Alabama state intelligencer., 1831-10-22

10 sleotor shall be entitled to vote except in the county, city, or town Tn which he my reside at the time of the election" One ofthe judges of the cleo ton was present, and read from the Constitution the provision relating to the subject, as confrmaory of the opinion expressed by the Judge. It unknown to Judge Crawford for whom Mir Hitchcock intended to vote, and he had ut other times when asked given the same opinion. The judges Of the election were not, as alleged by the correspondent of the Inquirer | piled by Judge Crawford to obtain decision on thls point. The judge of the election, in whose pre- sence Mir II. asked the question, is lawyer, gen tleman of a liberal education and ofextensve reading and would he governed by no mans opinion. | On the morning of the election, the mail brought to St Stephens the answer of MT Lewis to this queS tlon viz. whether on the final question he would have voted for the repeal of the 25th section of the Judiciary Act The voters throughout the District were desirous to know what answer he would give to thls question. One of the circulars containing his answer was addressed to Judge Crawford, and he was requested by of the voters to read it rthe information of those persons who present. He accordingly read 1t m of the rooms of public house Ill St. Stephens, without an intention to add single word When he had concluded, and was about to take his seat Mir Owen the Receirer o Public Mo- neys at St. Stephens, publicly called upon the Judge to state what Mir Lewis opinions were in regard to the COosa Canal. Mir Lewis in the conclusion of his answer, had said that his opinions in relation to the | Coosa Canal were sufficiently known. The Judge
 
 sons by which he sustained them, and took his seat Mir Owen. the SaM Receicer, then in very long speech, attacked nearly the whole of Mir Lewis poll tlcal course both in the State Legislature and in Congress.
 Alter he had concluded, Judge Crawford made few remarks in regard to the utility of the Coosa Ca nal, the constitutional power of Congress to make n- terna improvements, and adverted to a resolution passed by the State Legislature denying that such power existed in the General Government The Judge dd not make stump speech as Is alleged by the correspondent of the Inquirer and he expressly stated that he did not wish to influence single vote Judge Crawford did not m any of those remarks mention the election 0f GOrernOr nor the name of any candidate for that office, dld he n any hummer allude to them He did not as the correspondent of the Inquirer states advocate the repeal of the 25th section of the Judiciary Act either then, or at any other time; but the contrary he has been uniform y opposed to the repeal of that section, and has ex pressed his opposition on all proper occasions.
 The communication in the Inquirer is undoubtedly from bitter personal enemy ofJudge Crawford; and ii his name were given to the public, it would most probably carry with it sufficient corrective of its own interpretations
 Fortunately for the individuals composing this community, their rights defined by the Constitu- ton and laws of the land. They do not rest upon the caprcious will of any man, or set of men, Those laws are, surely, much better criterion of rights than the arbitrary determination ofthe correspondent of the Inquirer Certain it is, that if the rights of the members of the community were dependant on the will of Citizen, very few would be leltto Judge Crawford. His situation would not be better than was that of the Roman citizens under the govern ment of her Neros and CaliguIas.
 From the foregoing statement it will be seen how regardless of truth has been the Inquirers correspon dent, and how grossly he has perverted even that portion of his communication which bears resem- blance of the transaction intended to be described The intention of the publication is undoubtedly to njure Judge Crawford, as, unfortunately no station however exalted and no individual, however honest are exempt from attacks from avowed or secret enc. mies We believe that this attack will prove harm- less, as the character of Judge Crawford as public man and as aprivate individual is too well known and too highly esteemed to be destroyed by asper- sions so foul and so little supported by any sort of evidence.
 In the transaction as detailed above, (the truth of which may be relied on) do not see how the most fastldlous can attach blame to the conduct of Judge Crawford. Wesee nothing in it of official influence we can find no departure from propriety nor any thing incompatible with the dignity of the judicial character. Unlessit be conended that by accepting the station of Judge individual loses every right as a citizen, Judge Crawford cannot be condemned for exercising these privileges. That he did so act with due regard to official station, and to the rights of electors, we have no doubt.-Huntsuiue Adrocate