The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-01-14
SOLOMON SNEAKING.

We received on Tuesday night from Washing
ton, pamphlet containing the Queries addressed
by the committee of the Senate to John Smith,
with his ANSWERS as finally given We have not
yet Perused the whole of this vindication; but if
the remainder, be marked by the same!spirt &,cre-
dibllity as the part we have read, we pronounce
1t to be 4 complete and uncompensated mass of
sophsms, mistakes and misrepresentation. Z,
Mr. Smith is polite enough to say of the Editor
OF this paper, that " it is understood chez was
employed by the administration to take in short
hand each part of the trial. The mistake is GER
taInlr very unimportant one and such il is
scarcely worthy of correction but it is All indis-
putable fact, that the Editor of this paper was
not employed by the administration or by any o.
ther person, to take in short hand any part of this
disgracctul trial
But there is one point, in which John Smith
has committed more important and daring ms
take. This contradiction is due to the character
OF an honest man who, though humble and poor
IN his external circumstances, is i'll the eve of G.
very vlrtuous and discriminating pan, far more
entitled to our respect and sympathies, than the
senator John Smith, clothed he is with the sui
lied ermne of his Office. This individual against
whom Mr. Smith has hurled the poisoned arrow
OF calumny, is Peter Taylor, the humble and no.
nest gardener of Herman Blennerhassett Pc
cuiar circumstances had made this man one of
the witnesses against the character of Mr. s.
The committee Of the Senate in their first inter-
rogatory demand of him, whether he has anv ex-
plantations to offer respecting " the testimony of
Peter Taylor, respecting you, in the volume Of
printed evidence communicated BY the President
OF the U. S. to Congress, p. As" MI SI-th
therefore found Unnecessary nvalidate the tes-
| tlmony OF this witness but he repes it by the
Srosscst misrepresentation mistake Il is not
| time, says he, to dismiss Peter TAYLOR. believe
that by witnessesiof the first respectabiIity can
prove his contradictions on his several examina-
tons and in the different parts of each exarlina-
ton, and his want of character as a man of truth
and yeracity"
I Is there man who was present at Burr's trial,
! who will not vouch for the inaccuracy of both
! these statements Is there man present, who
docs not know thai Peter Taylor's testimony WAS
uniformly consistent with itself, and that his ge-
neral character was that of a man of the most
unsu4hcd truth and veracity ! We heard this
! witness during three separate examinations and
! never nave VIC heard a witness whose tale was
more clear, more consistent, and more marked to
the eye of every impartial man by the artless line
aments Of native truth. This we are sure. was
the universal sentiment. AS to his general cha
ractcr, though particular enquiries were made
of every witness who came from his neiebor
mood, or was supposed TO be acquainted viii
MIN; though it was a great object with the coun.
sci for the accused to oversct this great prop o.
the prosecution, this second witness of the over
act yet was there not solitary whisper breath
cd TO his disadvantage. Every man who knew
him, bore testimony to the blunt honesty and art
less integrity of this humble gardener Eve
Blcnncrhassctt himself was proved to have spo
ken i'll the highest terms of his veracty