L. Kip



Download Full Text (4.5 MB)


Kip copies down several newspaper excerpts regarding Mr. Onderdonk's letter to the Evening Post and provides his own commentary on the situation.




Daily Advertiser, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Dwight, James De Peyster, Bishop Chase, Mr. Onderdonk, Lord Kenyon, Evening Post, Brooklyn Street


New York Sep 18. 1824.

Dear Brother,

Without preface, introduction, or remarks I shall proceed immediately to business. You recollect the day you left us a piece appeared in the Daily Advertiser, taken from a Liverpool paper, which I gave you. The next Evening the following appeared in the Evening Post.

From the Evening Post of Sep. 14. 1824

Mr. Coleman

Sir, “The following note was yesterday offered for insertion in the Daily Advertiser, but Mr. Dwight has thought proper to refuse it a place, please to insert in the post and oblige a correspondent.

Mr Dwight,

Sir. The article in your paper of yesterday, from the Liverpool Advertiser, respecting the affair of Bishop Chase is incorrect in one or two important particulars. From a wish to avoid newspaper discussion, nothing further is here said on the subject.

Mr. James De Peyster called on me and said, he had seen Mr. Dwight who informed him it was written by the Revd. Mr. [Onderdonk] of Brooklyn. The next day the following [?] appeared in the Daily Advertiser.

From the Daily Advertiser of Sept. 15. 1824

“On Monday last we published a paragraph from a Liverpool paper, relating to the Object of Bishop Chase of Ohio’s late visit to England, the success he had met with, and the respect with which he was treated by persons in that country, particularly by Lord Kenyon. The article was extracted, because it contained a gratifying notice of a highly respectable clergyman of our country, with whom I have for many years been personally acquainted, and without the slightest knowledge it could disturb the feelings of any person in our country. But in the course of the day the anonymous note inserted below was handed in for publication. At that time I had left the office for dinner, but on my return met the author in Brooklyn Street, who mentioned the subject. I told him if he would specify the “important particulars” which he claimed to be incorrect. I would have it inserted, but that it would not be published in its then undefined condition. He “thought proper” to refuse to specify, and for that reason I “thought it proper” to decline the publication of such an [unmeaning] anonymous paragraph. In consequence of this the following appeared in the Evening Post of Tuesday.

Extract from the Evening Post of Sep. 16 1824

Mr. Coleman

Sir. The author of a note addressed to Mr. Dwight, on the subject of an article from a Liverpool paper respecting Bishop Chase’s affair must again ask room in the Evening Post for a short paragraph. Mr. Dwight, in his paper of yesterday, enumerates on the contents of the Liverpool article. The Object of Bishop Chase’s visit to England--his success--and the respectful attention with which he was there treated. The publication of this fact did not “disturb the feelings of any person”. The extract however contained more particulars than these, though artfully interwoven with them; and it would have been fair in M.D. to have included the whole matter of the extract in his summary of yesterday. In the conversation “in Brooklyn Street” the author far from “refusing to specify” expressly told Mr. D. that he had no objection to name to him the [?] assertion in the Liverpool extract, and Mr. D was accordingly told the chief particular that was disputed. This particular Mr. D. forgets to mention in his yesterday’s summary of the article from Liverpool.

Though this information was given to Mr. Dwight personally, it was deemed proper not to have it specified in her paper as that would probably lead to a “newspaper discussion”. For the same reason nothing more definite is here stated. The privelidge [sic] of contradicting in general terms such a paragraph as that from Liverpool must be allowed; or it is in the power of an editor to [focus] any subject before the public, be it expedient, or inexpedient, decorous or indecorous. Mr. D considers the note sent him as anonymous, though the author’s was left with him. Was it as truly anonymous as the article from the Liverpool Advertiser?

Extract from the Daily Advertiser of Sept. 18

The Rev. Mr. [Onderdonk] takes a most singular course for a man who wishes to avoid “newspaper discussions” after refusing to specify the particulars in which the Article from the Liverpool paper was incorrect, he says in the Evening Post of Thursday, that he told me, in Brooklyn Street, the chief particular that was disputed; and then adds, that I forgot to mention it in my paragraph in answer to his first communication. “Did the Revered Gentlemen suppose that I was about to volunteer my [services] to make out the deficiencies of his [sunnless] Article? He has [?] the answer--for in the very next sentence after the one just alluded to he says, though this information was given to Mr. Dwight personally, it was deemed proper not to have it specified in his paper as that would probably lead to a “newspaper discussion” and he still persists in the same [?], for he immediately subjoins “for the same reason nothing more definite in here stated” we leave him to reconcile these absurdities at his leasure [sic].

Mr. O. seems to suppose that his Article was not anonymous, because his name was left with me. He might as well have stated that it was written in his family Bible. He is not anonymous, but his paragraph was. Mr. O makes the following [?], the privelidge [sic] of contradicting on general terms such a paragraph as that from the Liverpool Advertiser must be allowed, or it is in the power of an Editor to [focus] any subject before the public, be it expedient or inexpedient, decorous or indecorous. If Mr. O imagines he possesses what he here calls a priviledge [sic] with regard to the New York Daily Advertiser, no man ever laboured under a greater mistake. That paper is under my direction & not his. If he possesses this priviledge [sic] as it respects one article extracted from a foreign paper, for the accuracy of which we in this country are in no measure responsible, other persons may possess it as it respects all others, and in the [excuse] of it, instead of sending their denials of it abroad to the paper where the Articles originated, they will fill our papers with general contradictions, of the matter [unpublished] from foreign papers. Besides there is no established censor of the press in this country, and the last that I shall ever submit to, even with regard to what is “expedient, or inexpedient, decorous or indecorous” will be one of a hierarchical character. I am accountable to my readers for the expediency or decorum of what appears in my paper and not to Mr. Onderdonk.

I have chosen this way of sending you this information rather than the [rush] of sending newspaper. This I think more [certain]. Mr. De Peyster takes much interest in this affair, he has just left me after calling on Mr. Onderdonk for particulars, which Mr. O refuses unless he (Mr. De Peyster) will promise not to publish them. The whole affair I thought a mean [pitiful] affair. All of a pain with what has already taken place.

Yours sincerely

L. Kip

Letter to Philander Chase



Rights Statement

No Copyright - United States