Alabama state intelligencer., 1831-12-24
Frnn, ,h. Nol,;i, p,,r;,,


 authority, that Mir Owen, the Receicer of Public Moneys at St Stephens, the day of the late cleo tlon publicly called upon me state wllat>Nlr Lew iss opinions were in regard to the Coosa Cana and that in a very long speech, he attacked nearly the whole of his political course both in the State Le- gislature and in Congress. It is also stated in the lntellgencer upon the authority, that he urged the slam of Mir John Baker to right 10 vote D l Washington county, when he resided with his fam- ly in Clarke, in the capacity of Overseer for Doctor l Alston.
 Mir Owen has not denied any material part of these allegations. Why then has he appeared before the publicl He appears unquestionably as a volunteer witness in behalf of his anonymous friend, Citizen" Perhaps he could not withstand the urgent sollclta tions contained in h,s letter. It was with him cer- tainly time of great need. It would, however have been more manly m MT Owen to have answer ed the letter directly and to have his to the Tuscaloosa Inquirer for publication. He would then have assumed his true character of volunteer | witness. Policy dictated that it should be sent to Mobe that the feelings of the Editor of the Regis ter should be enlisted; and that there should be no traces of concert. This much of cunning, of which can scarcely accuse Mir Owen.
 It would seem from the testimony of this witness, if he not only to state facts, but also 10 argue the case, and finally to pass sentence. II will however, take up the charges of Citizen" and see how lar they are sustained by his witness.
 1st. He alleges that "rhe managers of the cleo l ", and that they dctuaiy persuaded, that per living out of the county could not vote for any | of the candidates for Congress ur for Governor" 2d. "He made Mir Lewis address his text, and maintained the correctness of the principles il set forth" "The Judge made quite egai argument" | Sd. "IIe advocated the election of Mir Davis fo Governor, and wrote most of the tickets which h, received"
 | Before apply the testimony of MT Owen to thee charges, aks the liberty to extract from the Cor stitution the following provision in relation to tie rights of voters: No elector shall be entitled to voc except in the County City. Town (entitIed to s. parate representation in which he may reside at he time of election"
 It may be easily seen that it would not be nc,es- sary to "ply" intelligent Judges to procure a decision under this provision in tine Constitution that those highly respectable gentlemen referred to by "Ci,l- gen." and who resided in another county, had no right to vote in the county of Washing gton.
 Mir Owen is entirely silent in relation to this first charge; it may therefore be safely declared that it is entirely unsustained by testimony.
 To sustain the second charge the witness relies not so much on fact argument l will in tue first place examine few of his statements. He says that the request made by him for statement of the opinions of Mir Lewis in regard to the COosa Canal was '' for my private information" If this be u fact, it Is distinguished by many extraordinary cr- cumstances. Mi Lewis opinion in relation to the Coosa Canal, wns published, believe, in all the newspapers in the Southern Congressional District; certainly in all those inimical to him He wrote to a friend congratulating the State of Alabama upon the rejection, by the State Legislature of the me- morial to Congress for aid to construct this canal and this fact used by his opponents 10 defeat lis election. MT Owen Is in he habit of reading the newspapers, particularly those inimcal to Mir Lewis: yet he had to learn from the day of the elec- t0n, what these opinions were, which were used as the principal ground of opposition to hIs reelection! There is circumstance whchmakes this taci still more singular it Is this, that from his statement he appears to be perfectly acquainted with the opin- ions of Mir Lewis in regard 10 this canal at an ear Tier date. The question was addressed to me in q hurried, but very audible voice. the instant that finished the reading of the address before had ta- ken my seat, in the presence ofthose who had heard the address; yet it was not publicy made, and was for the private information" of MT Owen who ad- mits that he came there at the solicitation of friends to make speech against Mr Lewis He refers to several gentlemen as being able to prove all that he has stated to the pnbic and of course the facts that he wanted the information for his own private in- formation," and that the request was not pubiiclg made. The gentlemen 10 whom he refers are six in number without any intimation that they were all |" nearest' to him. The judges of the election and the returning officer have stated that Mey heard Mir Owen pubticly call upon me to state what were the opinions of MT Lewis. Then, ten gentlemen at east in public place, among the assembled voters whose attention had been fixed upon the reading of Mir Lewis Circular, heard the question, and yet it not pubciy made and the information thus call ed for, was for the ear of political opponent alone, whose opposltson had commenced with the political campaien
 l will state my decided opinion that all who heard the circular read could have heard the question and that it was intended to elicit an answer which it was supposed would initiate against the election of MT Lewis. The burden of the song is, that the reasons of MT Lewls were given, which were not called for. There is no complaint that his opinions given hls alone give pain to the gentleman.
 Mir Owen seems to suppose that 1t will be of some service to him to limit the extent of his question pro- pounded to me at the polls. He says my question was of much more limited scope than that imputed to me. 1t was request that he would tell me whe- ther Mir Lewis considered that work useful or not" Here is another extraordinary circumstance; it is this that this gentleman who pr0esses to be entirely ignorant of the opinions of Mir Lewis, should ask what those opinions were m part. MT Lewis had stated that his opinion in regard to the Coosa Canal were sufficiently known. This inquirer for know ledge is however, satisfied without full knowledge and he contents himself with an inquiry concerning one branch of those ophions, that is, whether the canal would be useful, overlooking the important in- quiry whether il could be constltutionally made. According to the position of MT Owen court should first determine upon its merits, and afterwards determine the question of jurisdictions and Repre- sentative to Congress should first determine upon the expedency of public work, and afterwards exa- mine its constitutionality. Such position, resorted to at after period, shews exclusively, in my opin- ion, d perversion of the fact 1 will here take the liberty to say that understood the inquiry of MT Ow- en to be, for the entire opinion of Mir Lewis. IG however, the inquiry had been stated by him. should have been warranted in stating his opinion the constitutionaty ofthe work for his opinion upon that point preceded the inquiry. In this the - imitation of the gentleman cannot avail him.
 Citizen" states that maintained the correctness ;pla thon is, and made quite legal argument.
 The same witness is introduced to prore this charge