The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-03-17
JOHN CLARKE.
TO JOHN TAYLOR. ESQUIRE.

l nave promised, sir, to be very brief in
my reply 10 your long coinmunica ion and
l see no occasion TO depart from my promise.
1t is rather unnecessary to expose tbs iulIies
OF a man, whoscemS to have lost all respect
for himself. You are really, sir, Il most ge-
nerouS antagonist. You have done more for
me, than / could have done for hyself-
Hhy should l attempt to prove by arguments
what your own productions have proven for
ME! Why expose The arrangement and fol-
lies c! the author, who seems to nave pro-
dnced some vague suspicion of the sanity of
his own intellects? Let your friends look to
1T, sir. There is still such a thing in our
Courts, rs a Commission of %luuacy. Appear
ances are sometimes deceitful-and you may
not be the hTSt 9tTaHge, who has exhibited
some. method in his Madness"
The eXuitaiion, with which You nave COM
menced your letter, is rakher premature -
1t is perhaps q species ct triumph, which
you, sir, will never be able to enjoy for as
your reSentmentS are not likely to excite the
fears of any one, no oxe will be Willing to
devote four months to the discovery of your
faults and as you are not very likely to fl
CURE much on the page of history. no man
will be willing 60 throw dway four months in
collecting the anecdotes of yeur biography.
1t is, therefore, a species Of test, TO which
your virtues are not likely TO be put and to
which i have really too much charity for you,
to be willing to reduce them. BE assured.
SIR, that / have used no eXertionS to collect
the anecdotes of your dishonor, and that I
never shall. | have nor ''Since cnllected''
some of =" those foolish tales" asyou are no.
lite enough to call them, which have excited
your resentment. 1t was the 81, cunning Of
a Sophist to give them such an air-but il is
nothing more. | was called upon to state
the impressions which induced me to men
tion you in my papes. ] have given those
impressions exactly as they were at the time
OF this Experimentation eXtenuation and
without addition.
The 4" casuistry,'' which you have ascri-
bed TO me, is equally the fruit of your W
invention. What species of reparation
would it have been to you, for me to nave
acknowledged that it was unnecessary to
nave noticed YOU in my paper, but that the
principal Impressions, which led me to do
1t, were as strong as ever-..hat you still
appeared to me the same enviOus, selfish
and malignant adversary which | had once
E. 4ceived you to have becn?- he naked.
acknowledgement Of the first would have
been an implied misrepresentation uf my.
czrH opinions.-Tohave accoRh0nied this
dct!l1atfG5i with {. statement OF these inn
h'eSSiOHs, would have been a species Of re-
piihboh, WIN WHICH you perhaps would
have very willingly dispensed. # is c%urieus
now the arrangement of your faculties OBJ
cures the most obvious distinctions.
Your logic is Just as deficient as your T.
thics. il my attack on you was not nv
"brst transgression =" it is a fair %supDos;ti
on that you would have detected some other
instance. But if this qoas my Z" first trans
gression,' ho5v can YOU itrer that have a
- natural appetite" for " falslIood and vice.?
j. 1t not strange that this appetite for blood
should not have butst out sooncrl There
Hre triUners IN politics, besides ]. Taylor
there are other beings in society, whose
tolhes and whose feelings provoke the lash.
Is it not siHg-agr. that ammg 4. ese charac-
tiers ny material thirst for abuse should moi