For Frederick Douglass' Paper

A DENIAL.

August 7th, 1854.

To our Constituents and to the Public:

MR. FREDERICK DOUGLASS: SIR:—In your paper of July 28th, an editorial article appeared, purporting to be a true statement of the proceedings of the late Council Meeting in Cleveland, and assailing several members of that Council.

Lest our silence might be construed into a tacit acknowledgement of the justice of the attack, and the truthfulness of your version of the affair, we hereby distinctly declare that a large portion of the statements made are gross misrepresentations, some of which you must have known to be such, and a majority of the remainder of your statements of facts "colored according to" your "fancy[.]"

For the present, this, our denial, shall suffice us; at the proper time we will make good all we here say.

With due respect,

WILLIAM H. DAY,
O. S. B. WALLS,
JOHN BOOKER,
JUSTIN HOLLAND,
WILLIAM C. NELL.

EDITORIAL REMARKS.

A very admirable display of adroitness is this Denial, certainly. So "distinct,"and yet so indefinite, as that nobody reading it can tell what part of the statements made by us is denied by it, or what part admitted. "A large portion," say Day and Nell, (the head and tail of this denying committee,) "are gross misrepresentations," &c.—Where will you find a better example of labor saving? To call a man a liar is much more economical, if not so honorable as an honest attempt to prove him such. But this is only to "suffice" till the "proper time." When that "time" shall come, Mr. Day promises to make good his denial. There are other promises of Mr. Day on record, which remain to be fulfilled; and we presume this will be put to sleep with them. Aiming, as we do, to speak and write what is strictly true of all matters connected with our cause, we have little fear that our veracity will suffer any detriment from the "hue and cry" raised by such refractory ones as fall into our hands for chastisement. It is not to be expected that they will be other than restive under the most moderate reproof.

The following letters, received since Mr. Day's Denial came to hand, will serve to rebut the flimsy impeachment of our veracity contained in the above. We have no doubt that the Rev. AMOS GERRY BEMAN, and Rev. John Peck, of Pittsburgh, both members of the Council, and in constant attendance at the meeting during the proceedings described in the article referred to, will corroborate every statement made by us respecting those proceedings.