Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-07-11
Wyoming, and amid the spray and
xLncdnvo of a.. Ne Ease raksrark

W. W VIZ oVCiety No TepfeSsuso Soy"
] made "an attack upon him and for no
cause he could conceive"
If my endesvor truthfully to correct
or supply the deficiency In his repre-
sentstion concerning the history Of the
Virginia Gazette can be construed into
an attack, it is because Of his over-anx-
iety that the public shall only know his
side Of the question, and that his ipse
dirit must not be challenged. l dared
to deal with the subject in good faith
and temper as Of right, not supposing
be held q Z" bill Of sale," or an undi-
vided moiety in the facts aud traditions
of Virginia history by heritage as pri-
vate patrimony. But shall attribute
no such motive to my friend.
The merits Of the case demanded sn
advocate that history might stand cor
rected and descend to after. times, erect
in purity, free from smirch. For the
life Of me would not charge Mr.. Brock
with an effort to delay or hinder the
truth. | saw his omission as well as
error, and / only desired to correct
them.
My purpose was to introduce the
missing link" which connected the
Rind Gazette of l7G6 and 1873 with the
Pinkney Gazette Of l775, and to prove
that Pinkney neither died nor was his
paper discontinued before the Revolu-
ton, which l showed by the "bill Of
sale" from Mrs. Rind to Blair and
others in 1774 and the transfer of the
property from Blair, &C., to Pinkney
in 1875 NOW among the archives Of the
aforesaid Society.
The efficient official of the Society
should have confined himself to the text
of the subject and not INDUCED in the
Irrelevant that could not comprehend
there was more than one Virginia
Gazette in 1775. This new matter Mr..
Brock has introduced is extraneous, for
the time being, and outside of the pale
of inquiry; but to this | will devote
word before concluding.
In introducing the facts relative to
Mrs. Kinds successor it was simply to
preserve the old landmarks by publica-
ton and to keep facts and figures in
proper relation that the reading public
might be informed, and because OF MIR.
Brock IS seeming lack oftbe information,
adinterim, which induced him TO jump
the hiatus from 1913 to ITS, and state
that another Virginia Gazette was
started in 1775 by Clarkson Il Davis,
without telling your readers the pre-
existing facts, viz That Mrs. Rind had
sold the Gazette material to Blair and
others in IVA. So far from this he posi-
lively states in his publication of May
18th that a" Pinkney became Mrs. Rind's
successor" In this he erred, becauseh he
followed in the rut Of Howe, the histo-
rian. On another point he assumed
more than Howe, when he states that
Piukney's paper was discontinued be-
fore the Revolution" ] ask how could
it be that Pinkney soon died and the
paper was discontinued before the Revo-
luton, when Pinkney was not connected
with the Gazette earlier than l775?
This is the vital point and the connect
ing link.
desired to establish the date OF the
appearance of the original Gazette IN
1876; and, secondly, the status of
John Pinkney, both of which Nj.
Brock has virtually accepted IN his
paper Of the 2Sth ultimo, but the lat
ter quite unwittiDgly.
The first be claims to have been his
error Inadvertently.
In the second he more than does me
Justice. stated that Pinkney's con-
nection with the Gazette commenced IN
1918, (see bill Of sale.) per contra his
statement that /" Mrs. Rind was sue
ceeded by Pinkney, who soon died, and
| the paper was discontinued, &c. Mr..
Brock, in his reply of the 2Sth ultimo,
acknowledges among the files Of the
Gazette before him--one by Pinkney in
l71G-thus admitting that Pinkney did
not die before the Revolution, as
claimed by myself.
The one question that remains is,
Did Blair a ais. resume the pnblica-
ton Of the Gazette after Mrs. Rind sold
out to them, April Is, IVA? mot Au-
gust 18th, as in his LAST.
Let us glance for one moment at the
chronology Of the Gazettes in the light
of the data furnished by Mr.. Brock in
| his naner of Nav 18th,
The Gazette Of 1886 to the days OF
Purdie, inclusive, is Gazette No. l
| Q775).
The Rind Gazette with Pinkney as
Mrs. Kinds successor) is No. 2. But,
remember, Mr.. Brock says this paper
was discontinued before the Revolu-
ton"
The Clsrkson & Davis is No. 3
| Q775). Mr.. Brock, of May Nth, as
above, says "This and the paper first
cited were the TWO papers published
in Williamsburg during the Revolu-
ton" In his article Of June 18th he
says: 81 distinctly stated that there
were three Virginia G0zettes in l775."
How is this, Mr.. Brock, for "re'
coll?
Sihce Mr.. Brock admits that the
| Rind Gazette was not discontinued
before the Revolution, hut that It = was
published Goth December, l715,"
tpinkney's connection,) together with
Purdie S, and subsequently Clarkson
d Davis. it is easy to see there were
three Gdzettes in Williamsburg in
1918.
Mr.. Brock takes for granted. how
ever. that Purdic published the Gazette
during the Revolution because Mr..
Howe says so, unbacked by authority.
But, in fairness to Mr.. Brock. | would
say he proves that the Gazette of 1886
was published consecutively from June
|, l77G-not l775-to April "a, l71S,
by Dixon 4 Hunter, as "evidenced by
files" before him.
0mittiDg the presumption las it Is
not proven, that Purdie published the
Gazette during the Revolution, it is
more than probable that there were
only two Gazettes in IT'S, unless Mr..
Brock can bring in "newly-discovered
evidence" without drawing upon his
inexpensive resources.
Mr.. Brock, in his article Of the 2Sth
| ul,imo. attempts to prove there were