Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-01-15
CAPT. JOHN SMITH.
The HON. WILLIAM WRIT HENRY
CONES TO HIS DEFENCE.
Smiths Hereto Character
Considered.
To n.o Fapor Of a.e Dfspateh.

10 WG fuftU " NH OtoBetthF
When read the recent article in your
paper signed "Sdss Supaqpe." attacking
Captain John Smith, was some 400 miles
from homo. easily recognized the hand
OF Mr.. Alexander Brown. whose writings
on this historical character seem TO indi-
cate that he Is afflicted with an ants-Smith
mania In an acute form. of once wrote
tho reply which appeared over the sigma
ture "Au Recoir" In communication from
Mr.. Brown. printed in your issue Of the
25th OF December. 1892. he complains that
he has been misrepresented j certainly
did not intend to misrepresent him, and IT
perchanee have done so. it
has been because I failed to grasp
bis meaning. But / submit that on the
matters Of which he complains in his
reply / have not misrepresented him
by his own showing. ] wrote that he was
disposed 70 lend TO the skies all the men,
bers OF the Virginia Company and Of the
jamestown colony, except John Smith,
and he replies that two thirds OF the Lon
don Company failed to support the enter
prise, and that Il do defend most ear
nestly those constant adventures and
managers who continued. In the face Of
every disaster. opposition. and criticism.
TO meet around the Virginia Council board
at Sir Thomas Smiths house, in London,
for the purpose of upholding the plan
tation and their faithful agents in
Virginia" &c. When / wrote my article
had IN mind communication to your
paper from Mr.. Brown. which appeared
September 20, 1891. In it be says: " From
the landing of the Pilgrims New England
ers have preserved and cherished the
memories of their forefathers with patri-
otlc devotion worthy of emulation. while
the interest and honor of the founders OF
the frst colony have been sacrificed to
John Smith. The names and
memories Of the first managers and their
faithful agents should be upheld by this
nation SO long as the sunne and income
endureth.' For less service than theirs
men have been deemed gods by the an.
GENTS and canonzed by the Church OF
Rome" This certainly includes IN his
laudation the first managers, and as TO
their faithful agents the distinct eK-
ception from this class seems TO be
John Smith. But if / have taken
his general expressions too strictly he now
has righted himself and confines his ADM:
ration to the members Of the Council OF
the Virginia Company who met at the
house OF Sir Thomas Smith and their
faithful agents whoever they might
be- Sir Thomas wss the treasurer
and governor of the London Com:
psny for the first twelve years OF
It's existence. He was considered the
main manager of the company. DE was
succeeded in his Office by Sir Edwin
Sandys, against whom he raised faction,
and he was largely instrumental in obtain
ing judgment of the Court OF Kings
Bench in 1924 snnulling the Virginia char
ter (see Neill's. Virginia Company" 4l9).
After Sir Thomas ceased to be trea-
surer and governor Of the company the
council met very seldom at his house. SO 1t
was while Sir Thomas Smith was at the head
of the company that Mr.. Brown would
praise its council, and he seems to attach
himself to the faction OF Sir Thomas Smith,
which finally destroyed the company. 1t
was the management OF the company
while Sir Thomas smith was at It's neau
that was so bitterly denounced by the
Virginia Assembly in 1923 (see Nelll's VIZ
ginia Company" pages 407-1D, and it was
the same management that was so severely
criticised by Captain John Smith. But as
Smith had not been in Virginia for four
teen years when the Assembly issued their
paper he cannot be held responsible tor
been mismanagement from the beginning
SMITH AS A PRISONER.
MIR. Brown directs to my saying that he
conveyed wrong impression IN describing
Smith as removed from the Office OF presl-
dent of the Virginia colony. His state
ment unexplained would indicate that
Smith was removed for some serious fault
in his administration, while it would have
been but fair in Mr.. Brown to have stated
that what he claimed to be removal was
the result of a change of charter. winch
removed the entire Virginia Council and
placed tho government under governor
appointed in England. But it is true that
Smiths term had expired before the
change of charter took effect in Virginia.
His term commenced September 10, 1908,
and ended September 10, 1909. In that
month he left the colony and returned to
England.
The new charter provided that when the
new Governor arrived IN Virginia and gave
notice of the change of charter the autho-
rity of the old Virginia president and
council should cease. Genesis of United
States, page 234.) Sir Thomas Gates was
appointed the first Governor of Virginia
under this new charter and sailed for
jamestown IN June. 1909, taking the new
charter with him. He was wrecked on the
Bermudas July, 1909, and did not reach
Virginia till May 81, 1910, long after Smith
had left the colony Genesis Of United
States. page S94), and after the expira-
ton of his term as president. Indeed, Sir
Thomas Gates found George Percy presi-
dent of the colony when he arrived Gene
sis of United States, p. 964(, and he was the
person removed from office. not Smith.
But such treatment of his subject when
that subject is Captain John Smith is Gus
tomary with Mr.. Brown. For example. he
speaks of Smiths landing in Virginia a
prisoner. without explanation. This would
convey TO the ordinary reader the impress
sion that he had done something criminal.
The truth is that he was charged by Wing
field with being implicated in an intended
mutiny on the voyage, which charge was
disproved. Smith was sworn n men,
Der of the first council and Wing
field fined for his SANDER. Not only is
this the account given by Others. but
Wingheld in his defence of his admins
tration as first president of the colony
admits that he was fined on account of
this charge. Again, Mr.. Brown would have
us believe. as | understand him, that
Smith was so conspicuous fraud that the
panegyric verses contributed by his friends
and published in his history were but
mockery. These commendatory verses
were contributed by thirty-tnree per-
sons, several of whom were men,
bers Of the London Company. Five were
with Smith in Virginia, and one served
with him in Pennsylvania. Others were
distinguished men. among whom was Rev.
Samuel Purchas. who, in his work, "Pur:
chas His Pilgrims gives an account OF
Smiths career in Virginia very similar to
that found in Smiths history. and says It
was taken from original authorities. A
similar fantasy of Mir. Brown is that
the second part OF the Oxford tract,
published in 1912 and purporting to
be compiled by Richard Potts from
the writings of the colonists. other
than Smith, was in fact written by Smith
himself. Time and space forbid me to
further enumerate other similar positions
taken by MIR. Brown, and these must suf-
fee TO inform the reader of his unreliable
ity as historian when Smiths concerned.
THE OXFORD TRACT.
This Oxford tract Is great obstacle in
the way of the enemies OF Smith, and
Mr.. Brown has shown cleverness IN
disposing OF IL by concluding. without
particle OF evidence, that 1t was written
throughout by Smith himself. 1t Is CON-
posed Of two parts. First, map and de-
scription Of Virginia, its soil. climate, and
inhabitants, written by Captain John