Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1812-04-13
TO the Editor ofthe VIRGINIA ARcUs.


SIR
In your paper of the 10Th of March,
which was sent me the other day BY friend,
l perceive publication, signed Numa, cast
ing just such aSpersions as might have been
expected from such a character, on the re-
putation of the late Publisher of Mr.. Joseph
Ciay's letter, relative to the calumny ia
bricated against Mr. John Randolph, of his
seeking an embassy some years ago through
Ms iriends.-I presume you will think it no
thing more than common Justice to permit
me, through you paper, to offer to the pub
iic s'mc remarks on this publication of Nu-
ma. One would imagine that if the writer
had any wish or intention that it should be
answered, he would have sent it to the Spir-
4 of rs whe"e my communication appeared.
Bnt tn propagate calumny in such way as
to give those most interested in its refuta-
ton the least possible chance of exposing it,
seems to be a practice not only exactly suit
ell to Numa's capacity and disposition, but
appears also the prevailing fashion of the
times.
The public might we'll sRpposc from Nj
mas Introductory paragra phi, that / had
published Mr.. CLAWS letter without any sort
of explanation whatever 4; fer this is his lam
guage,-'' If the dead has not been made
Ito say what the living never uttered, the
following letter was written by Mr.. Clay,
10 whom, ar uhon gVhat solicitation know
"not. 1t appeared in the Spirit Of 70 of
"the 18th inst. Why it bears date a year
subsequent to my address to MIR. Ran
"dolph-why it was suffered 20 remain un-
printed for one year longer, or wherefore
lit was not made known until Mr.. Clay
was deTunct! are questions 20 be answered
"by Mr.. Randolph and his advocates ; the
| appearance of the letter ut this time is a
compliment to the ability of Numa: That
wound must be inclrabic which after a
"duration oftwo years, still indicates NOR
"tifcation and gapes for the surgeon"
Had Numa thought proper, Mr.. editor, to
give you the whole ofthe publication from the
Spirit of 70, as we'll as Mr.. Clay's lette".
the public would have seen that he might
have saved himself the trouble Of asking al
the questions with which he makes such an
! exulting parade. ! have seen too much Of
! the shallow articles Of men ike himself not
F., TO know, that if ne ventured to notice my
communication, he would resort to some
| such subtcrfuge to evade the force of MIR.
Clay's letter. His questions were all fore
seen and answered BY anticipation-As 3
proof OF it, permit me to give you the two
hrst paragraphs of my communication TO
the Spirit Ct Seventy Six.
"A b?ainiess scribbler in the ENQUIRER,
whose attack upon Mr.. Randolph came ac-
"cidentally into my hands few days ago,
has Afforded me an ohttortunity qvLich /
haze long desired 10 fu6kSh some addition
"akfr0ot8, thatthe report of Mr. RandoIph's
"seeking, through his friends, during the
session 1866, a foreign mission, was
"gross and malicious calumny,-" 70 haze
"oGored these hroofS at q lime 7viien This
"infernai siaRder had ceased TO circulate,
'migh thaUe been miScon8trued but this
"objection has been lately removed by some
&c friend of the Enquirer, who signs him
"self .Hretakogous, and who has had the sin
OCULAR fortune of having made the most
" miserable attempt at ironical satire, that,
believe, j, or any other person ever wit
messed. My reply would have been of
I" fered to the Enquirer himself, in whose
"paper it ought to appear but the public,
hope, will rccoliect, that ever since the
nnmerciful castigaiion bestowed on him by
"Powhatan, and Opechancanough, he has
Theoretically sealed his paper against ev-
:" cry thing calculated to offend the delicacy
of his taste, or to wound the sensibillty of
" his feelings
But to proceed to my proofs-Some
time after the publication of the famous
or rather infamous Pamphlet signed, Nj
"ma, the author of which had taken the
liberty to hint. that Mr.. Joseph Clay of
Philadelphia, (thau whom our country
"never lost a man cf more honor, informa-
ton and talents) could prove some of his
ISLANDERS, a friend Of Mr. Randolhh 7yrote
"to Mr.. Clay On the Sa6ject, who returned
" the following answer. | take the liberty
I" TO publish it in full, because am conf
dent it will afford to all who had any know
ledge Of Mr. Clay, signal proof both Of
the excellence of his heart & of the sound
&" ness of his understanding.
In the concluding part ofmy communica-
ton ] had also mentioned that Mr.. Clay's
letter was sent to me last summer, by Che
gentleman to whom it was written.
You must perceive, Mr.. Editor, by the a
bovc paragraphs, that there is not a solitary
question asked by Numa in the Introductory
passage which have quoted, that was not
utterly useless, tot any other purpose than
gross Misrepresentation first declara-
ton is that he knows not to whom nor up
on what solicitation Mr.. Clay's letter was
wri,ten."--l had previously published that
it was written in reply to a letter address
Cd to Mr. Clay by friend Of Mr. Randolph"
Numa then ASKS why 1t bears date year
subsequent TO his address "--Mr. Claws let
ter quoted by Numa himself had explained
the cause of the delay. To his last Fndui-
ry''--Why it was suffered to remain UNI
printed year or wherefore il was not made
known until Mr.. Clay was defunct s' had
previously said, "ttat ] did not publish the