Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1873-08-15
NO. 81.
From the Raleigh Sentinel.
Col. Wheeler's- Letter Receives
Further Notice.

Coi' "neeIer's Letter Receives
Further Notice.
WARRENToN, July 10Th, 1873.
In my desire to be as brief as possi-
bic, passed over one or two points in
the letter of Col. Wheeler, which per-
haps deserve notice. He says:
"With no intention to reflect upon
the words of Mr.. Jefferson. we only
record the truth when it is stated that
many of the contemporaries of Mr.. JEFF
ferson, who knew him long, kindly
and well, did believe, and so have
stated, that he did know of the Meek
lenburg Declaration of Independence.
''Mai. Lee, in his Observations ON
Writings of Mr.. Jefferson (Philadel-
phia, 1879 states that the preamble
to the Bill of Rights, the INccklen-
burg Declaration Of Independence.
and the Virginia Bill of Rights, con-
tain nearly everything important in the
Declaration of Independence Of the
4th of July, 2776, upon which rests so
much of Mr.. Jefferson's fame
These two paragraphs stand together
in Col. Wheeler'a letter, and the
natural inference of the reader must
be that "Maj. Lee" was one of Mr..
Jeffersons contemporaries, who knew
him long, kindly and WE'LL" But
every one who has read the book of
Lee, or even looked into it, is aware
that he was malignant and unscru-
pulous assailant instead of Il kindly CO.
temporary.
In the same connection, Col. Vince
Ter quotes Judge Tucker, one of Jeffer-
sons biographers, who, in reference
fn Declaration OF wi Of
May Goth, 1775, and the Declaration
of July 4th, 1776, says: Every one
must be persuaded, all who have been
observers of style, that one of these
papers has been borrowed of the
other"
Col. Wheeler makes this quotation
from Tucker, which L suppose to be
correct, in order to leave the inference
that Tucker was charging Jefferson
with stealing from the Mecklenburg
paper, whereas, as friendly biogra-
pher and admirer, he could only have
meant the contrary, that the author
of the Mecklenburg paper was the
thief.
Immediately following these charges
against Jefferson of literary theft, Col.
Wheeler says that ''It was with Mr..
life," &c. Tastes differ. Col. Wheeler
may regard a success in literary p1lfer-
ing as the most glorious act of a mans
life, and worthy TO be in ;cribed on his
tombstone; but am greatly mistaken
the thing in that light.
L have not gone out of my way, in
this discussion to defend the character
Of To r
only take notice of these misstate-
ments and perversions of Col.
Wheeler, because his purpose is to
make Mr.. Jefferson witness for the
very paper which he denounced as a
forgery.
/ will notice another statement of |
Col. Wheelers. He says, with ora
cular confidence, that
Gone fact must be clear to all: That |
no one conld have motive to |
palm Off so gross frand on the |
The declaration exists. If |
it did not originate where it is alleged, |
where did il come from? Anv one. |
Mr.. (Mr. Jefferson or Mr.. Goodloe) |
who maintains a negative cannot es- |
cape this position, but must show its
origin"
This is an entirely new doctrine in
regard to the law of forgery, and al
though l am not very familiar with the |
! will venture to say that |
it cannot be found in the oldest nor |
the newest editions of Coke, Littleton |
or Blackstone. 1t has always been |
held to be good law, that the holder of |
a forged check or draft and not the |
payee named in it must show how he |
came by it, and who made it. In other |
he must show that he was not |
the fOrger. 1t may be hoped. |
therefore, that Col. Wheeler will not |
delude any confiding reader into the |
belief that it will be safe to go into |
court, trusting to the soundness of the
law he has laid down. He brings be-
fore tie public paper purporting to
be "DeclaratiOn of Independence"
made at Charlotte, May both, 1775. |
Yet he, if he follows the leading coun-
sci, DIR. Hawks, he admits that it was
never printed until the year 1919,
forty-four years after it's date. Now
Col. Wheeler must show where he got |
the paper; in whose keeping if was
during those long years; and why it
was not published in the newspapers
of 1775, as the Declaration of May 31st
was. If in parallel case of present
ing check at n bank, the holder
should fail to answer such questions in
regard to It's origin, he would be lucky
to escape arrest as a party to the
forgery? This is law at Westminster
Hall and law at Raleigh. OF course I
have no suspicion that my friend, the
was privy to the Mecklenburg
forgery; and only intend to show him
what the law would do with man in
a parallel case, involving pecuniary
TRAITS on public or private confidence.
But have not done with this view
Of the matter. If / should ever get
sight of a reply to me, which [ am in
has appeared in the Charlotte
shall probably be called
to go over the ground again; and [
will then take occasion to present facts
which may throw some light on the
question of authorship. This, how
ever. I am not called upon to do.
am very truly yours,
DANIEL r. GooDLoE.
TO L. B. Kingsbury, Esq.
ssCOIOnel', Hughes.
r. w. Hughes. Esq, is commonly
called Colonet. We know that Colo
N ole in Virripia oro &c ,,Jootp 90 l11ooE