Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-01-01

thun Jou VIII READ tho piece itself TO ascertain,
aswcii as you can, its true import and meaning;
and II you md IT has reference to any other COM
Inunicauon, you will examine that, in order TO
come AT the true sense and meaning of the piece
set forth in the Indictment
1t purports to he n commentary on certain com
munications agreed to have been made by the
telgenccr at Washington ,whicliare printed in the
same number OF the jackson Republican. With
President Of the United States, in the National In
OUT doubt the defendant had ri,hs to publish any
fair commentary upon that communication made
by the President II that high officer will com.
init his thoughts and op;nons or what he con lces
facts, to apubiic newspaper, they become public
property, and any citizen has lawful right to crit
icisc, or speculate upon the opinions and to DENY
the acts or comment upon them, observing only
the rules OF decorun in his Treatment, Of the sub
Ject. But he has not right 10 msre present them,
or TO draw unreasonable differences from them to
the prejudice of the regulations Of other persons
the does this, wiiuy, in such manner as 10 ex.
pose third party 10 public indignation, hatred or
contempt, he cannot shelter himself under cover
ofthe communication upon which he made his
commentary.
The first sentence of the commentary is unex-
ceptonsoie. The writer then proceeds to say
The reader viii, observe tina. Mr.. Adams distinct
" asserts that ii. G.. Otis, $. Dexter W. Prescott;
Daniel Webster, and others Of the Federal party OF
their age and standing, were engaged in plot TO
dissolve the Union, and 20 annex New England
TO Great Britain; aud that Mr.. Adams possessed un
eduvocal evidence of that most solemn design
Tie reader will also observe that in the sate.nen,
ius! published, of Mr.. Adams, there is no in;ima-
tion whatever that he does not still believe what
he revealed TO Mr.. Jefferson and Mr. Giles TWEEN
~ yerrs ago.
This, by the Governments, is believed to he Ii.
belous; not direct charge by the defendant
that the gentlemen whose names mentioned
were engaged in the plot therein mentioned-but
because il states that Mr.. Adams distinctly asserts
that ikey tcerc. On turning 10 the conlInunica
ton Of Mr. Adams, suppose you will not find that
he has mentioned any person by name engag
ell IN such plot, nor does he distinctly assert that
such plot existed; he speaks oil the purpose and
views OF certain leaders OF the federal party, who
had 'he management of the State Legislature That
the embargPwould be met with forcible resistance
supported by the Legislature, and probably ny the
Judiciary Of the State. That if force should be
resorted TO by the Government it would produce
civil war, and in that event he h.d no doubt the
leaders OF the party would procure the operation
of Great Britain. That their object was, and had
been for several years, dissolution of the Union,
and The establishment o! separate confederation
he knew from unequivOcai evidence, although not
provcable in Court of Law, Sc.
There is then no distinct assertion Of Mr.. a
dS,lns in the communication, that the several gen.
tiemen whose names are mentioned in the COM
inentary, were those who were engaged in these
proceeding. There is, however, distinct asser-
ton that the leaders of the federal party were so
engaged: and the counsel for the defendant argue,
that the gentlemen whom he has named, being at
the time such leaders, the insertion OF lhsir names
did not add any thing in substance TO Mr.. Adamss
communication; and 1 am OF opinion that, if you
should be satisfied that the gentlemen named
were the persons whom MIR. Adams intended to
designate as leaders of the federal party at that
time-that the insertion of those names would not
be unfair unjustitiable commentary upon
the commune ion-t would be only filing up
picture, the figures OF which distinct and
discernibe to the mind, before after filling up.
And though this might be libel by Mr.. Adams,
yet If the commentary introduced no new matter,
and was only a fair exposition oithe communica-
tion, it would not be libel
But the case of Mr.. Webster may be consider
ed by you different from that of the other gentle
men named. Ii is insisted by the government,
that MIR Adams, in his communication, confines
his remarks to the leading federasts in the state
ef Massachusetts,; and that, Mr.. Webster was
not then an inhabitant of this state, he could not
have been intended by Mr.. Adams of the
leading federalists to whom he imputed the objects,
acts, and purposes mentioned in the coninunica-
ton; that the insertion of his altogeth-
or gratuitous and uniustfablc.
The answer given TO this is, that Mr.. Adams
spoke of, or had in view, the federal party OF New
England and their leaders; and that, as Mr.. Web
ster is admitted to have been an eminent and con-
spicuous cderalist in New Hampshire ,he fell with
III the class described by Mr.. Adams.
You will look over the communication OF Mr.
Adams, and whether he has reference TO any
chargeable with high political offences, except
those of his own native state. do not think II
will do to refer to Mr.. Jefferson's letter ON this
point, because the defendant says that Mr. Adams
distinctly asserts; undoubtedly referring to MIR.
Adams's own communication. The insertion OF
Dir Webster's name, if not justified by the COM
nunication OF Mr.. Adams, was not warranted; and
il done wiuliy, and the effect Is TO expose him TO
scorn or hatred, IL is libelous--ii by mere mad
vertence or mistake, as has been suggested, it is
not so.
The other part of the paper objected to "a libel
lous, is in these Words Why for three years he
has held 10 his BOSOM political counsellor,
Daniel Webster, man whom he called, IN his
tuidn i,rhf liam iafin n rait m
This, again, does not charge Mr.. Webster with
being traitor, but alleges that Mr.. Adams had
called him To say, in print, that person of
high standing has called ono traitor Is libeiious,
unless il appear, from the context, thatit was in
tended TO show that such denunciation was I'M
just--for the impuation OF crime is not necessary
tccons,itute a libel-Any opprobrions terms, cal
culated TO expose the party OF whom they are
used to con,unely, may be lib,llou;it is not so in
verbal SANDER, unless some special damage
be proved
The lat section Of the paper described in the
indictment, is i'll these words And as The last
question why, during the visits he has made TO
Boston, he always met on friendly, intimate, and
few years before, he placed upon secret record,
in the archives of the government, as traitors 10
their country"
II is argued by tie counsel, that this does not
intend, necessarily, that Mr.. Webster was one OF
those whose nar1egare thus recorded. OF this you
must judge, il by looking TO the whole piece you
are satisfied the writer in this sentence, had refer
ence 10 all those whose names were mentioned be-
low, then OF course Mr.. Webster is included. It's
also said that this is mere rhetorical flourish, and
means nothing more than what was contained in
the preceding parts OF the comment; and II you are
satisfied that the writer by records and archives,
meant nothing more than the letters oil Nir' Ad-