Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1812-03-19

in Europe, and that John Randolph, was ;
| proper person to be that Envoy. The memo
| rial was shown to Mr.. Madison, then Secre-
| tarY Of State, who remarked, in substance
! that Mr.. Randolph was man who possess
Ell talents of a certain description, but that
he had not those solid qualities which are es-
scnt;ai. for an ambassador" Pare 3.
Such is NUMA's declaration. The charge
divides i;sclfiuto several allegations
1st That memorial was drafted.
This is proved by Mr. Clay's letter. Mr..
Christopher Clarke met MIR Clay in one of
the passages of the CaDi.o,. holding in his
hand 4 writing, which Mr. Clarke intended
TO present to the Speaker of the House Of Re
representatives..
Cd That Joseph Clay could tell by whom
it was drawn.
Mr.. Clay has told namely Mr.. Christie
pher Clarke, :hen member of Congress.
3D. That the memorial stated that it Vas
understood that new Envoy was about to
be sent to Il certain court in Europe.
On this point Mr.. Ciay's letter is silent
But the proof Of the 4th allegation substan-
tiatcs the Sd.
4th. That John Randolph was proper
person to be that Envoy.
Here the evidence is decisive Mr.. Claws
letter says, 4" The fiu,hou ofthe resolution
72dS, 10 recommend Mr.. Randoihh 10 the
President Of United States, as a fit fer-
s5,i to be enihtoyed on a foreign mission"
Whence the inference is plain, that, that il
It was intended to recommend Mr. Randolph
Tor foreign mission, it must have been pre-
viously understood that new envoy was a
bout to be sent abroad; which establishes
the Sd allegation.
The 5th, and last, allegation, declares that
the memorial or writing WAS shewn to Mr..
Madison, who did not think Mr.. Randolph
qualified for diplomatic life.
To this point, Mr.. Clay's letter is neither
positive nor negative evidence, further than
as it respects himself. Mr.. Clay might We
ny safely declare, thai the assertions or in
situations of NUMA, of applications through
him, in behalf of MIR. Randolph, to Mr. JET
ierson or Mr.. Madison, were false; for NJ
MA has neither insinuated nor asserted that
such applications were made by Mr.. Clay.
But, does it follow that they were made by
no one elses Mr.. Clay's letter does not al
ledge that Mr.. Clarke did not Shew the wri-
ting to Mr.. Madison. g understood from
Mr.. Clarke, (says- the lctter) that the paper
either had not been Shewn to any person but
myself, or, at most, to one or s.v3 others" /
wave all objection to the accuracy of this
singular understanding of Mr.. Clay, who is
so vague that he knows not whether the pa
per was communicated to one, two. or three
persons; and viii content myself with re-
marking, that whether the circumstance was
made known TO Mr. Madison in writing, or
7erbally, he must have heard OF the transac-
ton during the session of Congress of 1905
%, wnen 1t occurred, and was currently
mob ,s,F -Ar- 4.
propagated by the newspapers and was
communicated to me in the Spring of the
year 1906, by member of Congress, pre-
ciSely as it is related by NuMA. The abor-
ton of the attempt to make Mr. Randolph
an Ambassador, and the first manifestation
OF his spleen against Mr.. Jefferson, happen
ed, as Mr. Clay'S letter proves, at the same
period OF time, whlchg gives to them the cha
facter of cause and effect
The only difference eiscernibie between
the Charge of NUMA and the statement of
Mr.. Clay's letter, is in the assertion by the
former that the memorial or writing had
subscribers to it. This is a mistake in form,
and not in fact. NUMA gave the proceed
ing fairer aspect than it seems to have de-
served. individuals may privately recon-
mend man for office without imDropriety
but the intention of Mr.. Clarke was, as Mir.
Clay very justly "a1 un7va,rant-
able ATTEMPT TO ihtertere with the constitu-
honal hrcroSatiOc ofthe chief executive ma
gistru.e.."
With regard TO Mr.. Randolph's co-tem
poraneous knowledge of the design to raise
him to an Embassy, leave it to men of com
mon sense to decide, whether it is likely his
friends would have attempted such a thing
if they had not been assured that he desired
its 1t may not have been stated to him in
words nor was that necessary. Inpolitical
concerns, the very gluttons of Office preserve
a certain driicacy of expression in that par
ticuiar. The minor actors in such farces
must gather the inclinations of their chief
from remote indications. The most fiery
ambition, in this respect, resembles the COW
ness OF private courtship. The lady must
never say she wants to be married, although
that is the very point she is most anxious "a
bout.
March14 1912. NUMA.
Extract 2f'a letter from Washington, dated
March 18Th, 1912.
" We have nothing new or important, but
- 4 MmHMN