Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-06-18
TO CHATHAM.
Nullius addictus jurarc, in vcrba rnagcstri.

Nullius addictus jurarc, in verba magestri.
Those who have undertaken the justification Of
Mr.. Randolph in his late difference with the other
members Of the select committee, on Edwards me-
mortal, have placed his defence this ground -
They admit, q understand,) or at least they will
not attempt to deny that the majority of that
mittec did the floor of Congress, truly relate
what had passed, and establish it too-but conjec-
turing tnat Mr.. Randoph's statement referred to
what had passed informally among the members,
before the organization of the committee, they by
this means reconcile his statement to theirs and
both truth 1t seems to me, that to admit this de-
fence, would, indeed, be to justify Mr.. Randolph /,
but, al the same time, to ax the majority Of the
committee, reproach still more bitter and unne-
rited than that of injustice and a want of mpari-
atty, conveyed against them, by the terms of Mr..
Randelps letter to his constituents. 1tnsinuate ties
that in their hearts they were unwilling TO allow
Mr.. Crawford an opportunity Of vindication from
the calunnies of Niniau Edwards 1t is pTedicated
on the assumption, that that unwngncss was a.
vowed by them informally in the committee room,
where else, whence il to be known to Mr..
Randolph. This is repeating Mr.. Randolphs in
furious charge against the majority of the commit
tee, OF partaly aud injustice, in specific words. 1t
is, INDEED, infinitely worsc-for it is directly super
adding the charges, OF wait OF irmuess in assert
ing nj maintaining their opinions-and of hypo-
crsy in couceaiug them, and protesting others, sub
ss1ucntly on the floor Of Congress, when Mr. Ran
GOlpI letter h10 DCcn tlCEef expressly
for the purpose of discreditipg its contents If the
majority of the committee, did seriously desire in
tend TO deny SIR. Crawford the opportunity of filing
his dcf.ncc, as Mr.. Randolph asserts i'll his letter
nothing could be meaner more dishonorable than
the want Of Grmncss which prevented them from OK
coating this wish-unlcss, indeed, it was the base
Injustice which formed the ish itself in their hearts
H. again, they had INDUCED sucl, a wish-if
incy had expressed it in conversation where it was
heard by Mr. Randolph, nothing could be more de-
testable than tho hypocrisy with which they yelled
their true opinions, when afterwards Mr.. Randolph
letter was the subject Of Congressional debate; OF
tho fictitious indignation with which they rcpolled
tho uncquvoca charges of that letter against tscir
moral integrity.-fo say, therefore, that Mr.. Ran
dolph derived his knowledge OF the feelings OF the
majority of the committee, from what passed unofh-
cially among them in the committee room, or else
where, il neither more less than repetition OF
the charges contained in his letter from the Nesto
accompanied by the nsiruations, that these mem
| bers when the committee, were afraid to avow
or to execute their wishes-and that afterwards ~
Congress, they deceitfully denied that such wishes
or Intentions had found place in their bosons
1 or Influenced their conduct.
This hypothesis jusiihcs Mr.. Randolph, so far a
mistake or falsehood HIS ever been attributed Il
| him The last have never attributed to him
and 7 an sure that never shall. That he j
grossly mistaken, I both hopo AMI believe