The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1824-07-20
From he .Natiendt Journal.
THE NATIONAL ISTELLlGENCET

THE NATIONAL lSTELLlGENCER
The time has arrived in the progress OF
the editorial, and other iabors of the editors
OF the National lnteigencer, for opening
the batteries of thrir press upon the Score
tary of State aud With Che same inEe
uiousness which, for the last two years,
has marked their whole course toward Nj.
Monroe and his administration, they have
commenced their attack with misstate-
mcnt, Ito use no harsher term and pre-
variation.
The misstatcmcnt, first made in their ed
itorirl article, of the ist inst. was, that the
Secretary of State had determined - to
withhold Official papers, from thvr print,
aad had chosen another public journal as
= the vehicle to the public, of such official
papers as are sub ect to the contrel OF that
department"
The prcvarication vas, that in. announ
cling this porpcntous though falaiird. fact,
to the people sc the United States, they
affected topublshit !" without intending tn
make either comment or complaint on the
suhirct."
in an editorial article, Of more than two
columns, in their paper of the 9th instant,
the insstatemcnt and the prcvarcatiun are
that they mean not In complain, and that
| their only object is self DEFENCE, the fol
lowing mild aud ceneIlatory paragraph Is
found
candid and dispass;hnatc review Of
/ this matter, leaves Us in utter astonlshmcnt
! that the Secretary of State--ibi5 elevated
officer this self poised, enlightened and
Experienced statesman, should, for cause
! 4 time g,.,.. Il
r"c,iicd as soon as known, have taken
mortal offence, and deliberately resolved TO
withdraw his confidence and countrrance
from print, which has, from its fonnda
ton, stood by IFS country and its republican
administrations, through EVIL and through
good report, aud has enjoyed the unwavcr
ing confidence of JEFFERSON, a MApI
SON, and MoNRoE, for four and twenty
years -
In thepx'acy other establishment, you'd
it not have been well for the editors Of the
! lntelligencer TO have reverted, in their
| statement of facts, TO the TRrTn2 They
| had been, by the direction of the Secretary
of State, expressly told, that thc first puh
Iicat'on IN another paper, of Il particular
public document, was not intended by him
to Withdraw from themthc first publication
of other papers, as he might thcrtaftcrde deem
adv isable.-Altar their first missatement,
this was distinctly stated in this Journal of
;hc ist inst: yet thu editors ot the lntcli
gcncec now repeat the rlsstatement To
build upon il a world Of astonishmcnt, at
the rasharss and severity of the Secretary
Of State. tfthrr first misrepresentation
of the fact, was the result of inad,prtence
or apprclcnsIon, Is it transeendinS the
bounds Of charity I" say, that their rePett
ton oft must have been wilfui
Aud what were the facts, upon whicli
this more than inpeachabIc offence of the
Secretary of State against the editors of
The National iutelIlsenccr originated
That cpon a public negotiation Of the
deepest interest 20 the nation, aud to the
whole human race, and involving no less
III nhjret than the final and eifee lual
abolition nfthe Slave Trade, an cx.raotdi
nary ard unexpected opposition. To great
and leading measure Of TIE administration,
had manifested itsaiI in the Senate Of the
L. States.
That the r'icnds of the administration
and oitee measure, were anXously dcsirnus
that all The documents relating 10 il should
b' Published together, 50 that the merits of
the subject might be brought before the
, nation, and that correct judgment in re
lation 10 il might be formed.
That the editors Of the tnteilEencer, in
their paper Of the eth of May, formally
promised that they would publish the uhole
! of the proceedings in the Senate, aud the
documents.
That they did not publish, andhave not
I yet published, the whole of those docu
, ments, and scarcely the half of them. That
they garbled the part which they did pub
lish of them, in such manner as to conspi
cnous!y present the argument in the Sen
: ate against the Convention, while they
, omitted, for want OF room, the particular
refutatlon Of that argument.
They noss say, that they rcceised this
! summary of the argument in Senate agdihst
: the Convention, from a mcm5cr of the Sc
nate. They had not promised 10 give the
: debates in Senate upon the Convention if
: they had, impartality would have required
lha! they ihoald Siye summary OF the