The Rhode Island American, And General Advertiser

Boston Centinel

"The Scrantious American, in its eagerness to detect what it terms a "deceptive statement" in this paper, has omitted to state, that the Intelligencer's explanation of the motion alluded to (which was in type for our present publication before the American was issued, and will be found under our Washington head) was not received here until after our last paper was stricken off. We cannot doubt, that the American (although somewhat deficient in many respects) had sufficient means of correct information within its reach, to state this matter fairly, and must therefore conclude, that it was "the deliberate intention to deceive the publick on this subject," at the same time that it aimed a petulant but ineffective thrust at this establishment."

We are free to acknowledge that the preceding article from the last Patriot, notwithstanding the spirit of bitterness it betrays, is entitled to the merit of being cunningly devised. But the subterfuge to which the Editors have so artfully resorted, shall not avail them; for we will prove, to the satisfaction of every candid mind, that when they made the statement to which we have objected, they were in possession of facts which, on any fair construction, must have satisfied them that it was untrue. Let it here be understood, that they have acknowledged our interpretation of the object of their statement to be correct-" that it was calculated to convey an erroneous impression, that Mr. Otis and Mr. Burrill were opposed to paying that respect to the memory of Washington which all parties confess to be due from the country exalted by his services and virtues." In the Boston Centinel, of February 17, and in the American, of February 19, are to be found the following paragraphs, In relation to the proceedings of the Senate, on the subject of erecting a Statue of Washington :

IN SENATE, February 10.
STATUE OF WASHINGTON.

The bill providing for the erection of the STATUE OF WASHINGTON, voted by Congress in 1783, was taken up. Mr. Wilson, of New-Jersey, moved to reject this bill, with a view of moving for estimates of the expense of erecting, &c. which motion was decided by Yeas and Nays, as follows:

Yeas- ssrs. Barbour, Burrill, Crittenden, Dickerson, Edwards, Eppes, Lacock, Leake, Macon, Morrow, Noble, Palmer, Roberts, Ruggles, Tait, Taylor, Williams, of Mississippi; Wilson-18.

: Nays-Messrs. Daggett, Eaton, Forsyth, Fromentin, Goldsborough, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson, King, Mellen, Morrill, Otis, Sanford, Stokes, Talbot, Tichenor, Van Dyke, Williams, of Tennessee-18.

The Senate being equally divided on the question,

1

The President gave the casting vote against postponing the bill, and the motion was accordingly negatived.

It will be seen by the foregoing, that Mr. Otis recorded his vote against, and Mr. Burrill in favour, of rejecting the bill; and the diversity of opinion indicated by this decision should have restrained the "eagerness" of the Patriot Editors to publish the deceptive statement which they have been compelled to retract. This statement, let it be recollected, appeared in the Patriot of February 20, and the Editors will not deny having seen the proceedings of the Senate we have just quoted.

But, unfortunately for the Editors of the Patriot, we are not without more conclusive evidence of their intention to deceive the publick into a belief that Messrs. Otis and Burrill were opposed to paying appropriate honours to the memory of Washington. In the Intelligencer of February 13 (which the Patriot Editors must have seen several days before their paper of the 20th was stricken off) the following are stated to be the proceedings of the Senate, on the 11th instant, in relation to the Washington Statue :

MONUMENT OF WASHINGTON.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill for the erection of an Equestrian Statue of the late General George Washington, in the Capitol-Square.

Mr. Otis moved to postpone the bill to the 5th day of March (to reject it) which motion was decided in the negative, by yeas and nays, as follows :

Yeas-Messrs. Barbour, Burrill, Crittenden, Dickerson, Eppes, Lacock, Leake, Macon, Morrow, Noble, Otis, Roberts, Tait, Taylor, Wilson-15.

Nays-Messrs. Daggett, Eaton, Forsyth, Fromentin, Goldsborough, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson, King, Mellen, Morrill, Sanford, Stokes, Storer, Talbot, Tichenor, Van Dyke, Williams, of Tennessee-18.

On motion of Mr. Daggett, the bill was amended, by adding a proviso, that, if the President should find that the monument would cost more than 150,000 dollars, the sum appropriated, he should not proceed to execute the act, but make a report of the estimated cost to the next session of Congress.

The question was then taken on ordering the bill, as amended, to be engrossed and read a third time, and decided affirmatively, by yeas and nays, as follows:

Yeas-Messrs. Barbour, Burrill, Crittenden, Daggett, Dickerson, Fromentin, Goldsborough, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson, King, Leake, Mellen, Morrill, Otis, Sanford, Stokes, Storer, Talbot, Thomas, Tichenor, Van Dyke, Williams, of Tennessee-23.

Nays-Messrs. Eaton, Edwards, Eppes, Forsyth, Lacock, Macon, Morrow, Palmer, Roberts, Ruggles, Tait, Taylor, Williams, of Mississippi; Wilson-11.

It will be perceived that in the instance recorded above, both Mr. Otis and Mr. Burrill voted in favour of ordering the bill to a third reading-which vote is on all occasions considered as a sure indication of attachment to the object or principle of a bill. And yet, with all this evidence before their eyes, the Patriot Editors stated, without explanation or modification, that Mr. Otis moved to reject the bill-indicating thereby his opposition to the object for which it provided. We are willing to admit that the "Intelligencer explanation" was not received until after the Patriot was stricken off: and we leave it to the publick to decide, what bearing this circumstance ought to have upon the merits of the case.

To the same tribunal "are also submitted the motives which governed the Patriot Editors in retracting a statement, of the incorrectness of which they had ample proof at the very moment it was penned."

The opprobrious epithets of which the Editors of the Patriot are so lavish, cannot betray us even into a momentary forgetfulness of the self-respect which we have aimed to preserve, amid every contest which professional duties have required us to maintain. We are not ambitious of entertaining the publick with our quarrels; but such is the obligation of every Editor to society, that we shall never hesitate to enter the lists, when our antagonists manifest a disposition to sacrifice the immutable claims of truth and justice to the fluctuating interests of party or to sordid calculations of individual emolument.