Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1827-05-01


The hentucky Argus contains three atidayts, 10
prove that Elcs Jackson When Mrs. Roberts bore =
most iTrcproachatle Character and liza. twas the had
conduct OF Lewis Roberts, and no. her o.9n that lad 10
the divorce which eus,,ci in 1892. Il it was Lewis
Enbcrts who heharcd badly, and u5t his iCe ho,y
comes il that the petition the General Assembly OF
Virginia, for dro'ce, preorrol by Lewis instead
of nac::e, Il is usual in ali such cases, tia; the per
son offended against, and not The offender, should be
the petitioner for red G il Tia ease before us
Lewis Roberts bad offended again,; the ties OF ,a,ri-
,oay, and no. Rachel his wife. is not probable that
Rachel and not Levin would have been the petitioner
for divorce? Yet Lewis the petitioner as is pro
we'd by tie archives OF Virginia. As lie pcti.ioned
al! as TIA, petition :avorso:y answered by the
General Assembly, tie presumption is and must be-
that Lewis Roberts and not Rachel his wife was the
injured party. We reason the case legally & as mat
Ter Of Rc"oTd.-it is certain that Lewis Roberts and
his wife (now hts. JACKSON were divorced and that
il was granted upon lie petition Of Lewis Robertgfor
have the Statute Of The State orYirrinia 20
that effect. we leave il to the wiseaore who CON
ducts The Kentucky argus, 10 say whether the divorce
granted FOX Tie mal conduct of Lewis or Rachel
800
10 ne ilIttOyS O tlc constitutional ttHir
II appears from your paper of Friday, tlat CORES
FOndent has charged Gov. Giles with attempting by
political letters ofeight pages TO influence tie late
lection in Petersburg"
The insinuaton is wholly unfounded, and will be
heard OF here for the first tune, through the 1euu of
your paper, from your correspondent, no is pIoba.
Oily The aihoT and Propagation OF this calunny This
unqualified contradiction of the accusation which tLe
writer makes with confidence he has never heard of
sch 7G1OUr cTG!9 nor believes that any two Citizens
OF tic toyu, have, would be sufficient 10 cxculpate
Gov Giles at least until there yas some evidence ad-
dnccG But as This aspeTsion may have grown Of
circumstance OF which your correspondent could on
~ Aare hedrG, the writer will say something in expla-
nation.
Tie Delegate from towo, in explaining his votes
in lie last legislature TO the freehoders made this pub
lie declaration, viz: that Mr. Giles had been induced 10
OiieT the IL resolution H. coDdeDning the pIoirate
expenditure ofpublic money, Unconstitutional OBJ
ec3 FOR the purpose OF censuriDg the of the Hon
VS. Archer, in favour of aFordng relief the inhab-
ants Of ALEXANDRIA, who had suffered from recent des
FuCtVc lire, 10 promote bis election in the Dis.
trjc for Which he and Mr.. Archer were nj that time
candidates. Tie writer entertaining a high yenera
ton Of Gov. Giles, and approx ing ofhis course in e
Assembly, thought it bis Ggiy TO inform BIN Of tie
attempt which made 10 TdduCe his motives IN his
absence, aud thus 10 bring tue public acts with which
lis Uame Identified into discredr IIeaccordinc-
ly by letter Informed bun Of what the Delegate had
said. IN reply TO his letter. The writer had the honor
oil receiving iuii communication from Gov. Giles
The Governor far from intending TO influence the
election by this communications which, il will be
perceived, called for, and not voluntarily made
distinctly dsciained any design otaierer TO interfere
in lie election. The writer. il lie made any OF the
communication a. all expressly instructed 10 use
IL IN the dJeaCe ofGoU. Giles ni0Hc and not for
that purpose, until submitted 10 the Delegates
examination. The writer made no other use of the
communications than 20 show it TO three four of his
intimate and personal friends, who had positively dec
ded as TO their votes. The communication neither
intended nor employed 10 influence individual vote
in Petersburg.