Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1831-08-08

he did say il, and Williams can't deny it, fri
he not only acknowledged II me yesterday
morning, that he had SAID it, but undertook then
to Justify 1t, by saving he believed 1t when he
said it, and he believed it now"
The next day came on the election, aud Il Mr. |
Williams himself told us, he did not intend reply
ing TO this charge, serious, andNhportant, and I'M
founded as 1t was, hut would havCwlllin9lv sut-
e red Il to have died away unexplained and I'M
answered, but that the paper was put in biS
hands by u voter in the county, who required
him to explain i. Mr.. Williams then denied IN
the most positive terms that he had ever used
such remark, then came the necessity for
To speak. and to support what l had said. Did
shrink frCm the task? .uIrt tohat Joitolcs and
Judge FOR yourselves.
said in reply, that however reluctant might
be to enter into such strife with Mr.. Williams,
the occasion seemed to require at my hands
succlnct statement of facts relating TO The SUP
luci; stated that had been asked by Mr. Plea
SAINTS, some ten days or a fortnight since, to state
what had passed at the time the above supposed
remarks of MIR. Williams had been made: |
had confirmed what he had previously heard,
and on my authority, supposed that statement
lad been made; therefore felt myself called
on to sustain II: | then took occasion to repeat,
that Mr.. w IlliE ms had used the expression as
cri1cd To him in the Wing, | believed in the
identical words there quoted, ard | was prepa
red TO support IT by proof the most uuquestion-
able; that had been authorized TO say bv gem
a ir.
! Williams il he desired them, that he had denied
| to tkcm on Friday last, ever having used such
al expression, or erteIt tanned such belief; that
| furthermore, | had the authority of another
gentle m7n, (whoSe name would likewise be Civ
en- to Mr.. William, If he desired II, ard 10ho
tcds then {DSSsnt and who was likewise present
when the remark was made at DIR. Gentry's,
pointing at the time to Mr.. Mrslv, who per-
fcctly understood that referred TO Linn he
has since told me- for saving, that IN Il ccnveT
sa:ion he held with AR Williams Saturday
morning, he (Mr. " illians) had not only
knowlcdged that he had said n, but undertook
then to justify it, by saying he believed it then,
and he believed il now, aud 1t was for Mr. VIII
llamS to reconcile these statements If he could
Was this followed by any DENIAL the part
of Mr.. Williams? | assert that there no
such denial; and appeal to the three hundred
persons then present, to support me IN The asser-
ton! Was it followed by any call for proof, or
for the name of the gcEt'Cm on whose author
IT. the statement made? Nc! he Only COM
planned of want Of kindness my part, which
| will take occasion here TO say, proceeded from
no disposition 10 lrJure HIM, or wound his fec
lings, but from disposition on his part to throw
responsibility On my shoulders, which should
properly have rested on his OWE.
Was it followed by any correction on the part
Of Mr.. Mosby' Ne! it was tac.ty ucknowledg
ed 10 be true. Did he rise ana say had mis-
conceived him. No! he said not word about
it, he was relHctant tcitncss, as he afterwards
to!d me, and waited TO be called on by Mr. WILL
l!ams! Was there disposition manifested from
any quarter ut the Tine, TO go into the proof?
No! the election lad not then commenced, and
the witnesses we're OH the spot Did this have
its Influence? if not, why delay the investigation
for three or four days, until had left Richmond,
and the Witnesses were scattered through the
various parts of the county?
| | have held several conversations with Mr..
Mosby since that time, and he has never com
ItNln nod Inf had
contrary, ne :old me on Tuesday evening, that
he had been called on by Mr.. Williams for a
| certificate OF what had passed between them.
which he should give, and if he had any regard
| f'r lis own character, lie should sust ain me in
| all the material parts of nv statement He
then mentioned for the first time, that he would
not be positive, that Mr.. Williams had used he
| words abandoned and corrupt" immediately i'm
in COMMISSION with the refusal or the part Of
GTeat Britain, to negotiate with this country.
this he did recoliect, that Mr.. Williams had pre-
Vlousiy denounced the administration OF Messrs
Adams and Clay as corrupt, and also rocollc C ed
that re had used the words refused TO negotiate
t0tiie they lscTe at its head."%
In relation TO the certificate of Messrs Starkc.
Carter, Ford and WIlliamscl, think it much
mere than prubable, indeed, am very certai n
that they did not hear TIE remark made By Mr.
Williams, for | am satisfied that neither one OF
them heard one tenth part Of what he did say;
| Tor Mr.. Williams viii himself bear in mind
that before he concluded, TIE company had So
entirely left him, that he had TO stop in the
middle of his speech, for fully ha'f an hour.
batcre any portion of them could be gotten
back to liten to HIM. and in this way. / have
70 doubt ne could have gotten forty persons
who were there, to certify that they did
not hear him make the remark; but would tins
have proved that he did not say it? ono such
certificate as that given by Mr. Cottrell, or
Mr.. Patman, who declare they did hear it, IS
worth an hundred, from those who did not
| hear it.
| The truth Of the matter Ia have never sun
| posed or one momen, that Mr.. Williams was
! capable of telling deliberate falsehood about
1t, but he should not attempt to get out of such
difficulties as his ndiscretion may lead him in
to, by throwing them on one who never enter
timed design to iniure him, farther than was
necessary 10 exculpate himself for | did not
mean TO let one Jot or title of blame rest on nle
IN this matter, for ! knew l did net deserve 10
bear II.
The facts are now spread before the pubic
and If there has been any shifting or eqivoca-
ton about it, an Intelligent community viii rea-
oily detect the author.
JNO. N. DOTTS.
August 9th, 1881.
According 10 the best OF recollection Mr. john G.
NamS IN The course Of his remarks AT 9r. Genry's IN
TIE month oil May last, stated ;ha the administration Of
heSsrs adams and Clay corrupt that the British
government refused negotiate with this country while
ihe7 were al IT'S beadand Nj Bots called my attention
N 1t a. the uue, aud requested me to bear in mind
Given under IN lauI hjs Lnfi