The Massachusetts Spy

Messrs. Manning & Trumbull—

I perceive by your paper, of the 17th inst. that the campaign of electioneering for a Register of Deeds has re-commenced. I had hoped that, as the candidates were before the publick, and their respective claims and qualifications have been fully discussed at a former trial, the Electors of this County would have been left to make their own choice without further importunity.----But as the friends of one candidate have again appeared in publick to advocate his claims, silence on the part of those of the other might be construed into a desertion.

It is proper that the people of this County should be reminded of the manner in which the Meeting of the 10th inst. at Col. Sikes's was got up, the course of proceedings there, and the probable objects of those who called it. It will be recollected that the Meeting was called by the exclusive friends of Dr. Fiske, and that the invitation was as exclusive. If these gentlemen intended, or were willing, that a majority of this people who were then attending Court from the different parts of the County, should decide on the choice of a candidate, why not call a Meeting in the usual manner "to consult upon measures to prevent the further trouble and delay in effecting a choice?" No: this would not answer their purpose; they dare not risk it. The particular friends of the Doctor had got a string of Resolutions and an Address prepared, to which they wished to get a few great names tacked to give it currency. If any person doubts on this subject, let him recollect how these Meetings are usually managed, read the proceedings of this Meeting, look at the manner in which the Committee was appointed, and consider the time they had to draw up these Resolutions and this Address, and then decide whether my position is not correct. There is great deception in the account given of this Meeting. To be sure, they were from different, but not from "all parts of the County." But how many were there of these? Perhaps twenty-five, not more, drummed up and hauled in for this special occasion. It is to be regretted that some of the gentlemen whose names appear in the account of these proceedings should not have seen the impropriety of the course they were sanctioning. They professedly met for the purpose of preventing division and delay. What course, I would ask them, could have been more sure of producing the effect they so much deprecate? Could they expect that an Address, which attempts to throw upon Mr. Ward all the faults to which the Doctor has already pleaded guilty, would be passed over without notice? These gentlemen, some of them at least upon reflection, will feel mortified and chagrined that they have thus been duped to do an act of which their better judgment must disapprove.

The Resolutions except the first, are such as might have been expected from these professing friends; but the first is a little variant from the sentiments usually expressed by some of them. Perhaps they found something in this case to take it out of their creed of rotation in office.

The Address begins with the same deception that the account of the Meeting does: but being prepared for such a Meeting as the writer intended to assemble, the Committee, probably believing that they could just as well have represented a more numerous Meeting, and finding no sufficient reason why such a Meeting should not have assembled, let it pass as it was. The writer then falls, "tooth and nail" upon those who have opposed the Doctor's re-election, for such trifling considerations as his being too deaf for common people to converse with, and his having taken more fees than the law allowed him. People who are not particularly acquainted with his bodily infirmity cannot communicate with him. The Address does not deny the charge of taking excessive fees; but attempts to palliate the offence by imputing all the blame to Mr. Ward, the opposing candidate; in the same manner that Doct. Fiske does, in his letter published in the Spy of the 14th of March last. The assertion in the Address is probably taken from the letter, and perhaps the Committee might believe it to be true, because Mr. Ward had not publickly denied it. I hope Mr. Ward has so much modesty as to prevent his ever appearing in publick to electioneer for himself, whatever may be said against him.

I am, however, authorized to state (and defy contradiction) that Mr. Ward never did say what is attributed to him by the Address and Doct. Fiske's letter, nor any thing like it. I wish the Committee would ask themselves, whether it is "liberal," "generous," or discovers any thing like "publick spirit," thus to reproach a man, who is innocent and unoffending otherwise than by being an opposing candidate; and then decide whether Doct. Fiske, while he was penning that letter, could have possessed that "liberality" that "warm-hearted generosity," and that "publick spirit," which the writer of the Address would attribute to him? One other subject; that of sending Deeds out of the Office to be recorded, this writer forgot to advert to. The reason of this forgetfulness probably was, that the Doctor having long since pleaded guilty to the charge, and promised reformation, he considered the offence, in this way, atoned for.

FAIR PLAY.