Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1832-05-18

much injured individuals, one OF whom was
fellow.laborer with US 10 the same ofhce, indu-
ces US to copy from the Telegraph OF Tuesday,
a retraction Of the calumniuus charges which
we're made against these gentlemen in that print,
soon after they we're elected from office. Each
Of them instituted suit against the editor OF the
Telegraph for libel upon their characters, and
he is now glad to be let OF by paying the costs OF
court and publicly retracting his former assef'
tons.
We have here evidence in the case Of Mr..
Coyle. that the authority for the charges against
him was derived from the Post Office Depart
ment, and Intended as Justification, but was
in fact mere pretexr, for his removal. BY a
parity of reasoning we may infer that the ground
work of the accusations against Mr.. Filebrown,
as well as in every other instance OF removal
was furnished By prominent members OF the Adj
minisration. The system Of prescription COM
menced in 1929 was so odious IN its nature. SO
reprehensible in its application and distressing
in its consequences upon the ill-iated victims OF
its wrath. that some plea was thought indspen'
sable for its wanton and frequent exercise
Having no tenabe grounds to stand upon, detrac'
tion and defamation we're resorted to. and the
public ear was poisoned with the impression, in
dustriously and widely circulated, that the Off
ces at Washington were filed with peculators.
idlers and g babbling politicians. How tho.
roughly the stable has been cleansed OF its inpu'
rites, and how healthy state OF things has been
substituted, we think the events OF the coming
year will fully demonstrate. If we are not
much mistaken, we may say with truth OF this
Administration sout of their own mouths shall
they be coudemned.'- Georgetown Columbian
10 30
implicated in the statement made III the debate
on the Wiscasset case, that we should say that
the publication of the alleged cause for the re-
raoval of Mr.. A. Coyle. late clerk in the Post
Office Department, in the Telegraph. was found.
ed on memorandum given to us by the depart.
ment, to enable Us to give to the public the cause
for the removal. The ground alleged was, that
he had in violation of an act OF Congress, over
drawn his compensation, as clerk, TO the
amount of $500. This, we have since learned.
Mr.. C. satisfactorily explained to Mr. Barry to
he an error Of the pay-officer of the department.
in passing that sum 10 wrong account on the
books. Our notice Of the transaction was deriv-
ed from the department; and, in publishing the
cause assigned by the department. it never was
our intention to insinuate that Mr.. Coyle had
acted dishonesty. nor do we believe our Ian
guage is capable Of receiving that construction
Under the excitement consequent upon his re.
moval, Mr.. CoyIe supposed that our remarks
were capable Of construction prejudiclal to his
character, and instituted an action for damages.
II was arranged by our counsel, and the suit dis.
missed, we paying the cost.
Although we were not required, by the arrange
ment, to make publication upon the subject, it
was understood that we would. in justice to our
own feelings, and in viudcation Of Mr.. Coyle'S
feelings and character, do him the justice to say
that it never was our intention TO impeach his in
tesrity or honor And inasmuch as the subject
has been referred to in debate, on the floor of the
House of Representatives, we feel called upon
to ~ further, and say, that the alleged cause was
but the mere pretext for doing that which Mr..
Barry had resoved-yea, promised to do, before
he left Kentucky.
We will further add. that in the case Of Mr..
Fillebrown, 10 saying that he had permitted his
name to be used for the purpose of drawing, i'm.
properly, from the Treasury large sum of mo.
ney, it was not our intention to charge him with
having acted eorruptly It was our opinion, and
so far as we are informed, it is still opinion.
that the money was improperly drawn; hut we
know, and 80 stated. that although Mr.. Filebrown
drew the money in his own name, 1t was intend.
ed for the use Of another, to whom it was imme-
diately paid over. And we were FULLY aware
that. under the usage Of the department, the names
of individuals were frequently used, to facilitate
the passage Of accounts, as mere matter OF form.
Such we considered this case. Had we been 81.
tuated az Mr.. Fillebrown was. we would not have
been permitted the use Of our name; but we
know, and so stated. that he acted in obedience
to the direction of the Secretary of the Navy,
and although we disapproved Of the act, we did
not intend to charge with corrupt motive. The
act was assigned. BY the department. as the cause
of the removal, aud our object was to lay before
the public the grounds nPon which the department
had acted, aud not to impute fraud to Mr. File
brown.-U. S. Telegraph.
We copy the following very curious paragraphs
from the Mercer County Gazette. Theyar Gu.
rious, because that paper has over the editorial
head the following ticket:
For PARLIAMENTARY JACKSON.
For Vice Observation-Disclosures WILKINS.
"In our paper Of TO-DAY, will be found an ex.
tract 10 commentator Of Mr.. Clay. which we
hnmbly ,hink is not unmeried. Mr.. Clay is.