Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1843-07-04
A

low, IN The publication of that Speech .'e ST.
Identical letter which he now UNDERTAKES - e.
something new and s,ar.I;np--snd when ne says
denied having written aye, and not only cna ,,s, ~
with having denied that had written such e.l.'
actually substitutes language of his own io' ~ =!
changing The expression of "the same dag ~
the and then substantially denies that hau a.
the tG:e recognised and published the letter o. We
OF August, ~ which, after giving him some
ADVICE, subscribe myself "wilh unaffected s'n0e'"y
your friend" &c
Now, reader! whatever political complexion you
Dear, or to whatsoever side your partiait'es VI
does may lean ask you what degree OF turp''uae
ana oasene IS that man not capable of DESCENDING WIZ
would thus unblushngly first destroy what hdd sa'''
10 aofIcale what had not said, and mlsquoe my sPee'
utter such vile fasehood and publish It to Inc wot''
10 convict me Of an untfnth' Let Mr.. Tylers warm,
est admirers and friends pronounce who 10 mat
truth 2"
But am involved in gross Inconsistency and contra
dction because six days before the first Veto came,
subscribed myself "JiiM unaffected sincerity. has
JT,end. Let Us what said IN that same speech'
delivered the 10th of Sept 4i-touching this mat
ter. Here it is:
"Those who think have personal malignity and
enmIty mixed up with my political Indignation, 90
. me injustice. was his friend personally, and was
disposed to be politically, my whole course TO-
wards him would show, up the momen, that he We
/" toed the first Bank Bill and then it not the
mere fac, that he did not sign it, but The motives ny
winch he was prompted in vetclng it. then mea-
sured and weighed all that had pissed. gave due
importance 10 long line of conduct and remarks,
that had before treated having been said without
meaning in spirit Of evity thoughtessness, and
the conviction irresistible my mind that teach-
cry was contemplated and gave him up 10 serve my
country"
where then is the inconsistency or contradiction
Is u to be found III the declaration that after the day
on which held the conversation heretofore given,
never broke bread with him' Certainly not! For up
on that subject expressly lay it TO his door, and not 10
mine.
My language is this: "The sladsonian is right in
one particular, wherein he says, did not cease TO
" visit Mr.. Tyler after this ntervew-nor did | ever
say olherwise-my expression IN the discussion re-
ierred to, that never broke bread with him after
that, and IN ght have added that nerer asked;
tor Mr. Tyler had found on that day that was not
made of penetable stuff, and did not suit his purpo
ses-bu did continue 10 visit him. and did all in my
F" power to keep him in the path of seeude and bo-
i" nor" &C.
Well, if there be inconsistency in all this, Mr. Ty
Ter and his friends welcome to make the most OF
it.
This "defence, in speaking of the election between
Mr.. Tyler and Mr.. Randolph in 1897, and the per6dy
charged Mr. Tyler By his political ocates, says
Even admitting that Mr. Tyler acted improperly, per
tdtousfy, on the occasion alluded to-Ar. John a'nor
$ Bolts is equal in guilt and per6dy with Mr. Tyler
because he was in situation 10 reap the benefit Of
=" Mi Tyers perfdy
presume to this unmgated falsehood that either
sustained him, in situation to reap the benefit
of lit is sufficient 10 say, that this election took
place six years before ] entered public life. may
some where have said that the party in opposition TO
Gen. Jackson, Of which one, stood III the 50 me
relation 10 r Tylers teachery then, that the Demo-
cratic party did to his treacbery to the Wings in c4l
but that inference is not 10 be found in the speech
from which he processes TO quote.
TINS is followed up with letter from MIR. John
Voolfolk the necessity for which am not abe clear
lily 10 perceive. But 'he feels it his duty 10 relate
the facts connected with that election because he
MIR. has recently learned that it was my intention
to assail Mr. Tyler for accepting the nomination
al his hands, and in presenting this letter, the "de
fence" states that sanctioned the charge OF perhdy as
made against Mr. Tyler for his acceptance OF that no
mnation.
Mr. Voolfolk is not precisely accurate in his state
ment of what occurred that occason-but he Is
substantially at least sufficiently So TO arrive attn
ruth far it is material. Now, when did assail
MIR. Tyler for his acceptance CT that nomination =
When had sanctioned the charge-and wherefore did
this "duiy" devove Mr.. Voolfolk to make himsel It
ready witress for the Man Of Power TO charge for
which, far from assang him. had, in that We
ry speech, defended him'
What was my language, that drew forth this letter
Of sir. Woofolk, which is used, if not designed 10
be used, to my prejudice Here is extract from
my speech, and The only one that relates to the SUD
ect -
In The Winter of 1898, Mr.. Tyler again a
candidate for the Senate in opposition to MIR. Rves
" | supported him warmly, but he could not get the
" entire vote oil his own party and he was defeated
|" During that contest which lasted several weeks,
. he frequently Withdrawn and re-nominated-
" On enc occasion, he nominated by MEMBER
" of the then administration party; and, on his Ieil-
/" ring from the house. he asked IT he would ac-
"cep nomination from that qnarter-io which, II
g said, he piled That he was before the l-e-
" rslature and would take the appointment from any
quarter he could get it. Now, Sir let me be un
6 ders,ood do not say that ths charge was wen
+" founded. defended him Mt the time have de-
g Tended him ever since, though have neeh Amos.
:. the only man in the State that did defend him; II
+" others did, have not heard of it. do rot now
:. charge him with it. | believed, at the time, he was
/" altogether incapable of giving utierance to such
g sentiment; though confess his recent course has
greatly shaken confidence in my former opinions OF
/" him. mention the circumstance only as matter OF
history for the purpose of showing that The charge
of perfdy has nothing Of novelty in il when con-
{" nected with his name. The consequences, however.
IS whether false, were most disastrous TO him.
il no. only revived the recollection Of the scenes OF
1897 but utterly and entirely Frustrated him IN the
/" State
/ So much for Mr. Woofolk's letter.
The next thing that appears in this pamphlet, wor-
thy Of nniicr, is letter from Mr. Duff Green; Tor,
/ | do not deem it incumbent on me, nor have any
inclnation to interfere with he Cabinet equabbe to
ghch the intermediate portion OF the defence re-
lates
What could have possessed the writer of this letter
TO nut such facts upon record and what lniatUaton
could Mr. Tyler have labored under when lie publ'sh.
ed il the object was, presume il must have been,
first on The part of the writer TO offset hr LIVING
opnon as 10 the insincerity and hypocrisy OF Mr. Ty-
Ter in expressing desire TO his Cabinet 10 insert IN his
veto message dissemination to become candidate for
re election and secondly the part of Mr. Tyler TO
disprove my charge that in The monM ri June he did
M, hold himself bound by the ono term Prneip'e "nd
did desire election If, in making that charge,
had been search of testimony TO sustain IT. should
have desired nothing stronger than this letter, u had
been aware of its existence, ind could have ia,d
my hands upon it. Why, what is it: What does 1t
prove. Nothing more nor less than this That MIR.
Green was a, Annapolis when he heard Of Gen. Har-
rson DEATH and then heard that an effort would DC
made to induce Mr.. Tyler To commit himself IN his
inaugural address lin AprD not to be csnoldate ~
1914, and being his personal and political TREND, he
fastened to Washington 10 proven. his dong 50 ne
told Mr. Tyler his business, VITO showed him para.
rra PHI that effect which lie had jcs written, by Tic
I