American watchman and Delaware advertiser. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1822-1828, 1822-10-18
FOR THE WATcHMAE.

4 FOR THE WATcHMAE.
l In consequence of the publication Of piece il
the Waterman OF the first inst. signed A. u. call
ed upon James Wilson, the Editor OF that paper, oil
the Saturday after, accompanied by my friend Ma
Dor Stockton, and demanded the name ofthe author
was informed, that an answer should be given or
the Monday following. At the time appointed we
again called upon the Editor, and inquired whether
he was authorised to deliver up the name demanded
and he informed me Z" that he was insti ucted by
the writer Of the piece, before his name was dis
closed to enquire whether it intended prose
cute suit, if the name delivered up,o to which
at replied, did not intend TO prosecute any
legal measures. The Editor then called into our
presence young man, to be a witness to this de
cloraton, to whom he sad--s' Mr.. Rogers now
grees he will not prosecuteby suit, upon receiving
the name of A. ~ and assented to the same
1t was then expected, the name OF the writer
would be at once disclosed but to surprise we
We're informed, an answer could not be given until
the next day BY mail Of the next day, | received
Ia note of which the following is copy.
WILMINGTON, 9th Oct. 1922
|" James Rogers Esqr
SIR-The author of A. u. states that the decla-
ration you have made that it is your intention to
resort to legal measures in the business between you
merely negatives one object, VITO prosecute he
requires, in writing, declaration of the specific
lobject for which you request his name because il
is only for one single purpose (Which must be OBJ
yious) that his name will be given.
am respectfully, &c.
JAMES WILSON,
On the next day, Major Stockton handed to the
Editor for the writer OF A. L. sealed paper which
made g the one single purpose" quite ineligible
Of which the following is copy.
The onlv oueat;on which iba Ed;to, oc a..
Waterman was instructed to propose by the author
of the piece signed A. u has been already answer
led, that legal redress was intended TO be sought
Mr.. Rogers does not deem il either necessary or
proper, to state the specific object, for which the
name oil the author is demanded. He has had and
now has, but one plain Obvious object if the autho,
of that piece be such person as MIR. Rogers car
with propriety notice.
! .Nsto- Castle, Oct 8, 1922.
An unequivocal answer was required by 10 O'Clock
lof the next day-on which day, Major Stockton re-
lceived paper OF which the following is copy.
No communication will be received by A Il
from Mr.. X. until the terms on which A. Il. has
authorised his name to be given up, shall be com
piled with
The above is true copy of note received by
me from the author OF A. Z this morning in con.
sequence of a communication from MIR. r. ano
which was returned unopened by A. Z.
JAMES WILSON.
Wilmington, Oct. 10. 1929.
From the preceding statement, every person will
feel satisfied, that the author of the abnye piece is
shufling, skulking patroon and unworthy the no
tice of any gentleman.
1t now only remains for me to proclaim the au
thor OF the above pece to be liar, scoundreI, vile
calumniator and dastardly coward.
JAMES ROGERS.
.New- Castle, Oct. IL, 1892.
The preceding statement of facts is in every par
ticular correct.
T. STOCKTON.