Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-06-08

told MIR. Randolph so. Mr.. Randolph proba-
my Thought, rs he might very naturally think,
| 'ilat simple communication TO Mr.. Crawford
oi copy al Mr.. Edwards's memorial, and of
he resolution appointing the committee fall
which MIR. Crawford was already perfectly
well informed Off MAS no intimaiion to him,
mat v'nd'caf"n would be acceptable; and
mat slch a communication coalt only have
me eiiect of placing the secretary in that situa
ilnn, That u he ren,nined silent, his silence
might he Imputed 10 his inability TO make n
satisfactory defence, and ifhe returned an an ;
swer 10 the accusaton he might thus, by his
own voluntary act, give an appearance OF i'm
portance to The charges wkrh they did not
deserve. And # Mr.. Randolph took this view
OF Inc transaction Of the committee previous
10 ms JOINING them, his mind revolted at what
ne deemed AN act ofDjusiice (; and, therefore,
viewed whatever was said or done i'm the
committee, with jealousy. Whether that
jealousy was well ar i'll founded, il was natural
enough and abundanily accounts for IN.
opinion he gave his constituents, of the temper
ana disposition Of majority of the COM
nittees +.
Mr. Floyd says, that 4" so far a. he had be,n
-" told what Mr.. Randolph had written, It seem
" ed to him there was some mistake in the bu-
=" sIness he PRESUMED Il must relate to CONFER
sdfions IN the committee, rather than to The
" measure adopted by them" There were con
versations in the committee, then hut be-
tween which of the members, or to what IF.
fect, we are not told. infer from what MIR.
webster stated in the house, that he Thought
It enough to communicate Mr.. Edwards's add
dress &c To MIR. Crawford, :. for the purpose of
gio,ng him an opportunity Of answering it,"
without any suggestion, that an answer was
expected. And MIR. Taylor says, expressly,
that That part OF his original re solution, vtich
proposed that .hr. Cinr)erd should be requested
10 dnsioer, mad been Withdrawn, because il was
suggested. that it ought to be left to Mr.
Crawford's option, whether or not 10 com.
muncats an answer" Such opinions NAV
have been perfectly sincere, fair and honest
out u II was urged in the cOnv ersatiohs of the
committee ON Mr.. Randolph's amendment,
either that an express ntimation to the Secrcta-
ry That an answer was expected, was unneces-
sary, or that such ~ ntimation was indel,cat..
MI. Randolph, with the opinions he entertain
ed on the subject, might very naturally have
inferred from such remarks, an inclination or
design To give his amendment the go-by. In
all parliamentary bodies, lin committees as
well as the rest.) an effort to evade motion.
Is one method ofopposing its nay frequent,
; ana often most etirctua mode of opposition.
This, however, is mere conjecture, and moi at
all necessary 70 Mr.. kandolph's vindication.
Upon the whole, Mr.. Randolph NAV have
been suspicious over much and too unreserv
ed IN publishing his suspicious but the impu-
tation OF fasehoOd is absurd.
Let II not br imagined, that il is any part
OF my design To impeach the motives, the CON
duct, or the statements of the members of the
committee on this occasion. / mean hnly to
refute the SANDER of Mr.. Randolph, which is
now gong tile round of all the newspapers Of
a certain complexion, on the pretence that
their vile abuse Ii justified by the authority OF
the members Of the committee.
l have mentioned the tone and temper OF Mr..
Webster's Remarks. Ihad perhaps never OBJ
served them, il the Editors of The National
Gazette, quick to perceive whatever will an
swrrthc purposes of.nalice, had not found In
ihe general temper OF those remarks. an a.
poloEy for ia,ppting Is Mr.. Webster uhat he
did nal say. and shamelessly uttered his own
ISLANDERS 10 sMr. Webster's name. He quotes
the passage, which Mr.. Webster quoted in the
House Of Representatives. fron Mr.. Ran
dolph's letter TO his constituents and then
says" 1t seems that his assertions are Who'll
"ly ground'ess: on Thursday Iast''-" Mr..
Webster rose and declared them utterly uy,-
founded andnnfrue." Mr.. Walsh also pre-
sames to say, that Mr.. Randolph is supposed
', 10 be IN a state of mind, which discharges
what he says and does.n tfNIr Walsh did
not credit the insnuation he here ventures to
publish to the world, what IS To be thought Of
ms veracity And if hr did believe it, what
snail we say TO The black maIIgnity Inch thus
Insults over the most dreadful malady to which
human nature Is subject, and makes yisraiioDs
Oh pro.idence topic Of slang irhanging p
ct this man affects superiority over his bro
Their editors have heard il sugges,ed. thai
this remark proceeded from Mr.. Walsh's
charity! IL so, his charity is drug'd with venom.
Others are ofopinioD land am OF the number J
tnat ne would be very happy To believe, that
MIR. Randolph was mad, or that Mr.. Craw-
iord was paralytic, or that both or either
was dead.
The members Of the committee ofinyestj-
CATION were parties tn the contest that has
grown out of MIR. Rardolph's letter 10 his
constituents: they were in every view, enti-
tied 10 be heard, and to be- heard with respect
1t IS even honorable to them, that they should
take fire AT the imputa;ion of partiality or pre-
Judice, which they supposed Mr.. Randolph to
have levelled at them. As to Mr.. Walsh, the
man iG a protested slangtchanger, and perhsps.
an hungry one too and but for the singular
character Of bis malignity, he should have
passed without notice. But there is another
person, who has undertaken to pronounce
judgment against Mr.. Randolph on this occa-
sion, in the most offensive terms and manner
he could conceive--that person is Mr.. Georr.
Hay, well known in this good town. and as
well known in Washington.
10 what he calls postscript on the Lowrie
controversy, (which he seems determined to
keep alive,J published in late WASHINGTON
Republican, he voluntarily digresses from his
own subject, To give his opinion on the con-
tested passage of Mr.. RandoIph's letter To- his
constituents nothing d,uhtioy N a.. 60,