New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-07-08
y..~ tp-~744 t-~k-A 4 k, '"~~''-U. II " |"~~N-1
.-,A II. 4AI>e Low. YJf~ax~At "~~f-~4-~ ~
,444~-x fix <-44~ Jt~~:4s-7 VII A+.~ "'~@- ~

Chronicle" edited by William Woodfall (brother OF
Henry Sampson Woodfa.l. the printer OF THE
Pub,ick Advertiser" in which the "Junius letters
had appeared) that "Junius 10 Super Legae Meritum
is under consideration" These all the facts
which Mr. Rae produces. though ne adds some
speculations OF his own based his estimate Of
Francis's character, and quotes some spoken and
written opinions and statements of contemporaries
OF Francis.
On these facts opinions and statements he bases
his positive assertion that 1T Is proved that he
Francis) could not have been the writer.
1t Is certainly proved that Francis could not have
written the "Junius letter OF August q. 171. nor
the letter (never published II II was ever written)
mentioned In William Woodfars notice" but
submit that Mr. Rae is very far indeed from hav-
ing proved that Francis did not write and could not
have written the letters signed "Junus" which were
printed before his departure for india
IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SPURIOUS
Mr. Rae assumes II as certain that the letter Of
August q. IVA signed "Junius." must have been
written by the person who wrote the former
letters that signature; and " he could by the
reproduction In fac-simile OF the original letter and
a comparison OF It's handwriting with that OF other
letters from Junus" show that all were written by
the same person. that assumption would be justified
But in the absence OF such proof. Calm that he
has only shown that somebody wrote and caused 10
be published. during Francis's absence from Eng
land, a letter signed "Junus" In which reference
u
possible that Francis should have had knowledge
Now "Junius' had been client for long time the
letter not sent 10 Henry Sampson Woodfall. or
1.-THE Pubick Advertiser" but TO his brother Will
fam OF THE Chronicle" who must have been. "
familiar at all with the "Junius' handwriting much
less so than his brother Henry. with whom the real
"Junius' in correspondence for years. and II Is
quite within the possibilities that some other writer
for political other purposes wrote the letter ana
assumed the name OF "Junius' In It's signature. Or
II is even possible that Francis assuming him TO
have been "Junius') before his departure for India
had some relative intimate friend 10 whom his
secret had become known either by accidental dis
covery through voluntary disclosure and with
whom ne had arranged-as a sure means OF avert
ing suspicion from himself-that letter over his
pseudonyme should appear during his absence and
that II should something relating 10 events
which had not transprcd until after his departure.
No better plan for Towering his tracks could have
been devised.
As 10 the notice published by William Woodfall
concerning the letter "Junius to Super Legale Mer'-
tum." that II was under consideration; II was
never printed: and Mr. Rae says that he concludes
that those words implied that the letter was one
which Woodfall feared 20 publish" Why IL II not
equally reasonable conclusion that the letter was
one as 10 authenticity OF which Woodfall was In
doubt and that II for that reason that he
hesitated and finally omitted. TO publish III or. ms
In the case OF the published letter OF August u,
might not Francis have arranged beforehand either
for a second letter to be written. and for the came
purpose, for the publication OF the notice as
blind? That "Junins' not averse 10 the publ
cation OF misleading notices is shown by com
muncation 10 Henry Sampson Woodfali. dated Sep
TENDER 10. 1863. In which he says referring 10 let
ter which had been written by himself and pub
lished but the authorship OF which he wished on
second thought to disavow, or to leave In uncer-
tainty): II wish II could be recalled. Suppose
you were 70 say. We have some reason to suspect