Brownson's reply relieved him greatly; he might have been guilty of want of good judgment. What he wrote was not deduced from Brownson's letter, but was suggested by some of the invidious and exceedingly ill-judged quibbling in some of the Catholic papers. The letter from Baltimore to the New York Times, evidently written by a crafty dissatisfied Catholic, served as his text. He does not like to take extracts from other papers because he does not wish to engage in controversy. He agrees with Brownson about the committee of bishops; they should be simply advisory and not undertake to direct or manage. If this seems inconsistent with remarks in other letters, it is because he had in mind men on the Atlantic coast whose prominence is equalled by their rudeness and recklessness and who seem to think that skill in raising a row and flinging mud demonstrates their intellectual ability. His paper could be cut in half, but he had it printed up as he composed it. His two great faults are diffusiveness and discursiveness. He will read his own paper if he is able. :: III-3-c A.L.S. 5pp. 8vo.