{"character_count": 7560, "word_count": 1323, "ccnet_language_score": [0.982200026512146], "ccnet_perplexity": [2074.10009765625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
l udy IeHnsYlVanlu LOOK up beneral JdckS0nt every conspicuous friend of the Vice-Presdent supported General Jackson, with constancy, zeal and unifor- mity, and that General Jackson knows it." Leaving

 1t therefore to be inferred, that every conspicuous friend of Mir Calhoun in this matter. had been inhu- enced so to act by the cePresident. Now, nnfor- nately for his friend Lumpkin. the Vice-President declares to the people of the United States that he was neutral between Gen. Jackson and Mir Adams

 Wonderful!!! It is presumed that there was not another individual in the United States in this happy state of quescence upon the presidential eecton.- General Jackson and Mir Adams were so unlike in their temper manners and principles, that it is at least difficult to conceive how any man who had the least knowledge of the two men could be neutral be- tween them. But l believe Mir Calhoun was not euen neutral between these gentlemen. Does the nation recollect the letter of the 3d of Julv lS24 by which Mir Calhoun, Mir Adams and John McLane then Postmaster General withdrew their names from the 4th July Dinner at Washington, because NRidR Rd,oards excluded from that dinnerl How happened this un;on2 That letter at least shews friendly feeling between them; and the act was done to prop the toterng reputation of one of MT Adams political supporters whose son-inaw wielded the yote of Illinois, which vote secured Mir Adams election If it had been withheld he would not have been elected, at least on the first ballot. Mir Calhoun states, that his opinion between the two candidates towards whom he was in the happy state ofneutra- y was founded upon principle which ;ie ishowever careful not disclose, but leaves to be inferred from his subsequent conduct. What that principle is, am entirely at loss to oneciure nor has his sub sequent conduct furnished any clue to arrive at it, Does he mean that the principle he audes to is, that the candidate who receives the highest electoral vote must necessarily be elected by the House of Repre- sentativesi The constitution has such principle in it. If that had been the intention of the farmers of that instrument, they would have said that the can ddate receiving the highest number of electoral votes should be President. Or does he mean that

 the Representatives of State are bound to give the same vote as the electors had donel That principle Is not in the Constitution. The only limitation i'm posed upon the House of Representatives that they shall elect of the three highest of the candidates This the House ofRepresentatives did, and therefore violated no principle of the Constitution, however they may have inlringed upon the principle of the Vice President, which to me is entirely occult. l believe he alone can tell what he means if he means any thing; which is very questionable. Mir Lump kin after stating the conduct of the VicePresidenis friends, adds How then can il be possible that Ge- neral Jackson can suspect the friendship. consancy or sincerity of y0u. or your friends? No; he cannoi he will not, he does not. l have quite too much confidence in the General to believe such idle tales. Poor gentleman he has been deceived in the course that Mir Calhoun has pursued and he is equally de- ceived in that which the General has pursued, and will probably continue to pursue towards the Vice President. The keen observer of passing events, and the prophet, alike mistaken both to the President and Vice-President, but possibly he may be more fortunate than have been in discovering the important principle which the Vce-President thinks ought have governed the election of Pres

 dent by the House of Representatives. in February, 1895.

 l proceed now to comment on Mir Calhoun's notes to my letter ofthe 2d October 1880. It is however, due to myself to state that that letter was written without any expectation that ii would be published. l am however glad that it was published, and that it has been accompanied with notes by the Vice Pres dent. The notes establish two most important facts lst. That John c. Calhoun established the Washington Republican, for the purpose ofUiiifying my reputation; and 2d, That he was the instigator and inventor of the charges of Ninian Edwards h. ganst my official and private character. The evi- dence by which these charges established, would he received in any court of justice in the civilized world; and is tenfold stronger than that which he has deemed admissible against me. It is rule of evidence ofcvery days application in courts, that where the parties to suit are together, and one al

 lodges fact touching their law suit in the presence and hearing of the other which is not denied by the other it good evidence against the party not deny | ing it. My letter to the Vice-Presiden of the 2d October 1880, was answered by him on the Both of that month. That letter was, therefore, in his hands

 from the Both of October until the 25th of February, when he annexes parcel of Notes to it in the Te- legraph. I shall in the sequel state the evidence upon which these notes ascribed to the VicePre- sdent. They such that he at least will be con- strained to admit. In my letter to the Vice -Presi- dent of the 2d October, 1S30 charge him with hay ing established the Washington Republican for the purpose of UWfying my reputdtiOn and that it was edited by clerk in his otlice In one of his notes, he denies that Thomas L. McKenney, the editor of that press, was clerk in the War Department while he was editor of that paper. He asserts that | McKennev sold out his interest in that paper in 1923, and was not appointed clerk in the War De- partment until February 1924. The Vce-President then admits that he did establish that Press for the purpose of rMifying my repmation. have not the means of ascertaning whether the fact be correctly stated But for the sake of argument, let it be ad- mitted How does that benefit the Vice-President? Had McKenney been appointed clerk before he became Editor, or while he was, Mir Calhoun would, in all probability have alleged, that any in reference by the Secretary to prevent the abuse which was heaped upon me, by that Press, would have been an infringement ofthe liberty ofthe Press But if the appointment was made after he ceased his editorial labors, it was apparently made to remu nerate the services he had rendered by abusing me In my letter ofthe 2d October, inform MT Calhoun that he had been charged in Charleston paper with being concerned with the Ninian Edwards conspra. cy, to destroy my reputation, and charged him with having excited Edwards to the act, and with revising | the charges and state what General Noble informed me. ofhis (Caboun's) daily visits to Edwards, for or 10 days before he set out for the West No part o this charge is denied in the notes. The whole charge is therefore admitted In the Vice-Presdent's ela- borate essay ofhe 29th May, 1880, to the President speaking of the Nashville letter, he says, "he (Mr Crawiord) offers reason for charging me with SC dishonoratie an act that of betrayng the proceed

 ngs of the cabinet and that for the purpose oi m turing one of my associates in the administration. - He adds a few lines further on, "But why charge me. and not Mr Adams?" In my letter of the 2d October last to the VicePresident is stated "I copy question from your letter of the 29th May, 1850 thus expressed: you ask, why not charge MT Adams with having written i' "My reply is, that the an swer is conclusive That letter contained two false