Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-07-20
MILES KING. ESQ.

lhcir attention TO the following article from the Nor
folk Herald, from an unknown but vigorous and ele-
giant pen 1t cnches that Defence and as far as the
charges contained in the 4th Auditors first report
are concerned. to apprehension, renders Mr
Kings vindicaton complete, in connection with re-
ply to the remarks of the Enquirer. published in
the paper and which we shall republish to-mor-
row.
The 4th Auditor is probably of the same opinion. us
he has raked up fresh charges against Mr.. King in
Che rejonder, and brought them up as corps de re-
serve to the aid of his routed troops AS fairness
bound. we shall repubsh this rejoinder at an early
day. nothing doubling that Mr. King will have it in
Ills power to refute the new, triumphanty as he
did the old. In substance, they are, that Mr.. King
connlved at Dr.. Watkins populations. by accepting
drafts improperly drawn by him when he was 4th
Auditor Belt remembered, that Paulding the Ma
w Agent at New York, and Harris at Boston, were
accused OF the sam. thing but explained their trans
actions to the public satisfaction, and presume TO
That of the President Pauldng is still in office and
Harris was not removed for I2 months after
Every fresh Development proves, that King was
removed IN pet, and that his delinquency was an
after thought to justify the step to the nation WHY
were not the drafts of DR.. Watkins embraced in
Kendall's first Report Because at that time, the
them, which he thought could be twisted TO Mr..
Kings disadvantage. From the character of that
report, can any man think, that knowing any thing
or susPectng any thing which connected King with
DIR Watkins, he would not eagerly have pressed it
into the servce His report fails to satisfy the pub
lic,-Mr- King answers it triumphantly-and then
for the first time, the anna BILE Fourth Auditor sets
to work to see if he cannot by some MEANS assoc-
ofa Mr. 81.
Watkins Does not this Prove that Nv King was
removed Tor some unavowed motive, to crafty the
spite of the Secretary of the Navy or the patriotic
longing of Mr.. Kings successor for Office and that
then the Navy Department went to work to justify
the removal by charging him with delinquency.
What has occurred at another place strengthens the
conclusion. The Collector at Petersburg is removed
"a deficit discovered-and credit assumed to the
Administration for the detection and removal of pee
uators. Yet we understand the fact to be, that the
Government did not dream of Robertson's defalca-
ton at the time of his al-that dicovered
entirely by the sagacity OF his successor, Mr.. Nc
Indoe-whereupon the whole credit was given to the
Idol, and this otter discovery assigned as the cause
for an event which had already occurred. This
shows clearly, that Ro5ertzon was indeed properly
rcmoved-but that prescription, not knowledge of
bis delinquency, caused the removal
In the way, if Mr.. King is convicted of pecu
laton or of connivance at pcculaton, all men will
agree that his removal was just and proper But it
is presumption in his favor, by prorins that the 3D.
anistration haze private potiUe to disgrace him,
to show that his pretended delinquency was disco
very posterior to his removal If they convict him,
they stand not only justified, but gather laures for
their vigilance-if they fail, his removal stands a
GO IL.
dom of opinion. Their interest to convict him is
therefore palpabe, ard herein have clue to their
remarkable dislike of having his accounts settled in
Court of Justice, for which Mr.. King has repeat
edly asked. No: they prefer JUICE the matter for
ihemselyes-to leave il with Amos Kendall, to play
the triangular part of Judge Jury and Advocate. II
Mr. King owes the Government money why has not
the Government sued him? He is known to be able
topay. What reason be assigned for this repug-
rance, but that they unwilling meet the sitting
and examinations of Counsel the exhibition of
proof and the verdict of twelve impartial menu At
present, they carry partzuns at least with ther
they can say; (whatever they Mink) I'VE have made
good our charges" This after decision in Court
Of Justice they might not be able TO say, and they
wariy decline the experiment.
We do not know, and never saw Mr.. King 10 our
knowledge. What we say cannot be therefore die
tated by personal feeling-nor by policy, for it can
subserve end ofpocy, to tax the part Of public
offender. 1t springs entirely, and spring from
no other motive, but the belief, mistaken possibly,
but the result of laborous examination of all the
documents, and comparison of all the circumstances
that he is the victim of State policy, sacrifice TO
the new, monnrchical, and despicablc principle, OF
dcprving American citizens Of office for the iudepen-
dent exercise of opinion and suffrage. II is not sym
pathy with deiaulters" charged by the nnions of
despotsm bot sympathy for the injured those at least
whom we believe injured, that has enlisted us IN the
controversy.
Such ore our impressions; but we shall continue
ms we began to lay all the documents before the
nnh cua linn Ea;r