Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1825-11-19


Judge M'Roberts that If he should think
1t necessary again to address me, he
must do so in language more respectful,
and suitable to the occasion, or would
not reply to him. In bis answer his
language IS more grossly offensive and
genllemanly than that before held
OF course | can make to him ~ reply
and have therefore determined 10 adj
dress 10 you the following remarks Tor
the purpose above stated.
The first thing shall notice in Judge
M Roberts' letter is that il is dated Ed
gUardspiite, June %, 1926" when 1t Is
well Know to most persons here, thai
he was on tina, day, and for many days
prior, and for some days subsequent, IN
this place. And the next extraordinary
circumstance is, that between | and | 2
O'Clock OF the morning oil the % OF
June, | was noti.ied by the sheriff oil
Fayeue TO appear al The next term Of
the circuit court of that county " to an
swer Samuel NJ Roberts plea OF tres
pass on the case 10 his damage S500O;"
and that notwithstanding this | receive ed
about seven O'Clock The neat morning,
from Mr. Black, who told me he had Just
received II from Jddge NJ. aberts) his
letter OF June 22d, in which he says the
of r to correct publicly by Justice
any errors which may be satisfactorily
shown to exist in the piece over that
signature IS not accepted, and that 70
thing VIII satisfy him, bat ioil and ann
pie atonement over oDy own signature.
If this Is not done" he says the shall
resort TO that course for redress which
the laws of the country has given him.
And as Madison has been the theatre
for the whole affair thus far, he should
propose that ii be ended 10 Madison" |
am at loss TO know what Judge MR..
means by this. H. offers me an alter
! native, bot before he permits me TO re-
ceive it, cuts me OF from choosing; and
again he has chosen to resort to the laws
OF the country for redress, by insthut1g
a sun against me ia Fayette, and We, he
proposes The affair be ended 10 Madison.
TO this homogeneous proposition viii
only say, should have preferred Mad
son to Fayeue, bu if there had been l.o
other objection should have supposed
that sense ofdeiicacy alone would have
prevented him from either choosing or
proposing ins'ituling such a suit in any
county in the circuit over which he him
self presides as Judge.
Judge NJ Roberts and myself have
differed as TO the proper mode of conro-
veriing and exposing the errors contain
ed in his opinion" and in my structures
on H.. | have pointed out in detail ~ my
structures, aud | think clearly shown
some OF the errors into which be has
fallen; he on The other hand contents
himself with using abusive language,
and IN asserting. without Offering any
proofs, or poiaiiDg DOT In what respects,
that my stric ures are " tissue OF MS
representations, and has called on lnc
for " the authority aud evidence bad
for making those structures. 10 THIS
general denunciation and call | have
made a general answer, which seems
not TO please him, and in which he thinks
there Is something wanting to mate
up any story" when refer to "the his.
tory OF England, of the United States,
and of the different states oil the Union. ="
What this something is | know not.
BAT would ask to what other " authori
ty" could SO properly refer him in
proof OF the correctness OF the assertions
made in the structures, that in this state
sit has ever been the practice, both OF
the tta OF. ,atura and evec nfive IN remit
fines and penalties accruing to the poo
| pie OF the different connips;" and that
this has been the practice g from time
| Immenorisl in our mother country, and
from the earliest period OF orr existence,
as we'll while we were colonies as since
we became SOVEREIGN states )" and again,
thai il has always been the practice OF
The Presiden and OF Congress, and OF
all The governors, and OF all the legisia-
lures OF all the states OF our Union, to
remit fines, penalties and forfeiures :"
and that this power was never" question-
ed by any Judge of any court except by
| Judge NJ Roberts" But it is unneces-
sary for me further to illustrate the pro-
priety of the reference, since Judge
| M'Roberts has now done that which he
ought to have done at first, and instead
of dealing in general and almost untan-
gibe denunciatlons, has at length by
specifying the instances, enabled me to
understand in what particulars he sup
poses my structures have done him or
his opinion injustice.
| h.,