Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-08-29
From the Cincinnati Gazette.
COLUMBUS ADDRES IS, 1924.

dress of Mr.. Clay's friends, published at Colum.
bus. in 1924, that Mr.. Clay was virtually plede.
cd TO vote for Gen Jackson, in preference to
Mr. Adams. If there were any plausibilitv in
his arguments, it would only go to show, tha;
/, matter might be made have plausible an.
roar,nce without any foundation in fact BIZ;
to this it is not my purpose now 10 speak
A question of yeracity has arisen between the
National Journal and the Telegraph, in which
the latter has cited me as witness, and it's
n rho noint in controversy only that propose
to speak.
In speaking Of the address, the Telegraph Of
the 3lst July says:
.Let i, be remembered that Mr.. Clay WIS
himself at Columbus, uiien The address wa8 pp5.
Eshed: that il was the deliberate and authorized
act of his party in Ohio"
The National Journal Of the 4,h Of August,
| in noticing this remark, says:
"This statement, is destitute of truth. Mr.
Claw was no. al Columbus, at The publication Of
| the address. consequently all the. arguments and
differences derived from the fact are equally ~.
founded"
The Telegraph of the same day puts IN It's
rcjonder thus:
The Journal of This morning asserts tha,
MIR. Clay was not at Columbus nj lie pu5ilsrio,
Of lie address signed BY Gen. Vance, onI p1b.
iished in July 1924 Now il happen, that W.
have no less authority for this assertion Than
! Charles Hammond himself Mr.. Hammond.
mere than twelve months ago, said that Nj
Clay was at Columbus, in the practice Of hi,
proft ssior."
1t will be seen from these extracts, that w..
question at issue is, was or was not Mr. Cloya,
Columbus, al the publication Of The ndi'sSs2 And
saw without hesitation. that lLr. Cay ms G0i
at Columbus al The publication Of The adissg--
The matter Of fact appears to me "fn" npor.
lance, but the Telegraph is wrong with respect 1
IN it.
There was no warrant, in truth, for citing NE
as authority for the assertion Of the Telegraph
have never said that Mr.. Clay was there At
The publication ofMe address. The fact was O.
therwise, and could have no reason to misrc.
present it, The publication referred to by the
Telegraph does not sustain its assertions
In the Telegraph of March Of, 1926, in mott.
cling the Columbus meeting AMI address, the
editor observed of Mr. Clay:
"Wih view to effect. this laudabe object
a meeting of his friends cas aoavoked al Coluabr;
HE ATTENDED IN PERSON, he was in town and
another bulletin was issued"
; took occasion in the Cincinnati Gazette Of
June 27, 1926, to notice this allegation, and to
state as follows:
{" This meeting Was held during the sitting Of
the court. Mr.. Clay was there in the practice
Of his profession. He did not attend the meet.
ing. He took no part with respect TO it. On
the contrary, heskept aloof from the political
arrangements Of his friends, with delicacy
highly commendable
The time of the meeting, and the time Of hs
publication Of the address, we're two distnc
periods. The meeting appointed commit
tee to prepare and publish the address. 1t was
not prepared until three or four days after the /
meeting A week elapsed between the meet
ing and the publication, during which Mr.. Ola!
left Columbus. Such is the true state of facts
as is we'll known to all concerned in the publ
cation oft address. 4
Gen. Green, very soon after he commenced Z
his vocation OF editing the Telegraph, made an
attempt 10 impress upon The public the beld
that MIR. Clay as himself the author Of that 9
address. 1t has been repeatedly stated lh& &
there was no foundation for this insinuai,ou-
General Green chooses still to nersevere int q
his makes ii proper 10 state The facts c0aCut 4
ing il.
! he address was written by myself Not On! &
word of conversation ever passed between Nr 4
Clay and myself in respect to it. never saw
nor spoke 10 Mr.. Clay, from The time ensa
ged 10 write il until it was completed. Tbew
pics were fmy own suggestion. 1t was adopt Z
&c by the committee without alteration, excCr;
he omission Of an entire paragraph in the or
ginal draft That wrote it, and that II vs'
adopted in The manner state, is known TO Co.
Henry Brush, William Creighton, jun, Philip
Doddridgc, any many others. They know tor
from the time and circumstances in which
was written, that it is not probable there WIS /
any conference between Mr.. Clay and my9l s
respecting it. So'much for the nsinuation, " 4
frequently made, and so pcrtinaciously adhere
TO, that Mr. Clay is the author Of that addrc'n
am well persuaded that all Inc charges again"
Mr.. Clay are equally baseless and unroun4ed
The Journal is perfectly correct in ASSERTING
that the authors Of that address never though
OF giving their support to Gen. Jackson. II
the time no one pretended TO deduce any :ota
inference from it. Highly important as p'
then thought it to break in upon the line Of CAB
met succession, we were we'll nprsuac ed that ca