Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-08-22
Coz. ryr uM1oAr1oM.
THE BURR CHARLIE.

lowing Commune lion. We mos, che erluily pub
i,sh his structures, although consider the Burr
Charge as one oil che most absurd which have Eeen
so ansiousy and iliiberaily circulated against Gen.
jackson. Whatever be his transgression, he as at
ttdsi no IfGiior-Nor are bis supporters singular
IN t',is opinion. The Albany ID. Advertiser has
sireeiy expressed the same sentiment, and the Ed
tors OF the National Integencer (and pity that
sthey 10 not better how well little occasion al
hberality becomes their colunns) csEdi,lly admit,
that the facts as stated by Judge " iiams are
susceptible OF an Interpretation favorable to his
Innocence Of such connexion: and in that case
our principles forbid US from drawing opposite
lciusions.-We never>make- Or give our belief TO a
charge affecting the honor OF an iivid,ial, MS
hdeliiy TO his country, without being sustained by
the most indubitabIe testimony: and the chain OF
| testimony 10 establish communion of feeling and
interest between Gen. Jackson and Col. Burr, ad-
verse to the peace OF the country or unity OF the
Staes does not appear TO US 10 be perfect IL ", to
be sure, a hundred times stronger than that upon
which the attempt has been made 10 iinpeach The
| conduct OF Mr.. Adams III reference 10 the late
presidential eleciion but it is not strong enou n
to satisfy us. Suspicion il not proof
In the same spirit OF C..ndour,'' wbish marks
the foregoing extract free to confess, thai,
the dinner which given TO 4. Burr, as men
toned by Judge Stuart, ought Dot 10 be contounded
with the ball alluded TO by Judge Wiiiian.s--an,i OF
course the structures of Maplius are so far correct
i-And yet, as Judge w does not specify the date
ol the Ball-whether it was before or after Mr..
believe it was before; we have right to p,esuine
'ha. from the spirit which Judge :. describes as
reisning at the dinner, Judge W. is nistak-
en- as To The transactions OF the Bali.-And
must say at the time, that lie letter OF
DIR. Watkins, exposes this part OF Judge WIS. state
nien strips il oil all lis iorce.-( Ianlius is mis-
taken IN one OF his assertions. Judge 0verton has
positively denied what Judge Williams has said
about hin ia relation to this bail-Hc pronounces
" II as drTdnf a Iie as has been manufactured
during the Presidential canvass. ')-Manius is not
so fortunate in the remarks he makes about ile H.
Cause. He has COMPOUNDED The published ietier
oil Judge W. with the private which has been
| attributed TO him. We, III our turn appeal TO
AaniiuSs candour. We can enter tain no so. OF
doubt that he has seen the original letter 10 Nix err
AT ieastii we DO hot mistake we The name OF
the author oil VI anlius among the Delegates of the
Adams Convention, and other circumstances induce
ihe belief, thai tbesaOresaId letter which was so
busily circulated in the Convention has been espe-
ciaiiy seen by Alanus himself. IL he will say
ihen, thatl coDtains aiiusion 10 The license we
| shall most cheefiuiiy withdraw cur criticisms
~ he does not, W. mist necessarily draw our own
conclusions IRON his silence.-tAn mark ye) lift
be moi III the said ieiier he SO good as 10 say also
u you can, that The Judge did never sag il 10 Mr.
Il. II injustice has been done to lie Judge il,
respect OF this license, it ought TO be rs-the
allegation being frequently repeated and SO
generally believed.
We leave to Brnt..s the task Of answering so
much o. Maniins, relates to himself. We do i,
with tie more pleasure, because we know that
bruf"s Is PeDecijY egudi 10 las Oicn .inlcdtiOal
EDITORS ENQUIRER.
70 THE EDITORSe IF THE he.N'QCIRER.
SENTLEsIEN: La your paper OF the LIST OF Au-
gust, you give 10 the pubic some docuvents in
relation 10 tie charge made by Judge Williams OF.
tennessee, ushered forth 10 the world with an es
say, under the signature OF Bruus ior the purpose
suppose, OF preparing the public mind Tor their
reception some points VI this essay shall per
maps notice In the course Of this communications
out, III the bFst place, permit 10 call YOUR atten
ZION and that OF your readers, editorial para
graph In your paper Of that dale, in which YOU
say, referring 10 these documents Judge Vii.
mans seems 10 be very unfortunate in his recoIicc-
tlon o' date.--asSiDg license troui Gen jackson
when he was no longer Jud.e-& not recoIiect-
ihs whether the Ball was before or after Mr. JEFF
iersons Proclamation! Judge Sluarts letter chars
up tins lnsidious inputation about the ball &c"
sna'i pnfposely suppress the comments 10 which
inns paragraph, gentlemen, is obviously liahIe-for
would not furnish any cause Tor your refusal OF
your columns TO this Communication, because It is
upon an important subject and one which wish
to see iairly stated before the readers of the En-
quirer. Yoa will, however, permit inc to remark
That cannot help thinking bat this paragraph, will
strike all your Intelligent readers with the Creates,
supriZe, when they read {ariong those very doca-
nents which you have rubIished) Judge Williams
letter 10 Mr. Kerr, in which one word is said
aboutthe oeer OF Captsincy IN Burr's army ha,
ing been made by Jackson, when he CIV. applied
any thing having the most remote alIusion ~ such
circumstance; and yet, you have published doc
pinents TO prove that Gen. JACKSON had RESIGNED
MS Judgeship before BUR- was in tennessee In
ssoo, and the public are grayely asked 10 scompae
these authentic documents" with the letter of
Judge Williams which Immediately follows a. in
which, repeat, not one word is contained IN se-
gard TO that matter, jntinating that there il i,a
teTial discrepancy between the fact proved bv these
documents, and the statement made by Judge vii.
hams Surely, gentleman, the person. whoever he
-, That stand~ sponsor bor dat pubicsfio must
nave presumed too much upon the igHOydacs OF
your subscribers-And how, 4 would ask Won
gentlemen, does Judge Siu9it clear IN the in. /
putaion about the bail! lie gives 10 dates On thing
'-r winch the writer's OF General jackson are most
remarkably nor does lie deny that pa,t of lie
statement made by Judge Williams, or saw Que
word in regard TO the Ball given by the citizens OF
Nashville III 1906, while BUR- was in that neigh. /
horhood, aud to which he was refused a,iinittaire
~ the managers, but which lac was escorted Nv
Gen jackson, and yet you ieli your readers t,yhe
you publish that IetleD that Judge Stuart clears |
up ''tne inputat0n about the Bdi, &c" Can't I've
possible that yOIt have or suppose THAT your y,g
eIs would conionnd the Dinner, winch Judge
Stuart says, was given to Col. Burr, in 1893, WIN
the ball to whichhe was refused oamittance IN
1896; ior tic only thing which Judge stuart saws
III ms letter upon that subject Is in these y, or
" ;hat Burr came Nashville after he had &c as.d
to be V. President aud had killed Hamilton and
That TIE citizens Oh Nashville gave INN a Dinner
at which ie was present" This was, therefore
di'ei me 9h Oi March 1898, and was 10 doubt i'm
The dii Of that year; this is cOrfoaoratcd Ly vour
correspondent Bfuius, (tvho likewise taaes r,,e
not TO be particular about ddtes) I've says when
BUR- visited fenncsse in 1905. a Hal lIudge \
says 0RHtT1 was gwen 10 him in Nashville
NV", gentlemen, JuCge stuart saws not one word |