Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-02-16
Ftnrn the Norfolk Uerali.

The newspapers inform me that in Il recent de-
bate in the House of Representatives, alluson
made 10 my military conduct at Norfolk, du-
ring the late war. After an absence of a month
] returned 10 THIS place two days ago, and avail
myself of the earliest moment to notice that allu-
sion.
The National Journal Of the nth January pro-
Tossing to report debate on the preceding day.
arising out OF Mr. Sloanc's resolutions, represents
Mr. Randolph to have said, g But it was time TO
90 dismiss this light mode Of treating so grdre n
" question. 1t demands grare1 tone Here we
g told of a I'LL from the Senate, relative to the
g militia. Well. On the other hand we have a.
g buse-an anathema-got up from another quar-
g ter, by Illder lciOSe authority the Hiiitia-
g mon 1rere shot al .N'oLoik like so many bui-
a. locks"
Mr.. Randolph is generally happy in his ex-
pressions, and none could have been more feiici-
tous than those here imputed 10 him. The pen
Gil Of Tacitus could not have presented in more
vivid colours, the frequent butcheries and recl-
less Indifference TO human suffering with which
1t was intended TO pourtray my military adminis-
tFation.
The National Intelligeneer Of the 10Th January,
ascribes Il Mr. Randolph more measured express
,sions this subject. g a bill from the Senate,
affecting the militia laws of the u. Ssates-wel
sir, bill shall call it, or anathema. got up
by of those under ichOSe order certain M
s'ItiGmeH lcere shot at Norfolk, is thrown
6" in contemporaneously-no with the bill from
g the Senate-nc, sir-that is different affair." but
WIFI tillS IHOuOn 4 ne OileNCG Is mere IeOuc-
cd TO the simple fact, that d" militiamen were shot
IS at n orfOk''
Mr.. Randolph seems to have been soonconvnc-
ed that this charge, whether expressed in the
stronger or more midgatcd phrase, was rash and
unfounded For in the National Journal IL is re-
presented that during the progress of debate, 'Mr
90 Randolph simply TO admit that he was
90 wrong in a remark which he had made respect
g ing the militiamcn at Norfolk. He had suppos-
% ed that his information was correct but he had
Z hot h, haI en- int.
National Intelligencer referring to the same Incl
dent merely states, 9 Mr.. w yielded the floor at
90 the request Of Mr.. II. who said few words in
8 explanation, without stating what these words
were. But in the paper Of the 2lst is published a
card OF Mr. Randolph to the Editors in these words
- Mr. Randolph requests the Editors of the Ma
tonsl Intelgencer to state that the g few words
g said" by him, g in explanation" when &c Mr.
q Wright yielded the floor" were to this effect
&C. That having been informed (by a fiiend) that
81 he was under in regard to the shoot
g Ing Of militia men at Norfolk, last war, he
So wished 10 withdraw what he had said upon that
60 subject. That, although he had derived his
o. impression from recent, and, as he had believ
% ed, an authentic source, yet he did not wish
50 under the circumstances OF the case, for the
g. allegation TO go out TO the worid-and he was
e" desirous TO Tetract it, before il should have ex-
" cited neiice or remark"
IL would seem, however, Of the printed debates
are 10 be relied on,) that this accusation was 10
by his colleague, hIr. Floyd The National intel
ligencer reports this gentleman TO have said, " AZ
the same time we DO see a General Of tho ntcd
States, trying soldiers at Norfolk, and shouting
=" them too, for deserton. kHotU IL TO BE- q fitcf
DC for I pgas an eye WiiHcss. gentleman near me
says that those were not militia Hfcn. / believe
C tUO n them we're derive my information
from source entitled 10 ut least as much credit
q" as II * was drawn from hired and pcnsoncd let
4" ter-wiiters IN one Of the Departments But sir,
" u they Oere not militia men, then tCercHlep, and
is moi The life Of DEAR" But he also appears
90 have been convinced, before the debate closed
sented 70 have made explanations after
words. The reporter states he was under
stood, in conclusion, % state, that Of fro men
who were fricd for dcscfiion in Norfolk one
tCds u militia man, and one MT, aud that It
was TIE soldier and not the militia man who was
shot"
There is, it is TO be hoped, some inaccuracy 10
this report-Fhe statements ascfibcd 10 Mr.. Floyd
do not harmOnizo very well with each other, and
still less with the actual facts.
As my conduct has been deemed by others OF
sufficient moment 10 be thus introduced 70 the at
tention Of Congress and fhe nation, it is also Of
Sufficient moment 70 be correctly understood. J
desire other vindicaiion than a simple statement
Of fac.t.
assert and defy all credible evidence 10 contra
Diet me, that ma militia man and only One enlist
"a soldier, suffered military execution, during my
whole command a. Norfolk. IL the fact be other
wise, the affirmative evidence inay easily be pro-
cured to refute my statement The archives Of
mo War Department should contain the sentences.
ia aid Of thse the orderly books Of tho Army, and
~ sr@6hec11e = ,NN'e wNo served II - mas