Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-07-09

w
oe"S my Impression, may have stated it, bu
DO not recoiloct having done SO. But the con
rersascn with MIR. Edwards was, the ONLY au
uhoIity beyond conjecture, we had for stating
''ia' ne was not the author-nor should we have
Luons'ieo the paragraph, but for that converse
;, q. Can you say distinctly, that, in that con.
VersatIon, MIR. Edwards did not speak of an i'm.
Potca plot and, in saying he had nothing to dc
wan ~ t'at he did not refer to plot, and not tC
the Publications.? -
~. do not distinctly rccollect Coy. Edr ards,s
''"8'agc, except so far that it left strong inn
presainn on my mind that he discIaiine,i having
any ,i'ng TO do with the 4 Il business. He
spoke Of II generally, and do not rccollect Chat
nc made the distinction referred to in tie cues
ton now put
y. by Mr.. Livingston. When you speak of
inc n Il business, tlie a i plot and the A Ii
pun icatiots, ito you not mean the same thing ?
a. In applying some of those terms, have
Cd inc language commonly applied 10 them
and understand them al! 10 mean the same
thing,
/! Z b Mr.. Cook. Was not the word e plot y
as applied 10 this subject, first used in the Nat
| INTEL gcnccra
A. 1 cannot tell. II las frequently been us
ed III the Nationa! Inte!ligcncer; but believe
that cpithct was applied 10 il by the public as
early as it Was by the National Intelligencer.
" " 10 yOU not rScO.icCt
mat IN the conversation which L had with YOU
and Mr.. Gales, stated that, in consequence of
certain minors about the publications of "A b.
ana what had been stated in your paper about
an a Ii plot, that might find it necessary TO
say something about yourselves and shcy thai
there was no a B plot in the case, at all-or
words TO that cffect' And did not Mr.. Gales
| reply
a. Such remark may have been made, but
cannot call ii to my recollection. As it seems
dr. Gales replied TO the remark it is possible It
was addressed to hiIn'and on this account NAV
not particularly have noticed it.
u. In saying, as you have done, that I intima-
Ted that had nothing to do with the A B affair.
did you not consider me rather abiding TO any
ELECTS II might have upon you, than UPON 9th
crs,
Il Your object at the time appears to me to
have been to remove any impression of your en-
tcrtaInng feelings of hostility to us, but the
concurrent impression which YOU conveyed to
my mind, was that you we've not the writer of
the A publications..
Z. Was not this an inference of YOUR own
from the general scope of the conversation
| rather than from any expressions of mine
"A. You exact language do not remember.
can only speak with certainty of its effect up-
| on any mind, which is as I have stated We
thought the denial clear, because that was the.
! good reason'spo!1en of in our paragraph, which
believing you 10 be the author.
q. Did not expressly state, in connection
with the conversation about the a d affair, that
had no intention of injuring youo
n. 1 think not; because that would have
been virtual admission that you were the au-
thor-and we understood YOU to deny being so
q. do you not rccollect my making the fol-
lowing remark that never was the atygressor
IN any controversy, s. never would be, but that
when attacked | did not know, that L ALWAYS
stopped at the just bounds of retrbution
n. vi this remark, l remember distinctly
only that part which have already stated but
the residue may have been expressed by YOU in
connection with it.
@. In Mr.. Dickin's testimony, he mentioned
you as having procured the copying of some of
the bank correspondence. BY whom was this
copying executed, aad under what circu,riStan
ccs
A. Being informed last fall, by Mr.. Little,
Of this city, thathe should be glad to obtain from
some OF the public officers some clerical eInpJoy
rnent to fill up his leisure time, and knowing,
tnat, IN times OF pressure, writing was given
out by some OF the public officers, cnquired of
MT Dlckins, IN the month of October last, if
there was, in the Treasury Department, any
extra writing he could give out He menti-
oncd that the voiuminous bank correspondence.
called for by a resolution sof Congress was
more than the clerks in the Office could get r,a
dy, and, as others were clnplCyd on it out cfthc
oihcc, III knew of any Trustworthy person. he
would give hin a part Of it to do. On my
vouching fer the integrity of the gentleman
mentioned, MIR. IL. gave bundle of letters
which he wished might be copied without DELAY
| as tie Secretary of the Treasury was anxious TO
| translnitt'ic correspondence 10 Congress early
| i'll the session. These letters were transcribed
| III three or four weeks and returned. Soon af-
ter, Mr. Dickns called on me, and said he was
| afraid the other persons would not be able TO
get the remainder of the letters copied in time
and asked me if the same gentleman would nm
dcrtakc some more. He left another bundle
with me, which were also copied. On their
being returned, inquired if he could tell me
how soon the correspondence would be sent in.
He could not say, as there was yet much of the
correspondence remaining 10 be transcribed |
told him the same gentleman, and one or two
offers, also, would glad of as much writing as
they could get. l then received from .1Ir' d.
tturd, large bundle of the letters, and they
were immediately put i'll hand. | afterwards
received several messages from MIR. Diclxins TO
hurry the copying, as the Secretary was ycry
impatient to send the correspondence to Con-
grcss, and as after the copying should be com.
pletcd, it would take much time to compare the
transcripts with the originals. Toward the lat
ter part OF the copying, | received, every day,
message from Mr.. DicleiBs urging despatch.
as all the rest of the copying was finished, and
he was so importunalc 10 have il done, that
was induced to obtain for Mr.. Little the aid
| OF an additional person. The precise time that
tins copying was completed, donot remember,
but ut was, think, some time in March.
w. w. SEATON.
|