Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1826-04-21

Mr.. Dickerson, both in the first and in the last
instance. Will that be denied? Can it be de-
MED? Move dare the minions of Mr.. Cal
houn to hazard refutation of that special,
Norny fact. That fact we make the ytulcrum of
our lever; and could Archimedes have found
one halfso solid, he would have dragged worlds
from their orbits with as much ease as we have
discounted the Senate faction.
But the Telegraph says, tina, it has the autho-
rity Of Mr. Dickerson 10 contradict our state
ment; and, abiding to that gentleman, adds
$50 far from feeling himself aggrieved by the
conduct of the Vice President, on the occasion
referred to, he thinks that it was correct, DE-
.LICATE and respectful" Does this declara-
ton "contradlct" our statement far from l..
We have already admitted that Mr.. Dickerson
was not individually "aggrieued;" and we have
admitted too, that, in the case Of Dr. Dickerson,
the conduct Of the Vice President was 'cor
rect" We do not even deny that it was Gre
specifi," for we know that Mr.. Calhoun pos
pesses the SuaU,ter in mode to an unrivailed ex-
tent; and believing him to be "corTect' in call
ing Mr. Dickerson to order, we never could
doubt ,ha, he did il respectfully"
But independent of his conduct being "cor-
rect" and "respectfuP'-it seems that it was
"DELICATE." Why deicate:S How came
delicacy involved in the matter? Had his whole
conduct been correct and respectful, there could
4 nd
do not reject the position, however The truth
is, that the word was veraciously, though I'M
happily apped-lhere ocas delicacy, ana
very embarrassing one, in permitting Mr.. Ran
dolph to speak after Mr. Dickerson had been
set down; and yet a more embarrassing one, III
denying Mr. Dickerson the floor after it had
been tameiy and "dehcately' allowed to Mr..
Randolph.
Mr.. Dickcrson's declaration, then, and our
Statement" so far from being contrarient, rur
directly a-fours. Such, however, was not the
ostensibe design, either OF the cringing Senator
or the mercenary Editor. Doubtful of the Ell
feet of downright falsehood, they trusted to
sophistical denial, which they foolishly thought
would answer the same purpose, while II pro-
missed the further advantage Of securing re-
treat should their kennel be invaded. Bribery
and corruption can do much-but unless truth
their schemes, or perish in their mire.
By recurrence 10 the extract which we have
made from our original statement, it will be
perceived that it bears date tie 3lst Of March,
The Contradiction" did not make its appear
ance until the 18th of the present month-Four-
teen days of confusion and irresolution elapsed
before the modus operandi was agreed upon. In
the mean time the Vice President writhed-
| Mr. Randolph abused their retainers in the
other House stared at US as we passed them,
and rallied at us in their speeches-their shake
| bag, from St. Louis, was commissioned TO feel
the pulses Of the reporters who had sustained
our statement-and the Secretary of State was
gravely accused, by the dictionaries Of both
Houses, Of having actually bought us into his
service! But Notwithstanding all this, the Te-
legraph maintained its silence for fourteen days.
Then came the miserable attempt at refutation,
which we have jus, exposed.
There is one other circumstance, which it is
proper that we should notice The Telegraph
commences its ''controdiction" in these words:
ga report has been going the rounds in some
newspapers, founded upon a statement in the
Phear Gazette, and misapprehension Of the
proceedings in the Senate" 1t is true that ma
ny papers copied the statement from ours;
but others copied similar ones from the lntelli-
gencer and from the Journal; yet we hear no
complaint against them. And why? Because
this being comparatively. obscure print, it
was deemed an easy matter to prejudice the
public mind against its integrity; and because
to name the Inteligencer and the Journal, in
connection with the affair, would be directing
the people TO an irresistible confederation Of
our entire statement Let us see, then, what
these papers say on the subject.
From, the National htelEgenea, March 31st, 1896.
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The engrossed joint resolution proposing to amend
the Constitution of the United States to render
ny person ineligible for the Presidency after second
TERM was read the third time, and the question stated,