ny stage of the conflict, whether to parry the blow aimed
at himself, or to send home to his antagonist's bosom, a vigorous
thrust which neither the dexterity of sophistry could elude, nor the
buckler of brazen falsehood ward off. Indeed the mass of his
documents, and the readiness and aptness to the purpose with which he
used them, seems to have been one of the chief causes of the bitter
vexation which his opponent continually betrays. That he should have
fallen into a few mistakes is nothing surprising--that he should have
fallen into _so_ few, is indeed wonderful, and proves the industry and
diligence with which he labored at times when from the fatiguing
nature, and great amount of his public efforts, one would have
supposed he must have been obliged to indulge in perfect repose. But
to the errors.

He stated the first evening, page 12, that there were now, exclusive
of the publications of the Anti-Slavery Society, one hundred
newspapers boldly advocating the principles of abolition. 'There are,'
says the Emancipator, 'about that number friendly to our cause, and
that occasionally speak in our behalf, but not that _boldly advocate_
our principles,' or, as perhaps would be the more accurate mode of
expression, that do not boldly advocate our principles, _in their
application_ to the subject to which we apply them.

On the second evening, Mr. Thompson in speaking of the New York State
Anti-Slavery Convention, page 30, said there were 600 delegates at
Utica the first day, and that when driven away by a mob, these went to
Peterboro', and were there joined by 400 more, making 1000 in all. In
reality, it was estimated that nearly or quite 1000 went to Utica, and
of these only about 400 went to Peterboro'. The error is indeed
immaterial.

In the fourth evening's debate, Mr. T. alluding to Kaufman's
slanderous story about him, calls Kaufman 'the son of a slaveholder,
and heir to slave property.' Such was supposed to be the case, and we
were not aware that this supposition was erroneous, till we met, in
the Emancipator's note to this remark of Mr. T., an intimation that
this report had been contradicted. 'Mr. K. is from Virginia,' says the
note, 'but we believe not a slaveholder or heir to slave property.'

These are all the errors we have observed in the statements of Mr.
Thompson, and these are of so little moment that we should not have
considered them worthy of notice in his opponent.

It is perhaps unnecessary in