Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1844-10-24

we did--that Kendall namely, had access to the
original letters in Mr.. Bar's possession and
thence procured his garbled edition.
Richmond IIAig.
From the Globe Of October 10
TO BENJAMIN WATKINS LEIGH, ESQ.
Sir: In your communication to the Richmond
Wing, presenting portion of my correspond
ence with Mr.. Clay to the public, you say
III ain nightly informed, TO application has
ever been made directly TO Mr.. Clay, by MIR.
Blair, by Mr.. Linn Boyd, or by any other of that
party, TO consent to the publication Of these let
ters MIR. Clay would doubtless have consented.
II his consent had been asked by any of the lead
ers OF the party hostile to him. They have imputed
whatever sentiments IL suited their purpose 10 in-
Pute 20 Mr.. Clay, under the impression that he
could not reiue the imputations thew made with
out violating the sanclity of private correspond
ence, under the seal OF which the letters were
WItten. overcome by the earnest entrealies of his
friends, IN Virginia MIR. Clay has reluctantly con-
scented to the publication they think it prore of
.nese eers private and confidential as they are and
even playful and sporiive in their character
That he is right in doing this, cannot be doubted,
since Inc seal oil private correspondence has, in
fact, been broken"
In this involved passage are couched two char
ges against me
1. After referring to me- with Mr.. RovJ md
others, you say: "they imputed whatever sen,i
ments 1t suited their purpose to impute to MIR
Clay, under the impression that he could not re-
fnte the lmputalions they made without VIOLATING
the sanctity OF private correspondence, under the
seal OF which the letters were written"
\ 2. You justify Mr.. Clay in making his letters
public now, upon the ground sihat the seal of
private correspondence has, in fact, been broken.
And this, coupled with the article of the Editor
who has your authority and Mr.. Claws for the
publication, expressly charging that had viola
ted that seal OF private confidence, leave no doubt
that you-the representative of Mr.. Claw in this
fnatter-ievel your accusation at me-
IN defending myself against these false sugoes
lions, shall resort only to the evidence contain
ed In the correspondence between Mr. Claw and
hySeiF' 20 wfftch 1t Is evident you have access,
and Can, therefore, test the truth OF the testimo
ny adduce. shall go further i'm this nri
waite record than Is necessary TO sef-defence.
IL Is utterly untrue that either 1 or Mr. Claw
was ''under the impression that he could not re-
iute the imputations made against him without
violating the sanctity Of private correspondence :"
MT. Clay thought as thought, that nothing more
was necessary to authorize him TO use The CORES
Pondence between us for his defence, than my
consent to its publication; and this freelv gave
him. He applied to me for my consent to Dub
4 lish what l had written to him, if he sbould do
termine to publish his own letters. In repv n
his request to give the private correspondence to
the public, ! say (hlarch 2S, lS2S:9
''No personal consideration could induce me IN
oppose any obstacle to full and fair development
OF all the facts in relation to the presidential e.
lection, SO far as ] am concerned, if Won shall
deem it necessary or proper that the subject
should undergo that species Of ordeal before the
public.'
2. 1t is utterly untrue that "the seal of private
correspondence has, in fact, been broken" by me.
NO part OF the correspondence with Mr. Clay
was ever exhibited by me TO any one but under
his direction; nor did any kind of ailusion to il
on my part, suggest the attacks made on him in
!. regard to his Imputed understanding with Mr.
Adams, or his agency in eiecting MIR. Adams 10
the Presidency. The first letter written by me
70 MT. Clay alter the appearance of MIR. Ken
dali's accusatory article, shows the circumstan.
ces which led MIR. Kendall to revert 10 the cleo
ton OF 1925, and to the mode i'm which instruc-
Hons TO Mr. White were obtained from his imme-
date constituents. ] quote only the frs, para
graph OF my letter, which gives the facts:
"FRANKFoRT, Ortober, 3, 1922.
"Dear Sir: On returning home from Canewood
yesterday, (where have been for some time for
the purpose OF restoring my health, which has
Iecenhy suffered under bilious atack.) found
an alluslon to me in a letter from Mr. Kendall, IN
you, contained in the last weeks Argus. which
greatly suTpriZed me. Nothing on INV mar, ever
authorized the course he has adopted. Before I
left home, Mr.. Kendall and Mr.---E- in.
formed torn, me that one of your political supporters
" Thomas Y. BryanD had in order to charoe me
with Inconsistency, Informed them that had
oeen instrumental in getting some of the Ken.
lucky delegation to vote for Mr.. Adams, and that
mao obtained letter of instruction from him to
Mr. White, by the assurance that you would he
mace secretary Of State. MIR. Kendall also STA,
ted mat had got his letter to White by maxine
the same representation. | admitted that miohi
nave given such an assurance, although did NOT
recollect." ''' "o'
All the circumstances which led. tn Mr. Hon.
1aiPs recurrence TO the election of 1925 to cbarao
Mr.: Clay with bargaining with MIR. Adams s" we ge
well known TO MIR: Crittenden, Zone Of the nar.
ties assailed by Mr.. Kendall) TO MIR. uarv;sp ' -
The Clay committee at Frankfort, and 70 H. -
Clay himself, They were perfectly acopain,sd
with the course taken by me in relation r. Nj.
Nendalps course, and the Legislative inonity
which was forced on by Messrs, Robert WicE.
Iiie and Ben Hardin, who acted as Mr.. Claws
friends IN that transaction. My conduct met the
apPro6ation OF Mr.. Clay's comIaillee, and of Mr..
Clay himself, who, in bis letter to that commit
Zee, IN June 1923, gives his sanction to it. In a
private letter to me. 18th January, 1928, he thus
declares himself on the same point:
u have had no reason 10 be dissatisfied with
your conduct, which has been, in resnect n On,
intercourse, manly and honorable