Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.