The Arkansas advocate., 1832-03-14

e'ei' iiiffis6ii oi isis testimony. iiat Mir.
 Conway and Mir. Watkins, were mate
 rial witnesses, or that Woodruff could
 have subsiantiated a single charge by the testimony of either, IS all fudge it is false. But more on this subject hereafter.
 lie proceeds--aAt this stage of the suit, a friend of ours, [Col. Ashley, who was at that time, and is now the enemy of NIT. C. happening in con versatiion with hir. Crittcnden, on the subject, without our knowledge or con sent, and without any intimation from us, suggested that he thought an ar rangement could be made which would justify withdrawal of the suit."' Will any man, who knows the uncomproml- sing enmity which has existed between Mr. Crittcnden and Col. Ashley, for years, believe that the latter Happened in conversation with the former, up- on this or any other subject? Wood ruff would have it believed, that his friend was ii tie habits of f daily inter- course with Mr. Crittenden, and by mere chance or accident happened 10 mention that sshe thought an arrange ment could be made which would jus tify withdrawal of the suitn The truth is, Col. Ashley, who was himself a party to the suit, (see '..4 Fotcy of Pu- laski Couatg,' in column,) souehi this interview with Mir. Crittenden for the express purpose of suggesting some mode 5y which ..an arrangement could be made" &c. instead of"homening in conversations as Woodruff would have it. In answer to Col. Ashley IS sssat9ges- ton thatan arrangement could be madea &c. MT. Crittenden replied that mo ney was not his object, all he required or wished was d reco1atotion or withdraw al of aU the charges contained in ..a Notcr of Palashi Colnty;' and that if Woodruff would make that recantation, he felt no disposition farther to prose- cute the suit. Col. Ashley ''feodlya assenied to this proposition, and in the course of the same day, (Woodrufl,s two or three days negotiation to the con- trary notwithstanding, the terms of compromise were agreed upon and sign ed-the charges recanted, and the suit withdrawn.
 That sshe drew the recantation'' and '.that fll that was written on the sub- ject, is in our bis handwriting is not true. Mir. Crittenden drew s.the re- cantation" himself, and required that Woodruff should copy it.
 Speaking of the charges urged against MT. C. he says:-s'On calling upon the aathor, for his testimony, we find he is unable to furnish US with the necessary proof" &c. In a publication, made by Vim. E. Woodruff, in the summer ol '27, we find the following:
 7he piece A Voter of Pulaski Coun- ty zcas zDritteae ct nay SUGGESTION and request, and IfeH nayseIfas nauch responsi- 5le for is co,ie,.ts, as ase AUTHOR O.. wnI- TER of it, eouldpossibly be.''
 Again--In the same publication he says:-oI tyust that the facts, aOhich 1 CAN aud WILL produce 10 c jury of nay cOafa- t,y, zcill shield mg repatation from he ods- en, zrhich has been attempted to De cast uip- on d."
 1.-the sVoter of Pulaski County wrote at the request and on the suggestions of Woodruff, it was on Woodruff to prooe the charges made, and not on the per son who merely put his suggestions in a shape to meet the public eye. Wood ruff is very unwilling to admit that any censure can by possibility attach to his zrithdrawal of the charges made against Mir. Crittenden, as if that withdrawal