Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-10-17
fflo,a lie Gotc Of .sa.urIonl


Sir In yoar communication 10 Tie Richmond
Wing, presenting a portion OF my correspondence
with Mr. Clay 10 the public, You say:
If am rightly informed, no application has
ever been made directly 10 Mr.. Clay by Mr..
Blair or By Mr.. Linn Boyd, or BY any other OF
that party, 10 consent 10 The publication OF lhest
letters. Mr. CLAY woUli doubtless have consent
ed. if his consent had been asked b. any Of lie
leaders OF ,!.c parry hostile 10 him. Th.y have
imputed whatever sentiments il suited their pur-
pose 10 ilnpnlc to Nj. Clay, under the impression
that he could no; Ictc the imfutaiion$ they nadc
without viol;ting The saEcti'y oi private cores
pondence. under the seal OF which the letters were
written Overcome hy The earnest cn!reatics oil
his friends in Virginia Mr.. Clay has reluctantly
consented to the publication (it they think pro-
perl Of these letters, private and cGniidcnlia -
they are, and even playful and spoliive in their
character. That he is RICH! in doing this, Cannot
be doubted, since the seal Of private coTe>ro'i-
dencc has, in fact, been broken
In this involved passage arc couchcd Two char
yes against me:
|. After referring to me, with Mr.. Boyd and
others, you say: They imputed whatever SEMI
mcnls il suited their purpose 10 impulc 10 Mt.
CLAY. under the impression th;, he could not re-
lu,e the mpulalions they made without violating
the sanctiiy of private correspondence, uncer the
seal of which the letters were written
=. You Justify Mr.. Clay III making his letters
public now, upon Ike ground ''ihat the seal Of
private correspondence has, in fact been bro
KEN And this, coupled with the article Of The
editor, who has your authority AMI Mr.. Clay
for the publication expressly charging that had
violated that seal of private confidence, leaves no
doub, that you-lhe representative OF Nix. Clay
in this ma,ier-leyel your accusation atmc.
l.I,, ;r,gf fol
oeslions, shall resort Only 10 Tie evidence con-
tanned in the correspondence between Mr.. Clay
and myself, 10 which ii is evident You have &C.
cess, and can therefore test Tie truth Of The icsii
monv adlucc. shall 90 no further into this
private record than is necessary 10 >e!i-ccicncc
Ii is utterly untrue that either or Mr.. Clay
was 'under The impression that he could not 70
.utc the mputalionS made against him without
violating the sanctilv OF private correspondence.
Mr. Clay thought, as ! thought, that nothing
more was necessary to authorize him to use thr
CORRESPONDENCE between lis for his defence than
my consent 10 lis publication: and this freely
gave Kim. He applied to me for my consent t.
publish what lad written 10 him, II he s!ouid
determine 10 publish his own letters. In reply TO
his request TO give tie private correspondence 10
tlc public, say (Marcli -. 1899
"No personal consideration cuuli induce me
10 oppose any obstacle to full and fair develop
mcnt of all the facts i'll relation to the Presidential
election, so far IS | am concerned, il you Shall
deem ii necessary OF proper that lhc subject ,hou!
undergo that species OF ordeal before the public
y. Ii is utterly untrue, tia, "ihc sal Of PIRATE
correspondence dct in f@e;, icca hoien' by me
No part OF the correspondence with Mr. Clay
was ever exhibited bv ne 10 anr one, but under
his direction; nor did any kind OF allu>ion 10 it, on
my part suggest the attacks made on him in re-
gard 10 his imputed understanding with Mr.. Ad-
ans. or his agency in elecns Mr. Adams To the
Presidency The first letter written b. me 10
Mr.. CLAY. after The appearance Of Mr.. hcndalIs
accusatory article shows the circumstances
which led Mr. Kendall 10 revert 10 the election Of
1925. and 10 the mode in which instructions TO
Mir. White were obtained from his immediate
constituents quote only the first paragraph OF
my letter, which gives the facts:
aFRANKroRr, Oct. 3, 1927
GDear Sir: On returning home from Canewood
Yesterday, (wherc have been for some time, for
The purpose of restoring my health, which has re-
Gently suffered under bilious aliack,) ! found
an allusion 10 me. in letter from Mr. Kendall 10
Won. contained in The last weeks Argus, which
greatly surprised me. Nothing on my part ever
authorized the course he has adopted. beiore !
let. home MIR. Kendall and Mr.. - informed
INC that one of YOUR political supporters, (Thos.
IT.
consistency, informed them. tina; had been in
srunentai in getting some OF the Kentucky dele
CATION to vote for Mr.. Adams, and that had Oh
tanned letter Of instruction nom INN 10 Mf.
White. by the assurance, that Won would DC MADE
secretary of State Mr. Kendall also stated, that
had soi his letter to White, by making the same
representation. admitted, that | might have
given such an assurance, although did no. re-
collect it"
All the circumstances which led 10 Mr. Ken
dars recurrence 10 the election Of 1925 10 charge
Mr.. Clay with bargaining with Mr.. Adams, were
we'll known 10 Mr. Critenden, Zone Of the parties
assailed by Mr.. Kendall,( to Mr.. Harvie; TO the
Clay Committee at Frankfort and 70 MI; Gay
himself They were perfectly acquainted with
the course taken by me in relation to Mr.. Ken
dalrs course, and the legislative inquiry which
was forced on by MessTs RobeT, Wic 1ls and z;
Ben Hardin, who acted as MIR. Gays ilicnos IN
tha, transaction. My conduct met the approba-
ton Of Mr.. Clay's Committee, and Of Mr.. Clay
himself who, in his letter 10 that Committee, in