Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-06-16
To THE PIJRIJC

TO THE PUBLIC.
have Just observed in the U S Teleera"h
Of the gath Of May, letter signed Edward
King" and dated the l7lh Nav, at Chilicnthe.
Col King offers his letter as an "act OF self de-
fence" and reply to m, letter 20 Cen. Duff
Green, Of the 18th April Gen. Green introdu-
ces Col. Kings letter, by the assertion that
it convic,s me "of unparalleled duplicity and
shameless falsehoods." Circumstances. NOT @n-
known, fo"hid my taking notice Of Col Kings
letter in the columns Of the Telegraph MY
former letter was intended to repel an abusive
and unprinciped attack, which had been writ
ten and published Of another person, and which
had been copied into the Telegraph and arrang-
ed to make it apply to me! The injustice done
me in this. even Gen Green has since been COM
PEELED to acknowledge. In this letter CASUAL
" noticed and denied the correctness OF an rX~
tract from the Cincinnati Advertiser and ano-
Their one from the Cincinnati National Repu'ii-
can. In the first Of these extracts was chars-
ed with having written:
A letter to Col King 4" conerniu'ntine him up
on his election Gas Sneaker) and expressing great
saIisf1ci,on nj he appointment"
Ard with having written To Mr.. Bell express
ing mn nsfonisbmentfhnf such n man as King should
be elected 10 lint high honor."
This charge DENIED Col King asserts in
reply that wrote to him.
"THat the Election mouH do egnni credit TO the
Snte and reflect grent honor on those mho confront
ed TO his cho;cp:" and iha. wrote 10 Mr.B Bel,
"That, Iregrsited md ans surDr'spd nj the mea-
sure. as ii nrgped great instability in lint body."
wrote to these gentlemen on the same day
was in habits OF conf friendly cores
pondence with both Of such correspondence
il was not nv practice to keep copi's-none
were kept Of these letters. and I have not vet
been able to obtain from Col K COPY OF my
letter TO him. Mr. Bell informs me the letters
were received the same mail and each showed
The other his letter. shortly after they come TO
hand, that there was NOTHING in nv letter 10
him disrpspectful to Col. K, and he saw nothing
IN the two Inconsistent After ards, on the
10th January Col King wrote me a letter ouch
ed in the mos, friendly and sffrctionate terms,
in which there is not the slightest intimation OF
dissatisfaction at whai had written to him
and Mr. Bell. but there is request to hear irohi
me con the ntrgues of the nation
In he ex,rac, from the National Republican,
was charged with having written TO Col. KING
lsr. "Thnt Mr. 4dpms could neUer affiliate the
INTERESTS Of the WESTERN ST,TEs-fhdf me Po
LrrIcs of Mr.. adams and The INTEREST OF Ohio
,Cere nnf,podes;" and
81. "Thnt under the present state NJ things. ii
,could be best for this STATE. (Ohio,) for the present.
TO KEEP ALooF FROM THE CONTEST FOR THE
Presidency
1t appears by memorandum Of mine on the
back Of Col. KS letter to me Of the 10th Janu
ary that I answered il on the 3Oth January
The contents Of the letter do not recollect
1t was written as we speak in casual unguard'
ed conversation with friend, in answer 10 his
request kept no copy-and although | long
since applied to Col. X for one, it has not yet
been furnished / never entertained the ideas
imputed to me in the extracts 10 which replied,
and could not, think, have written the words
and sentences, either in the sense or coilocation
as published Col. King, in his reply, assum-
ing to quote from my letter, says my language
was, rs to the
affiliated We are anfpodes 10 him. and as to the
Cd. That after" writing Of the several candI
dates Of the administration and opposition, for
the Vice Presidency" added, "ce, of Ohio, /
beiiere. had better stand aloof and let them POLL"
Col. King alleges that if mean in nv denial
shat the coocafion of ,cords and sentences are not
precisely as he CD iDroie Them" and'mean 20 shield
myself "under technical subterfuge that may be one
thing" but if I mean that my letters did not con-
tain what he asserts; then am "grossly mistak-
en- or casually forgeJm"
Col King, unless mistake, will find the
punctuation of his printed quotation variant
from my letter, and changing its sense, and he
will not object to the position that il is only by
particular "colocaton fwords and sentences
that we convey our ideas from one to another,
in verbal or written language, and the candid
reader will not call that technical subterfuge,"
which requires the preservation of so much
good faith, in quoting another's language, as to
avoid a collocation Of the swords and sentences
that would change his meaning and make him
convey different ideas.
Those who compare the charges and reply,
will readily see if there is any changa Of ideas