Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-11-19

HALF SINK, September %, III.
Sir: | received your letter of the 2Is, instant,
on the day OF lis date, fsom your friend, MIR o.
! DTiscotl, and should have returned an immediate
/ answer, but for au lEdspositiOn under which | was
aooring at the time. tina, totally disqualified ne
l for attending to business Of any character.
! No matter what may be my general opinions or
] feelings towards any Individual, I never have and
never u do him an Intentional wrong, and when
II IS made manifest that have done So there is no
man who can take greater pride than will, in OF
| iering such reparauon ss may be IN my power
! understand from your communication, Ina; It is
not denied that you are he individual who furnish
ed MIR Tyler with 4 copy of my letter, and Won are
/ not mistaken IN suprosng that you were the ind-
/ y!duai TO whom had reference IN my ie,ier 10 the
Public as had received distinct information fiom
Mr. Lynch, that you had requested OF him either the
letter liself, or copy, DO not recoeot which,
lnor do deem It at all materall and that he had
refused II; and leaned through another source
that you had been afterwards seen copying the le;.
ter, as was supposed, for My Tylers use Bye the
bye, It has not yet been denied either by MIR TYLER
himself, or his organ the Herald or the semi official
the MadIsonian, that 1t was sent to him and By him
made public.
/ was somewhat more incensed when wrote nv
letter 10 the Public, explanatory OF the "Cof.e
House letter." as It has been called than should
Otherwise have BEEN from the recollection that IL
was not the FIRST time you had endeavored 10 create
difference between others and myself by such
communications
Now had read your correspondence with MIR
Lynch with much care, and on the first biusb
was disposed 10 think you had shown a case which
mi'iglted the circumstances very much, and re-
solved at once TO do you ample justice by retractipg
the language had employed; but when came 10
examine Il more mmntely, found you had failed in
establishing by far the most material part of your
defence the truth OF which you acknow ledge when
IN your letter TO me you say: the replies OF Mr.
Lynch 10 my enquiries are not as explicit as they
should have been" /; surely IS not for me TO sup
Fl|u he def IN
In your first letter TO Mr. Lynch, of Ausus, 40
marked No. !, you ask him to state whether, when
you asked MN to give you the original letter. he did
not say II would be published in the Wing; that
Mr. DAVIS lone OF the ProprIetors OF the Whisl had
taken n copy Tor that purpose; and whether he did
not consider The letter as public property and also
whether he would no; have permitted any one to
have taken a copy who wished 20 do So"
IL TO these inIerrosatores, Mr. Lynch had given
an affirmative answer, | should not have hesitated
at once to say, while could no, approve the motive
that actuaied you, (Which was in no kind or friend.
ly spirlt,) yet that the was materially varied
from what had supposed, and that the improprie.
ty was not so great as had been charged thouyh
still Il would have been done against his consent
But instead Of that, Mr. Lynch in reply to your
letter. answers the three questions, appears to me-
IN one "G on ask me-" he says, sin your letter If
would not have permitted any one TO have copied
~ In answer, must say, DO not think would
have permitted any one 10 have copied the letter for
the purpose OF having II published" Here then is
direct and positive denial OF the only allegation
upon which your defence justification could stand;
Tor II surely must be regarded a denial that he
had permitted one Of the prOpTieloTs Of a pubc
journal TO take copy for publication; aud if there
was an object az oil, IN Withholding the publication
OF the letter. u was that II should not be seen NJ
mat moment by the very individual TO whom you
sent u.
As Tor the category Of questions put by you TO
MIR Lynch IN writing, admit they are properly an
s"ered, out cannot that they have any applca-
ION to this question: for that letter could in no wise
be looked upon as public document, which IS al
ways intended for publication.
Upon the main point then, there is question of
Veracily between MIR Lynch and yourself which
II does not become me TO determine and | could
notot course receive your statement without dis.
| creating his; Tor when IN your second letter. you
press MN Tor more distinct reply, he saws he ha.
gwen you all that he recoIlectcd 10 have passed
take leave now to ask you one or two questions:
lst' were not obvious reasons presented 10 your
mind, why that letter should not flor reasons con.
/ nected with the party TO which Won professed In
Oelong,l at that moment be sent to Mr. 'Tyler3
2d. DO you not believe it would have been
gross and foul betrayal Of confidence IN Mr. Lunch
70 whom the letter was written, to have despltch .
ed a copy Immediately to Mr. Tyler, whose espe-
cal eye alone II was desirable IL should not reach
until the fate Of the Bank Bill was se'llcG7
3rd. DO you thirk that you had a right to make
ireer use Of that letter than the Individual 10 whom
Il was written, and 20 whom il belonged partieu.
. nrl rs
ton, to let you have III
] II these questions are answered. as I suppo,s
they must Then ask n II IS not fair inference on
I my part that your only object vas TO involve me
m personal difficulty and embarrassment, and whe.
ther you were disposed 10 sacrifice the interests
Of your party, and hazard the loss OF a measure
you have always protested 70 fIVor, 10 accomplish
| that end7
II this was your object, then you can have no
claim 10 favor or explanation az my hands because
The difficulty and embarrassment have fallen upon
you instead Of me.
II II was due 70 prOptate the Executive f,yor nv
which you were afterwards nominated for q respon-
slbIe and lucrative Office then I equally disappr0ye
the object but the condemnation passed by the Sc.
nate upon that nomination (Which there is reason
20 believe was based in part az least upon the ilct
Of your having copied and sent that letter to the
| PresljenD has disarmsd me 81 all resentment.
only ask that you will never interfere with any
matters Of mine again, and you may rest satisfied
shall never interfere with yours.
II may be that tho term "purIoned,p was a
stronger and hlrsher expression than il was nscsss,
| ~ 70 apply-bJt TO say that under tho circun.
stances, as they presented 70 mo- the copying OF
that letter for Mr. TyleFs use ESPECIALLY al thai
| particular Junclure) was improper, unauthorized
and wholly without justification, is as little as car
/ say Of IT, tho al the same time | nm free 70 saw
that the use made Of i by the President was NOR,
! Objectionable sui, and the misfortune 20 me is, tina
have been made 70 bear the responsibility Of you
| ln19cfctlon and h3-tOr whilst the charge Ol ndis
ereuon has rested upon me for writing the letter, d
has always appeared TO me that IL should have bosr
| visited only on those who made an improper U.s.
| OF the letter; though ] confess, " the traits o
| character since developed by Mr. Tyler, had beer
known 70 me at the time, would not have writer
itntal
Now ! wish you 10 understand me; il IS no, my
purpose 70 read you moral lecture, but as ntonC
writing no more on this subject, wish TO sheW yot
fairly and candtdly what have been ADD are now III,
Influences and feelings by which am actuattd.
| You have set out, without cause or provocaton
either to do me an injury or TO benefit yourself Al
my expense, IN either event you cannot Justly com
plain 4 the tables have been turned upon you
when undertake 10 do you similar injury, will