Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-03-16
From the U. S. Telegraph.
AMOS KENDALL

ms worthy, ever and anon, peeps thr ough the
loop holes of his retreat as if fearful that his
name would else be forgotten by his fellows, and
appears, IN proprla persona, in the Globe. His
last exhibition of himself was under Il pretense of
denying that he has any interest in the Globe; but
IN fact, to Court the admiration of the world,
of party and the wreck of principle,
remained unchanged! Indeedm Was not
Amos Kendall the partisan of Mr.. Clay, writ
ing his eulogium and laborng to promote his elect
ION to the Presidency? And is lie not now his
bitter rcviler and prosecutor! Is there no change
III this! Was not Amos Kendall opposed to the
election of Andrew Jackson, active in the ranks
OF those who denounced him as incompetent to
administer the Government, and unworthy of the
confidence OF the people? And is he not now one
OF his most scrvilc sycophants? Is there no
change in this?
Did not Amos Kendall write to Mr.. Clay, saw.
ing vote as you please the Argus will not com
plain? Yet, although Mr.. Clay voted in con.
tormity to his instructions, did not Amos charge
him with bargain, intrigue, and mana cement and
turn states evidence to prove it? Is there no
change i'll this?
When Mr.. Clay was appointed Secretary of
state, did not Amos hail it event most crafty
ing, which should satisfy all who wanted West
ern President? And did he not, after Mr. CLAW
refused to give him clcrkship with salary of
Sl,5OO, cite his acceptance of that appointment
as an argument against the reelection of Mr.. A
dams; as a corrupt arrangement to appoint Mr.
Clay his successor Was there no change in
this?
Did not Amos propose to come to Washing
ton and write in defence of Mr.. Clay, upon con
dltion Mr. Clay would give him an Office with
salary OF 81 900 per annum? And Mr. Clay
having refused to give him the Office did he not most
bitterly assail Mr.. Clay; condemning that which he
had agreed to defend? Was there no change in
this?
When Amos was sick and pcnnylcss did not
Mrs Clay take him to her own house, and there
administer to his DISTRESS & did he not profess gra-
tItude, respect, and confidence in her husbandl
AND is he not now the hired scribe who assails
MS character and motives with malignity une-
qualled? Is there change in this2
When Amos rewarded with the office of Fourth
Auditor, did he not discontinue the newspapers
taken by his predecessor, the ground that no
newspapers should be taken at the public expense
but such as are necessary to aid him in the dis
charge OF his CtHCidL duties? And does he not
now Patronise partsans and presses at the public
expense, solely on the ground that they are par
tIsans OF this administration? Is there no change
in this?
Did not Amos discontinue sundry of his clerks
on the ground that there should be no babbinr
politicians in his office? And is he not now one of
tho most active and malignant POLITICAL partsans
IN the United Statcsl Is there no change in
this2
Did not Amos send back to the city post office.
letters transmitted under his frank to persons con-
ncctcd with his Office under prctcnce that such
enclosures were fraud upon the Post office De-
Partmcnt? And has nc not ranked hundreds and
thousands of elcctionccring pamphlets and news
papers? Is there no change in this?
We might multiply these intcrrogatorics almost
without number; but admit that strong as the
apparent contradiction is Mr.. Kendall is right
lie has not changed. The Ethiopi an cannot
change his skin, the leopard his spots Amos
Kendall then, and Amos Kendall no,r, arc one and
the lie was then now, profound and
accomplished hypocritc; and then, as now, the ap
pcarancc and language of independence and virtue
were assumed only to deceive. This contrast cx
hibits his character in its true light the facts are
partly on record; the proofs cannot be disputed.