Franklin Repository

Two classes of people in these United States join hands and hearts in their hatred of General Butler. They are the Democrats, and the ex-rebels. This classification is imperfect, because the latter class includes many of the former; though because many Democrats are not and never were rebels we retain it, for want of a better. The Democrats hate him with a perfect hatred, because, once high in the esteem of their party, his love of country was stronger than love of party, and with the beginning of the rebellion, he shook the Democratic dust from his feet, and with bitter denunciation of his party's sympathy with traitors, drew his sword in the cause of the Union. The ex-rebels hate him with the frantic but impotent hate of conquered and powerless enemies. Like a venemous serpent with its fangs extracted, they retain all their former desire to wreak their vengeance on him, but their fangs have been extracted, and they are harmless. Hence the less able they are to bite, the more vehemently do they hiss. General Butler had a way, peculiar to himself, of making rebels feel that it was a costly business to rebel against the Government. When in command at New Orleans, he taught that as they made it necessary for the Government to keep a large standing army there they should also bear its expenses. Acting on this plan instead of drawing on the treasury of the United States, for necessary funds, he levied heavy assessments on wealthy and notorious rebels, to defray the expenses of his department. This they have never forgotten. They had a kind of pride then, and that pride was touched.

Gen. Twiggs was an old officer of the regular army when the war broke out, stationed with his command in Texas, and had received many honors from his government, and some special marks of distinction. He was a traitor for all this, and when the rebellion broke out instead of using his command to put it down, he surrendered it, together with his fortifications and all his supplies and munitions of war, to a turbulent mob of rebels. At New Orleans Gen. Butler, in pursuance of his plan of making the rebellion pay the expenses of its rather costly spree, seized three swords which had been presented to Gen. Twiggs by the United States and by the States of Georgia and Texas, for meritorious services rendered him in the Mexican war, and some silver. As he had forgotten his obligations to his country, Gen. Butler returned the swords to the President at Washington, and appropriated the silver to pay the expenses of his department. Recently a niece of Gen. Twiggs brought suit against Gen. Butler to recover the value of the swords, which she valued at $34,000, and of the silver valued at $2,000. An order of arrest was issued by a New York Judge, and his bail fixed at $15,000. Of course nothing will come of it. Gen. Butler did exactly right in seizing the property, as he did, and turning it over to the United States. But the Democracy make the circumstance the occasion for showing their venom and hatred for the man, and Oh! how they do pitch in. How dignified the terms they employ, and how calmly and dispassionately they discuss him! They cannot forgive the man whose patriotism was stronger than the ties of party. As for the ex-rebels of New Orleans, they owe much to Butler, besides their humiliation and subjection. They owe to him the protection of their property, the security of their lives, the health of their city, and they are indebted to him for the best municipal government they ever had. But all this is as nothing in comparison with the fact that he made them feel and obey the government of the United States.

The question of retaining the bible in our common schools, or of suppressing it, has been pretty well discussed of late, owing to a renewal of the effort by Catholics to effect a radical change in the common school system. The subject is one of grave and serious import, and the impression which prevails among the people, that the bone of contention is the presence and use of the Protestant bible in the schools, is erroneous. If this were the extent of the difficulty, the liberal and conciliating spirit manifested by the friends of the common school system would reasonably lead one to believe that it might easily be healed. But it is not, and the removal of the obnoxious bible from the schools, which has been recommended by able and influential Protestants would be a material concession thrown away. We have no disposition to enter into a discussion of this question at this time, nor to urge our objections against the proposition to shut the doors of our school houses against the bible, for that will not satisfy the Catholic Church, but to submit to the words of one of the most influential Catholic journals the extent of their demand.

The Freeman Journal, in reply to Henry Ward Beecher's liberal views on the subject, says:

"If the Catholic translation of the Books of Holy Writ, which is to be found in the homes of all our better educated Catholics, were to be dissected by the ablest Catholic theologian in the land, and merely lessons to be taken from it--such as Catholic mothers read to their children; and with all the notes and comments, in the popular edition, and others added, with the highest Catholic indorsement--and if these admirable Bible lessons were to be ruled as to be read in all the public schools, this would not diminish, in any substantial degree, the objection we Catholics have to letting Catholic children attend to the public schools." It adds: "We will not subject our Catholic children to your teachers;" "we will not expose our Catholic children to association with all the children who have a right to attend the public schools!" And again: "The 'State' or the 'City' has no more right to tax me for schooling my neighbor's children, than for feeding them, or clothing them, or housing them. The utmost that can be granted is, that, for abandoned children, the State may provide schooling as it provides food and clothes, for its paupers."

This objection goes to the very heart of the common school system. Its demands do not stop short of its complete destruction. If there is anything of which the old free States could justly boast, and which other nations have pointed to as their special pride and honor, it is their free schools. And the distinguishing feature of the system is that all children have a right to attend them. This right, which brings the opportunity of an education to all, the children of poverty, as well as those of wealth, is assailed by the Catholic Church. No system of education can be devised which will not imperil it, except that system which puts the schools in charge of the States themselves, and for which the States provide the means by taxation. The common school system, with or without the bible, is equally obnoxious to the Catholics, because they fear the influence of the daily association of their children with Protestant youths and Protestant teachers, and they are resolved to leave no measures untried to defeat it, even if its destruction be necessary. We wish to call the subject to the attention of our readers, for it is one which in the future is destined to agitate this country. Secretly and insidiously has the Catholic Church labored to prepare for its assault upon the Common Schools, and now that she is beginning to unmask her guns, the people should be warned and prepared.

A large audience assembled in Repository Hall, Thursday evening, to listen to the lecture on "Caste," by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, the Hon. Charles Sumner.

At ten minutes before eight the distinguished lecturer entered the Hall accompanied by his Honor Judge Rowe. His appearance was greeted with applause. He was introduced to the audience by Judge Rowe, in a few well-timed remarks.

Mr. Sumner began his lecture by saying that the question of Caste he opened a great subject of immediate practical interest. Happily slavery no longer no exists to obstruct the peace of our Republic, but it is not yet dead in other lands, while among us the impious pretension of this great wrong still survives against the African because he is black, and against the Chinese because he is yellow. This is a claim of hereditary power from color--All of which is inconsistent with that sublime truth, being a part of God's law for the government of the world, which is for the unity of the human family and its final harmony on earth.

Government has for centuries been a device, an expedient--at most an art. It must become a science subject to the laws as fixed as astronomy and chemistry. This will be the science of justice on earth. To this end there must be knowledge. The laws must be understood. Every human soul testifies to the law of right; and under the safeguard of this law I now, said Mr. Sumner, place the rights of all mankind--hoping to contribute something to that judgement which blasts the effrontery of Caste as doubly offensive, first to the idea of a Republic and secondly to human nature itself. He then presented a picture of Caste in India, exhibiting the contrast between the Brahmin, child of rank and privilege, and the Sudra, child of degradation and disability. The sacred Hindoo book says: "When a Brahmin springs to the light he is born above the world." Passing from ancient India to our Republic, the Caste claiming hereditary rank and privilege is white, and the Caste doomed to hereditary degradation and disability is black; and this pretention is vindicated by an alleged difference of capacity, and it is said that all men do not proceed from a common stock. Here Mr. Sumner quoted from Genesis the creation of man, and also the words of St. Paul, that all are of "one blood." He then said that the apologists for Caste hurry from these tests to science, and these he followed.

He then sketched the varieties of the human family, as indicated by color, skill and language, showing that people differ in color and skill and language which philosophy traced to a common origin. Here he quoted the testimony of Humboldt in his Cosmos to the unity of the human family and against caste. The unquestionable unity appeared in the common organization, common nature and common destiny, being at once physical, moral and prophetic. By these tokens is he known everywhere to be man, and by these tokens is he everywhere entitled to the rights of man. The dog is cosmopolitan as man, and makes no discrimination of condition or complexion in his fidelity. Every whole is unity. This is the law of creation, from the sun in the heavens to the soul of man; not one law for one group of stars, and one law for one group of men; but one law for all stars, and one law for all men. Only when we consider the universality of the moral law do we appreciate the goodness of this unity. Religion takes up the cross, and the daily prayer "Our Father who art in heaven," is the daily witness of the brotherhood of man. If not children of Adam, we are all children of God.

Mr. Sumner then considered the Common Destiny of Humanity, and the promise of a common universal civilization. Why this common humanity, why this common brotherhood, if the inheritance is for the Brahmins only? He was not disturbed that this result had not been reached already. It would come under the law of progress. Already our European civilization leads the way. But there is no section of Europe which has not risen from well attested degradation. Here he dwelt on England as described by Julius Caesar, whose people were painted savages, and whose conjugal system was an incestuous concubinage. These were our progenitors. The same report might be made of France. Nothing worse is now said of Africa. But progress here prefigures progress everywhere; nay, it is the first stage in the world--progress. To the inquiry how is this destiny to be accomplished, he said simply by recognizing the law of unity and acting accordingly. The law is plain; obey it. Drive caste from this Republic and it would be like Cain, a vagabond.

Bountiful agencies of civilization are now at work. Time and space--ancient tyrants--keeping the people apart--are now overcome. There is nothing of aspiration for universal man which is not within reach of well directed effort. By the printing press and steam engine civilization is extended and secured. These two agencies are more than Greece and Rome contributed to man. The question "How?" is followed by the question "When?" Not at once; not in nay way which does not recognize nature as co-worker. To help in the work it is not necessary to be emperor or king. Every body can do something. Not a thing done, not a thing said, which does not help in part the beautiful consummation.

In conclusion Mr. Sumner said that he was impressed anew by the grandeur of the question. Let caste prevail and civilization is threatened. Let caste be trampled out and there will be a triumph which will make the Republic more than ever an example. In the large interest beyond, said he, I have not lost sight of the practical interest at home. This question must be settled; and again I repeat nothing is settled which is not right. Here as always justice is practical, politic--the best practice, the best policy. Hospitality of citizenship is the law of our national life. If the Chinese come for labor, we have the advantage of their wonderful and docile industry; if for citizenship, then do they offer the pledged incorporation in our Republic. Nor is there peril in the gifts they bring. As all rivers are lost in the sea, so will all peoples be lost in our Republic.

He occupied the attention of his hearers about an hour and a half, during which time he was listened to with marked attention. After its conclusion a few of the audience remained to congratulate the Senator. Mr. Sumner left in the 9 o'clock train for Lancaster, where he had an engagement to lecture on Friday evening.