Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-11-14
FOR THE ENQUIRER.

arms.
FOR THE EMO CIRER.
.IeSSrs EditOrS-It excites more OF merrimen,
than OF marvel, TO observe how the distresses pro.
duced by Mr.. Gies's late speech at Powbata,
Court. reflected from The columns ofyour pa,rr
II seems indeed to have caused considerable COM
| motion, and to have stirred up the most dorma i,
sympathies, A calm 1" Observer in his accom-,
ofit, loses his calmness, and wakes wro h in pro-
portion to the length OF the detail while another
with Latin signature and Greek motto, pours
| out his agony, and rhapsodes in language al
most as Lnintellgible either Truly it appear.
to have excited almost much clamor and con-
fusion, as we may suppose TO have existed among
the builders OF the tower of Babel; since il hath
madden d many, and COMPOUNDED some, in such
sort, that they forget their vernacuar and talk in
| unknown tongues.
But the good farmers Of orr district will feel
no doubt, much indebted TO .. Ci,is'' for having
enabled them to read Green' in the English, since
the change in the letters if we may Judge from
what follows, intended as a translation-I Il,
looks, however, to who has seen the original
alphabet, very queer and strangely odd and NAV
be i!kened, perhaps, to the appearance Demothe.
mes would have exhibited to the A,henians, had
they seen him entering the Areopagus, dressed in
shad-belled coat, buckskin breeches, and fsirtop
boots-ln such guise, they would have thought
him mad.
regret that i, is not in my power also 10 give
you some account OF this speech but not having
heard it, will simply suggest the probability thar
your core pendent An Observer has colour ed il
rather too highly; though l by no means charge
MIN with the purpose OF so doing But as il comes
from hi hand- I, il seems, in some paris unnat,,
rally iams and in others, flushed Ike the face of
man IN passion. The portIaiture, however. de-
ponds as much at least upon the painter, as the
1 alnf anAt AZ l<f n
eminent artist, that when anger'd he always, nm
conscao Isiy, used double portion of yermjlcn
on his PANELS, till one day happening unform-
nately 10 disP!ease gentle beauty. by his passo-
nate da'hng, she resoutely declared, that she
would show herself in public, with the portrait,
and thereby convince the world that bis talent
was overrated- trust, that we who live at dis :
lance, may have like opportunity. by publca-
ton OF the speech, to judge oil the powers of tie
artist.
IS An Observer in his oblique sttempt 10 i,,s.
THY MIR. Archers extraordinary {" challenge has
thrown out an Insinuation, that Mr. Giles was in.
struments IN producing it, while your other corI
respondent OF three languages (neithe, of which ap
pears to be well understood at this day. has o.
penly, Chat is, as clearly as the vehicle of his
communication would permit,) avow ed the charge
shall not enter into conirov ersy with either of
them upon the subject, but merely submit 10 YOU
remark on two.
Whether the " attack (as NJ. Archer calls
~ VIII justify him, in challenging MIR. Giles, and
adopting course of conduct unusual al Ieast If
not disagreesble 20 himself and alike disagreeable
perhaps dangerous 10 his adversary, / shall not
pretend to say 1t is left to the judgment of the
people. But u the remarks OF the gentleman,
named in his note to Mr.. Giles were an at,ack''
upon Mr.. Archer, ask, did 10, the former in his
reply, promptly assure him that they were made
without bis fundamentally, knowledge or assent,
and consequently, that he could not, in Justice be
made responsible for them? If then, these remarks
were the only cause, of the course he has pprsu-
ed, and if Mr. Giles declared that he had no agency
IN producing them, why did not Mr. Archer. mag
unanimously acknowledge the improperly of the
cnsrge' ana Withdraw the challenger? This is
question which has not been answered. and we are
left to draw our own inferences. For mvself I
hesitate no. TO say, that believe, had he given
hlmseii up to the dictates of his own Judgment and
MS own feelings, he would 20 have acted.
but win regard to these remarks will 90 far
ther, and shall not surprise .1r. Archer oil
te0S'' when say, that judging, from the opin-
ions OF those who heard them, there was no at
TACK or any thing cfthat character made upon
nun ~ 'ne Individual spoken Of in his note 10
MI TILES. 20 state 1t, the declarations of vouf
correspondent, of unknown tongues Whose con.
tempt oil county-court lawyers, however great il
perhaps equaled by his sefesteem) to the Icontrs-
~ notwithstanding. II 10 defend Mr. Giles from
low, and slanderous impuations, be an 80 attack"
upon Mr.. Archer, grant the charge NAV be true
out am yet to learn The logic, tina, authorizes
such a concluson-Wa not Mr. Archer assured
by The Gentleman himself who made those oboox-
iSus remarks, that Mr.. Giles knew nothinc ofther
character,snd that he neither directly nor indirectly
had any agency in ihem' Was not this ,ss,rancs
gwen TO Mr. a. before, or immediately after M,
n s speech to the people of Powba,ani Was not
hr' Archer, Informed by the same individual. tbs.
IN his remarks, no " attack was intended and
that no attack" was made? on the contrary tina,
the emily observation, in which his name was men
TONED, was made rather with the view. and IN ,be
Character, of defence than an accusation Az of
seryauon' made svowedly with the purpose OF
screening MN from the imputstions OF being nstru
mental in any degree, 10 the circulation IF these
Saiunnies' Mr. Archer cannot deny, or affect to
uisoelieve, these facts. II he can, shall merslv.
refer him, to the persons who heard them--amon
whom, venture TO say he will find but one: ,vl o
timent. N'"e'e"' sc"
A respects vo-r Correspondent. +. ...,s r..