Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-03-26
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED,
DAILY,
From the Cincinnati Gazette.

tDe NlCS-TTtSlGCNl tHdt Tue SiSat WaSS "
evidence, ha, SD long engaged the attention @
the committee, consists of private letters Of ma
jor Handkerchief, to Elijah, Mix, with the ex
plantations TO which they have given rise"
In support Of this complaint, Mr.. McDaH
commences his argument thus:
at is hardly necessary that should enter
tain course of argument before committee
Of which six out Of seven are lawyers by profes
sion, 10 show that these letters ought to hav
been promptly rejected, as improper and in
competent testimony"
This bold assumption of,he very point to b.
proved, is strikingly characteristic Of the who'll
protest. IL is here followed up with some yei,
pretty defamation, rounded into polished pc
RODS, in which Sydney and Jeffries are dexter
ously introduced, Sc as TO associate MIR. Cal
houn with Sydney, and Jeffries with the com
mi,tee. The hyper5ole is 100 extravagant, ant
the dissimilarity Of the cases too palpable, te
produce effect, In 4 proper place shall shew
an instance Of much stronger analogy, by whict
neither Mr. Calhoun nor MIR. McDufie appear:
TO be alarmed.
am myself lawyer, and not without some
pretension 10 knowledge Of my profession, &
10 experienoe IN the practice of it. And it is
my opinion that the letters Of major Vandeven.
ter 10 Mix ought not to have been rejected as
VtStImOuy.
As general proposition, il is undoubtedly
true that the letters and conversations of one
person cannot be used as evidence against ano-
ther, or in controversies where others are par
ties. But this rule is not OF universal apptica-
ZION. Various exceptions arise 10 II, in the mul.
hilarious controversies upon which courts are
called TO decide. Twill here put one familiar
case.
Mix writes, prints, and Publishes, that Mr.
Calhoun mad been concerned IN the Rip Rap
contract, and had received a part Of the profits;
and adds, IN the same publication, that he
makes The charge upon the authority Of u sa,.e~
from maj or Vandeve inter- asserting the fact. "A
publication Of this character is undoubtedly IL
BILLIONS, il false. But if Major Vandeyenter had
actually written such letter, MIR. Calhoun
could not sustain action against Mix. And
for this reason: Mix, in his publication, refer
red TO the original iabrica;or. He asserted no
thing upon his own authority, or as oil his own
knowledge: and The charge was left 10 make
impression according 10 the estimate OF Nande-
yenter's character. =
Nevertheless, MIR. Calhoun brings an action
against Mix for the libel, and AYERS in his decla
ration, that Vandeventer had never written
letter as alleged by Mix. In his defence, MIX
nleads in bar that andeyent did write the let
ser alleged in his publication, aud upon this Is
sue is ioined Upon the trial Mix produces va
rious letters from Vandeventer, which his coun-
sci insist contain the allegation charged. Mr..
Calhoun's counsel dispute this Interpretation.
Can any lawyer maintain that the letters may
not be Of such import, as to render II indispen-
sable TO submit them, as evidence to the jury,
for them TO decide upon? And II this be the
character Of The letters, and they are read as G.
violence, then the examination Of VandeVenter,
L. Ioyfo orsop
are necessary consequences. The whole be-
comes legal evidence, TO be decided upon oy the
jury.
10 my iudgrnen, i, is perfectly clear that the
commitlee were placed, by Mr.. Calhoun's ap-
peal TO the House, exactly in the same prediea-
uent tha, court and jury would have been,
&had he brought an action for the libel. 1t is an
appeal in a case OF defamation upon the identi-
cal libel have supposed. Let US investigate
the course pursued, that we may the better un-
derstand the question.
So soon as the committee were organized
,hevsddressed a note to Mr.. Calhoun, inform.
ing him they were ready TO receive any commu
cation he should think proper TO make. In
his reply he says:
"I have to state that my communication te
he House of the 29lh Dec. last, will max,
known 10 the committe my motives in solicit
ing an inquiry, and that have nQ.hlng TO adj
but TO reileraie my desire to have full in'esti
ga:ion."
He then states that he had appointed MIR. Nc
Duf;e as hi, friend before the committee, an
annexes the following Postscript:
"Itmay not be improper to add, that the pa
Nap ,f the District to which referred IN N
Communication to the House, as containing tn
sta,emen, therein alluded to, is the Phenix Gs
zer,e, of the 2sth Dec. last, printed at Aie1an
Gria, and to ,chica 1 scos Id respecyu4y Te|er IN
committee"
Tn all this Mr.. Calhoun is the complainant
IT. considers himself grossly DETAINED. He
seeking srsfags" from '.poifieai aftoeh' in 81, tn
Lau Of the immediate Representatives OF IN
people" Notwithstanding this obvious rs posi- .ns
tlon of the case, in his pro,es. ne ',s ' sr.
ice, as though the letter Of Mix was iorma
!rd;c,men, against him, and himself placed i
the csimiuai box as an accused fslon'!