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

particulars that document was utterly IRE.
conci!able with the foregoing facts.
j 1. News was received If fhebattle oi Lex
{ tGston the day the paper was made. DR.. II.
then proceeded to show From Drayton's me.
rnoirs Of South Carolina, and from Gibbs's Re-
volutionary documents Of the same State, the
printed copy from the letter of intelligence
af the battle Of Lexington that was sent
!, South. showing tile day and the hour endorss
cd on it. as it passed through the hands Of
every Vigilance Committee from Connecticut
To Charleston: and conclusively established
/ the fact that the news Of the battle of Lexing.
ton reached Charlotte on the night Of the 8th
Of Nay. OF rather earlyin the mvrningo the
I i9fh at that month. in i77s. THE fact.
therefore, dri not harmonize with the claim
made for the document Of the 50th.
/. 2. The paper was made in responsesto the
peoples call, "ict as be independent" DR..
III. argued on the improbablity that in an
,wer to suck call made by an excited mul,
titude. paper would be prepared which
should contain nothing about independence,
and yet that the people should be satisfied
with it as Declaration OF independence.
This fact, therefore, did not seem to agree
with the claim made for the document Of the
50th, which was just such as is above des-
cribed.
3. There was large assembly the peo,
pie Of the county in Charlotte whea the pa
per was prepared, and this asscmblage con
tinued tor part Of t,oo days, some Of the
work having been done in the intervening
night.
DIR. II. then asked what there was in the
document Of the 30th, or what evidence had
ever been produced from any source to show
that the meeting Of the 30th sat also an either
the 29th or 5lst of Mayf What proof that
any work was done at night? What proof
that there was any assemblage Of the people
OF the county at all on or about the S0tlr?
What evidence from the document itself, or
from any other source, that any gentlemen
Of the county met in Charlotte on that day.
except the gentlemen Of the Committed The
answer was, that on all those points not q
particle Of testimony had ever been produced
70 sustain them. This fact, therefore, SEEM
ed inconsis tent with the claim made for the
document Of the 3Oth.
4. S. The next known facts were. the docs
u,nent prepared was publicly read by Col.
Thomas Polk, aud that its contents were
preserved al The fine, both in writing andin
memory by some Of those present who heard
il. Now, Gen. Graham, Rev. II. Hunter
more respectable and credible witnesses ne
yer lived any where,) were all present, all
heard the paper read, all remembered its sub.
as the 90th, and copied the paper read at the
time and what they remembered and what
they copied. did not contain one particle Of
the document Of the 30th but totally dif-
frrent paper. Nor, Of all those present who
heard the paper read, was there ever found
one who retained in memory as what he then
heard, the paper Of the S0th; while great
many did remember totally different docu-
ment as what they then heard. This fact.
therefore, does not agree with the CLAIM set
upfor the paper Of the S0lh.
6. The last fact alluded to was that the
document read, according to the testimony OF
some twenty witnesses, did contain three
most important particulars. expressly aud
unequiyocally announced; these were, LIST,
remuneration Of allegiance Cd, a declaration
Of independence and Sd, the right Of self
government. Now, an inspection Of the doc.
ument oi the S0th will show. that in II, the
I two particulars first named are not explicitly
declared, and the last is not named ut all.
But il declares its object 10 be simply ere
guIatins the jurisprudence Of the province"
From the inconsistency Of all these facts
with the paper Of the 3Oth. Dr. II. inferred
that il Tie case stopped here, il there were
no further proof behind, one would be justi,.
fed in saying that the paper Of the 30th could
not be the document referred to 10 the
facts above stated and therefore, we might
safely lay il aside.
DIRECT rROoT.
Having thus removed for the present The
. document of the 5Oth out Of his path, to re-
i. turn hereafter 10 an analysis of il, DR.. III.
entered on the direct affirmative testimony
i. which went to show what the document put
forth By tie Metklenburg men as deciard-
{ fion 81 independence that deserved the name.
il and what the date at which they issued "
c In this part of his argument he took up the
j following facts, adding the proof for each as
lie proceeded.
! 1. There was meeting u Charlotte, ot
!, the larger part u the inhabitants OF Necklen.
burg county. held on the 10Th and goth days
c sl MAY. It's.
$ ln piutc this h, ai,laeeh no less than
i fourteen witnrsss. men 10 their day well
{ knnwn IL Mrcklcnl,urg aud oi irrcproachable
! characters. Win al testify that they we're all
present At sacll meeting. Seven positively
!. aamrd the date the 10Th aud 9Oth days ol
1 Niay I..5.l aud ane Of the seven tcstiiies
lron written mrmorandum, still IN exis-
: tcnce, aud maiIe al the time. as 10 the date
) Tue ather seven, withuut expressly natning
u the ,iiy 81 the month, testify to incidents aud
occurrences at the meeting precisely tbs
: same as those deposed 70 by the witnesses
i Who do name the exact day Of the munih
] thus identifying thc meeting as The same. w,
: are bDund therefore to believe there was sucl
4 meeting. Now if this be so.. Il must iBeyi.
!. tably follow that il any paper was prepare,
and read al that meeting t could not have beer