Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Mass.) 1828-1830, 1828-03-25

other things, recommended the distribution
among the members, for their individual use,
of Gales and Seaton's Register of Debates,
volume published at the close of each ses-
sion, commenced year or two since, and
for which the House of Representatives sub
scribed for 500 copies. Mr.. Randolph OBJ
jected to the distribution of this work, for
for the reason, he said, that it was little else
than tissue of falsehoods from beginning
to end. He enumerated several instances
in. which his own language and meaning
had been misrepresented, and referred par
ticularly to one fact in illustration OF the
partiality and injustice of the reports of de-
bates published by Gales and Seaton. He
said that when in the course of the debate
on Internal Improvement a member from
Ohio (meaning Mr.. Wright had charged
him with attacking certain functionaries Of
the government, he denied the charge; but
that in the report Of the debate, published
the next morning, his denial did not appear,
while the remarks of the member from Ohio
were given in manner not as he understood
him to make them. On inquiry, Mr.. Ran
dolph said, he had found that the member
/ from Ohio had himself written out his re-
marks, and caused them to be published,
because neither were heard by the reporter.
When Mr.. Randolph had concluded his
speech, Mr.. Wright rose, and said that he
had been charged by Mr.. Randolph with
gross, palpable, absolute, and wilful false
hood. The Speaker interposed, and acquit-
ted Mr.. R. of having made any such charge,
understanding, as he said he did, Mr.. RS
remarks to apply to the Register of Debates,
and not to any member of the House. Mr..
Wright persisted in saying that Mr.. Ran
dolph had charged him with falsehood. The
Speaker repeated that no such charge had
been made, and Mr.. Randolph disclaimed
any such intention. Mr.. Wright made some
remarks in explanation, in which he con-
temptuously spoke of Mr.. R. as follows :
"The gentleman says-I beg his pardon
the member from Virginia says" &c. This
ungentlemanly allusion to Mr.. R. having
been repeated, the Speaker called Mr.. w.
to order, stating that language of that kind
could not be permitted in that House. Mr..
Wright continued, and with good deal of
reluctance applied the epithet of gentleman
to Mr.. Randolph. The alteration continu-
ed some time on different points of the dis
pute between these two redoubtable antago-
nists, in which it appears to us, from the re-
port of the debate which we have seen, that
Mr.. fright was much in the wrong. Mr..
w. once observed that if Mr.. r. wanted to
build up man of straw he wished him sue
cess, and hoped he would get one to suit
him. Mr.. R. replied that he had one al
ready before him.
Such was the character of this debate
an abusive personal dispute between two
members of the National House of Repre-
sentatives on the floor of that body. How
much of the public time and money is wasted
IN such scandalous manner-alike dis
graceful to the gentlemen" concerned and
derogatory to the character of the nation.
1t has become very fashionable, of late, to
charge all these violations of good order
and decorum to Mr.. Randolph, as he is al
most always party interested. He has
indeed deserved to become butt of ridicule
and jest to his colleagues, but we query
whether he merits all the opprobrious treat
ment which he receives. The good old
maxim of giving every one his due share of
credit IS certainly departed from in Mr..
Randolph's case; for crazy as he is said to
be, his speeches are oftentimes far from be-
ing destitute of plain truth, and sound COM
mon sense. 1t is question whether some
OF his tellow-members are not frequently ac
countable for the excitement and irritation
which occasion some of his singular ha-
rangues. At any rate, the responsibility of
the time which is wasted IN Congress by
foolish and extraneous speeches is not to be
borne exclusively by Mr.. Randolph.
POLITICAL. With regard to the charge Of bargain
between Mr.. Adams and Mr.. Clay, at the last cleo
ton Of President enough has been said undoubtedly
to enable people to form correct opinion of the
truth or falsity of the charge. The publications of
MIR. Clay, in his own defence, have been numerous
we have been inclined to think too much so-and
the anxiety and zeal which he has manifested in ex
culpatng himself have by some been set down as ev
idence OF his guilt. The following letter, which has
not till recently been presented to the public, goes
as far, in our opinion, to establish the innocence of
its author as to the charge of corrupt bargain as
anything which has appeared. 1t was first published
in the Richmond Wing, by permission of Judge
Brooke, to whom it is addressed -
WASHINGTON, Feb d. 1927