Newspaper Page Text
fill MACKUM 1 MXMWwmmvsempk
AND AeKICUI/nrHAL, AND mercantile INTEEEIKENCER. 9
* rtMCd mUI Z T " CS<ta ”° a " (l * •Vartnartu’ce S. at FUe oUaAper ann^^i^Za^.
VOL. I.
For July ,
" fpson Stiles,
\n-lHtMat tilt Sowt-hwst'in the town of Tho-
I Easton, on the first Tuesday in July neat,
LI oT cfland, N0.'28 in the 15th district ofoti
dirilly Monroe now Upson, levied on as tiie
| property of Joseph D. Arviu, to satisfy sundry fi
las f 10 f i an d No. 52, in the 16th district of for
mKi, Houston now Upson, also, a negro fellow
V i, name of Abb, Utk.cn as the property oi 1 len-
Sl' 3 -J KiU.,h V Min. | ■„. of
■U J t g s gVt-lbN, n “W.
* lfiitib sales.
jfji b e Mat the Court-house in the town of Ma
roii, on the first Tuesday in July next,
UTATER lot No. 16, and improvements, occu
\\ pied by Day & Butts, and negro boy Ed
mund all levied on as the property of Nathaniel
Cornwell, or his interest in sain property, to sa
tisfv a ft fa from Mclntosh Superior Court.
g negroes, Simon a boy and Missouri a girl,
gold as the property of Ehud Harris, to datisly a fi
fa in favor of Francis Bacon.
Will be sold * above,
IX\VO negro girls, Missouri about 5 years old
and Loretto about 3 years old, taken as the
property of William P. Harris, oue negro girl
named Mary about 16 years old, 202£ acres of
Land No. 141 in the thifd district originally
Houston now Bibb county—levied on as the prop
erty of Joshua Jordan, to satisfy sundry fieri fa
cias in favor 6f John S. Hunter bearer vs. said
Harris and Jordan—property pointed out by the
defendants—levy returned to me by Burwell M’-
Lendon constable.
Abner Cherry’s interest in ten acres of Land
and improvements, v hereon said Cherry now
lives, known by No. 2—levied on to satisfy one
fieri facias in favor of Kimberly A Chisholm vs.
G. W, Jackson, and Abner Cherry and others —
levy returned to nie by John femith constable.
11. 11. HOWARD, Dtp. Sh'ff.
Jit the same place, on the first Tuesday in July,
Three negroes, Simon a boy about ten years
eld, Missouri a girl about 8 years old ; sold as
the property of William P. Harris to satisfy a
mortgage fieri facias from the Inferior Court of
Jlibb Comity in favor of Kimberly & Chisholm
Vs said Harris.
WM. B. CONE, Sheriff.
HoiiMok Sal“*.
Will he sold at the'Court-lhuse in the town of Perry
on the first Tuesday in July.
fT and one half Lots Pine l.and in the.tenth dist.
of Houston county, well improved, whereon
John ilillips now lives, on Moss Creek, adjoin
ing Tull,Jimerson and others—all levied on as
property of Abner Wimberly land William Ham
ilton, executors of Richard Smith, dec. to sarisfy
fieri facia3 in favor of /'uchburiuh Lamar,
•Msc, u-ill be sold us above.
OfiC) j ~6) acres of Land, more or less,known
by Lot No. 16 in the first district
formerly Henry now Butts county—levied on as
the property of Hugh Hamil, to satisfy * fieri la
cias issued from the superior court of said county
n favor of Elijah I‘tulget vs. Hugh Hamil and
Simeon Hamil end llryant V. Ilaiuil.
dO’.t acres of land, more or less, known by Lot
No. 150 in the third district of formerly Monroe
® u hs county —levied on a* the property of
“ i'diam Beufret to satisfy a fieri facias issued
Irotn a justices court of Newton county in favor of
James Howard vs. h. B. Hargroves ad’mr. (Sc.
< t VI llliam Bennet, deceased—property pointed
uut by plaintiff's attorney.
H. W. HARKNESS, Pep. Sheriff.
...... ~ Units Sales.
t hi tic soul at the Court -house in the town of Jack
son. on the first Tuesday in July next ,
| ne B to giri about oix or seven years old by the
name ot Kisiah, one yoke oxen and a cart, one
cow and calf, S heifers about two or three years
o Q, one steer yearling, two sows anil txVeivc pigs
and seven shoats, one patent clock, one folding
ij a e, lour sitting chairs, one silver watch, ode
w* 11 , tnahogany dressing table, one pine
<_ uos “-ail levied on as the property of Painter A.
T l M ins '*° shtisiy a fieri facias issued from Butts
-a i nor ton rt in favor of Simpson Bobovs said
„ l "S lns ~ m property pointed out by plaintiff's attor
ney and defendant.
J'j jt I ''° * ' n ®'l uare No. 19, whereon isadw'ell
"s and Bet No. 4 in square No. 1!) in the
j 1 1 01 ,ckson, each being2os feet square more
•fiess; levied on as the property of Daniel M.
Thm? 01110 sa,ls, - v B ”hdry fieri facias issued from
ro s . su P er,or court, one in favor of Elisha W.
cr alia two in favor of the officers of Butts
* *r crior co '> by vs. Daniel M. Jackson.
JOSEPH SUMMERLIN, Sheriff.
„ hundred acres Pine Land is the fourteenth
k strife Houston county, with a good gristmill
knownm ’ v T as Dykes’ mill; levied on as the
property id „ °rdan Dykes and Edward Welch,
his security, v 1 satisfy two fieri facias in favor of
Benjamin Kent levy made and returned to me
hy a constable.
, One smail past of a Lot in the town of Perry,
..Down in the plan of said town by No. 1 in square
•e'.ttr 1). being 210 feet in length and 30 in bredth
wiva a store house thereon, fronting Broad street;
-‘ vied on as the oroperty of Keeland Tyner, to
satisfy aferi facias in favor of Isaiah Chapman.
Smart, negro boy, ten or twelve years old; lev
red on as ike property of James Finley principal,
Gnomon ISm nsou and E. K. Hodges ids secu
-‘ties, to salwf / two fieri facias vs. James Finley
--levy made arm’ returned to me by a constable.
One featherbed— —levied on as the property of
JvhnTyner, taxscollcti.tor of Houston county, to
e itisty two fieri facias on °* a l avor of the Justices
?* 'he Inferior Court for the uso °*’ the county of
Housto(,. f
HENRY W. RAiI UV, Sheriff.
?u hseribe*s have united themsol>. es ‘ :l
i , he Practice o£ Medicine. Their shop is Zu "■*
C ' urto h*eßepßtm-v Office.
AMBROSE BABER.
Jn' MES T. PERSONS.
May 3, o—tf
<!/ eet ry (ft ipiic m,
y (f , * (ffivr.
T To t itPubHc.
lIE address ol Mr. James M. Wayne in
the Republican ol the 2d inst. itas im
post and upon me the duty of submitting the fol
lowing statement. It it shall be made to ap
pear that he lias under an affectation of pub
lic duty indulged his personal hostility to me,
that lie has prostituted the high dignity of a
Representative of the people of Georgia in
< engross to the gratification ol a malignant
revenge in the only way in which it could be
successfully and safely done—and if I shall
shew that to accomplish this object he has
wilfully perverted facts and stated falsehoods,
it may afford him the salutary lesson, which
lie has yet to learn— that neither station nor
influence can protect him from the conse
quences of his own iniquities.
I am fully aware that the nibral sense of
this community is offended by the public dis
cussioh of private quarrels—But the course
that my adversary lias pursued affords me on
ly the alternative of submission to his ca
lumnies, or a public vindication of myself.
A residence of some sixteen years in this
place has taught me that any individual, how
ever detached from all collateral influences
—may when he has truth and justice on his
side, successfully resist all the ’ combinations
that the malevolent or the powerful may form
against 1 him. It is true, that defeated at
Washington, where he carried with him the
weight of a representative of Georgia, Judge
Wayne has transplanted the controversy info
a public print of this community. And if the
circulation of that print had been confined to
this city, 1 should have felt the duty of a re
ply less imperative upon me. With the
judgment of those whcknbw us both, I should
have been content —even with all die weight
of his misrepresentations and authority against
me.
In the spring of 1827, I was appointed a!
commissioner to carry into effect a law of i
Congress, appropriating $50,000 for remov-1
ing obstructions in the Savannah River, be-j
low the city. I
I continued in the discharge of my duties,]
and in December, 1820, a letter was aihlroles. i
ed to me by Mr. Pleasanton, sth auditor, sta- \
ting that “complaint had recently been made }
to the President, that up to this "day not the !
smallest improvement ha3 been made in the (
navigation of the Savannah River,” and 1I
was requested, “for the information of the
President as well as himself to make to him
a full and detailed report. &c.” According
ly I mede a report on the 2d of January 1830.
Forty three days after this letter must have
been received, at Washington, that is, on the
22d February, 1830, (see No. 1) Judge Wayne
addressed a letter to the commissioners of pi
lotage, informing them that tgc secretary of
the treasury “is willing that the balance (of I
the appropriation of $50,000) shall be appli
ed under the direction of the commissioners
of pilotage”— and asks, “will the commis
sioners undertake the work, and the appro
priation Of the'fund unspent, with the other ]
appropriations which may be made r ’ lie |
says upon, my authority, that the dam between j
Fig and Hutchison islands will be finished (
“in this month,” (February) I refer to thfej
statement'to prove that Judge .Wayne knew j
(as was his duty) that I had made a report on
the 2d of January, shewing that much had j
been done to improve the navigation of our 1
river, lor it is in that report Isay, “If suffi
cient quantity of ballast stone shali arrive, of
w hich there is every prospect, the dam will
be finished in all February.” Judge Wayne at
tempts to justify his application to have me
superseded in the appointment, in conse- [
quencc of a survey having been forwarded to I
him and to the President, stating that nothing j
had been done to improve the navigation of,
this river, and in consequence of a certificate ]
of nine pilots to the same effect. I shall ]
shcvV hereafter, according to his own state-]
merits, that he was ignorant of the existence j
of that certificate until the ?oth <ff April fol
lowing; Admitting, however, that he pos- 1
sessed these statements, and that hedid iVot]
believe in the correctness of my report, this :
duty was a plain one. lie should have com- i
municated these matters to the secretary of
the treasury, called for an examination, and
notified me of what he had done. To such a
eburse I could have taken no exception. In
stead of this, lie pledges the secretary of the
treasury —how truly he has not shewn—that
the commissioners of pilotage shall be appoin
ted in my stead, if they will accept. Here is
a positive determination manifested to have
me removed from rnv appointment; without
any regard to the manner in which I had dis
charged the duties. In his letter of the Btli
of April, IS30 —which I shall again refer to,
(No- 3) —he expresses his determination to
have nothing to do with the subject of obtain
ing further appropriations for the improve
ment of our river, unless I should he removed
from the agency. In that letter, lie says, “As
regards our own river, I have marked out a
course for myself, ill relation to till future
expendittircsJ r or it, and the agency fdr their
disbursement demanded by the responsibility
of my attitude to our people, and without
which 1 will have nothing to do with the su!>-
j jic-t : I have never made myself responsible
j for what I cannot direct. In this business I
1 do not intend to be understood as een uring
ft/. Daniel! for any want rtf attention to his
datd u’S commissioner.'’' These quotations es
tablish t.hrt e important facts—lst. I was to be
removed in any event; 2d, I had not been
“wanting in attention toiny duty as coinnns
sioner apd 3d, if 1 "as not removed, he
“would have nothing to do with the subject.
What a commentary * s iu r ' furnished upon
thf daqjqptiop iu hu add-. / of 2i in-’*-;
MACON : FRIDAY, JULY 1, 1831.
when speaking of me, he says, “I never did
an act which could by malignity itself be per
verted into a desire upon my part to do him
harm.”
Judge W avne now professes to have been
prompted in his application to have the com
missioners of pilotage appointed in my stead
by considerations of economy—to save the
public money—why then was it that he left
untouched the oflices ol appraisers for this
port' 1 here are two and each receives his
fifteen hundred dollars yearly for duties
which could as 1 understand and believe, be
discharged in one day if not in one hour ofj
each month. But the truth is that the sum.
gestion that the commissioners of pilotage
would undertake the disbursement of the
balance ol the appropriation free of any charge
on their part, was purely an after thought.—
I he proffer was flrst jnade by them in a meet
ing held in this place on the 11th of March
1820— or sixteen days after Judge Wayne
had made them a tender oj the appointment.—
But although the commissioners of Pilotage
did offerthem their services ‘free of any
charge on their part’ they say expressly “they
arc confident that a competent person for that
purpose may he had who would devote the
whole of his time to any work that might be
deemed advisablejfor a less sum than six dol
lars per day" —thus clearly indicating that
though they Were to act “free of any charge
on their part,” yet that they would obtain”a
“competent .person” to act under them “for
less than six dollars per day” the sum paid to
me—(see no. 8) And yet Judge Wayne Las
the hardihood to Say be desired the appoint
meat of the commissioners of Pilotage be
cause they would do the work for nothing—
when it is manifest'Biat fit rendered them the
appointment 10 days before iny suggestion
was made about gratuitous services—and al
thoughthey declined recompense for them
selves as a body, they expressly reserve the
right of appointing a competent person under
them who was to be paid—and he might be a
! member of the board.
Lpon receiving the resolution of the com-'
missioners of Pilotage with the accompanying
Judge Wayne sends them to
the Secretary of the Treasury with a letter
dated 25th March 1830 (soe No. 4) in which
is .the follow ing remark, “if the offer of the
commissioners to superintend’the w ork and
disburse the fund had been accepted, there
would have been a saving of more than five
thousand dollars which kus "been paid for the
last two years as a per diein allowance to Df,
Daniell.” In a subsequent part of the etfme
letter, he says “Believing that such an appoint
ment, (as that 1 held) “was never needed,
and that in the present State of the work and
exhausted condition "of the appropriation its
continuance 13 altogether improper and urged
by a very respectable portion of my constitu
ents ii-ho arc immediately interested to make
such a representation, I rccCmmehd that fur
ther disbursements lie for the present discon
tinued, and that its further application be un
der the commissioner's of pilotage." Who
composed this “very respectable portion of
his constituents” is yet unknown, and will, I
presume remain so. The judicious reader
will have perceived that the offer of the com
missioners of Pilotage to superintended the
Works in which 1 was engaged “free of any
charge on their part” was made. On the 11th
of March and communicated on the
25th of the same month by Judge Wayne to
the Secretary of the Treasury, and that the
absurdity of his declaration that if their offer
had been accepted when made, a saving of
more than five thousand dollars would have
been made, is without relief.
•7 ,
In the above letter Judge Wayne inclosed
to the Secretary of the Treasury, sundry pro
ceedings of the commissioners of pilotage,
and their letters to the. Treasury Department
commenced in December, 1827 for the pur
pose of superceding me in the 'agency—l re
fer to these documents now to shoft’ that it
was known to Judge Wayne that they had
already prejudged tne, arid by the expression
of unfavourable opinions of time, had dis
qualified therhselves From being impartial
judges of what I had done—and that conse
quently it was hi him an act of gross injus.
ticc to me to recommend them for that duty
in his letter of the 3d of April 1829. Francis
Sorrel, Chairman protein—says that “Capt.
Nicholas succeeded Mr. Farkman, but soon
after went out of office, Arid hence the gener
al interest of the port and city, lost all repre
sentation in the ivork going on for the pur
pose of improving the navigable waters of the
river In plain language because the duty of
superintending the works devolved exclusive
ly upon me, the port and city lost all repre
sentation in them. This community will
probably learn with some surprise that-1 was
not sufficiently indentified by residence and
interests with this port and city to fepresent
it—whilst Captain William Crabtree junior
was—and yet they have the grave declara
tion of Francis Sorrel to that point—lt can
not be contended that the Hoard of commis
sioners of Pilotage of 1830 are not responsi
ble for these acts of the board of 1827-8: be
cause at a meeting of the hoard on the 11th
of March Is3o they order the resolutions,
proceedings and correspondence of the board
of 1827 and 8 to he Sent on to Judge Wayne
thereby approving them to the full extent of
their contents.
In consequence Of Judge Wayne’s letter
of the 25th March to the Secretary of the
Treasury on the 30th of that month, I was in
structed to suspend the further progress of
the work. At the same, time I was informed
that the commissioners of pilotage had been
“requested to rPT-ort whet-her any improve-
! rnent had been or was likely to be made by
: the work done.” I had been for some tim
j familiar with floating rumors that the co..
j missioners of pilotage were to be appointoJr
to supersede me—l knew not at the time the
i names of all who composed the board. I did
however know that I had several enemies in
it. I knew of several also in whom I had all
confidence. And I further knew that three
of the ten constituted a quorum, a majority of
Whom could transact business. 1 certainly
Jiad not much faith in the honest intentions to
ine- of my enemies. In my letter of the 7th
April, 1830, (see rio 5) to the Fifth Auditor
J *ay ot the commissioners of Pilotage “ feel
ing as 1 do that those who have taken the lead
in this business have been actuated by other
motives than a regard to the public good, I
must protest against their being my judges.
I care nßt who that are honorable and just
men be entrusted with the examination, but
they will not in my humble opinion be dispo
sed to render me justice—That justice, I cer
tainly am entitled to at the hands of govern
ment.” In my letter of 14th April °to the
satoc officer (see no G) 7 days after the form
er, 1 say “1 am nbt to be understood as ex
pressing a beliet that all the commissioners of
pilotage have been or could be governed by
unworthy motives. There are some of them for
whom I feel all respect—But I protest against
being subjected to the inquisition of any ir
responsible body whose proceedings are pri
vate, and where of 9 or 10 members, the
chairman and two btheis constitute a quorum,
to transact business, bv which it follows that
two members,'(and I have more than to en
emies in that board) may decide any ques
tion before them, and where a designing
chairman may select his men for the occa
sion.” At tMt time the following persons
composed the board of commissioners of pilot
age Win. Crabtree, jr. chairman, B. E. Stiles,
John Candler, F. H. Wclriian, W. J. Hunter,
Deo. Hall, J. Auze, S. C. Dunning, J. B.
Herbert and J. Ganahl. The seven last na
tfidd' persons were not designed to be
included in the disrespectful allusions of
these letters. Some of them however, have
preferred placing themselves under the re
mark instead of the cxceptibn—As it is en
tirely a matter of taste, I shall not dispute
the point with them—but cheerfully acquiesce
in their choice of their own company.
Those who will take the pains to compare
the report made by the commissioners of
pilotage upon the works in which I had been
engaged with that made by Messrs. Bullock,
Morel and Habersham, will be enabled to
judge how well founded were my apprehen
sion ilireiation to the former.
On Bth of April 1830 (see No. 2) Judge
Wayne writes to the commissioners of pilot
age that Mf. Pleasanton had informed him
that I Trad been “ordered to comtotmicatc to
your body the letter written to him (Dr. Dan
iell,) with a request that commissioners of pi
lotage would express their opinion upon the
efficiency 6f the work done to deepen our riv
er and upon the suitabiehess of the dredging
machine for future operations.” 1 subjoin
the letter of Mr. Pleasonfon with the inclo
sure (see No-7) to shew that no such order
was ever issued. It Was'the policy of Judge
Wayne to make this statement to prevent tile
commissioners of pilotage from asking me for
information on the subject of the works, which
they would not do when they believed that I
had withheld from them a communication
I which I had been ordered to make.
In the same letter he expresses a hope of
getting an Engineer of reputation to “ a test
their enquiries and to act in concert with
them”—and repeats the promise that the fu
ture disbursements of the fund shall be made
by them —and then says, “ it is necessary for
you to proceed in this business at once with
out proper assistance.” I make this quotation
for two purposes, Ist. That Judge Wayne
had not confidence in the knowledge and skill
of the commissioners of Pilotage for the duties
to which he had them appointed, and 2d.
That whilst the Fifth Auditor, Mr. Pleasan
ton requested them ■“ to furnish the informa
tion as soon as their convenience would per
mit,” —Judge Wayne suggested that they
might await the “ proper assurance” which
he had promised to apply for—whether he
really ever made such an application docs
not appear. I presume he had fuilconfiderice
in liis own engineering in this matter.
On the Bth of April, 1830, I w rote to the
Secretary ot the Treasury, and requested him
to communicate to me “copies of the informa
tion upon which he had ordered a suspension
of the Work” and asked if Judge Wayne had
made any representations to him on the sub
ject. On 30th of April,lß3o,l received a letter
from Judge Wayne, which, I presume was in
consequence of my letter of Bth, to Mr. Ing
ham though it a flee Is another Object. (See no
8.) This was the first and, only communica
tion Which I ever received from him on the
subject of his movements against me at
Washington! ,
In the close of that letter he says, “ it may
be as well for me to say, as Mr. Pleason
ton may not have done so—that it was at my
request, that the further disbursement Of the
fund has been discontinued for the present.”
I ask special attention to this operation.—
Here he spei*V.n of a snryey Awarded to him.—
In liis publication of 2d inst. the survey he
says was sent to the President and co]ries to
him. It was not sufficient for the Judge,
that the complaint should have been
made to the President. He knew as I have
shewn already, that I had replied to the call
made “for the information of the President.”
Ho knew that if my report was false, it could
be ascertained by an examination, and In; had
a right to call for one- The:- > rothing s-JJ
I in this letter about his being “urged by a very
: respectable portion of his fellow citizens,who
vere immediately interested.” lie knew
: that I might inquire who composed this“very
respectable portion.”—He implies nothing
about the appointment of the Commissioners
of Pilotage to supersede me. lie says noth
ing about the certificate of the nine pilots,
upon which he has since laid so much stress,
and which it appears from his own statements j
he never saw until 30th of April, 1830. In
his letter to me of2d (Ist) of < ‘etober, 1530, !
Judge Wayne says, “the examination of pa
pers and accounts in connection With Bargys
petition ol which l knew nothing nor had ever
heard, until after tfie committee of claims had
made and printed their report.” In his ad
dress to the public of the 2d inst. he says, on
the day the report‘of the committee on claims
on Bargy’s petition was made to the House
of Representatives in print, as it contained
expressions which I could not approve, I sent
tw o copies of it to Dr. Daniel!.” The certi
ficate of the nine pilots is one of the papers
printed with Bargy’s petition which was sent
to me by Judge Wayne with the report of the
committee on claims and his letter Of 30th
April, 1830. Now as ‘he knew nothing nor
had ever heard of Bargy’s petition until after
the Committee on claink had made and prin
ted their report,” and as “on the day the report
of the committee on claims was made to the
11. of Representatives in print he sent me two
copies” and as his letter accompanying these
copies, bear date on the 30th April, 1830—
and as the certificate of the nine pilots, was
one of the papers printed With Bargy’s peti
tion and sent to me by Judge Wayne, it
appears to me somewhat difficult to be
lieve that the Judge ever saw the certificate
of the nine pilots, until oOthof April, 1830;
and that consequently it will be difficult to
persuade others—however, successful he may
have been in convincing himself that that
paper influenced him in applying in February
preeeeding, to have the Commissioners of
Pilotage appointed to supercede me.
But making Judge Wayne’s integrity a
matter of faith, as we cannot of fact—was his
letter to me of the 30th of April, 1830, such
a notification to me either in regard to time,
or the information it contained—riot as I was
entitled to receive—but as he was bound by
every consideration of Justice to give me ?
I humbly conceive that no one Will so con
sider it. Why was it that he did not give
me proper and timely notice ? Mere not all
the statements which he alleges to have re
ceived against me eXparte? Might they not
have been prompted by malice —or might
they not be misrepresentations ? But noth
ing of this kind suggested itself, to this up
right and honest Judge. But perhaps a
notice to me was deemed unnecessary because
I was to be rerhoved in any event. The most
faithful discharge of my duties—the most
successful application of the funds entrusted
to me’, could avail me nothing ; I was to give
place to the Commissioners of Pilotage un
der any event —and wherefore? Certainly
not for any skill which they had manifested
in their efforts to Improve the navigation of
our river with a sum very far exceeding, (as
I believe) one hundred thousand dollars. But
the Commissioners of Pilotage were a “ pub
lic body” and therefore gave the public a sure
security of economy—than could be afforded
by any individual.” This remark is made
in the face of a fact known to this communi
ty that the Commissioners of Pilotage have
been in the disbursement of the mon’n s levi
ed foi Improving the navigation of this river
subjected to no accountability—and that at
the time that it was made, they never had
accounted cither to llie government of this
State or of the United States, for what they
had received, arid howcycV correctly they
may have applied the funds placed at their
i disposal—even when after his promises to
serve , them at Washington, Judge Wayne
himself participated in their patronage —tljeir
is nr* evidence of the fact known to the pub
lic authorities. , .
In his letter of 30th of April 1830 Judge
Wayne says “ the enclosed decumets were
printed upon my motion.” The subsequent
part of the ame letter shews that the “ peti
j tio’n of Bargy” composed a part of the docu
| rnents—ln his letter to rue of 2d (Ist) Octo
ber 1830 Judge Wayqc says “with Bargy’s
petition of which I know nothingnor had ev
er heard until after the committee of claims
had made and printed their report. T 6 re
concilc these statements (and who would Ire
• so very uncharitable as to refuse !) wc must
: suppose that the honorable member is capable
I of making, and carrying motions “ without
knowing or having heard” of tlieir object—
j 1 feel the lcs3 difficulty in supposing this
! from the fact of the honorable gentleman’s
j having mode a spfccch at Washington upon
i some great occasion, I believe the celcbTa
; tiori of Jefferson's birth day—which no body
j could understand, until it was suggested that
s the piece was originally in blank versej and
that the manner of delivery was sufficiently
line to atone to the spectators for any deficien
cy in the sense.
l have referred repeatedly to Judge
Wayne’s letters to thb commissioners of pi
lotage.—l do so once more to express my
strong doubts of the opinions and determina
tions there attributed to the Secretary of the
Treasury being well founded. 1 do not be
lieve that it was decided on by Mr. Ingham
that the commissioners of pilotage should be
appointed to supersede md.—lf it was let
Judge Wayno show it. It is very certain
that the promise said ly him to have been
made was never fulfilled.
In consequence of the report of Messrs.
JhdJoeb. l and ITahefcbaro. rav e /, vr>dy t^'t
! a s commissioner for removing of obstructions
: in the Savannah river received the unqualifb
ed approval of the Secretary of the Treasury,
as is shown by his letters, (sec no. 9.) The’
time then had arrived for Judge Wayne to
come forward and do me justice, if as he pro
fessed he had design* and me no wrong—he di.l
not do so. And 1 addressed him my note of
17th September, 1830, (see no. 10.) In
writing the note I had a two fold object—
first to show to him that I was not to be won
tonly assailed with impunity—and secondly
to fulfil that intention without violating the
laws of this state. That letter has, by Judge
Wayne, been constructed into a challenge
those who read it w ill judge for themselves.
If it was a challenge it was entitled to a
prompt answer—l was so in any eVent. But
the Judge professed that there were docu
ments at Washington necessary for his jus
tification, for which he would write:—and if'
they did not sustain him, the obligation to
give me the required meeting woirnl be in
creased—This was his then ultimatum—l
gave him fully to understand that 1 deemed
his course an evasion—The Secretary of the
Treasury's letter to me of 24th May, 1830,
proves this. In that "letter he says that—“ A
call having been made by the House of Rep.
copies of the whole corres
pondence, &c. near the time yours oT Bth of
April was received, I did not think it proper
to anticipate the answer, to the House of
Representatives by furnishing the copies you
desired—as I suppose the whole willin’ print
ed in which form they will be equally ac
ceptable to you.” (See no. 11.) From tlrtj
quotation it is manifested that Judge Waym
knew that all the documents relating to the
subject had been furnished to the House of
Representatives at his call. They were print
ed 1 believe at his motion, and freely circu
lated in this community—With this letter (t
Mr. Ingham before me, I was fully justified
in the opinion expressed to Judge Wayne in
more than one of my letters, that the couise
he pursued was one of evasion—a mere sub
terfuge to gain time—in the hope that some
thing Kc knew not what might arise to re
lease him from a dilemma. And how fully
has Ilia conduct since his return from Wash
ington,justified this opinion—He ptesents no
documents. It is true he alludes to some
thing that some body wrote to the President
—but does not produce it. Why not ?Is the
informer ashamed of his statements ? or is
Judge Wayne ashamed of the informer ? If he
is, lie must be base indeed—for I had deem
cd it a sure passport to toe Judges favor and
friendship to he my enemy.
The sequel is briefly stated—With a flour
ish about his “legislative duties.” the Judge
inquires whether l persevered “in demanding
such a meeting as was called for in my letter
of 17th Sept, last”—why the necessity of this
question? Was it that he hoped that I would
treat him as his ‘conduct Would have fully
authorised, find take no further notice of
him? My reply to the inquiry, which bad
been delayed by circumstances which I could
not control, produced the declaration that my
“challenge" of I7th September had teen ac
cepted. To tins I ’objected—l wag indispos
ed to violate those laws, which Judge Wayne
and my self had on several occasions solemn
ly pledged ourselves to maintain—there was
another reason which operated strongly upon
me. During the last session of the Legisla
ture, I had strenuously advocated a modifica
tion of the law against duelling—for the pur
pose of apportioning the punishment to the
degree of offence. For instance I though
that the man who sent a challenge and fought
should be punished more severely than tin*
one who accepted and that When a challcng :
was sent and accepted, but the affair amic
bly adjusted, that the seconds should not t<
punished, because the reconciliation of tf
parties proved that the seconds had acted
peace makers. The present law it is knov r.
so far a3 relates to exclusion from office, op •
rates equally upon all who have participate i
in the giving or receiving A challenge—'!>>
recognize my letter of 7th September as a
challenge would subject me to the impatatio i
of having attempted to legislate for my pr ■
vatc advantage—as the adoption of the bill
which I advocated would have repealed the
existing law, which I would have made my
self, obnoxious to by making my letter of 17t!t
Sept, a challenge. These considerations jus
tify inc in the course I pursued—Why Judge*
Wayne should have made my admission of that
letter (17th Sept.) to be—what it was not—
a challenge—when lie was assured that I Was
prepared to challenge him whenever he Would
meet me beyond the limits of this State, he
has not informed us. To that condition, I
finally, though with great reluctance submit
ted. It was then proposed tfiat Judge Wayne
and myself should fight with broad swords, it
when one was disabled from the future use of
the sw'ord that immediate resort should be had
to rifles, with which the combat was to bo
continued (See No. 12.’) To this mode it'
fighting, my frit nd Dr. Richardsone at onen
very properly objected—“as one not usual o,i
such occasions.” rV.elling is a custom —i;.s
usages depend entirely on custom. THe
w r eapon3 arc established by custom—-and that
custom excludes ihc use of the broad sw on!—
It also excludes tJ.e use of the tomahawk.
Judge Wayno has fell himself authorised
to present him* If before the public w ith sun
dry high sounding denunciations of me. 1’
they please hit stomach as much as they cb -
light his tasVi no doubt he will derive tbr .1
from them.
If as 1 yf jstuhe his o’ i et has been to fi r
stall pnby i* opinion by mak : ng q prip *t
mcfiS l ’pvefinno be has ’himsi !*v
NO. 22.