whole Union. 
 
 FROM THE ALBANY REGISTER. 
 
 WHY DON’T THEY PUBLISH THEM? 
 
 Will somebody tell us why the Seward organ does not publish the official documents lately issued by 
 11 + John, Archbishop of the Province of New York.” They are full of matter for speculation, and are entitled 
 to circulation at the hands of those organs. Governor Seward said of the Bishop, “He is my friend—I 
 honor, respect, and confide in himand it is a marvel that his disciples should ignore the Bishop in this time 
 of his need. 
 
 Are the Seward people sinking under the pressure of the Bishop’s support? Are they apprehensive that 
 the American people will start buck from association with a party resting upon such pillars as Romish Bishops, 
 and the foreign influence that cluster around him ? Do they dread that the national instincts, the American 
 
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 81 
 
 sympathies, the pride of country in the hearts of the people, will revolt at alliances against their country¬ 
 men, their republicanism, and their faith ? Do they appreciate the spirit which pervades these issues from 
 the Arch-Episcopacy of the Province of New York, and fear that they may he appreciated by the mass of the 
 American people ? 
 
 ■Where is the Evening Journal, the Times , the Rochester Democrat , and the Buffalo Express, that their 
 voice is not heard in his vindication ? Why are they silent? These organs have plenty of denunciation for 
 the “ Know Nothings,”—plenty of denunciation for American and Protestant men, for American principles 
 and American policy; there is no lack of invention—no paucity of contrivance against them. While their 
 genius for fiction has revelled to a degree mounting to the sublime, so far as the “ Know Nothings” are con¬ 
 cerned, had they no word of consolation for the Bishop ? Do they mean to abandon him utterly ? Do they 
 lack the courage to confess his association, or the manhood to acknowledgehis friendship ? Have they forgot 
 past favors, and, repudiating the obligations of common gratitude, do they intend to let him wander a politi¬ 
 cal mendicant, and die in a political almshouse ? Do they mean to let him be laid in the political potter’s 
 field? 
 
 We protest against this desertion by the Seward organs of their old friends. It isn’t manly. It isn’t 
 honest. The Bishop has earned their support—he can claim it as the reward of past services. If he finds, 
 however, that his claims are repudiated, his experience will have furnished another illustration of a melan¬ 
 choly truth: that politicians, as well as republics, are ungrateful. 
 
 FROM THE NEW YORK CRUSADER. 
 
 (Rotes on t John, hy W. 3. Tisdale.) 
 
 The t Bishop of the “ Province” of New York, may venture to call the managers of his property fools and 
 bungling idiots, if he likes, but we are not disposed to insult them by accusing them of such stultish misman¬ 
 agement as they are charged with by the t Bishop. This is supposing he is not, himself, the manager of 
 “John Hughes’” property, but, if he “ John Hughes,” is the manager of his own property, then t John 
 Hughes is a great t-to so mismanage his own vast possession as to be unable to answer, under a fort¬ 
 
 night, the simple question—whether he does, or does not, own certain property deeded to him. 
 
 Our amiable cross Bishop has another fling at the American people, in his last long letter, and talks of “ the 
 
 IMBECILE CREDULITY OF A PUBLIC CALLING ITSELF ENLIGHTENED.” 
 
 Such consummate impudence and brazen insolence, could only emanate from one so intensely scarlet as 
 to be unable to blush more deeply. 
 
 Mrs. Opie may now hide her diminished head, for Bishop Hughes’ dissertation on lying, throws her essays 
 on detraction so far into the shade, that they will never be referred to again as good authority. He manifests 
 so profound a knowledge of the analysis of falsehood, that we are constrained to believe his ability in hand¬ 
 ling the subject has grown out of an extensive practice of the art. His fine-spun theories are evidently 
 founded upon those advanced in the “ Secreta monita Societatis Jesus,” or secret instructions of the Jesuits, 
 wherein lying and stealing are made to be considered virtues, under certain circumstances—such, for instance, 
 as bringing “ treasure” into the church. 
 
 Hereafter, we shall not be surprised at any specimen of the bravo and ruffian style of literature which may 
 emanate from the gall-dipped pen of that modern Wolsey, whose heart “ is crammed with arrogancy, spleen 
 and pride.” 
 
 Verily, t John, you are no part or parcel of this age, this country, or this people; you belong to other 
 times, another place, and another race; and it is this stubborn fact, so forcibly brought to view by “ the late 
 and improved sense of the term Americanism,” that rankles in your very soul, and makes you as snarly, 
 and venomous, and ugly, as a cross-grained cur in the dog-days. 
 
 “ Go ! get thee to a nunnery!” 
 
 MIND YOUR BUSINESS. 
 
 The Utica Telegraph, a paper entertaining no political sympathies in common with 
 Senator Brooks, says: 
 
 Bishop Hughes will find that he cannot send anybody out of the window in this country, even with covered 
 hands. God bless us 1 has it come to that and this? Let Bishop Hughes mind his business, and attend to 
 his legitimate duties, and he will have no occasion to get out of temper with the press. His ambitious, 
 tyrannical and un-American opinions and demeanor, are like curses coming home to roost upon him. His 
 controversy with The Express has placed him in the most undignified position we have ever before seen him. 
 Our opinions concur with that of every respectable journal we have perused. 
 
 FKOM THE PHILADELPHIA AMERICAN BANNER. 
 
 (From Tisdale's Correspondence.) 
 
 The controversy now going on between our American Senator, Hon. Erastus Brooks, and the celebrated 
 clerical politician John Hughes, appointed by the Pope, Bishop of the “ Province of New York,” is command¬ 
 ing a large share of public attention. It grew out of the passage of a Church Property bil), by our Legisla¬ 
 ture vestin'* the property of the churches in the hands of the trustees, instead of the bishops. 
 
 On Bishop Hughes’ return from a visit to his “holy father” in Borne, he protested against the observance 
 of the stipulations in the bill, and intimated in very broad terms that there were ways to avoid a compliance 
 with the requirements of the law. As the Bishop is, and always has been, above our laws (being on the 
 platform of his “ higher law” friend Seward), he cannot now be called an outlaw; but if any one who had 
 heretofore subscribed to, and acknowledged allegiance to our laws, had thus proclaimed his determination 
 avoid the action of a law of the State, he would certainly be no more nor less than an outlaw. 
 
- - - " - . . . " ' ==« 
 
 DEWITT & DAVENPORT, 
 
 PUBLISHERS, BOOKSELLERS, 
 
 AND 
 
 ‘£BI)tile0tile ml detail Dealers in Dcaks, 
 
 CHEAP PUBLICATIONS, PERIODICALS, AMERICAN AND FOREIGN 
 
 2*j:e'vs7's:e*.a-:e»:e:i*.s6. 
 
 160 & 162 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK. 
 
 D. & D. would respectfully call the attention of the Trade to their unequalled facilities for 
 filling and forwarding all Orders for Books, Magazines, Cheap Publications, Newspapers, &c., 
 at the publishers’ lowest prices. 
 
 Dealers will find it to their interest to have their orders packed at our Establishment, as 
 we will inclose in our package (without extra charge), anything else they may have to receive 
 from New York, so that it will reach them without extra freight. 
 
 D. & D. do not say that they will supply Books, &c., in advance of any other house, but 
 will abide by the universal decision of their customers, that the promptness with which their 
 orders are always despatched, is of itself a sufficient guarantee that they cannot be beat. 
 
 HUMANITY IN THE CITY. 
 
 BEING A SERIES OF DISCOURSES RECENTLY DELIVERED IN NEW YORK. 
 
 BY REV. EDWIN H. CHAPIN. 
 
 1 vol., 12mo., cloth. Price $1. 
 
 DISCOURSE I. —The Lessoxs of the Street. 
 
 “ II.— Max axd Hachixery. 
 
 “ III.— Strife for Pbeceoexce. 
 
 “ IV.—The Symbols of the Republic. 
 
 “ Y.— The Sprixgs of Social Life. 
 
 “ VI. — The Allies of the Tempter. 
 
 “ VII.— The CniLDP.EX of the Poor. 
 
 “ VIH.— The Help of Religiox. 
 
 EXTRACT FROM THE PREFACE. 
 
 “ This volume aims at applying the highest standard of Morality and Religion to the phases of every-day 
 life. In order, however, that the view with which these discourses have been prepared may not be miscon¬ 
 ceived, I wish merely to say, that I am far from supposing that these are the only themes to be preached, or 
 that they constitute the highest class of practical subjects, and shall be sorry if, in any way, they seem to 
 imply a neglect of that interior and holy life which is the spring not^only of right affections, but of clear per¬ 
 ception and sturdy every-day duty. I hope, on the contrary, that the very aspects of this busy city life — 
 the very problems which start out of it — will tend to convince men of the necessity of this inward and 
 regenerating principle. Nevertheless, I maintain that these topics have a place in the circle of the preach¬ 
 er’s work, and he need entertain no fear of desecrating his pulpit by secular themes who seeks to consecrate 
 all things in any way involving the action and welfare of men, by the spirit and the aims of His Religion 
 who, while he preached the Gospel, fed the hungry and healed the sick, and touched the issues of every tem¬ 
 poral want. I may have failed in the method, I trust I have not in the purpose.” 
 
 1 
 
IF^IO-G^IF’IHSCJTTT^ OP 
 
 THE NEW YORK CRUSADER. 
 
 AN ANTI-JESUITICAL AMERICAN WEEKLY PAPER. 
 
 UNDER THE EDITORIAL CHARGE OF 
 
 Glr. TP . SECCHI 3DB O A&. S 3La X , 
 
 And having as regular contributors, 
 
 Hhe Reformer of Italy—ALEXANDER GAVASiJI, 
 
 W. Scudder Tisdale, Esq., of New York City ; Josiah F. Polk, Esq., of Washington 
 City ; Rev. T. Boorne, Western New York ; and other eminent writers, 
 from all parts of the Union, all of whom belong to the 
 Protestant National American Party. 
 
 Office 298 Broadway, N. Y. Subscription, $2 00 per annum, in advance. 
 
 VOLUME IV. 
 
 PLATFORM OF THE NEW YORK CRUSADER. 
 
 “Americans shall rule America. 
 
 “ Abrogation or alteration of the Naturalization Law. 
 
 “ Incessant war against the system of the Papacy. 
 
 “ Religious and civil freedom at home and abroad. 
 
 “ No persecutions nor inquisitions for diversity of opinions. 
 
 “ The maintenance of public schools at any sacrifice. 
 
 “ Protection to American citizens abroad, and their rights respected in whatever couti- 
 try they may be. 
 
 “ The prohibition to Catholic bishops of holding in their hands the monopoly of church- 
 property.” * 5 . ^ A \ 
 
 The NEW YORK CRUSADER is also recommended by the following distinguished 
 
 clergymen : 
 
 Rev. Dr. Murray (“ Kirwan of Elizabethtown, N. J.; Rev. Dr. G. B. Cheever, Rev. 
 R. Baird. D. D., Rev. Geo. Potts, D. D., Rev. E. R. Fairchild, D. D., Rev. Thomas De Witt, 
 D. D., Rev. John Knox, D. D., Rev. John S. Inskip, Rev. Dr. Jessup, and many others. 
 
 The following eminent Americans endorse the principles of the" N. Y. CRUSADER, 
 as may be seen from letters, fyc., addressed to us : 
 
 Hon. Wh. R. Smith, of Alabama, member of Congress. 
 
 Hon. E. Joy Morris, of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Hon. James O. Putnam, Senator, of Buffalo, N. Y. 
 
 Hon. Thos. R. Whitney, member of Congress, N. Y. 
 
 Hon. Erastus Brooks, Senator, N. Y. 
 
 Daniel Ullman, Esq. Prof. S. F. B. Morse. 
 
 James W. Barker, Esq. 
 
 % 
 
 THE MYSTERIES 0E HOME IN THE 19TH CENTURY, 
 
 OR THE 
 
 COURT OF ROME, FROM 1814 TO 1855. 
 
 THE MOST THRILLING HISTORY OF MODERN TIMES. 
 
 WRITTEN BY TWO PENS, 
 
 POH. THE 3T» GiRTT&LAJDlEEEt.. 
 
 The Mysteries of Rome will be commenced in the Crusader the first week in June next, 
 each number illustrated by an engraving expressly designed in Italy. 
 
 To the Mysteries of Rome, will follow as a sequel, 
 
 'x’xsss bJtst js§b:E3:o.XE:jss q>^ the 
 
 AND 
 
 THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION 
 
 in Europe and South America—all illustrated. 
 
THE NEW YORK EXPRESS. 
 
 TO THE ETJBLIC. 
 
 The New York Expp.e=3 newspaper is an old, well-known Journal, whose credit and character have been 
 established for many years, and whose circulation is more or less throughout all parts of the United States. 
 To extend the circulation, and thus to enlarge its sphere of influence, we take the liberty of laying before you 
 its Prospectus for 1855, with the hope you will find it convenient and agreeable to use your efforts therefor. 
 
 PRGSPECTU3 OF 1855, OF THE NEW YORK EXPRESS. 
 
 This Newspaper is Published in the City of New York, by JAMES S,- ERASTUS 
 BROOKS. Office, corner of Wall and Nassau Streets, New York. 
 
 The New York Express 
 
 is a Daily Journal, the first issue of which is about 4 A.M., but there are successive editions during the day, 
 in order to publish the very latest news by Mail or Telegraph, until 5 or 6 p.h. The price is $7 per annum, 
 with a choice of any of the editions. 
 
 The Semi-Weekly Express 
 
 is issued every Tuesday and Friday, on a sheet of the largest size daily paper, full of select, commercial, 
 miscellaneous and news intelligence. Price $4 per annum. 
 
 The Weekly Express, Double Sheet, 
 
 is a quarto, published on Friday, containing Fifty-six solid columns of reading intelligence, and is, by all 
 
 odds, tlie larsrest a ml fullest AVccJtly Paper in tlie World. It is of itself, a Book. 
 
 Price, for a year, £2, single copy. Twenty copies to one address for $30. Ten copies for $16 to one address. 
 
 FOR CLUBS. 
 
 THE DOLLAR (Weekly) EXPRESS 
 
 is a single sheet, published on Wednesday, containing the select news of the Daily; single sheet, $1. Twenty 
 copies will be sent to one address for $15. Ten copies to one address for $S. Five copies for $4 50 — making 
 the cheapest newspaper in the United States. 
 
 Payments in all cases in advance. Clergymen and charitable institutions can have the Double Sheet 
 Weekly for $1 50. Current Bank Bills of any of the States receivable, and the Proprietors taking the risk of 
 the remittance, if mailed in the presence of the Postmaster. 
 
 The EXPRESS is a steady, straightforward Journal, wholly and thoroughly American in heart and senti¬ 
 ment-uniting a healthy and rational love of Progress, with that sound conservative spirit that tempers all 
 progress with reason and moderation. Its Editors are most ardently devoted to a Union of these States, and 
 they deem the preservation of that Union, in the spirit of the Constitution, and of the compromises in which 
 it was formed, of the highest importance, not only to the existence of Constitutional Government, and of 
 Liberty itself, but to the salvation of the people from civil and intestine wars. We shall, therefore, not only 
 do nothing to make the North hate the South, or the South the North, but on the contrary, everything we 
 can do to draw closer the bonds of the Union, and to make one section respect and love the other. Our aim 
 will be to make the EXPRESS a truly American Journal, worthy the support of all those who 
 truly love their country, and feel devoted to its future honor and prosperity. 
 
 Tlie Editors of the EXPRESS spare no pains, or money, to collect, by correspondence, or through the tele¬ 
 graph, the very latest intelligence from all parts of the United States, and from other countries; and tiiey 
 allow no Journal to surpass theirs, in the publication of the very latest News, Political, Commercial, or Mis¬ 
 cellaneous. Their Weekly sheet is a Family Journal, which, for the decency, decorum, aud sound 
 principles, moral and social, that pervade its columns, they can cheerfully commend to the introduction of 
 any circle. Their Semi-weekly and Daily sheets, in the variety, extent and accuracy of their intelligence, as 
 to Trade, Navigation or Currency, are seldom equalled, and never excelled. No Merchant, Trader, Farmer 
 or Planter can afford to do without such a Newspaper, for, in the useful, money-making information it brings 
 home to him, he will be repaid, every year, in his own pocket, twenty times over. Their mechanical work is 
 done by a powerful 6team-engine, now driving four different steam-presses ; and hence they are able to print 
 tlie quantity of useful matter they do, at so cheap a price. 
 
 The NEW YORK EXPRESS is intended to be both a Family and Business Newspaper. Its 
 broad and ample columns will contain — 
 
 THE NEWS OF THE DAY. 
 
 THE PRICES CURRENT. 
 
 REVIEWS OF THE MARKETS. 
 
 THE KATES OF EXCHANGE IN NEW YORK and 
 
 elsewhere. 
 
 BANKNOTE TABLE. 
 
 MONEY MARKET IN NEW YORK. 
 
 Address, at our expense, 
 
 J. & E. BROOKS, New York. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE,FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. 
 MISCELLANEOUS READING. 
 
 NOTICES OF NEW WORKS. 
 
 ESSAYS UPON THE ARTS AND FASHIONS. 
 
 SPIRIT OF THE AMERICAN AND BRITISH PRESS. 
 AN OCCASIONAL TALE. 
 

 

 
L65824 
 
 vol.16. 
 
 ISSUED TO 
 
 / & rra, v 
 
 ts#/'/ 6 *