[From Spiritualists' Iniquities Unmasked]
I then wrote to Edmonds to see if I could get some light upon the subject from that source; and advised him to reconsider his decision. He replied to me by letter, which I publish entire, excepting less than two lines of printed matter, but of such a filthy nature as to be unfit for type, and grew out of their lecherous conversation in the arbitration; but which is wholly false in any spirit of truth.
"Dr. Hatch:--I am not unwilling to state to you my reasons for my decision in the matter of your wife and yourself, nor am I desirous to withhold them from the entire world.
"I could not consent to decide that a young and delicate, and refined female should be compelled to live as a wife with a man who could: First (omitted clause.)
"Second: When his wife had earned some $6,000 or $7,000 in the course of two years, when her husband had not earned one cent, would refuse to trust her with any amount, and thus confiscate to his own use the earning and property which, in fact, belonged to her and not to him--with which he had nothing to do, and which he could not control without a gross breach of confidence on his part.
[P. 32] "This $6,000 or $7,000 was hers and not yours. She entrusted you with it, and you, instead of consulting her wishes, confiscated it to yourself, and appropriated it to your own use. This you had no right to do, and I could not feel myself warranted in trusting you any further with her earnings or her property.
"Third: Who would, from a spirit of penuriousness, deny to his wife the comforts and necessaries of life, when he was dependent upon her and her labors, and not on his own, for his daily bread. But for her you would have starved, and yet you denied her any control over her own. I could not consent to her being subjected to such a course of treatment.
"I have, therefore, nothing to reconsider, but insist that our judgment was right, and no other could have been arrived at by any right-minded man.
J. W. Edmonds."
NOTE. No "cruel treatment" is here alluded to; a singular fact if her present allegation of personal abuse is true. She did not ever allude to anything of the kind before the arbitrators. A wonderful omission!
This letter was published [by Dr. Hatch] in the New York Tribune, with the following reply:--
To the Editor of the N.Y. Tribune,
Sir: I have felt myself called upon and have been frequently advised to publish the above letter, that the public may have the basis on which this noted Spiritualist pretends to justify himself in being instrumental in separating husband and wife. The letter will need no comment; but a statement of a few facts will be necessary. . . .
It is well known that I married Cora when she was in very indigent and comparatively obscure circumstances, and, by constant, and energetic toil on my part, combined with her own inherent powers, we succeeded in procuring for her no little notoriety. I spared no pains or expense to bring her before the public to the best possible advantage, and in so doing, we were enabled to lay by nearly $3,000 in the "two years." My desire was that, in case I should be taken away, the entire proceeds should be her's [sic]; and, therefore, when we had accumulated $1,000, I purchased a piece of real estate in her name for four thousand and four hundred dollars. paid the $1,000, and gave my individual notes for the balance; and when I visited Chicago in July last (at which time she left me,) it was to make the first payment on these notes. In reference to "not trusting her with any amount," at all times there was in her trunk from $20 to $200, as much at her disposal as mine, which, however, she seldom made any use of, as all her wants were most bountifully supplied. So much for the honorable gentleman's "second" reason.
My "spirit of penuriousness . . ." is as follows: During the two years which I most happily spend with Cora, I paid fourteen hundred dollars for her clothing and jewelry, and there was no want of her's, great or small, made known to me which was ungratified, save one. That was that I should purchase a house for her mother, which i was wholly unable to do, and meet the payment of the notes which I had already given for her. The 22d of July, 1858, which was the day before my departure for Chicago, and the last day I lived with Cora, she went with me to A. D. Stewart & Co.'s. I requested her to call for whatever she desired, and after completing her purchases I asked if there was nothing more. She replied, "No, Frank, I cannot think of any other thing. i believe every want is supplied." My rule was to anticipate her wants as far as possible, and thus supply them before requested to do so. All who know her are aware that she is a walking contradiction to Edmond's "third reason."
. . . . . . . . .
[P. 33] If our nuptial relations had been placed upon the basis of a pecuniary reward, instead of a harmonious and love union, I think that I may reasonably say that I have paid her five times as much as she could have made for herself.
. . . . . . . . . .
That "I had nothing to do with the earnings which all belonged to her," I can only say that I labored more days than she did hours in the accumulation. It was our mutual business; and for the Judge to say that I had no moral or legal right to the "control of the proceeds . . . " shows him to be about as correct in legal matters as he is in his discernment of common justice.
. . . . . . . . . .
Very Truly, B. F. Hatch, M.D.
New York, January, 1859
To the Editor the N.Y. Tribune,
Sir: I cannot consent to have any controversy with Dr. Hatch. He selected me as one of the arbitrators between him and his wife, and it is in no respect through my instrumentality or with my consent that the matter has been brought before the public. He, with your assistance, has done that; and you would hear from me in the matter, if it were not for the fact that the letter from me to him, which you publish, has been so garbled.
[P. 34] I send you a true copy of my letter, that you may see how important a portion he has omitted, and what alterations he has made in it, to suit his own purposes.
I also send you a copy of his letter to which mine was a reply, and a statement of the charges, which we found were established against him. Thus you have the whole matter before you to do with it as you choose.
For my part, I have done with it. No remarks of yours or his can, I think, provoke me to waste another word on the matter.
In the meantime you must allow me to add that I agree with you in the wish that this matter had been kept out of the papers, and that this is one of the many instances in which I have observed the attempt to use Spiritualism for selfish purposes, is sure, first or last, to be attended with disastrous consequences.
New York, Jan. 4, 1859 J. W. Edmonds
To the Editor of the N.Y. Tribune
Sir: . . . [J. W. Edmonds] accuses me of having "garbled" his letter. I published every word of said letter except a brief paragraph, which would have made about two lines of printed matter, and which was of such a filthy character as to forbid its publication.
. . . . . . . . .
[P. 35] Jan. 10, 1859. Very truly, B. F. Hatch, M.D.