Daily National Intelligencer

To the Public.

I AM again compelled, in justification of my own character, attempted to be aspersed by Mr. Philips, of Baltimore, to appear before the public, and, by an exhibition of facts, corroborated by testimony, to place the matter of dispute between us in that light where the judgment cannot be imposed upon, and every one may be enabled to determine whether I am the injurer or injured. As I have before said, my desires were not to injure Mr. Philips, or to detract from his merits; nay, not even to disclose the transactions; but duty towards myself compels me, when thus assailed, to stand on the defensive—and if my weapons of defence should wound him, let him remember he was the assailant.

Mr. Philips commences by stating my affected surprise at seeing the "same proposals of his which he says I saw " in January last, dated three weeks previous" to what he terms his "unfortunate connection" with me. The partnership was verbally agreed to on the 8th of December, and ratified in writing on the 7th January; but previous to its ratification in writing, Mr. Philips had issued proposals, in which my name was not introduced; and even previous to his receiving the design from Mr. Godefroy, he obtained through these proposals 30 odd subscribers, at 10 dollars a piece; of all which, on learning it, I objected. But Mr. Philips went still further than this. Immediately after our verbal agreement, there was an understanding between us that he should apply to the Board of Managers of the Washington Monument, in order to secure a copy-right and a design of the monument. This was refused him, owing to some alterations, &c. which the board were about making. Such being the result of his application, without any consultation with me, he applied for a patent in his own name, by a letter to James Monroe, then Secretary of State, (which letter is here published, marked No. 1.) When I charged him in the month of June last, with this sinister procedure, in the presence of Mr. R. Hall, he declared it was with the view of securing the patent for the benefit of both. If such, however, had been his intention, why was the letter written without my knowledge, or wherefore my name studiously kept back, and the application made in his own? The letter, however, speaks for itself. The patent was refused him, as well it might be, as he was not the inventor of the design, and I alone was and am the inventor of the machinery for the execution of the works. What pretension could he, under such circumstances, have for a patent; or with what moral right could he ask for it?

Mr. Philips next refers himself to the dissolution of the partnership between us, and would cast a stigma on me for not stating why it was dissolved. I will now state that the partnership was dissolved on the 15th of May, on account of Mr. Philips having defaulted in almost every instance to perform his part of the engagement, and particularly so in not delivering the figures, viz: a female figure and two griffins, modelled by Mr. Cappellano, and that I had not even seen him six weeks previous to that date. It was at this time, after the dissolution of the partnership, that Mr. Philips applied for the design, then in my hands, which I refused to deliver, without his compliance with the 4th article of our partnership, viz:

Art. 4. Should it happen that any difference should arise between the parties aforesaid, the partnership shall henceforth cease; and after the debts contracted by the firm shall have been paid, the surplus money, if any remains, shall be equally divided, and also the materials which shall be on hand shall be divided in like manner."

Two weeks after this, Mr. Philips, through the medium of his friends, wished to renew the partnership; but his failing in every promise, even that of calling on me at a stated hour, again shut the door of our connexion: and am I to be blamed for this? Am I to answer for all the sins of omission of Mr. Phillips, and to be accused because I would not suffer his transgressions to deprive me of my labours? See his letter No. 2. He, in one part of his accusation, states that he engaged to pay me 2 dollars per day for the mechanical work. Did he ever pay me a cent? Let him answer this; and did not the 2d article of our agreement allow to him a like compensation for his labour and time in obtaining subscriptions for the benefit of the partnership? I here transcribe the first paragraph of the 2d article: "Each individual, whether his time be employed in doing the work or obtaining subscriptions, shall be allowed two dollars per day," &c. and now he claims the subscriptions obtained as his own, in the same manner as he does the designs. And as to the proposal of partnership, it originated with me, and not Mr. Philips; the whole of the mechanical part being to be performed by me, and all that Mr. Philips could do, or all that I required being to provide with the designs executed by Mr. Godefroy, together with the articles necessary for the execution of the work.

Mr. Philips boasts much of his having supplied me with various articles, such as plaster, rosin, wax, oil, clay, &c. I will, in order to satisfy the public of his enormous sacrifice in these articles, make out his bill. If they consider it too small, I beg them to add whatever sum they please.

Bill of articles delivered Mr. Weis by Mr. Philips.

2 pecks plaster of Paris, $1
1 lb. rosin, 6
1-4 wax, 25
2 bottles linseed oil, 37½
clay, 6
A mahogany board to draw on, 2 40
making the great sum of 4 14.

Mr. Philips, however, still further says—“I had the crowns of cypress, and laurel, and cornice cut by the first carvers in the city, and every name and figure pertaining to the model, I had struck in metal. The expense of those articles was but trifling, compared with the trouble and anxiety they cost me." The bills and receipts marked 3 and 4, will fully explain who was at the expense of these articles, and who paid for them; and no wonder Mr. Philips found it so "trifling" when it fell upon other shoulders than his own.

With regard to what Mr. Phillips says of my refusing to return him his drawings and referring him to the law for justice, I have only to state that I referred him to the fourth article of our agreement already cited; but he wished to avail himself of other measures and to oblige me to give up my own work and to lose every advantage which might accrue from 4 months persevering labor; myself being obliged to pay all the debts contracted for the benefit of the firm.

I have only further to state that since the 3d of July I have been requested by Mr. Godefroy, not to suffer his designs to go out of my hands as he did not wish to see them badly executed; he having been led by Mr. Phillips to believe that he had a particular manner of executing in superior style, and was kept under this error for some months, when Mr. Phillips had confessed in the presence of witnesses that he did not at all understand the mechanism required.

The charge against me of having had an obligation drawn on the 18th July to pay him 250 on the condition of his relinquishing all right of pretension to the work, is a gross misrepresentation, as the letter marked No. 5 will explain

As regards the insinuation of my being indebted to Mr. Phillips for the idea of making a model, it is something of the same complexion
with all the other debts with which this artist in imagination would charge me. In order, however, to prove that I could possess an original idea of this kind, without the aid of Mr. Philips's fruitful brain, I adduce the testimony contained in certificates No. 6 and 7.

Mr. Philips, in the close of his ungracious attack against me, thus expresses himself: "For the better information of Mr. Weis, he is informed that the same gentleman I engaged to do the principal part of the work for the model he is at present exhibiting, is now employed about the same for me in a superior style " This may be the case, and Mr. Phillips may have many other persons employed to work for him; but how does this correspond with Mr. Philips's assertions in his letter to the Hon. Mr. Monroe, (No. 1) in which he declares that he at considerable expense and much labor had at length succeeded in making moulds, composition, &c." when in fact he was ignorant of every branch of the art he pretended to profess, and has no further pretensions to the arts than the profession of a sign painter and gilder entitles him to.

Mr. Philips may employ whom he pleases—all I pretend to is the work of my own hands, and feel confident that I shall bring it to that perfection which shall secure the patronage of a discerning public.

GEORGE WEIS.

Baltimore, Dec. 10th, 1816.

James Monroe, Esq.
Secretary of State of the U. States.

Sir—Presuming that many persons at a distance from this place, and who have not an opportunity of seeing the original, would be gratified with having a perfect model representing the Monument now erecting near the city of Baltimore, to the memory of the illustrious Washington, I have, at considerable expense and much labor, at length succeeded in making moulds and compositions for this purpose; by which I am enabled to model likenesses of this work of art, so as to give a perfect representation of it in Plaster of Paris, Papier Mache, Chalk, whiting, Slate, Flour, Paint, Brimstone, Rice, Saw Dust, Fullers' Earth, and many other compositions. I therefore claim the right of making models representing the monument now erecting near this place to the memory of George Washington, with any of the above articles, and also urns on Pedestals, sacred to the memory of Warren and Montgomery: all of which representations will be ornaments suitable for niches in halls or rooms, and those of lesser size for mantle ornaments. I request this to be filed in the patent office, as I intend in a short time to forward specimens of the work. I am, Sir, &c.

RICHARD PHILIPS.
No. 1, Bank street, Baltimore.

Baltimore, Jan. 17, 1817.

Dear Sir—I have received the figure and griffins, of Mr. Capellano. I am sorry it was not convenient for Mr. Hall to go out this evening. As it is my sincere desire there shall be no further misunderstanding between us, I will thank you to make a sketch of the proposals you think we ought to have, and let the business go on amicably. I want nothing but what is right, & whatever Mr. Hall says we ought to do I will agree to. Yours, &c.

RD. PHILIPS.

Baltimore, Sept. 25, 1817.

Messrs. Weis & Philips, to Thomas Carr,

To stamping 446 letters for model of Battle Monument, at 3c. 13 38
To one music plate 1.00
$14.38

Received payment of Mr. Geo. Weis,
THOMAS CARR

Baltimore, March 10, 1817.

Messrs. Philips and Weis,
to Fielding Vanhorn, Dr.

Feb. 8, to carving cornice and wing for Battle Monument, 7 00
18. to do 1 block of cypress. 5 00
20, to 1 spur and rudder 1 00
$13.00

Received payment of George Weis,
FIELDING VANHORN.

Baltimore, Sept. 27, 1817.

Mr. George Weis,—

Sir—At your request I state that a few days after your proposals for the Battle Monument appeared, Richard Phillips related to me a dispute existing between you and himself. He stated that he would furnish models of the Battle Monument at half price, in order to injure you. I endeavored to impress upon his mind the impropriety of such a step and his inability to carry it into effect Several weeks elapsed, when a friend of his called on me and stated that Philips had finally agreed to relinquish all claims, and give up to you all figures and models of the Battle Monument, provided you would pay him $250, and requested me to use my influence to bring about a final settlement of the dispute. I communicated his proposition to you, and, although you did not consider him entitled to one cent, having borne the great part of the expenses yourself, you finally, through my persuasion, yielded to his terms, provided public patronage would produce a sum equal to his demand. This arrangement, I thought, appeared to satisfy Philips: an instrument of writing was prepared, in which there was a clause inserted to prevent Philips from directly or indirectly making any models, and of giving up all figures or models to you : this Philips refused to execute; and here terminates my knowledge of the affair. I am, however, in justice bound, and it is with pleasure I state, that in all my intercourse with you, and particularly on this subject, you appeared to have nothing but justice in view.

JACOB SMALL.
Superintendent of the Exchange, Balto.

I do hereby certify that Mr. George Weis, of the city of Baltimore, informed me several times, and particularly in October, 1816, of his intention of making, by subscription, on a small scale, in stucco, the Washington Monument, which are now erecting in this city, if he could obtain the aid of the architect of said works. At the request of Mr. Weis, I have given the above statement.

P. SERVARY.

This is to certify that Mr. Weis called on me some time in the month of November last and asked me if I was acquainted with the architect of the Washington Monument then erecting in Baltimore, and expressed a wish to get a true copy of that design.

JAMES ALLNUTT.

Baltimore, Sept. 25, 1817.

English Stone China.

THE subscriber has opened a large quantity of Elegant English Stone China, vastly superior, both in texture and style, to the Canton China. The size of the sets will be accommodated to the wishes of the purchaser.

The subscriber has received also a few sets of strong and neat waiters, with an additional supply of plain and cut glass, all of which he intends to sell very low for cash.

SAML. McKENNEY.

South side of Bridge street, a few doors above Jefferson street.

Georgetown, sep 12—en4w