Martinsburg gazette and public advertiser. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1826-1833, 1827-08-07

was afterwards informed, that
when it was acted upon, Gen. Jackson
and every other Senator present was
as to the imputations nov made F;
one presuming to question my honor
integrity. How can Gen. jackson
Justify TO his conscience or to his coun-
try this ~palpable breach of his public
duty tits in vain TO say hat he gave
a silent negative vote. He was in pos
session of Information which, if true,
must have occasioned the rejection of
my nomination. 1t does not appear
that any other senator possessed the
same information. Investigation was
alike due to the purity of the National
Councils, to me, and, as an act of
strict justice, to all the other parties
implicated. II is impossible for him to
escape from the dilemma that he has
been faiihless, as a Senator OF the Uni
ted States, or has lent himself to the
circulation of an atrocious calumny.
After The election, Gen jackson was
among the first who eagerly pressed bis
congratulations upon bis successful RI
val. If Mr.. Adams had been guilty Of
the employment of impure means to eff.
feet his election, Gen. Jackson ought
to have disdained to sully his own hands
by touching those Of his corrupt Gem.
petitor.
On the 10th Of February, 1895, the
very next day after the election, Gen.
jackson was invited to a public dinner
at Washington, by some of his friends.
lie expressed to them his wish that he
might be excused from accepting the in,
vitation, because, abiding to the re-
cent election, he said "any evidence of
kindness, and regard, such as you pro-
pose, might, by many, be viewed as
conveying With it EXCEPTION, murmur-
ing, and feelings of complaint, which |
sincerely hope belong to none of my
friends" More than one month after
the corrupt proposal is pretended to
have been received, and after, accord
ing to the insinuation Of Gen. jackson,
a corrupt arrangement bad been made
between Mr. Adams and me-after the
actual termination of an election, the
issue of which va brought about, &C.
cording to Gen. Jackson, by the basest
of means, he was unwilling to accept
the honors of a public dinner, lest it
should imply even an exception against
the result of the election.
Gen. Jackson processes in his letter of
the 9th of June--I quote again his
words, "to have always intended, should
Mr.. Clay come out over his own sigma
ture and deny having any knowledge Of
the communication made by his friends
to my friends and to me, that | would
give him the name of the gentleman
through whom that communication
came" He p~retends never to have
seen the Fayetteville letter ; and yet
the pretext of a denial under my sigma
fure is precisely that which had been
urged by the principal editors who sus-
tanned his cause. If this be an uncon-
certed, it is nevertheless a most wonder
ful coincidence. The General never
communicated to me his professed in
tention, but left me in entire ignorance
of his generous purpose like the over
ture itself, il was profoundly concealed
from me. There was an authorised de-
NAL from me, which went the circle of
the public prints, Immediately after the
arrival at Washington of the Fayette-
vile letter. In that denial my words
are given. They were contained in a
letter dated at Washington City on the
18th day Of April last, and are correct
ly stated to have been " that the state
ment that his (my) friends had made
such a proposition as the latter describes
to tbs friends of Gen. jackson was, as
far as we knew or believed, utterly des-
titute of foundation: that be was un-
to believe that Gen. jackson had
any such statement: but that no
matter with whom it had originated, he
was fully persuaded it was a gross fabri-
cation, ofthe same calumnious character
with the Kremer story, put forth for the
double purpose of injuiing his public
character, and propping the nus of
zen, Jackson; and that for himself and
tor his friends he defed the substantial
ton of the charge before any fair tribu-
nal whatever" Such we're my own
words transmitted ia the form of a let
ter from a friend to a known person.
Whereas the charge which they repealed
was contained in a letter written by a
then unknown to some person
also unknown. Did not deny the charge
under my own signature in my Gard, of
Sist January, 1925, published in