Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1822-07-27

InCd'HiSoo, sOI uSICptiob any hiliu 10
sufficient to deter them from their pur-
pose--tormer services are forgotten, and
the minutest actions OF their lives are
distorted, 10 answer the purposes OF
those who expect to profit by the change.
This IS exactly the case at this time
One has served you to advantage, and
the other has forfeited your confidence.
Between which will you choose BE
tween which you ought to choose, it
would take no con]uror TO tel.
JUSTICE.
No one can deny to Judge Thomas
the credit OF great prudence, and adnira-
bic policy, in dec lining 10 give Mr.. Cook
a fair opportunity of defending himself
against his charges. Whether such
course was honorable, or can meet the
appreciation of those, who have any re-
spect for their own characters, is a DIFF
ferent question.
He must have feared that bis charges
could no, stand the touch of fair invest
cation. He had reason to fear this-and
hence his A. b. G. & d. documents
were sneakeG into partial circulation in
manuscript, III such manner, as TO elude
the possibility OF Mr.. Cooks getting hold
Of them. And now, that he is absent, in
remote part of the state, and at us late
period, they have been incorporated into
hand bill, and circulated with the ut
most dexterity, and precaution to pre-
clude all investigation of them. Why
has all this been done if it were not intend
ed to rick, gull, and deceive the people
Will they not feel the most indignant
contempt, at such an attempt upon them
Is there any man, that does not naturally
love mean thing, who can approve, adj
yocate, or even excuse such a course?
His documents, in part, contain the
strongest probabilities, are abso lutely
incredible, and contradict each other.
1t is not reasonable to suppose that Mr..
Cook would confess to a violent political
opponent, more against himself, than The
truth, yet, this he must have done, if the
Judges Edwardsville certificate man is
not mistaken. This man says that, Mr..
Cook acknowledged to him "that he
did hand (the Ohio letter. to the Editor
ofthe Washington City Gazette for pub
iicalion." Now, it is not fact, that Mr..
Cook did hand the letter to the Edi-
tor"-nor did the latter know any thing
Of Mr.. Cook, in relation to the transac-
ton till some days after its publication.
And this is proved by the letter of the
Editor himself, in which, with every pos
sble disposition 10 state all he knew in
relation to Mr.. Cook, (being a great adj
vocate of Mr.. Craw!ord) he says, I can
only say that, Mr. Daniel p. Cook, re-
preventative in Congress from Illinois,
called on me some days after its ah-
fearamce (the Ohio letter. and declared
that he would be responsible to me for
the contents of the said letter." He
could not with truth say more. And this
Judge Thomas himself, is perfectly con-
WINGED of, and would admit, if he had any
candor in him. His certificate man
therefore, can not be believed, however
much the Judge may try to prop and
support his credib;lity by representing
him as ga gentleman of the bar" which
every one here, knowing what preten-
sions he has to that distinction, laughs
at--as well they may. This same certi-
Jfcate man was engaged in similar plot
against Mr.. Cook at The last election
and having descended TO the meanness of
giving certificate, with perfect know
ledge OF the sneaking, clandestine, and
unfair use that was Intended to be made
of his credibility may be safely left to
the Judgment of virtuous and discern
ing people-who have seen the publish
ed falsehoods Of Brutus, another partizan
Of the Judge, some7vhat more reshecta-
Die than the certificate man, completely
detected and exposed.
Where then is the proof that Mr..
Cook has made any MEASUREMENT upon
the subject? What motive could he have
for denying any part of his agency in re-
1ation to the letter, when he had volun-
tariy called uhon the Editor, and Of
Jered to be responsible for its con-
tents ?"
This was taking upon himself all the
possible hazard that could constitute a
motive for denying that he was the author,
if such had been the fact But this, the
only proof in the case, falls very far short
Of establishing that he either wrote the
letter himself, or that he knew the author
Of it. And if the whole case could be
completely disclosed without breach of
confidence, there is probably nothing,
that could more satisfactorily demon
strate not only, the strict veracity Of his