The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-09-20
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
FpIpAy, ArRiL 8, 1893.
srrrsH o. JouS Q. ADAMS, CONTINUED.

Since the resolution now under consideration
first offered To the Senate, the state OF the
evidence has very considerably changed; in
some respects favorably for Mr.. Smiths de-
fence, to nv mind in others more inaispici-
ously. The testimony of Elias Glover, l
consider as totally discredited; but since the
deposition produced by Mr.. Smith to the COM
mittee, with his answers TO their queries, l
gave very little credit to that witness, even
before the accumulation of evidence against
him, which MIR. Smith has since obtained, and
recently exhibited to the Senate. Even then
thought the testimony of Glover could be of ve-
nv little weight. otherwise than as it was CEN
hrmed by that of others. With the same exccp-
ton, now give TO 1t no credit ut ALI Stripped
of the confirmation it may receive, from admit
ted circumstances from other testimony, and
from Mr.. Smiths own ackno wledgements, con-
slider the case as ifno affidavit Of Glover belong
ed to it.
But if the credit of Elias Clover has been an
initiated, that of Peter Taylor has been beyond
all controversy confirmed. IN his answers to the
committee, Mr. Smith solemniy denied almost
allthe material facts, (and material III the high
est degree they are) attested by Peter TAYLOR,
respecting him on the trials 1t Richmond and
he declared his belief that he could prove by
witnesses Of the first responsibility, his want of
character as a man of truth and veracity. Since
then Mr. Smith has had the fullest opportunity
to cross-examne the man himself, and to take
testimony TO his general character. And what is
the result The general character OF Peter
Taylor has risen purified from the furnace In
every witness of whom the question was asked,
he has found panegvrist. One or two mistakes
of circumstances perfectly immaterial TO Mr..
Smith, or to any other person implicated. have
been discovered in a lynN-eyed scrutiny of his
testimony at Richmond; and the candor with
which he Instantly acknowledged them, and the
frmness with which on Mr.. Smiths enquiries
he persevered i'll asserting oil The importsnt facts
pfh h.y "a ic
much greater weight than il could claim before.
So decisive indeed is it, that Mr.. Smiths coun-
sci now solemny admits those facts which Mr..
Smith had as solemniY denied in his answer and
argues with his usual ingenuity to dispc their eff
feet.
OF Colonel James Taylor, the testimony has
been in one respect countcracted, and in another
much strengthened His character was so we'll
known, and so universally respected, that at
tempt coUlt be made to assai it, ether than on
the basis of a supposed mistake. This mistake
Mr. Smith, in his affidavit, made before he left
this place, asserted that he expected to prove by
General Findey the only third person in hear
ings according to colonel Taylor's statement
wien the conversation, occasioned by the Que
Iist, occurred Mr.. SnIth returns without the
deposition. 81. General Fii,tiiey ITS stead
he brings deposition OF his friend DIR. Scman.
and also a private letter TO him frsrn the same
DR.. ScNman, intimatirg that General Fintey
could not confrrn Colonel Taylor'S testimony (:
but viii. broad nslN,Jation that General Find
Icy would not give that deposition in favor of Mr.
Smith, which he ousAt, for. fear # loii1gkis ef-
rec. On the fact Of tils particular conversation.
then, must balance the weight of testimony
apparently contradictory. 1t IS barely possible
that the conversations mentioned BY the two wit
nesses, were not the same, but hello at different
times; and rs evidence seemingly variant be
tween two perscns of character, ought always,
IL possible 10 he recnnc;lcA. ,Ar:.ars The FAR
am ,rr le Of
ever it was the same conversation, we must &c
reduced to the necessity OF choosing which of
the two witnesses has been most correct in his
recollection cannot but consider the express
testimony of Colonel Toyior, confirmed by the
silence of General FinGioy, "a that which is best
entitled to orr belief Colonel Taylor we know,
was on this occasion n most reluctant witness
he had been the friend and intimate acquaintance
Of Mr.. Smith his principle obviously to
say as little as possible, consistent with his obi
cations to speak the truth. The impressions on
his mind did not stand sing!y upon his Judgment
he had compared them with those Of General
Fndley, and by that comparison had found them
confirmed They had not sluJnbcred upon his
mcmoryfor length OF time, so IS IN lose their
distinctness. He had communicated them to the
Secretary of State in his letter of 18th Of Oct.
1906, written very few days after .,e conrersa-
tien was held An extract of tAis letter is in G.
vidence before us, and It TALES exactly with
lone! Taylor testimony given to the committee
and before the Sente. The imPsrtiality Of col.
Taylor, his candor, his tenderness for AIR. Smith,
the exceliency OF his general character, and MS
appeal to the recollection of another respectable
witness in confirmation Of his own, all combine
TO give his testimony the highest claim 70 our be-
lief With Dr.. Seinan have no personal &C
quaintancc, and can therefore speak OF him on =
ly az upon the evidence exhibited here this Oc-
easiou He appears at least IN the character Of
a very ardent partizan Of Mr.. Smith In the
newspapers transmitted t. us, j see his name
ut The foot o. several very violent publications,
which have not been read, but which shew that
fifteen months ago, he had in some sort stakcd
his own character uPoa the reputation Of Mr.
Smith. number of depostions concur TO
prove that ne. in company with WHO has
since been convicted OF an atrocious robbery,
was at the h"'ti OF party who burst ephn the
doors, and broke in upon a meeting of private
citizens assembled to pass certain resolutions IN
favorable to Mr.. Smith, and threatened them
with coat of tar and feathers. The insir,iatcfi
in his private letter to Mr. Smith, against the
fair fame of General Fndey, bears no dstin-
gushing features OF an ingenious ind can
not believe that General FindIey, a man of hon
orable consideration in society, holding an i'm
portant public trust, could have been actusted
by such unworthy motives, in declining to con-
tradict col Taylsrs deposition Could he have
done il, consistently with truth, he had every