Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-10-11

~
Senate in the Interpretation of other
circumstances, although related by
himself. 1t evidently arose from a
consciousness that those circumstances
were vague and uncertain, and that
his impressions of them might be mis-
taken. 1t was the spontaneous con-
viction of an amiable mind, laboring
under an impression, that innocence
might become the victim of its own
honest misconceptions. will now
state my reasons for the conviction
that Col. TAYLOR was mistaken in sup
posing that Mr.. Smith spoke of the
separation of the Union as an opinion
of his own, and not as the opinion in
culcated by the Querist.
The opinions expressed in the Que
rist, had not only become the subject
Of general conversation, but were the
subject of that particular conversation.
Mr. Smith probably recited these o.
pinions in an unguarded manner and
from that circumstance, it was not un-
natural that Col. Taylor's impressions
might have been formed. This APP
pears from the deposition of Doctor
Selman, who was present at the same
conversation and swears expressly
that he was induced TO put this ques-
ton to Mr.. Smith, most probably from
the unguarded manner of expressing
himself---Are these your own opini-
ons or those expressed in the Que
rist? To which Mr.. Smith replied,
they were the opinions of the Qurist,
and not his own opinions and added,
that he deprecated a separation of the
union, and hoped to God never to live
to see the day when that event should
take place. Here is the. positive evil
dence of Doctor Selman to the parti-
cular fact in question; whereas Col.
Taylor speaks Of the impression made
on his mind by the whole tenor of the
conversation. Col. Taylor must there
fore be mistaken, or Doctor Selmar
wilfully forsworn. Would 1t be pro-
per TO make this presumption against
| Doctor Selman? Who is Doctor Sell
man ? A gentleman of irreproacha-
ole character the friend and brother
;h-law Of Col. Taylor; l believe the
friend of the government and OF the
| administration. Doctor Selman does
not stop here he swears that he IS in
habits of intimacy with Mr.. Smith,
and that he never did before or
since that period, hear Mr.. Smith
express any opinion in favor of a Sc
paration Of the Union, but has often
heard him express opinions directly
and positively against it. Does Col.
TAYLOR contradict this statement? No,
sir; but confirms it. He also swears
that he never heard Mr.. Smith express
that opinion at any other time before
or since. Now, sir, as Col. Taylor
himself states that the pieces signed
the Querist, were the subject OF the
conversation in question, and that he
never before or since that time, heard
Mr.. Smith express analogous opinions
with those of the Querist and when
Doctor Selman swears positively that
during that particular conversation, he
put the identical question to MIR Smith,
are you speaking your own opinions or
ltnOSc OF the tfueTlSI anu thdl TIC uu-
equivocally answered, not his own,
but those of the Querist; and also
swears positively that he never did,
before or since that time, hear Mr..
Smith express analogous opinions to
those of the Querist but often the re-
verse; Would it not be strange per-
version of the rules of evidence to
say, that on that particular occasion a
lone, he expressed opinions in direct
hostility with those expressed during
the whole course Of his life, both be-
fore and afterwards? But this is not
all. This case furnishes evidence still
more conclusive, if possible, in favor
} Of my Interpretation.
If Mr.. Smith had been in the habit
Of expressing this opinion, would not
the zeal, the activity and the intelli-
gence of Elias Glover and his associ-
ates have discovered and communities
ted il? Men, who not content with
the most inveterate accusations and
, prosecutions against Mr.. Smith in
their individual capacities, have form
, ed clubs, and at length associated