The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-03-09
10 THE EDITOR OF THE ENQUIRER.


SIR,
The questions at foot, and Mr. Randolph's
answers as certified by the very respectable Cen
uemen, whose signatures are subjoined, will at
once detect, and expose the unmsnly aud dishon-
orahie attempt which has been made to suppress
facts, by the procuring and publishing the iettac
signed by Mr. Randolph and dated the Esd ul.-
Unfortunate as that letter. is, with respect to the
object intended, yet as it was written by Harry
tdeth, IT derives Importance on that account In
it you will find this sentence {" 1t was moreo-
f" yer, agreed between US, that in case the Coal
- should tall short, the amount of such deficien-
- cy should be lodged by him in bank for me in
" time TO meet the notes, or that i should make
= out new notes for the precise sum, and take in
I" the old ones. "-Ifths be correct, it follows OF
course that the holders of these notes, could not
as a matter Of rigHt, negotiate or pass them off
until the one or the other Of the conditions OH
which they were received. had been compiled
with-and thus is established the ground original
~ taken by me. This sentence is important in an
other point OF view, because it supercedes the
necessity OF the very bonds, which on the 18th
ultimo were asserted to have been given /; in con-
tutlng that statement, observed that had the
authority OF Mr. Randolph to say, that, no such
pond had ever been required, ever given, and
IL turns out, that ! was correct in so SAYING
With respect to the recovery Of the 8, 1000, I am
still OF the opinion, that quoted Mr Handolph's
precise words he however says differently, bus
should 1t become necessary, that 1 should prove
that Mr.. Heth has used the words l attributed
to him can do so on the testimony of p gentle
man who VIII not be doubted--l am thus partic-
ular because 1t is not ny intention to pursue this
subject unless compelled to it in selfdefence
abstain from any further remarks on the pro-
Priety Of my Offsets to the notes in CONTROVERSY
because that subject, and every other point oe
pecuniary difference is to be decided by two perl-
tlsmen, to whom shall ut all times confitie nv
legal rights with pleasure.
NJ. w. HANCOCK.
March g.
2nestion Ibid you not inform me that the
bond winch Mr.. Heth in his publication of the
18th uitiIno, stated had been given-Had never
been" required or executed ="
9HSUer-ihe bond was never required by me,
and was never executed.
SegeStiog 2.-Did you not inform me- that Mr.
Hcth observed TO you in 2 conversation respects
ING his suit against me, that if he lid not recover
the . 2OOO, ne was at least entitled to recover in
proportion, as might recover from Mr.. Ross
hns7Der-Mr. Heth was positive, in his opinion,
that he would recover the S 1000, he sid, that
If Cranberry and Hancock recovered the balance
OF their claim against Ross, that he was at least
entitled to aproporton of their profits agreeable
70 the SUN which he had paid (; which sum he
commended, ought to be considered as 4 part of the
stock of q. and II. but this conversation Mr.,
Heth says he does not recolect.
question , did not Mr. Heth write the let
ter which you signed, dated the Odd ult. did
you not sign it with reluctance, and are you not
now convinced that the letter, together with Mr..
Heth's manner Of introducing il, is calculated to
make false impressions
InSwer-I wrote several letters and Showed
them to Mr.. Heth he made objections to all of
them at last | wrote one which gave him, and
observed, that that certainly was sufficient he