Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1838-08-30

linus 'hc eof'eT years al ms hephews lie
passed under the name Of Dickinson. AID
II appears by MIR. Rush's statement ALREADY
quoted, that The latter years Of his life. gu.
ring which he enjoyed the incom. Of Smib.
sons estate, and when the terms of the will
formed an INCENTIVE 10 concubin.pe he ms-
sed under the name Of de la Baiut. Yet
both the names are "carfully" concealed oy
the United States Agent. He gives onI, "a
name which had been borne tntermeiiatau
between the other two. We knnw nv, FIR
~ That length OF time Il had been thus horne.
out the uncle himself was not Content ith il
as designation. And il he deemed i, IL
sufficient 10 identify member of his own
iami'y, how could II he thought sufficient
To impart popular information? Tie yety
iact OF discarding name implies an indis.
position 10 promulgaie i: unnecessarily q.
midst new associations. Additional strength
IS impaired 10 this consideration when The
change OF name, un the part OF the neubew
evidently had reference to soreness At his
own origin. He finally took his moher',
name, de Ia Batut, because he knew that lie
had no legitimate claim to any other HIN
serlord which is the only name suffered TO
go into the advertisement, was not the mama
oil either father or mother.
MIR. Rush says he "caused to be carcf.IIu
kept from the advertisements every Ibiny
respecting the nature oflHr. Smiihson's toiH {"
he consequence is, that nothing appears in
them to Indicate that IN iIegitimate child of
the nephew was an object OF pursuit Sup.
pose one OF them TO have met the eye OF such
child and its frieuds, on the continent
.hey would know, or be told, that by the
laws Of England there YVES no claim. This
advertisement, referring 10 legal proceedings,
and no inlima,ion of will. they would infer
that a journey To England was useless, and
would "nly bszon The shame of an impure
origin.
But this is not ALL This is no, merely
suPprcssio reri. The advertisement is so
Trained as pos'tirefy to exclude The idea that
an iiies''Ima'e child was sought for. IL So
liciis information as to " neither Henry James
Hungerlurd "rs living or dead, and il dead
when he died and whether he was married or
unmarried at the lime Of his decease; and
IF MARRIED, whether he lett any children
or child, by him surviving &ihe ages OF such
Children II more than one. Thus the broad,
est provision of the will is negutiued by the
advertisement. child would learn from
the advertisement that the "marriape Of his
parents was an indispensable pre- requisite TO
any claim.
Amidst such glaring instances of Unfair
ness II Is scarcely worth while TO nolice that
Inc advertisement gives an inlimalion os 10
tchy the inquiry is made. Ii does not even
Say that The persons sought for will hear of
something TO their advantage" The OBJ.
Ject may he 10 charge them; OF make wit
nesses OF them; and the very description OF
The suit "wherein the President of the Uni
ted States is plaintiff and Charles Druu,nond
and his Majesty's Attorney General are de.
fehdants, is calculated TO leud away the
thoughts very widely from The mark.
We may apply TO the course Of Mr.. Rush
q very obvious test Of iaHness Suprnse tho
claim OF the United States had depended ON
our finding out all ilIegitmale child of the
nephew. What epiihet would he have deem
ed too strong in Jenouncng the conduct of a
Solicitor, charged with an inquiry into the
TACT, who, al The instance of the other party,
should consent thus To irifle with plain du-
ty! What reams of paper would be served
up in exposing SO fagi,inus a procedure.
And will the people of the United States en-
d"re that different II easure of jusice shall
he dealt out To those unfortunate children, If
any skis, who are The primary objects of The
testa,or's bounty The terms of Smith.uu's
viii may have brought them into existence.
The moral guilt may, in The eye of Gud and
man, rest mainly on him. And il there he
such children his property is to them 5u,
poor ana inadequate aiunement Shall The
United States resort 10 paiiry manoeuvring
TO hich from them the estate of a vicious i'm.
moral ancestor in order To carry out some
crude and pompOus notions OF that ancestor
about 'diffusing know ledge amongst men ,"
Suppose that al any distance Of time claims
To this fund should start up from the stews
OF London, Paris or Naples, would the Uni
leu States dare, in the lace OF The world, TO
pretend that Decree in Chancery thus
Df UuV ti Ia unt w ,,y rn..,
10 which they would consent 10 respond a
replication Of per:traudem would be TO
such plea. They would have To repay
principal and interest. Here, then, 10 indie
hnately left open an inquiry, to be prosecut>
ed hereafter by an American Congress, INTO
the amours OF Hungerford, alias Dickinson,
alias de la Batut
have always viewed this Smithsonian be-
quest with repugnance. IL is a rotten basis
on which 10 rear a moral structure No
vIrtuous mother, looking to the provisions OF
The will, could leach her son to bless the
founder or hold him up as all example Nor
could grateful science ever adore the hoiY
Shade OF such patron.
1 ne least which honesty demands is to
apprise The English Cour, Of Chancery OF the
whole truth and to place the money subject
10 any new investigation il may order. The
proceeding ~, at best, an unsatisfactory, sr
parts one, and settles, far too summarily the
question sgainst the children. But when
W. further witness an anxious effort 10 bsf-
ie The slight chance which The Court OF
CbanCery afforded them 10 obtain The ben
eft Of the will, every sentiment Of justice is
outraged.
vINDEX.