Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-08-25
leOIIIT0SANs
MAJOR LEWIS

\
wch the United States held against Major Lewis. The
preteNt Tor this publication, is reply to the Journal
upon that subject. We said
MAJOR lewis appointed Deputy Onnor Mascr
e sSShn ls hlnv In & sar1Hy 10 i@Sa large sae, @
med credit he authorized Upon im and M.
supplied The credit o s Sye n% not Sfn
1Ineo Jackson to prosecute some OF his most important
This is quoted By the Wing, AMI accompanied by The
following remarks
Major Sn Levi, sdy was NOT, 2, hS Ge referred to- large
limited IN . so to certain en,en was
Sao @ a sq p0 aa es
Muster Gcnera tho money Was 10 r"ss The cash to-
5se BANK not ' upon the
Goye!no, poan' and Major
War Dare" but sns sSaaacaoS Sy IN sh a
those v When "S5d the Sir sSos e the Bn nd
vance ,s monry Governor on however has set elAu
against the government Tor commissions the amount thus raised
By means OF his jIaugh,s."
The objections made TO our statement are: first. that
Major Lewis not at the time referred to- man OF
large ortunc AMI, secondly, that the drafts referred to-
were negotiated upon his personal responsibility
The writer for the Journal who seems TO have derived
his information from Nashville, says
So far from Major Lewis bcng untnicd re
oI h a. nc ia. been esssd TO De Ia The Telegraph ho is said
His subsequent wealth he gained by
The eonfid remarks Of the Wing, introducing the
words at the time referred to- have admitteltie truth OF
our statement. The Wing restricts the time 10 1872
Our statements referred TO the time at which &c ncgo,a-
ted the bills The Journal SAYS chs SUBSEQUENT 9rcalti
he gained 6y has matrimonial coHRcrion' This was
in 1913. The bills in question, cn file in the De-
parmcnt TO the amount of SS7 500, dated in April
March June, July and August of 1914 The editor oil
the Whg at the time referred to- not resident OF
Tennessee. He know nothing of his knowl-
edges yet he was cautious so to word his paragraph
10 throw back llis reference TO 1872 IL left the
accommodating writer for the Journal, complete the
misrepresentation by adding, the time these bills
icire dr4ucl" The Wing carefully restricting its re-
terence 10 prior datc admits at his credit was cooI
~ eert. extent and the Journal in ignorance OF
dates and circumstances admits that he subsequently
became '1cea!hy' by his matrimonial come xon
Thus IL ~ that comparison Of these upon
our statement verifies it and would ask if the adj
mission OF such opponents, be not the best Of evidence?
Inc wing denies that these bills were discounted up
on the credit OF Major Lewis. The money was advanced
says that print upon the credit OF the Government Mr.
Hunt, the editor, is, believe, native OF New En-
eand and at the lime referred TO, residing i'm the
land oil his BIRTH or at Lexington, Kentucky. But he
cannot be ignorant that bills upon the governments could
not be negotiated In the Banks without sufficient en-
dorScr lie, no doubt is appraised that Col James John
son. was under the necessity OF pledgn his large for
tune and that OF many Of his patriotic relatives tc the
Bank OF Kentucky, before he could get funds 10 furnish
transports for the troops who ordered to New Or
leans; and the fact, certified by the cashier of the
Nashville Bank. and admitted by the Wing, that rhe
bills In question endorsed by Major Lewis furnish
es conclusive proof OF his credit aud his patriotism
Ii is true, that the bills draw upon the Secreta-
ry OF War, IN favor OF Major Lewis. They were SO
drawn that by his endorsement he might Them
The '" hS quotes further from remarks follows:
1n the ac,.lenont OF Governor nonns account
charged Major When notified thereof he rSiseh TO- @
lowod This sf,sed because
jury and the balance vas paid n,o the roass
| Upon this, il remarks:
we are not aware OF mistake in t paragraph,
idea sonyeyC% N The la; tas the balance
twill he that the word 7,r0mpty il an adden
dun to statement aud if there had been no prirate
reasons tor ITS introduction apparent upon The face Of
the same paper some mi ht have been loss which
most ,0 admire the love o candour fairness that
piled, o. Tie critical acunen which discovered our ouis
sion.
it's true, that in 1921 Major Lewis did promp,,v nav
into the Bank a! Nashville the balance which appeared
against him upon settlement Of his accounts. We,
however, stated expressly that |fr,,cnrds when me
additional charge Of six thousand dollars. growing out OF
the settlement of Gov. Biounts, made agains, him
he refused to pay 1t unless Oher demands that he held
| against the government, were allowed. He invited a
suit, which was brought. Instead of ss60OO iuisnpnf
was obtained for SS5,272 c. Does not This sho,y ha,
his demand aga INST the Covernmcnt iociha, ought
To have Eeen allowed, and does IL furnish ustiG
! cation for his refusal TO pay the sum charged?
We are in:ormed that other claims were rejected bv
II did not appear upon the trial. hat they lad been ne
ieced at ihe Treasury the act of Congress reur-d
from The Judgment q the court an appeal taken
which appeal afterwards reliuquised upon an ar
| Tangeneni With The agent OF the Treasury.
The Wing says, that 50 .s07 0S paid in january
1 1923, and q further sun OF :; 1000 in July 1926
The Journal claims itself the credit of having co.
creed the payment OF the balance. This is not true
Az except fhe interest was paid before word was
said upon The subject And for this. Major Lewis tlen
held and still holds demands against the government
which hc believes ought TO have been credited on his
accounts, AMI which would have been allowed hut L,r
the want OF ofmalty, Caused hy the manner OF dsbuyse
nens as heretofore explained. The Whig admits thai
the sum due the government, II due, was safe
Did the prompt payment Of tie balance claimed of
irD IN 1871 make Major Lewis deGaulter? IT aDpears
by The letter OF MIR. Hsgner that dat amount was so
paid, and that ii was, no one has denied.
DID the defence OF suit The demand for six thou.
sand dollars, tt 1cGrdS set up, make him delaultcI;
lhat SUIT was yet pending appeal. when he upon
proposition approved by the late uirilous and in
corupfi6e' administration, relnquished his appeal and
made the payment ~ stated.
But tie journal disavows any intention 10 make Grim
lndl charges against Major Lcw! IL would only class
hm WIN watkins Nourse, Hay, and Fillobrown. This
is charable!!
The journal with lis usual inlecorum onleavors TO
thrust before The public, matter of private DISPUTE be
tween Major Lewis and another dstngu shed citizen
which took place some sixteen years ago OF tbs par
hculdIs OF mat ALTAR, we not inforned-beinp mi.
yate, ia t nature and the friendly relations between
The parties having been restored, nothing less Than fla,
deinoniacal spirit which marks the character of the war
aInnc, and pestence, party, would az this late dav AL
icmp TO revive IL through the columns ola ne,ysu,
PeI, u. 5. Telegraph.
The Journal, with view 10 impair The lust claims nj
Major Lewis TO the public confidence asserts that lac
neither lett Nashville took an active part in the ser
vice oi ihis country during the late war.
his Is not true. Major Lewis was, rs we have Ia.
lore sdi appointed Deputy Quarter Master General in
1872. lie accompanied Gen. Jackson 10 Fayetlevie
and thence To the Creek country, where the communal
ing General, buding impossible 10 prosecute te ,,
! paign without having sST officer in whom he conJI
cObilde, stationed al Nashville, OyJeyed him bacl win
instructions 10 obtain and forward the supplies
10 facilitate tie movements Of his armv That Major
Lewis selected Tor such a service bv Gen JACK.