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

ledge hold any pubic Office nor Is Candidate tor
any. eff.- ,. ~ 81" ALL.
Suffolk, IS. Boston. Oct. so, lS26.-This day
personally appeared before the above named
SAMUEL +. SEwALL, and made oath 10 the truth
of the above affidavit by him subscribed.
Justice Of the Peace.
! BosroN, Oct. S0,h, 1926.
| have carefully examined the communication
signed /" A Democrat" handed me by the editor
of the Statesman, as paper attributed oy nun 10
the Hon. Caleb Gushing. and have also carefully
comparedt with the paper annexed by Samuel =.
Sewal, Esq. as executed in his presence to his al
fidavit, and from the perfect similarity, perhaps
should say the entire want of any dissim!ari'y in
the hand writing, perceive no reason to doubt
that they were written by the same hand. Lest
any msappr ehension should exist from this decla-
ration, deem il proper 10 remark that have had
no concern directly or indirectly in any OF the
imputations in the Statesman on MIR. Gushing, not
having indeed the paper ascribed to MIR.
Gushing until it was this day handed me by the ed
itor Of the Statesman.
am perfectly satisfied on the evidence before
me that Mr.. Gushing was not the writer of the pa
per signed A Democrat" and attributed to him
| by the editor of the Statesman.
HENRY ORNE.
| Two other afIijavits made by persons in
blank (bu known to the jus,ices) stating that they
were the authors OF other pieces, which had been
might be attributed to Mr. Gushing.
| This mass of affidavits, &c. seemed to satisfy
most persons "a few, however, were still incredu-
lous. A writer in the Boston d. Advertiser
comes forward with a series of queries from which
we extract the following:
Why has not Mr. Gushing denied that he was
the author of the piece in question?
| Why did he assert that he could prore that the
writing was no, his, though not perhaps before
the election, if he did not know the writer of the
| piece?
! If he were not acquainted with the author, how
did he suppose he could prove this:
| How did he expect to prove this, if it was the
| work Of an enemy, as was suggested in the same
paper?
| But above all who is this unknown compurca
| tor, who may, for ausht we know, need compur-
eating?
| Why is the name, sex, place of habitation con-
cealed from all the world, except Mr.. Cushing and
his confidential friend?
| These.queres have derived additional and mpos-
| ing importance from later communication of
Judge Orne, whose certificate is published above.
He states certain doubts, which il is essential for
MIR. c. 10 remove, if possible. The subject is so
singular one, that we cannot forbear laying the
following from Judge O.'s letter before our read
ers
"Soon after the publication of the documents.
| it was in,imated to me that tho the public exon
Grated Mr. Gushing from the penning of the arti-
Gle, yet he not, by every body, acquitted from
| the responsibility of giving it publicity Some
persons ascribed it to a lady in his family
again perused the affidavit of Mr.. Sew ALL and found
the sex of the deponent before him ,DGs not indi
Gated
Immediately inquired of Mr.. Sewall if he
was aware that the terms he used left the sex o.
the deponent ambiguous He manifested, thought
some embarrassment, but admitted he was awar,
of it. then told him that the public were begin
ming to ascribe it to lady in the family of. ant
closely connected with, Mr.. Cushing. and high il
his confidence; naming the connexion which hac
been intimated 10 me- / deemed the iniirnatior
one which he would instantly Iepel as one M
less important to the feelings of Mr.. Gushing, =
than the main charge which he had aimed TO dis
prove. But Mr.. SeWaH ,ods totally silent on
the subject. then inquired for MIR. Gushing, bu
| learned he had left town. The complexion now
assumed by the circumstances, gave me anxiety
conversed with a friend OF Mr.. Cushing, and m
anxiety was not lessened II the published fact.
were calculated in any degree to mslead the pub
lie, | was not satisfied with being made an uncon
scious instrument in propagatng the error, ant
deemed that the whole truth, as now understood
was due fIom me to any one who felt an in teres
|
with frank and high-mindsd men, incapable of ar,i
hce, and too honorable to deal in equivoca Ian.
guage Having made known to you all the cir
cumstances within my knowledge, leave m ystery
II any remain, to be dispelled by those that hav,
| thI own il around them.
! GO These facts are communicated TO you, tina
| you may use them in any way that your own win
dication may require, regard to the public
interest may dictate.
90 In regard 10 Mr. Sewall, feel bound TO add
that have no doubt he h.aestly and sincerel,
| believed that the deponent before him, liz regard
! to the piece signed =" A Democrat was the ac.
tusl author OF that communication, and not th,
mere rGaSc,iLer of it, and without being sstisfi
ed OF that fact, he would have made the afi-
davii which he did make
| p S. have only TO add that | have read
this letter to Ms. Sewal, and no inference deduct
bic from it has been dIsayowed in the remotes
degree by him." Compiler.
Boston, Nov. l, 1926.
! . L thought Mr.. Sewal bound to repel it, as ,b,
import of the osths exOnera,ed Mr. Cushing from
responsibility, and the public otherwise, might deem
the whole machinery miserable scheme OF decep
ton, aud disingenuous utlfce. The diifs
renee between a Uriting by Mr.. Cushing, and on,
by certain lady in his family aud published will
his knowledge and appreciation. is one which nigh
be regarded very unimportant. The mpor, o
the oaths generating MIR. Gushing, requires frou
Mr.. Sewall, or from Mr.. Gushing himself, TO WHOM
The fact is known, disavowal Of The piece signe,
|" A Democrat" as being written by any 1enbe,
Of Mr.. Cushing's family and published with hi
appreciation.
Here the matter rests: bu, Mr.. Gushing, If h,
be able to remove all doubts, will not let il res