Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1827-08-18
Vol. IV.-No. SIS.

and employed a substantive ACCUSE ton of guilt
against Mr.. Clay. Its contradiction authorz, by
hn. So this contradiction the eve of the
generals guest, be asserts the charge, and writes
10 the general o be informed it. in any thing bad
misquoted or misconceiyed his meaning" The gene
raj JeH At due To .lf. BcDcrty ttat 7ofxg Of }Ibri
cation should 6e inTuied TO hiD" and writes to him a
letter sanc,ioning all he had said How could Hlr
Beverly this letter effect the purposes for
which IT was written, without publishing it in tho
newspapers: Ii in the ncwspa pers that his yerac
y had been assailed There he had been accused Of
fabrication. There the belief had been promulgated
that Gen. jackson never could have held the CONVEX
sa''on stated Consequently nothing bu, the publica
ton OF General Jacksoos letter. could rescue Alr Ecy-
eriy from the IInputatioDs cast upon him.
AGAIN. Cen Jackson states, additional reason
for writing the letter Mr. Beverley that 1t was tu3
TO himself that ',cha lie had stated suid he correct
~ und@S!ood" Correctly understood" by whome
lie does not aege that Mr. Beverly had misunderstood
misrepreseDcd his conversation. But i. had gone
forth TO the public and, without explanatory creurn-
stances teing made known, might not be understood
correctly. Hence Gen. Jackson felt that sotne ex-
PLANTATION wa, due to himself This surely is the fair
reading OF the motives assigned by the General for
writing the letter OF The 9th of June. The purpose
Thus avowed could only be effected br the pubiica
of the iotter-s'Pubci,y having been pivea 60 IN,
conversation, and an appeal made the Genera ior
us accuracy" his confirmation could avail nothing IL
not published. Add every vino reads this mart Of
the Generals address, must understand it assuming
that the letter Intended for publcatio Beverly
! snunders;ood IT, lie formally announced the recent
i OF IL IN note TO Mr. Zane for the purpose of having
The TACT communicated to Mr. Clay. After this il was
childish 10 talk about the letter not being intended for
PuhHcat on The complaint that copy was taken
evidently originated 10 the apprehension that the lei
fer took ground not sus:anabe By facts aud committed
lis author 10 great and dangerous responsibitv And
THIS aar' had ITS origin in The frank and fearless deu
al OF Mr.. Clay. Until il was known that this denial
"oad be made, the General himself and Garter Bev-
eriy anu tse opposition papers, urged the matter with
great Confidence. The Genera asserted Beverly min
iishcd and vouched the General who nrou,ptjy an
s'vered his CALI the answer is thrown at Mr. Clay
and i!ls friends, thing 10 overwEehn them All IL
to be open aud public, all is challenge and defiance
un' air. Clay speaks, and then the whole tone il
ciahSca- NO accusation made, noinr was in
tended 10 be public. 'e.Wr. CIry an E,st his h,scjf
hetd tie HtGer up TO pubic eaSe'-. Whatever o,.b
cuy as been gic"n 10 he transaction, has arisen from
no ascacy or procurement IF miner Is this trucs
put the question planiy-is il true' Can any man
who Y"imcs his Veracry answer, uuhesatinsy i ;s,'
IL not, who does not comprehend the 'conclson and
= inftlGnct:o ~
While spon this branch of the Generals address &c
IS proper to notice another assertion contained in IT,
Ia The last paragraph. nnch pains taken 10 make
appear that he had moved I'm this aaaikcrn from y,
Persona! consider alton, aud he asserts in so roonp
words:-- f
''fhe origin the beginning this matter was az NV ,v
house ana fire side; where surely may be pc,
mitlHd TO speak public Topics, without having nscr!be
~ him Improper designs
am again constrained TO ask! is this true, Has tim
General ':onyerscd of TITS mnuey' only 10 the comma
ny present with Cater Beverly al his own fire SIDE
SHch Is lie import Of his assertion. l. tue? Tic
Nashville Republican, published version OF the con-
Ycrsation with the distinguished member of CONGRESS-
IN the s9rirG of 1875. Ii substantially the Same
S9lih that detailed hy the General Tie nntl;ca
'irn trade on the responsibility @, the editor who
says, ne lcg;d it' Hashngton in this Gy,u Frcn,
"no' ;i'd ne hear -: Hy whom was j, fist promulga-
! 'ph: ty ;he Gene5a OF by Mr.. Buchanan? Before
/ t"c GENERALS assertion can be received as true il
'"ns' ne shown that The conversation alluded to was
published, in 1925, By the latter Gentleman
The editor OF the Telegraph has very recently as
seTed tuat Gen. jackson made the same communion
ton to him That stated in the Fayetteville leter
! Was tins communication made he Con I.ci,sn,, 49,
fire side? "
II seems frat Ae editor of TIE TELEGRAPH enclosed
| a cory Of Cen lacksons letter TO Mr. Beverly, 10
TIE distinguished member OF Congress-" WHO wrote
reply on tie !!h Of July, in Which he saws: ST ran
only at pre- cut refer my answer 10 YOURS of t
18th Of October last" THis matters il thus anrcars
was subject OF correspondence between the I'ele-
graph cG'tor and the disting ushed member Of Cen
g'ess,' so lang ago October 1926 Is th,s IN sr.
co'dance with the Generals assertion that tile Dr.
ig''-'he beginning OF this matter was at my own
aonSe and ire sdcn iii March last,
Again. Did mol tie General mention tlis co-,,o
sa'ion 70 las patizans in many different places il,
1882 DO not all these know liza, "fhs o,j~ian e
b'eiHains n his Uatter' was not sat hi. o,e, bo,s
dHd ire Sdc?" proud mind sinks upder ITO 49,
seriousness OF having been driven TO assert the tl,
lhat is not-When the degradation Of assertirg
extreme. "'' oo
In The Beverly letter, Gen Jackson states that Lc
""d 'lo then seen Tue Fayetteville letter aod "of course
Tg" o say whether us statement correct or uotp
ihs assertion seems 10 hove escaped tie GcnnTa- re-
collection hen writing the address where no Iold.
the following language:
ilief netaii'ns our conversations shortly aicreaYd,
,'''" puoHcIiy ~ the North Carolina Journal nrin
'u a' E"yeteYHie. On the 18th nay last from, Inn
.'''S NcntUokya communication was addressed IN me
y ME- NHitcT beverly, stating, what had not hcfn
"'' i' ne "dS The author oil the Fayetteville letter"
=, I"I" Jus IL appears that he knew all about the
aycuePiIe letter at the time he received Mr. Rrv
cry letter iron Louisville lie docs not allere hat
n'r' DeYef1S communication first apprjzcd him of
le existence and publication of that letter lie con.
mes himself 10 tie remark that he bad before
known TIA! Mr.. Beverly was The author oi II. in
'e one case be says: ~ have not seen youf letter
au"Isd to-" In The other he alleges that Mr. Bevcr
Ys LOUISVILLE communication stated "wbat before bad
no known, that lie was lis author Of TIVE FayetcYlo
Ietter" Tic Two assertions DO not lanc well lnge-