The Daily Advertiser

Mr. CHILDS,

The asperities contained in Dr. Bailey's affidavit, I am sensible, must have proceeded wholly from Dr. Wright Post's representation of the affair to him, as appears by his very extraordinary deposition, together with Dr. M'Knight's omission of the postscript to my letter, which entirely exculpated Dr. Bailey as having advised or abetted in the publications which have been alluded to. A regard for the absent, prevents me at this time, from bringing Dr. Bailey in question, which shall remain until his return, when I shall personally demand an explanation. Before I dismiss this subject, I would wish to inform the public, that I am sorry Mr. Post has not paid more attention to what he really ought to have declared in his affidavit, when he asserts that I told him I expected a reward from Dr. M'Knight if I would trace to him the source of the attempts against his character, and that letters had passed between us previous to those that were exhibited to the public in consequence of these assertions; it is therefore his business to reconcile the contradiction contained in it, when there does not appear by the letters published, that I ever had an interview with Dr. M'Knight previous to this period, neither did these ever appear to have been but the one letter wrote, and more so when I assure the public that Mr. Post has so far forgot what he really swore to in the affidavit, that when I called on him last Tuesday evening, he declared to me, that he never recollected that I even told him that I expected a reward from Dr. M'Knight.

MICHEAU.