The Alexandria herald. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1811-1826, 1822-11-06


tperiiaiity. and that he has indubitable q.
violence ofmy having been guilty Of fraud,
I should not even then consider his con-
duo; as admitting any possible justi6ca-
ton. In its most favourable aspect, it is
an outrage upon the laws Of his country,
and contempt Of its courts Of Justice
With any testimony in his favour. he has
no right.und such circumstances to an
ticipate legal decision. If man in
public capacity, is suffered to take upon
himself the Offices of accuser and Judge,
and in public document to send out H.
bel on the character Of an individual, it is
vain boast to talk any longer of the citi-
zen's rights, or the sacredness OF the laws.
II Is obvious how much more indefcnsi-
BILE such measure must be, when it in
wolves rash and fragrant charge agains,
one, who is conscious Of innocence, and
who only asks ,hei privilege, which the
laws allow him, of confronting his accu-
sers, and making his defence.
As 4 must be supposed to know at
least as much of my own case as Mr..
Cheves, and as he has publicly uttered
what l deem SANDER on my character,
l have felt it duty, in the same public
manner, to pronounce his statement
s'false and without just foundation. -
He has produced such vindication as he
could but in this | see no apology for his
conduct, and no reason for altering my
mind, AS FOR myseli,I have no apprehen>
sioDs for the result, and only desire, that
PUZZLE opinion may be suspended until a
legal investigation shall have been made;
and that no person may be influenced in
in his decision by the unauthen,icated as
sertions, the passionate violence ,sand ar
, rogant pretensions with which this as.
sault on my character has been publish.
and defended. GEO. WILLIAMS.
Baltimore, October sSth, 1922.
, To explain why the above notice has
first appeared in this city, and why it has
been delayed to the present date, it may
be proper for me to add few words.-
, The article by MIR. Cheves, to which j,
is intended as reply, was 6rst published
in the National Gazette. l supposed as
la thing of course, that the editor of that
Paper would consider it an act OF, Justice,
} as well as OF duty, to give the same pub
licity to my defence, as he had done to
/. the attack on my character. I according.
ly enclosed and sent to him the manu-.
! script +; and soon after received the fol.
\ lowing note
| PhaadaLthia Ocs. 3Oth 1892.
SIR 1 have the highest possible re-
spec. and esteem for Mr.. Cheyes; have
long lived in intimacy with him YOU
wiiltherefore readily understand that lean.
not make my Gazet,e the vehicle of such
language concerning him, as is employd
IN the manuscript. whicb\y you have sent
me. 1t is returned to you without delay,
Oh the supposition that i, may be wanted
am, very truly your obedientseranr
ROBERT WALsH,Jr.
GEO. WILLIAMS. Esqr.
| have no right, nor am disposed to
question the motives of the editor of the
National Gazette but still | cannot but
regard the course he has pursued in the
| present instance, as novel and extraordi.
nary. In Mr.. Cheves remarks he admit
ted into his paper very gross attack up
on the reputation of an individual. OK.
pressed in language much more repre-
hensible, would fain believe than any in
! the reply and it seems 10 me an over.
strained delicacy, which argues private
justice to the accuser and the accused
IL his columns were d proper vehicle for
reiterated attack upon private charac.
ter, 1t is not easy to understand, on the
common principles of equity, why they
should be closed against the defence of
the injured party.
| This is matter, however, Of little inn
portance, and the statement is only made
as an explanation why the above article