Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1829-09-04
.trDtttoet0 EUDtQ.


So said the hold, unprincipled Duff Green before
tine election of Gen. Jackson. But Duff it seems
reckoned without his host. He was mistaken in SUD-
posing the people would support such course upon
such an avowed motive. There we're those more
cunning, who found that Duff was too bold and darinu
and although we firmly believe Tia, the atuinistra
non Is acting upon the principle avowed by Duff vet
1t must be done with some show of decency. Hence
The mean dcspicabc attempt PROSTATE the charac
ters OF those removed. Not whisper now of rewnr
ding and furnishing in the Jackson papers,
Our neighbor the Enquirer, will not directly an
prove or condemn, but stands aoof for evidence at
the same time repubishing all the SANDERS it can
rake from those foul-mouthed detamers Does !,
think to deceive any in.o belief that there is
possibility Gifts condening any act of the present adj
n'nistratjon, no matter what the evidence NAV be.
unless 1t be IN manner similar to its notice. and an
parent dsapproval Of the appointment of Editors to
oce' winch was no censure of the course pursued by
the present administration, but only expressing an an
prehe'on that 1t might and would in future be used
by others for evil purposes, and nstancng Mr. CLAW
"ha' was tins but negatively saying it all right
IN Gen. Jackson 10 do that which it would be wrouu
IN others to follow as precedent. And why? Be
cause OF the unbounded confidence of the WORTHY
Ne''"' JdCkSOn.
The Enquirer said on the 18th dav of Ano,s,
"hen II an!nnnccd the removal of the Navy Agent
at Norfolk, Miles King and the appointment of Nash
Legrand in his stead that 1--WE are unncquainted with
1.-The reasons which induced the administration to Sill
'Pefeede MIR. Niles King as Navy Agent at Nor
iok. Until they are explicitly developed, it is out
'e' our power to approve or condemn his removal"
Just one week ago we Jestingy offered reward for
TINS information TOR the benefit of the Editor of the
Enquirer Another week has elapsed, and not one
word yet any OF the administration papers in JUS
thcatlon. How Is this? Has there not vet been
time enough for the officials at Washington to give
the cue? Is the scent cold, Or they waiting TO
be possessed of Miles Kings books and papers, to en-
Die them TO hunt up some seeming flaw in his official
conduct We have heard this shrewdly surmised
ths removal shail no. sleep in silence We shall
ring the changes OIL 1t. 1t Is case which come. so
near home to us, in which the facts can he 50 "a,
silly ascerained, that before we quit it we expect to
satisfy every candid jackson man, that in this case
at least there has been prescription for opinions
sake; that Gen. Jackson has punished an enemy and
rewarded friend.
we are pat III possession Of sundry facts in rela.
ton to this matter, which we shall probably make
pubic at the proper time Ofone thing however our
readers may rest assured, that MIR. King is not
deariter. AS part of the underpot, We repubisb
the following atfdavs from the Norfolk Herald
IHoI 6. BRoueHroN, Esq.
Si-By publishing this communication YOU will olqe Won,
ooedielt servant, BARNARD O'NEfI.I
Having heard of report in circulation injurious to NV cha
acter that an oath taken contrary known fac, by me
to 40 line Stone Work far Navy Yard Wall for Si when INV
proposals turned out TO be for So %, proper TO tive
this explanation TO the public.
Ine facts are simply ,hee-Upward of years ago. the
wan was contracted TO he done for less than proposals
believed, and thought oft The contract was how
ever aned or not carried into executiosThe
navg hnnsh more land the plan of the Wall was under
10 he altered mac amount of the ;ob
gwen out Tor 81 NJ for the work, (ho, much for
stone know not wished ascertain precisely what had
offered ior and Washington for that PURPOSE bur the
proposals could be ound had copy and applied to The
Notary VINO drew up my proposals lie said that having
them OF Importance, they were destroyed with other
papers We endeavored then bring recollection The
accompanied This with MY affidavit not in positive terms as
has been falsely asserted but the my knowledge that
y os"eoed the price for that nconsiderae part of the
wall was S4-he impression Of the Notary and myself being
alike and the aivs (Which my possession and all
Oh all who may deslre hem referred 10 will con-
irm this statement twoud be unreasonable TO suppose tina,
could or would posvsy the particular point stated
Inc stone work, as had Interest inta the offer beng
mace ny another Capt Parks inserted in mt
But US to the principal object the work. my recolecon
was more correct IN having stated be and $40
nave lately understood that my proposals above alluded IN
have been found. have seen te. The price Of the
sohe WORK may possibly be Sc %, sad if so il proves
ue msecoiscton OF the Notary we'll myself on A small
OBJECT III the proposals which anu not inmedaeIv con-
cehed But cannot help being the impression ha lie
for that price ~ " ''"e
may DC asked what the object certificates vba,
Were they given for They prove delivered in propn
sals IN due form, although they could be found in Washing
ton nor do nom know they ever acted on
Portsmouth,, 25ih August, 1929
To THE EpIToR OF THE HERALD
SHelaiive 10 communication which appeared in the
OoiN papers OF TINS day, dated Portsmouth, August 25b,
1879, and signed barnard ONel" Rave no hesitation in
saying that the statement said communications so r as
coroborating evidence, IS almost entirely incorrect
In the lrst place. necessarily be inferred from the
statement OF Mr. ONei that when drew the Proposals
oI hH did in my Official capacity of Notary Public (and in
consequence ought IN have pot said proposals record Now
nc Itct IS, that in March, 1877 did any official
appointment hut was engaged in mercantile pursuits and drew
me proposals at the request and solely obge Mir ONe
ne second miss atenen and of great importance is that
when Mr. ONel called my Office the end of July last
nc purpose OF making his deposition aud obtaining my GER