Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1816-01-03
VIRGINIA AMuUo.
RicLmond, january 8, 1916.


The Publication of the Post Masters anpeql
has been concluded 10 day (see our FIRST page J
HIS reasoning ioinde upon the certificate of Mr,
Fulton is the only hing tllat now demands on
attenuon--We declined making counte STATE
ment until We could have the opportunity o,
publishing the Two together That opporuinit,
has now occurred.
lhe Postmas er accompanied by AIessrs Fulton
an Ltudy waited upon the Editor at his bo,,.-
on Saiurday9th Dec. the former enquireA of the
toto what were his Complaints against the
Post oilice-he was informed that his papers
were not delivered ont egularly--that he receiv-
sd part only at night and she residue in tine morn
ln5--he then asked the Editor how often This
had occurred-ae was informed not once or twice.
but twenty tmcs--that it was repeatedly tn.
case--he then wished 20 be informed as to pa.
Pers oe'ng sent TO Petersburg and returning. b.
return mail and not Being delivered ONT sc and
denandea the informant-he was GIVEN ,,n and
var. iundy admitted the correctness OF the IN
Formation
! The Post Master asked, whether the Editor
had written, spoken, OF sent message 60 him re.
s2eciinS this irrcgularily-he was answered. IN
he negative, and informed that the Editor con.
aIiered has paper rs the proper channel through
winch has complaints should DC made The Pos
master became enraged because the Editor had
pursued tins course, and because he had com-
Iilended the Petersburg article (which ,he Post
Master termed an arrGa9 Ee) and threatened him
wan prosecut OR--TheTefore the Editor did NOT
consider himself bOupd To give him satisfl 4, DRY
answers 20 any questions he might PROFOUND 10
him. ~
The Post-Master says "before him we denied
me charge OF partiallty"-The Post-Master ask.
81 INC Editor whether he had charged the 2. o
WIN tAVo"ng the Editor Of the Enquirer : He was
answered that chat Editors name wls not in The
.,a'e'heL'--Alf llIndy tlen asked Tie Eli or yhe
.nef he supposed that he (:ir IL would fToy the
Hditor OF the Enquirer more than him? lie answer.
eano' The Editor did not deny he chayge ofpai
tiailsy--le only eyaded it and TOR the Cause above
! Mentioned. Ii The persons at the Poyt-Ol;ce had
oeeh perfectly satisfied dat the Editor had den,
me charge, what could they have intended wI,eu
tne Editor was asked at the Post-OiI,se. bv one
OF them, on the Monday following, whe,ber be
had made that chargs Ills answer was distipcl
mat he had understood it to be the fact. and ;ba
| ne believed it. ma
It's true that the Editor ofthe Argus disclaim
ed any intention OF applying the quotation d" insp
lence OF orlce" To the Post. Mas or, bat when h.
was asked by the Post-Master in what sense h r
used 1.-THE answered that he meant 81. II tha.
ne was not afraid of consequences MIR Fuiton
ala not hear any thing OF the latter part OF IN .
conversation except tie word consequences "
ceYtihcate ofMr Fulton IS subioined-yh,ch
differs somewhat from Our stateIneut-Dart,c.
srly as 1t respects the question put 10 US By sir.
Lundy
We have finished this disagreeable business
and trust we shall never again have any occasion
OF bringing forward charges against any pubic
officer.