So far as I know, they have republished but one, and that is Mr. Miller's! The New York Catholic Diary of March 19th, said-- "We take the following _overwhelming_ testimony from the _Brooklyn American Citizen_ of the 11th instant: "The following affidavits, &c., are copied from the last No. of the 'Protestant Vindicator,' and prove, it seems to us, taken with other corroborating circumstances, the falsehood and irrelevancy of the testimony against Miss Monk, and therefore establish the truth of her narrative:" (Here it inserted Mr. Miller's affidavit, and then added:) "What is the weight of the affidavit? Of ponderous import? I inquired where Maria was, and she told me she was in the Nunnery? Therefore she is an eloped Nun. Marvellous logical affidavit! We may say, that when an inquiry is made after the editor of this paper, and the answer is, that he was in Protestant Church, therefore he is a Protestant minister." The Rev. Mr. Schneller, (for a Catholic priest is the editor of that paper,) thus tries to slide over the important testimony of Mr. Miller, and in doing it, admits that I was in the Hotel Dieu Nunnery in the summer of 1832. Of course, _he admits then, that Dr. Robertson's testimony to the contrary it false, and gives up the great point which the Montreal affidavits were intended to settle,_ viz. that I had not been in any Nunnery--at least, not since I was a child. But another thing is worthy of remark. The Diary says, "We take the following overwhelming testimony from the Brooklyn American Citizen," yet he really leaves out the greater part of the testimony which that paper contained, viz. the certificate beginning on page 251. Let any one turn to that, and ask whether the editor had not some reason to wish to keep it from his readers? Did he not get rid of it very ingeniously, when he inserted the following remarks instead of it? "The following statement has been furnished by the female witness above mentioned; the name being reserved only from delicacy to a lady's feelings." "Excellent! 'delicacy to a lady's feelings!!' we are absorbed in an exclamation of wonder; the _delicate_ name, in a matter of such vast importance, as that which affects the _truth_ of the slanderous tale, cannot be mentioned! "Therefore, 'we, the subscribers,' 'Brownlee, Slocum, Brace, Fanshaw, Belden, Wesson, and Hogan,' rest the weight of their authority upon the 'delicacy' of a nameless 'lady's feelings.'" Now here Mr. Shellner pretends that the witness was not accessible, and leaves it in doubt, whether the subscribers, (men of known character and unimpeachable veracity.) knew any thing of her. Yet it was expressly stated by them that she was known, and that any reasonable inquiries would be readily answered. (See p. 249.)