American watchman and Delaware advertiser. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1822-1828, 1822-06-25
Ma. JEFFsasoN's LETTER.
From the Richmond Enquirer.


FIR ITSELF Its statements are SO clear that they mus
carry conviction to every but the most prejudicec
mind. Such persons would not confess their con
yction, even though one rose from the dead.
Such men are the editors of the Federal Republic
an, the Pseudo Native of Virginia and we are ye
to learn whether the editor of the N Y Post is to
be cassed with this generous fraternity. The las
has declared : il was so obvious and easy for Mr..
to enter simple and direct denial of the fact charg
ed If truth bear him out, that his studousy omit
ing to do so but contriving under deal OF unmean
ing verbage to lead the ordinary reader to such 9
conclusion, created in my mind an irresistible sus
picon against him. Such denial in so many
words was not necessary, because the whole stream
Of his letter went to the conclusion that he could
not have got money upon this bill. But what will
that editor say now-when he has before him the
most emphatic declaration from MR. that he never
received any money for it. Will Mr. Coleman still
go on with his dwelling prediction that first or last
the real truth will appear the utter discontinue
of certain partzans of this man," viz Thomas
Jeferson) The friends oil genius and virtue unit
ed in the person Of Mr. ]. laugh this idle soothsayer
to scorn.
We shall now see too of what penetrabe stuff
Turgot is made. This writer, who has spun out
near four columns in the Philadelphia Gazette, in
the criticism of MIR Us first letter, at last concludes
by saying that Let him give distinct and unqual-
fled denial Of the allegation implied in the state
ment in other words, that he directly or in
directly received any consideration for this bill, and
I shall be satisfied with his declaration We shall
now see the consistency of Mr. Turgot brought to
the test.
The editor of the Federal Republican has pre-.
tended to vlbrate his childish scourge over great
mans head-aud to declare, that let Mr. ]. only de-
ny he negotiated this bill for money, and he will
come out with his proofs. We dare him TO pro.
duce them. Let him deal like gallant enemy and
not idly strive to stab in the dark. Let him speak
now, or for ever hold his peace.
AS to the Native of Virginia, We confess we have
no hopes Of him. As reformer, he must be ca
shiered. The man who will deny the most obvious
conclusions from plain facts, and then forge other
facts for his own use, is unworthy to sit in the mo-
raj chair.
Mr. has done with this subject forever. 1t has
been rule of his life, steadily observed to take
notice OF anonymous destinations. Buth is aware
that money mputations are more apt than others
10 excite suspicious and that suspicious are at this
time every where abroad For this reason he
comes out second time under his own name-bu
il is time for him to be done with this libel:
.nonticelo, June 10, 1922.
MEssRs R1TcHrE & GoocH-In my letter to you
Of May 10, in answer to a charge by person sign
ing himself A Native Virgnian,' that on bill
drawn by me for sum equivalent to 1148 dollars
the treasury of the U States had made double nay.
ment, supposed had done as much as would be
required, when Showed that they had only return
ed TO me money which 1 had previously paid into
the treasury, on the presumption that such bill
had been paid for me; but that this bill, being lost
or destroyed on the way, had never been presented
consequently never paid by the United States andI
that the money was therefore returned to me. This
being too plain for controversy, the Pseudo-Native
Of Virginia. in his reply, No. 50 in the Federal Re-
publican of May "a, reduces himself ultimately toI
the ground of double receipt OF the money by me
first, on sale or negotiation of the bill in Europe,
and second time from the treasury. But the Dill
was never sold or negotiated any where; 1t was not
drawn to raise money in the market; sold It toI
nobody received money on 1t, but enclosed II 70
Grand 6 Co. for some purpose OF account-ior
what particular purpose, neither my memory, after
a lapse of thirty three years. nor my papers enable
me TO say. Had preserved copy OF my letter 20
Grand inclosing the bill, that would doubtless have
explained the purpose. But it was drawn on the
eve Of my embarkation with my family from Cowes
for America, and probably the hurry OF preparation
for that did not allow me time to take copy /
presume this because find no such letter among
my papers; nor does any subsequent correspond
ence with Grand explain it; because had no pri-
yate account with him, my account as minister be-
ing kept with the treasury directly so that he, re-
ceivng no intimation of this bill, could never give
me notice Of its miscarriage. But however salts
factory might have been an explanation OF the pur-
pose of the BILL it is unnecessary at least the mate
rial fact being established that it never got TO hand
nor was ever paid by the United States
And how does the Native Virginan maintain ms
charge that received the cash when drew the
bill BY unceremoniously inserting into TINS entry
OF that article in my account. TcordS q ms oE'n =
making me say in direct terms that did receive
the cash for the BILL In my account rendered to
the treasury, it is entered in these words, 1882
Oct. BY my bill on Willinks, Van Staphorsts
& Hubbard, in favor of Grand & Co. for $500 ho-
rms equal to $3.50 vres 18 sous:" but he quotes