, 1840-05-30


Mr.. Editor:-I now pass on to the re-
marks of "Junius" concerning the Navy,
and let us see how unfortunate" | am accor-
ding to his own statements. In the first
place, he gives Adams credit with the same
list that | did. but argues that three of them,
the Brandywine, Boston, and Lexington,
ought to be placed to the credit of Mr.. Mum
roe. We'll. sir, if there is any fairness in this
argument, then according to the SAINT rule,
how many of those reported as built under
Genl. .Jackson's administration ought TO be
placed to the credit of Mr.. Adams? Will
he have the assurance to spain off" on the
poor "~unsuspecting community" the idea
that Mr.. Adams left the treasury perfectly
empty, without a dollar appropriated to the
increase of the navy, or any preparation
whatever for any other vessels than those al
ready finished oil and in service, making a
"clean finish OF his work, whilst his success
sor had to commence his "large and unprece-
dented increase" from the stump!-No, sir.
this community does not consist entire
ly Of such minnies as to be gulled by N
such absurdities. But, unfair as this propO-
sition is to curtail Mr.. Adams list, let us see
how his W table, his own figures sustain
lie assertion ofhis "friend," ~Cincinnatus, that
there was " no increase of the navy" &c.
After making his deduction, he gives Mr..
Adams credit with 10 vessels IN 4 years,
mounting 2O4 guns, which will be at the rate
of 2! vessels each year, and averaging 90
4-lO guns each. In his table of Genl. Jack
sons and Mr.. Van Buren's operations, he
gives them credit with % vessels in 10 years,
mounting 1858, guns, which makes an average
of 2 is vessels each year, and mounting an
average of l6i guns each, being still less
than Mr.. Adams" no increase" But in
his table he has put down the Pennsylvania
ship of the line as n completed vessel, mount
ing 100 guns, which he has no right to do, for
although she has been launched and towed
around from Philadelphia to Norfolk, she is
yet unfinished, and how many thousands OF
dollars it will yet take, | cannot conjecture.
JuninS chuckles very much at my "igno-
rance in placing the Pennsylvania on the
s.stocks," when the fact is that this is only n
piece Of his contemplate trickery''. if not
wiiful f~alsehood, as the reader may see by re-
ferring to my remarks. | did not say she
was on the "stocks" as he represents. In
making my tables, I first set down all those
vessels that were finished, and the year when
built; those reported as on the stocks and in
~"ordinary" excepted, the year not being Civ
not give those which were finished as the
whole for which expenditures were made,
but expressly remarked, "that there were
eleven vessels including the Pennsylvania
ship of the line, reported as son the Socks
and sin ordinary" without distinguishing
which was on the "stocks" or which in cor
dinary;'' and out of this remark, by cutting
off half the sentence, he manufactures this
pretended evidence of my ignorance" and
for which he so kindly offers "the mantle of
charity" discover that Junius adds to his
list three small vessels, the Pioneer, Consort
and Active, which were not in the table from
which | extracted, and therefore not included
in my list, which was up to August 1889,
and therefore none the less correct SO far as
it goes.
Iregret Mr.. Editor, that the extraordina-
ry course of "Junius,'' and his very labored
efforts to convict me of falsehood, in which
if he had succeeded, | should truly have de-
served /. the Just Indignation of an abused
and insulted community" have compelled
me to run out this communication to 4 length
much beyond my wish. But | trust you will
bear with me while | make a few further re.
marks in reply to Junius, whose motives
have charged, and leave it to the public &c
judge how far have grounds for them.
shall not follow him up in his ungentlemanly
attempt to pervert a public discussion into .
private quarrel. Upon him rest the respon.
sibility and the odium, if such be his design
of which ! think there can be no doubt. II
such be not his design, why refer to a I" pri
waite citizen" whose name | have not men.
toned? Why refer to the supposed author
being "a candidate for public favor" unless
for the purpose of fixing his "attack" on
!, some particular individual? and then calling
) down on that individual the "indignation'
/ and fury of the friends of the "private citi
/. zen" which he Cunius,) is trying to hold up
for public sympathy and pity? Does Junius
4 expect to buuu freemen into silence1 Doe.