The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1839-06-12
From tle I,ielmo,d Win. Aprl 80, 1899.

NV" tHf AtchHoHd 'rHks APfH ~ $500
short lime will obierais The footprints. even u
lot aione now which the Richmoud Enquirer making
on The good Ds,ne of Wn q. kiyes. Yet, u may be
well that Truth InieTpose weaken some Of the i'm
pressions and obll,erate them once.
Before proceeding 60 particulars, let il be observed
thai the obvious injustice OF the Enquirer, mocke
~ Of the Of the people Of the Sla,e-
That paper, embracing Ia the reflection, intend its
editorial department and that Of contributors anony
mously, has nope Of the elevated thoughts which are
Ia the community on oil occasions OF just OPP
position % measures, 10 rely on. IL appeals to
Of the generous propensIiies which prompt the
nobler actions OF society on The contrary, seeking
TO up and enlist against Mr. Rves the petty pas
which disturb, and the gnoble sentiments which
iniest society have too much respect for the vrge
Of the people, and LOO deep confidence the sound
ness oil the moral feelings Of this community, 10 under
take to correct and rebuke the sentimental and
tenor Of The Enquirer My purpose Ii limited 10 cor
Iecton OF It's ms statements Of iacts This beg leave
TO do, from time 10 time, occasion may require.
In the Enquirer Of the 9th inst "A Farmer says:
He (Mr. kses) has advocated, 10 speech delivered
v the Senate Of The United States, law more odlous
10 It's features than the Scdition law Of the elder
Adams" That writer aludes 10 Crltenden's bill He
esteens IL fair to gather the doctrines Of Mr.. Kses
speech from the replies Of Mr.. Roane and others.
think 1t 10 very prob iby that writer had not seen Mr.
kves speech, published in the National lnleigencer
Of the 4th lust the lime be wrote his comInunics-
iioa for the Enquirer. Be that, however as may, II
Is quite probable the editor Of that paper had seen the
speech at the time the communication was inserted.
Unless the editor willing do Mr. Ryes injustice,
why did he insert the Communication containing the
charge, without contradiction when. II he had read the
spec ch, as is almost certain he had, he was aware
that II against the Federal doctrines Of Walls
port, and not ~ advocacy OF Cnttendens bill AT all
events, how could "A Farmer" consider IL fair 10
gather from others replies. that Mr. Ryes speech was
support Of that bill, in the face Of the long since pub
.hxI NJ nj
the BILL and offered resolutions OF inquiry TO accompany
IT, couched in the borrowed language Of the most pow
erul advocate whom Repubcanism has sont forthl
Let be said the face Of that fact that Mr. Riyes
is nevertheless supporter Of Crttenden BILL because
he did against its engrossnent, when Only five
members Of the Senate voted for it. assert that Mr.
Rives advocate Of the BILL and had strong
objections it, aud taat he equally, II not more
opposed 10 Wallis report. The final proceedings Ia the
Senate, as published IN the Madlsoan Of the 10th Of
March, will show that several reasonable propositions TO
amend the bill. voted down, and that the majority
denied TO Mr. Crlenden the common courtesy 0 Deilg
allowed 10 put his bill in the shape which the light
elected by the discussion Of H. had led him TO prefer,
and which, if il had been extended him, would have
been the certain Of rendering the bill ess cxceP-
tionable to lis opponents. Was not this an adroit
despotism the part Of the majority the obvious effect
Of which compel vote the bill in the shape
which it was most unacceptable aud disiastelu TO
to themselves Every acquainted with practical
legislation understands all this full well aud more,
that under the circumstances, Mr. Riyes had voted
against the bill, his might be construed into
sanction Of the Federal doctrines Of Walls report,
which it the whole Object Of his speech expose
for it, the case, Mr. Ryes resolutions partaking
the nature Of substitute for the BILL not sufficient 10
protect him from the charge o! being friend Of the
bill why should his speech protect him from the charge
Of having given sanction the Report, in the face Of
his vote against the bill, had he voted all Hence it
was, there be doubt, that Mr.. Rives declined
voting at all, choosing to let knowledge Of his OPT
mons be asceraied from his resolutions and his (now)
published speech the one distinctly enough, in oppo.
si'ion to the bill the other expressly opposing and
posing the report
If am wrong in charging the editor Of the Enquirer
with having done Mr. Rvss injustice, this connexion,
he break the force Of the charge,
and in part atone. by putting this matter the facts
exhibit it, before his readers. PUBLlUS.