The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1857-06-03

must have led 10 the inquiries WITCH he would
make Of his old companions aud fellow patrl.
ats, and il would especially have prnmfted
hin, 10 mn examination Of the original of 50
remarkable historical novelty. And when
he thus inquired, ii the Whale story were
fabrication he must have discovered the
fact and consequent baseness of Alexander.
But Dasie keeps the paper. and alter his
death it was found treasured up among
his most precious manuscripts, and he retains
his respect and confidence for the man from
whom lie received it as long as that man lived.
Can any other inference be drawn than
that Dayie knew the paper to be authentic
Some oil you {said the speaker knew Gen.
Davie, and you know lie was just the man
who would Indignantly have spurned Alesan.
der from his presence forever. il he had found
himself deceived by him.
I 5. The next fact is that alexander said he
had also given copy 10 DR.. Hugh UiAiam-
son. Governor Stokes testified that in
1898, he saw a copy in the hands OF Will
hanson. together with letter to him. both
in the hand writing Of Alexander, whom ne
! knew, and that he consersed with Williams
son on the subject Of the letter and copy
enclosed. But as Williamson made no use
Of it in his book which he miscalled "a his
tory Of North Carolina" il has been insinua-
ted that he never had such document. We
might as we'll infer that he never had the
printer ,rsu,u,ion, "r nia, Jun, ~, nc uurs
not mention that meeting. In fact. he dis.
poses Of the whole revolutionary history Of
the State III two short sentences. His work
does not deserve the name Of History.
l n H.. nts,., ~ Law nd .
perfect truth and honesty is furnished by
facts connected Nth The copy he said he had
l'giuen TO Darie, and ,ohich pds found among
Dauie'spapers Alexander mnst have known
whether they were resolves Of meeting on
the 2nth, or those adopted at the meeting on
the 3Olh, for lie was at both. After his house
was consumed, talking with his old friend
Judge Cameron, lamenting the luss OF the
original Declaration, he remarked to the
Judge emphatically, : Hut the document IS
safe What documcntf He explains; the
Declaration for, adls he, gave Dayie q
copy which know to- be correct" No copy
Of the resolves oil the 30th in Alexanderas
j handwriting or that Of any one else. was ever
found among Dawes papers. Besides. be
, would not have said 50 emphaticaly Of the
resolves o. the sOth, . the document is safe, !
for those resolves as he well knew we're Il
be found in print in divers publications
They consequently were safe enough.
t :. But the pronf d Alexantler's truthful
, ness still accumulates--fur the next fac
affirmed by DIR. Hawks was. that cnps
/ substantially the same a. Davies was IN
/ the hands of Martin Of Louisiana, an,
was published by him in 1929. DIR. II
i then stated that lie himself. had partic
uiarly questioned Judge Martin in per
: son, not long before his death, as to III,
I source whence he had derived his copy. Th,
Judge said expressly, mot from Alexander,
! but from some one in the Western part Of III,
/ State, prior to 1900. Here then was cop,
substantially agreeing with Davies, which
| before $500, was. by some means Or olher, u
E existence in this part OF the world, and no
/ traced 10 Alexander. As 10 the fact o
8 stibsta,ltiai agreement, the DR.. remarked ths
/ as some had been pleased 70 say there ~er
!. resolution of the series Containing tie declar
| ation." he begged indulgence while b,
examined that point. lie then showed tina
! there really was no difference in sense, in
b single resolution Of either Of the cnpies--
. that the one was the first draft as made b,
: Or. Brevard al the request Of the Committee
! and the other thst draft with the correction
. 0f the Committee. From the fact Of III,
, slight disagreement, however. he drew III
{ inference, that the very differences Shove,
there had been no forgery d the paper; 70
]. had Il 5een forged there neUer tconit hire bee,
I found disagreeiax copies AZ all. The fraudu
j lent fabricator would have taken pains 10 max,
. all the copies alike.
8. lie then brought forward another fac
! hitherto unnnticed, namely: The first pub
: htatton Of a ropy If The resolution n
ne form III whieh Judge Martin present
Than. This was IN the second volume q
. Major Gardens revolutionary anecdptes an,
I "reminiscences. rheY are accompanied by
I history o. the proceedings at Charlotte on d,
: 10Th II May, and i statement that the trans
1 action 20 cfediable to North Carolina va
not knnwn a. generally a. i should be 70 HI
. citizens IT the q. states. lie then discus
. ed the question. j" shenre did Garden Obtain
his copy - lie first showed that il eoult
i mt have been lrnm Martins bonk. for Gar
] ien's aas puhllshej 10 1873, while Martin
dbl not appear until the end u 1929. II,
!, testified from Iii. nwn communication witt
j Judge Martin thai The latter had never giyei
! Garden sppy. lpr be did not even knuw il
! the last wear 81 hi life that Garden had eve
!. printed them. lie next showed that be conl,
! not have obtained them frum Alexander
r onpy because 1t. they DID not agree viii
J. Alcxandsr's copy exactly, and ~. IL,
pamphlet put lnfth by the State containin:
. AleSauder's copy. found among Davies pa
Q psrs. Wis not polished until The winter o
] is5D-'3l neither could they have beef
i. obtained from lie publication u Gil. Polk i
!. the Raleigh Rrgistef" Of 1919. Cor The res
7 oIutinns az -et f,rih there agree with Alex
. and -, and mt with NartIn's Or Garden
I copies. lie was in possession then u