• 
 
 - T _ ■ 
 
 — z * s 
 
 ■k p 
 
 & 
 
 4 S^^rf* 
 
 
 >*" 
 
 ;>;- 
 
 ■tv 
 
 teSf 
 
 , a* r* 
 
 ;<#*> 
 
 £ f 
 
 
 3?» 
 
 ■ <*t?*^ 
 
 •* 
 
 ES 
 
 
 «5!lcL* 
 
 ^n 
 
 * 1- 
 
 r^V'xife^' 
 
 "_ 1 ^_ ) 
 
 -**fc *'^,* 
 
 »' -»--** Jjgfctm '■ 
 
 $j 
 
 ' '€, 
 
 &*£*£ 
 
 i%/- 
 
 -*-'•! 
 
 *£ ; r 
 

 *Xv 
 
 ) 
 
 \i^i 
 
 xf 
 
 George Washington Flowers 
 Memorial Collection 
 
 DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 ESTABLISHED BY THE 
 
 FAMILY OF 
 
 COLONEL FLOWERS 
 
JOHN HENDREE^T 
 
 PROOFS / 
 
 AGAINST THE MANY FALSEHOODS 
 
 
 PROPAGATED BY ONE 
 
 ABEL P. UPSHUR : 
 
 TOGETHER WITH AN EXPOSURE OF THE MAN, 
 AND HIS PAMPHLET, ENTITLED 
 
 " A. P. Upshur of Richmond, to the Citizens of 
 Philadelphia." 
 
 Verily, before concluding of this, shall he say ; 
 
 He hath stripped me of my Glory, and taken the Crown from 
 Buy head ; 
 
 He hath destroyed me on every side, and I am gone : and mine 
 hope hath he removed like a tree." 
 
 job, chap, six, v. 9 and 10. 
 
 ■ 
 
 RICHMOND, Va. 
 Printed by Shepherd Sf Pollard. 
 
 October, 1822-. 
 
 v. 
 
tffg «* v 
 
 -:^W* 
 
 .y\ .*. V -*^ :.-i'« \ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 .^^^ \* 
 
H 
 
 TO THE PUBLIC. 
 
 However unworthy of notice the unsupported assertions of 
 an individual may be, when by trick and cunning nr has 
 clothed himself with the appearance of truth, in support of 
 calumnies calculated to subvert the best feelings of friend- 
 ship, it becomes the imperious duty of that man, against whom 
 they are levelled, to meet them fairly, and exculpate himself 
 fully. 
 
 Conceiving every man amenable for his conduct, at least 
 to that community in which he lives, I shall not confine this 
 publication to the «* Citizens" of any particular section of the 
 union, but address it to those only who are free from servile 
 pliancy, and who decide, alter deliberate enquiry has produced 
 conscientious conviction, and in the true spirit of christian 
 charity deem every man innocent until proved the reverse ; but 
 while I entertain a respectful regard for the opinions of the 
 people of my native state, particularly that portion among 
 whom I spent my early life, and am alive to every attachment 
 interwoven in youth, 1 hold in high estimation the good opin- 
 ion of the Philadelphia public, and for those of that city who 
 were my teachers, my friends and my associates, I feel senti- 
 ments of veneration, and cherish feelings of as sincere regard 
 as the causes which gave rise and the sources from whence 
 they spring were pure and uncontaminated. I hope in the 
 course of this examination of A. P. Upshur's pamphlet, ad- 
 dressed to the <« Citizens of Philadelphia" not only so effectu- 
 ally to repel the calumnies, as even to silence malice, but to 
 shew that his joy at the production, with which he is so much 
 elated, is but of a fleeting nature, and like a sun-beam unex- 
 pectedly penetrating betwixt the clouds of a tempest, obscured 
 almost as soon as visible. I regret, that my defence cannot 
 be complete without criminating those who have assailed me, 
 by introducing such proofs as will place the fact of their guilt 
 beyond the power of the most ingenious argument to change, 
 or the most brilliant sophistry to give another colouring; but 
 
in humanity I shall avoid animadverting on or proving more 
 than what is essential to self-defence. That far I will go, how- 
 ever deep the wountl may be that is inflicted, and though that 
 moment on which it is given to the world should be my last. 
 It is my misfortune to be under the necessity of arraigning 
 an individual whose soul does not shrink from any act, how- 
 ever servile and degrading, and to effect his purpose associates 
 himself with the mearest wrecks of the human family, and 
 willingly lays prostrate every feeling and principle which 
 adorns the character of civilized man. There are acts, of 
 which individual are guilty when permitted to have inter- 
 course with respectable society, for which there is no language 
 that can with propriety be used to convey an adequate idea ; 
 but, while I am free to admit the obligation of an injured man 
 to meet with cool and manly firmness the vilest artifices, and 
 the most malignant aspersions calculated to rob him of the 
 only treasure on which he depends for his future well-being in 
 society «' his good name," and however much, him to whom I 
 allude may have descended, nothing from me shall stain these 
 pages unworthy of my pretensions to a respectable descent, 
 or the standing I claim in society. 
 
 "Nor will I thee detain 
 '« With poet's fiction, nor oppress thine ear 
 " With circumstance, and long exordiums here." 
 
 But I shall make a plain and artless defence supported by 
 such proofs as shall lead to conviction. I neither invoke sym- 
 pathy, nor do I wish to excite the stern and angry feelings 
 of passion. All I desire in appealing to the high and control- 
 ing authority of public opinion, is to satisfy reason and judg- 
 ment, and will abide the maxim that " truth is, all powerful 
 and must prevail." 
 
 JOHN HENDREE. 
 
" Nothing ought to be said against him, of which there are no 
 «• proofs ; the discovery of a single error of this kind, among the 
 " most notorious truths, would tarnish their lustre." 
 
 In the course of this shewing, I shall enter into a minute 
 detail of proofs and explanation, in consequence of intending 
 it to reach those who are ignorant of the facts of some, and 
 the course necessary to be pursued in others. And for call- 
 ing to notice any of the charges preferred against me, by 
 A. P. Upshur, (as stated by Mr. Campbell,) and which ap- 
 peared in my former pamphlet, no apology will be offered, as 
 I shall, before concluding, shew good reasons for so doing. 
 Among the most prominent charges stated by Mr. Campbell 
 in his letter to me, of the 22nd September, 1821, as coming 
 from A. P. Upshur, were those of my being married in Rich- 
 mond, and my wife still living somewhere abroad ; the se- 
 cret, though not acknowledged partnership^etween my brother 
 and myself, our producing accounts an(T verifying them by 
 the oath of one or the other, for purposes not creditable to 
 either: these with others of a minor character, were met and 
 rebutted by the most respectable testimony Virginia could 
 produce ; and A. P. Upshur, not only admits in his pamphlet 
 that the charges are false, but denies the right of Mr. Camp- 
 bell to have made them, page 10. (With a mere reference to 
 the contents of his letters to Mr. Campbell,) he says '< It will 
 be perceived in how many important particulars, Mr. Campbell. 
 has misapprehended me," (he then names the above charges,) 
 and says " none of which are authorised by my letter" (that 
 is, his letter of the 19th September, 1821 :) First he speaks of 
 letters, and then of a letter ; this is proper to he recollected, for I 
 defy him to say in plain and emphatical terms, and without 
 any evasion whatever, and that through the press, that Mr. 
 Campbell was not authorised by any verbal or written com- 
 munication to say what he did. No, at his peril, he would 
 not suffer such a declaration to reach the ear of Mr. Campbell. 
 Having disproved those charges, I do not despair of the same 
 success with all the others, which by some new-fangled notion, 
 this mass of human corruption has gathered together to pre- 
 vent his decay. He labored very hard (after my publication 
 and before his own appeared,) to induce some to believe Mr. 
 Campbell had not only stated a falsehood, but that he never 
 had voluntarily stated one word to my injury, and that all he 
 had said of me was relative to my failure, and he *« had never 
 met me in any of the society in which he had mixed," and 
 this, said he, " was extorted from mc by the importunities of 
 
Mr. Stout ;" (for the confirmation of these facts, if denied, 
 I pledge myself to prove by some of those whom he calls his 
 best friends, if they will be put on oath:) consequently, his 
 own shewing by his letters and his statement is at direct va- 
 riance. I will now for a moment suppose, that Mr. Camp- 
 bell in his letter has improperly surrendered Upshur as his 
 authority, and enquire what is the course of conduct pursued 
 by this high-minded "knight-errant;"* alias A. P. Upshur, 
 towards the man who had taken such liberties with his name 
 and character. 
 
 " Conscious guilt renders us 
 
 " Mean-spirited, timorous and base." 
 
 The following appears to be the first letter from A. P. Up- 
 shur to Mr. Campl/ell, after the publication of my pamphlet; 
 it is without date, but I have ascertained the time it was 
 written, from the fact of the contents which he appears that 
 '< moment" to hav#received, which bear date the 4th, 5th and 
 6th April, immediately after my pamphlet appeared, (see 
 Upshur's pamphlet, pages 14 and 15.) 
 
 Bear Sir, 
 
 The above is the original of a note this mo- 
 ment received from Mr. Ritchie, to whom Mr. Stout's letter 
 was shewn. 
 
 I also send you copies of letters addressed to me by 
 
 ♦Mr. R. Doctor Foushee, Doctor Cabell and Major Gibbon. 
 
 The Doctor is threatened with a good basting by his friends 
 
 the journeymen printers. He is sunk to an inconceivable 
 
 depth of ridicule and contempt.f 
 
 With best wishes, 
 
 I am, yours, &c. 
 
 A. P. UPSHUR. 
 George Campbell, Esq. Philadelphia. 
 
 There is a letter to Mr. Campbell, who has just brought its 
 author forward, (agreeably to his,. Upshur's, own shewing) as 
 
 * A. P. Upshur in his letter to Mr. Campbell of the 19th of 
 September, 1821, (see his pamphlet, page 4,) after assigning his 
 reasons for having said of me what was never known, nor heard of 
 by any other, concludes the passage by thus comparing himself ; 
 " and I felt probably too much like a knight-errant, in wishing 
 " to undeceive and save her from ruin and misery." 
 
 tDoes he mean to confirm the truth of his assertion by telling 
 of his own fate in being turned out of the common hall, on the 10th 
 
the " scape goat" to bear away tlie sins of the people, "and 
 in place of venturing to utter one" 4< manly remonstrance," 
 the first words are « dear sir," then sends for his perusal 
 letters of condolence from some of his friends (which he has 
 since published) and concludes " with best wishes, I am yours 
 &c." How truly contemptible must that creature be who can 
 thus write to the man who has charged him, (and as he says 
 unjustly,) with an act strongly *f calculated to affect a man of 
 honor in the tenderest point," and remains content with giving 
 to the public on the weak authority of his own mere ipse dixit, 
 that # his correspondence with me sufficiently explains his 
 mistake." If such were the case, it is but a pitiful way of 
 making him atone for the injury, (if unjustly inflicted). On 
 
 of April, of which he had been a njember, for several successive 
 years? That the circumstances detailed in my pamphlet, were 
 the cause, I will not pretend to say. But, if he were guilty of 
 other acts sufficient to forfeit his claim to confidence, it is the more 
 deeply to be regretted, he cannot have allusion to the reception he 
 met with in Norfolk as that occured after his letter was written. 
 This " knight-errant" alias Abel P. Upshur, must be a dangerous 
 fellow. He is for "basting" me with "journeymen printers ;" he 
 is for "drubbing" me with " three gentlemen in the street," and he 
 is for having me "every where greeted with a general burst of 
 disgust and indignation." To peruse the letters he wrote to his 
 friends in Philadelphia, immediately after the publication of my 
 pamphlet, (the copies and extracts of which are in my possession,) 
 one would suppose, agreeable to his account, that scarce had the 
 pamphlet issued from the press, ere I was thumped into a mere 
 jelly ; for he is not content with pulverising me, by means of 
 his three friends, gentlemen as he calls them, but he has in one 
 passage of a letter almost mounted the whole State of Virginia, 
 people and all, on my back at the same time. How is it in all this 
 "thumping," "basting" and "drubbing," we have nothing of this 
 "knight-errant's" own feats ? No, no; he is kept in reserve for 
 more courageous purposes, that of pamphleteering, and like " Billy 
 Cock, sitting on Billy Cock's hill" to see how the wind blows. 
 And like the owl, to conceal his shame, waits the approach of 
 darkness, then walks abroad ruminating on the causes which 
 make the light of day offensive to his si<;ht, and the society of 
 honest men obnoxious to his feelings. But in all this commotion 
 among the citizens of Virginia, spoken of by the " knight-errant," 
 I have not found any who exercise the right of thinking for them- 
 selves, in arms against me, nor heard of one rude expression 
 towards me; and I still remain with sound skin and whole bones, 
 and hope so to continue; for, that Abel P. Upshur will make it the 
 
this subject, I shall have occasion to speak in another page, and 
 shew what Mr. Campbell says in the month of May,.18£2, 
 (30 days after the appearance of my pamphlet,) and , it will 
 then be seen that it is as easy to compromise the honour of 
 A. P. Upshur, (particularly when the reverse would bring 
 his precious person to answer,) as it was for him (with his pen 
 only,) to threaten the Doctor, " with a good basting" by his 
 friends the ** journeymen printers," and that his feelings are 
 like his conscience, so seared that they are no longer sensi- 
 ble of rebuke or insult. Shew me the man who would, thus 
 disgrace himself by evincing so dastardly a spirit, and' he is 
 . A. P. Upshur's counterpart in cowardice at least. The- note 
 
 reverse, is in my opinion very much to be questioned, believing him, 
 as I do, to be a harmless insect. Among other of his comtaunica- 
 tions to Mr. Campbell, I am in possession of a very long extract 
 from one of his letters, written in the early part of April, on the 
 subject of my pamphlet : he denies "the charge of timidity,"* 
 and he justifies timidity, by giving it as the opinion of his friends 
 who, he says, " considered that it would be an imputation upon 
 " my courage and a derogation from my character in other respects 
 6f to attack him." What a cool deliberate thinking " knight-er- 
 rant" who consults his friends as to the propriety of fighting or 
 not ! By the bye, there is no doubt something exceedingly agreeable 
 and convenient in that sort of " courage." 
 
 In the same letter, when exulting in the most vaunting manner 
 of an assault, attempted on me in the street, by three of his crea- 
 tures, he says " on the second, he drew his pistol, but said noth- 
 " ing; shortly afterwards, he was met by a third gentleman^ who 
 ** rebuked him with every expression of contempt and indignation, 
 " but he replied not ;"t three fellows employed by him, headed 
 by one P. P. Mayo, did purpose an attack on me, and made a faint 
 attempt, and if my memory serves me right, poor P. P. Mayo in 
 complexion, and,trembling with fear, looked more like an aspia 
 leaf on a frosty morning, when exposed to a keen north wester, 
 than the bully of a " knight-errant." Whether my conduct 
 wanted firmness, and whether I " replied not," the public I believe 
 on that subject, are sufficiently informed. Those who are not, and 
 desire to be, I refer to Mr. James Shiphard and Col. Tankersley, 
 gentlemen of undoubted integrity, who were present at the oc- 
 currence. 
 
 •I charged him with cowardice. 
 
 f At the time of the occurrence, he declared it was done without his approba- 
 tion, and that he would not countenance their conduct; his written declarations and 
 his verbal ones, do not always harmonise, bat that is quitejsharacteristic of the 
 individual. 
 
9 
 
 alluded to by A. P. Upshur in the foregoing letter as being that 
 moment received from Mr. Ritchie, was a communication from 
 that gentleman, requesting that he (Upshur) would write to Mr. 
 Campbell, to send on the proof sheets which Mr. Stout had spo- 
 ken of as having been received in Philadelphia with endorse- 
 ments. As this to the reader may be a mystery, 1 will in as few 
 words as possible give some explanation. During the period 
 that my pamphlet was printing, and before it had been made 
 public or indeed completed (for Mr. Campbell in his letter to 
 A. P. Upshur, dated Philadelphia, 1st April, acknowledges 
 having received the proof sheets some days before, and my 
 pamphlet was not circulated for several days after,) on the 
 back of some of the proof sheets \rhich were forwarded to 
 Philadelphia, it seems much matter was endorsed of an of- 
 fensive nature to Mr. Campbell, (they are not in my posses- 
 sion or I would make mention of what it was,) and purporting 
 to be from a « journeyman printer." The sheets which were 
 first struck off were intended to go to no others than Mr. 
 Ritchie and myself for correction, and Mr. Ritchie having 
 no interest in it further than to execute the duties of his de- 
 partment, it could not be with reason or probability attributed 
 to him ; so it rested on me, and that very unjustly : but as cir- 
 cumstances have turned out, it is not a matter of great mo- 
 ment either way, nor do I mean to make a mountain of a 
 mole hill : so will publish the affidavit of Mr. Monroe, whom 
 1 met in Baltimore on my return from the North, which will 
 shew the fact by whom the endorsements were made, and the 
 proof sheets forwarded : 
 United States of America, 
 
 State of Maryland, to wit : 
 I, John Gill, Notary Public, by letters patent under the 
 great seal of the State of Maryland, commissioned and duly 
 qualified, residing in the city of Baltimore, in the state afore- 
 said, do hereby certify, attest, and make known, that on the 
 day of the date hereof, personally appeared Otis Monroe, and 
 made oath on the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God, that he 
 worked as a journeyman printer in the office of Messrs. Shep- 
 herd and Pollard, Richmond, Virginia, when and where Doc- 
 tor Hendree's pamphlet, entitled " A refutation of calumnies 
 propagated by Abel P. Upshur of Richmond, by John Hen- 
 dree," was printed, and this deponent states that one morning 
 previous to the time on which the printing of the pamphlet 
 was completed, a young man, (who afterwards proved to be 
 Mr. Potter, that lived with Mr. Upshur) came into the office 
 and enquired, if Doctor Hendree's pamphlet was printing in 
 
10 
 
 v , 
 
 that office : this deponent desired to know who he was, when 
 Mr. Potter induced this deponent to believe he was the friend 
 of Doctor Hendree, and wanted to direct them to be prepared 
 to send out as early as possible, and he told this deponent that 
 he would take a few of such of the sheets as were struck off 
 for the purpose of sending them to his friends, which this de- 
 ponent permitted him to do, and this deponent never knew to 
 the contrary that the said P-ntter was not the friend of Doc- 
 tor Hendree, until he heard of. and went out to see the ren- 
 counter which took place between Hendree and Potter ; and 
 this deponent further made oath that this information was 
 . never given to Doctor Hendree until yesterday, when he ac- 
 cidentally met Doctor Hendree and made the communication, 
 of which an act having been of me requested, I have granted 
 these presents to serve and avail as need and occasion may 
 require. 
 
 In testimony whereof, the said de- 
 Signed, ponent hath hereto subscribed 
 
 his name, and I the said Notary 
 « OTIS MONROE." have hereunto set my hand and 
 
 affixed my Notarial seal, this 
 twenty-ninth day of May, one 
 thousand eight hundred and 
 twenty two. 
 
 JOHN GILL, Not. Pub. 
 
 I am personally acquainted with Mr. Otis Monroe, from 
 his having worked in my office, and who has deposed as ap- 
 pears before John Gill, Notary Public, and signed the an- 
 nexed deposition, and his signature he has acknowledged be- 
 fore me. 
 
 JOHN D. TOY. 
 
 Baltimore, May 2,9th, 1822. 
 
 Although no doubt, I had seen Mr. Monroe in the office, 
 I did not recognise him on our meeting in Baltimore, and in 
 consequence of his being a stranger, both to the Notary and 
 myself, I called on Mr. Toy (who is the editor of a paper, 
 I believe) to state the foregoing fact. Those who know the 
 particulars of the endorsement on the proof sheets, will now 
 be convinced how it occurred : although the publication of my 
 pamphlet was so " secretly conducted," it was known to one 
 of the household of the only individual who had to fear it, and 
 he got possession of some of the sheets, before it was made 
 pubiic. I will, with a view of getting an answer, (supposing 
 
11 
 
 A. P. Upshur to be an honest man, and candid lawyer.) en- 
 quire to what rlass of arts in the criminal o>de, he would 
 place that mentioned in Mr. Monroe's deposition. 
 
 Previous to entering on an enquiry, as to the truth of the 
 charges contained in A. P. Upshur's letter of the 19th Sep- 
 tember, 1821, to Mr. George Campbell of Philadelphia, Ire- 
 quest the reader will refer to his pamphlet, page 4, for the 
 entire perusal of it,* in which he'll find, 
 
 " In all things nature tends 
 " a will most rank, 
 " Foul disproportion, thought unnatural." 
 
 That communication, of which the following is an extract, 
 evinces a vile and most malignant heart, and proves him (if 
 what he says be true) treacherous to private confidence, and 
 a vilifier of the guardians of public security. He concludes 
 his long epistle thus : «* I have, in this letter, confined myself to 
 « those matters, which I mentioned in Philadelphia. My en- 
 " quiries this morning, however, have furnished abundant ma- 
 « terials for a much longer story, but as I feel no disposition 
 *' to injure the miserable man, so long as he is not offending, 
 « I content myself with re-asserting what I stated in Phila- 
 ■# delphia. I should be gratified to know that you received 
 « this letter : very respectfully, &c. A. P. Upshur." By this act 
 his character is made manifest : it is a stamp upon his brow, 
 which shall strike all who gaze on, with unutterable horror, 
 and the good shall avoid him, as they would the horned mon- 
 ster, and his compatriots will shun him, as one whose foot is clo- 
 ven, and whose hands are garnished with talons : to write thus 
 
 " and not mean harm 
 " It is hypocricy against the Devil." 
 
 " Caught by your own delusive art, 
 " You fancy first, and then assert." 
 
 In the 49th page of A. P. Upshur's pamphlet, after denying 
 the truth of the statement made in the 8th page of my pam- 
 phlet relative to the conversation between him and myself on 
 the 4th of February, he says, l « however, it will be enough for 
 <« me to say, that the whole statement is a naked invention, and 
 «« contains not one circumstance even resembling the truth. 
 
 * Although it is not a true copy from the original, as appears 
 by the copy in my possession, sworn to by Mr. Campbell, the 
 omissions and alterations are, like its author, almost too con- 
 temptible to speak of. 
 
12 
 
 "He never shewed me Mr. Campbell's letter at all; and most 
 "certainly, if he had done so, he never would have ventured 
 " to assume the deportment, nor to hold the language to which 
 ** he lays claim. The hostile attitude to which he makes pre- 
 " tension, the public may be assured, is a most ridiculous bra- 
 l( vado ; for he never has on any occasion, except in the publi- 
 " cation of a libel, displayed towards me, the smallest resent- 
 lt ment, nor ventured even to utter one manly remonstrance." 
 How the creature is infatuated with the hope that his delusion 
 will not be detected ? I pledge myself before I finish this one 
 subject to convince his best friends that something more than 
 Ms authority will hereafter be required to entitle any report 
 to the least credit. My letter to A. P. Upshur of the 11th 
 February, 1822, and Mr. Murphy's certificate, both of which 
 follow in my pamphlet, page 9, the passage alluded to by A. 
 P. Upshur in his, and from which the above is an extract, I 
 must here insert. 
 
 Mr. Mel F. Upshur f 
 
 Sir, — My friend Mr. Murphy, (who will hand you this,) is 
 perfectly acquainted, (as well as yourself,) with the contents 
 of Mr. George Campbell's letter to me, in relation to asser- 
 tions stated by him, to have been made by you, injurious to 
 me, I now call on you, to say whether Mr. Campbell has 
 asserted the truth or otherwise. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 JNO: HENDREE. 
 
 Richmond, February 11th, 1822. 
 
 I delivered the above letter to Mr. Upshur, on the morning 
 of the 11th instant, who, after perusing it, and speaking of 
 the contents of Mr. Campbell's letter, returned it to me, de- 
 siring that I would return the same to Doctor Hendree ; that 
 he had no idea of answering an imperative demand of this 
 kind, and declined receiving any further communication from 
 Doctor Hendree, through the medium of a friend. 
 
 PETER MURPHY. 
 
 Monday the 11th February, 1822. 
 
 How is it, possible he could speak with Mr. Murphy of the 
 contents of Mr. Campbell's letter, if he bad never seen it ? 
 How did he know my demand was of an imperative nature ? 
 
13 
 
 Why decline receiving my communications ? He could not 
 have known what the purport of thrm would he, if lie had ne- 
 ver seen the letter: hut it may he said, Mr. Murphy is mis- 
 taken as to the conversation. That might possihly be, but it 
 will be admitted he delivered my letter, and if that be true, 
 and Upshur had never seen Mr. Campbell's letter, what 
 should, nay what would, and what must have been the first 
 and most natural enquiry made of Mr. Murphy? It is clear- 
 ly pointed out. «* To what does Doct. Hendrce allude by Mr. 
 Campbell's letter — what does he mean ? I know nothing of 
 such a letter — let me see it." It may he said, if Mr. Murphy 
 was mistaken in the conversation, he might also be mistaken 
 in the delivery of the letter ; that I will admit to be fair rea- 
 soning ; but 1 now pledge myself to introduce A. P. Upshur's 
 own declaration, extracted from a letter of his, acknowledg- 
 ing the identical fact stated by Mr. Murphy. Will it then he 
 said, if he could tell a falsehood to his advantage, he might 
 do the same to his own disadvantage ? Although such is the 
 fact, it is not fair reasoning to suppose he would designedly 
 speak to his own criminality. " A little while and I will he with 
 you." So perfectly aware was he of the only course left me 
 (after the result of my application on the 1 1th February,) to be, 
 that of arraigning him before the public, that he manifested the 
 greatest agitation on the occasion, and made application at the 
 printing offices, both in person and by proxy, several times to 
 know, if I had left a manuscript for publication relating to 
 him, and if I had, would he be permitted to see it before it 
 went to press ? The following gentlemen who declare to the 
 facts stated by the notary, are concerned in the editorial de- 
 partment of the only two daily papers published in this city, 
 and feeling as every honourable mind would feel, some deli- 
 cacy in stating any fact, which would tend to criminate an 
 individual, I was compelled to resort to the following alterna- 
 tive which is, in point of fact, as effectual as if voluntarily 
 done. 
 
 "This day William Jiamsay, Esq. Editor of the *< Richmond 
 Daily Mercantile Advertiser," appeared before me Herbert 
 A. Claiborne, a Notary Public for the city of Richmond, 
 duly commissioned, and made the subjoined answer to the 
 question propounded to him by Doctor John Hcndree. 
 
 '« Question by Doctor John Hendree. Be pleased to say 
 whether Abel P. Upshur did or did not in the month of Feb- 
 ruary last, or some time previous to the publication of my 
 pamphlet entitled " Refutation of calumnies propagated by A. 
 
14 
 
 P. Upshur of Richmond, by John Hendree," call twice at your 
 
 office and enquire of you whether a publication respecting him 
 
 had been left with you by me, to be printed ? Answer. He did. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand 
 
 and affixed my Notarial seal of office, at my of- 
 
 [Scal.] fice in the city of Richmond, this sixteenth day 
 
 of July, eighteen hundred and twenty two. 
 
 "HERBERT A. CLAIBORNE, Not. Pub. 9 * 
 " This day personally appeared before me, Herbert A. Clai- 
 borne, a Notary Public for the city of Richmond, duly ap- 
 pointed and commissioned, Daniel Trueheart, Esq. one of the 
 firm of Trueheart, Cary & Co Editors of the «* Richmond 
 Commercial Compiler," who made the subjoined answer to 
 the question propounded to him by Doctor John Hendree. 
 
 •"« Question by Doctor Hendree. Be pleased to say, whether 
 or not in the month of February last, or certainly some time 
 before the publication of my pamphlet, entitled «* A refutation 
 of calumnies propagated by Abel P. Upshur of Richmond, by 
 John Hendree," A. P. Upshur did call on you personally at 
 your office, and enquire of you whether I intended to make 
 a publication relative to him. Answer. Yes, he did. 
 
 " Given from under my hand at my office in the city of 
 Richmond, this eighth day of August, eighteen hun- 
 dred and twenty two. 
 
 « HERBERT A. CLAIBORNE, Not. Pub." 
 
 " Confirmation strong as proofs of holy writ." 
 
 It was in the month of February, the above enquiries were 
 made, to my certain knowledge, having been led myself at 
 the time to ascertain the fact from having heard of assertions 
 made by his runners, many of which I could, if necessary, in- 
 troduce in corroboration ; but when it occurs with the indivi- 
 dual himself, it places the fact beyond the possibility of a 
 question. I have therefore thought proper to confine my 
 proofs to them and them only. What circumstance on earth 
 could lead him to make such an enquiry, if nothing 4 « like a 
 demand" had been made ? For what could he suppose I in- 
 tended to publish him ? And if a demand was made, on what 
 authority did I make it ? Have I brought any other than 
 Mr. Campbell forward as my authority ? It is sufficient for 
 me to say he received Mr. Campbell's letter from my own 
 hand, and in my presence did he peruse it ; but he throws 
 off the "■ knight-errant," and like Daggerwood 
 
 " I can lie, if I won't fight," — says he* 
 
15 
 
 Further proofs are unnecessary to convince any but a zea- 
 lot : but as it may be said, those gentlemen are mistaken, and 
 as such is possible but not probable, ami being disposed to 
 accommodate, I will for a moment admit what no other man 
 in the community will, that they are mistaken, and then en- 
 quire into the correspondence between him and my brother. 
 
 Without my knowledge or consent, but not conceiving the 
 least impropriety in it, my brother was allowed in the month 
 of February the perusal of Mr. Campbell's letter to me of 
 the 22d September, 1821, the endorsement on the back of 
 which implicated him. He forthwith called on A. P. Upshur, 
 and demanded a denial or recantation of the charge, the for- 
 mer of which was made, concluding with these words : " you 
 got that from Mr. Campbell's letter," to which my brother 
 answered in the affirmative. The course which I determined 
 to pursue towards Upshur was confined to Mr. Murphy and 
 myself, until I was driven to the necessity of a publication, 
 and then not until the manuscript was ready for the press, 
 (that I recollect) did I converse with any other on the subject. 
 At the time my pamphlet issued from the press, my brother 
 was and had been for sometime previous confined on a jury. 
 Sufficient time having elapsed and Upshur failing to do him 
 that justice publicly to which he was entitled, the following 
 correspondence ensued.. 
 
 RICHMOND, April 7th, 1822. 1 
 Bell Tavern. J 
 Mr. Upshur, 
 
 Sir, — No doubt you recollect my calling on you some time 
 back, relative to an insinuation in Mr. Campbell's letter, 
 touching on my character, and was satisfied with your verbal 
 answer. Since which time that letter has been brought before 
 the public, through the medium of the press ; I therefore pre- 
 sume, you will see the propriety of an answer, through the 
 same medium, or in writing to yours, 
 
 GEORGE HENDREE. 
 
 N. B. It is proper I should inform you, that what passed 
 between you and myself never was communicated to my bro- 
 ther, until after his publication. 
 
 G. H. 
 
 To which the following answer was received. 
 
 Sir, — I received your note of yesterday. It will probably 
 lead us into some details, which would be more proper for a 
 
16 
 
 personal conversation than a written correspondence. I shall, 
 therefore, expect to see you, as soon as you shall be released 
 from the jury. 
 
 A. P. UPSHUR. 
 
 Monday morning. 
 
 Mr. George Hendree, Present. 
 
 RICHMOND, April 9th, 1822. "I 
 Bell Tavern. J 
 
 $ir,— -I received yours this morning, and it is very uncer- 
 tain, when this jury will be discharged ; you can see me here 
 until to-morrow morning 11 o'clock, where you are at liberty 
 to have conversation with me on any subject, not touching the 
 case before this jury. 
 
 GEORGE HENDREE. 
 
 Mr. Upshur, Richmond. 
 
 If I had not previously shewn him Mr. Campbell's letter, 
 how is it possible he could have known whence my brother got 
 the information ? Would he nnt have enquired, upon what au- 
 thority he made the demand ? Would he not have 'desired to 
 see Mr. Campbell's letter ? If the demand had not been made, 
 and on the authority of Mr. Campbell's letter (and which he, 
 Upshur, knew,) why did he answer my brother's note of the 
 7th, as is shewn above ? It will now be a fair enquiry, if Up- 
 shur denied it to my brother, why did he not do the same to 
 me ? Although I have shewn by his letter to my brother, that 
 he did verbally deny to him, the truth of Mr. Campbell's as- 
 sertion, and made the same confession to others, yet he did 
 not make the declaration publicly through the press. And 
 why ? Because it would reach Mr. Campbell, and he feared 
 the consequences, and my brother was left no other alternative 
 than publishing him, which he did on the 12th of April last, 
 in the Richmond Commercial Compiler, and the truth of 
 which he, Abel P. Upshur, has never dared deny. As my ob- 
 ject here is only to shew that he did see Mr. Campbell's let- 
 ter, I shall explain the cause of his refusing to deny or 
 recant the charges to me in another page. Will it be said, the 
 inferences are not fair? Surely not ; but suppose I admit it, 
 what will be said to the declaration of Upshur himself, on 
 that very, subject ? 
 
17 
 
 *' The way of the wicked is as darkness." 
 " They know not at what they stumble." 
 
 Proverbs, ch. iv. v. 19. 
 
 Tlie following extract I received, when in Philadelphia last. 
 
 i( The truth is, the letter which is certified by Peter Mur- 
 " phy, is the only thing like a demand which he ever made on 
 lt me ; and Murphy tells the truth, when he says, that I refus- 
 " ed to answer it. I told him to go back to Hendree and in- 
 (t form him, that he appeared to have changed his tone, that 
 l( I would answer no demand whatever, and that if Hendree 
 " wished any thing from me, he was to ask it as a favor." 
 
 A true extract from a letter from A. P. Upshur, esq. dated 
 Richmond, April 5th, 1 822, in my possession. 
 
 GEO. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Philadelphia, May 7th, 1 822. 
 
 Father above ! Look down and have mercy on that 
 being whose private correspondence is held up in judgment, 
 convicting him of falsehood in his statement before the pub- 
 lic, beyond any human possibility of contradiction. It af- 
 fords me a source of satisfaction in being able to introduce 
 the creature's own letter to commit him, because his declara- 
 tion involved the truth of Mr. Murphy's statement; not, that 
 any person, I am well convinced, who knows Mr. Murphy, 
 would question his integrity, but he appears before a public, to 
 w T hom he is a stranger. It has another effect ; it shews the ma- 
 lignity of the individual towards the man who was actuated 
 by the purest motives of friendship for me, and had no other 
 feeling towards Abel P. Upshur, than every honorable man 
 must feel towards the filcher of private character, that when 
 using his name, he omits that respect which should be by him 
 at all times observed towards his superior ; and who could 
 know the fact that Mr. Murphy was his superior in point of 
 integrity better than Abel P. Upshur himself? 
 
18 
 
 In approaching the subject of the charge of Forgery, it is 
 impossible to suppress sensations which rise involuntarily 
 from being obliged to introduce proofs, yes, incontrovertible 
 proofs against those concerned in preferingthe charge which 
 nothing but the conviction of its bearing reconciles the neces- 
 sity of bringing to light ; willingly I would the gloomy re- 
 cord should have slumbered forever : be assured, this deep con- 
 cern does not arise from any thing I have to fear from a dis- 
 closure of every circumstance connected with it, but for those 
 who are unfortunately connected to the witnesses by blood or 
 otherwise, whose feelings I willingly would have spared ; 
 therefore, charge me not with cruelty. I sought it not; they 
 have volunteered to my injury, and the right of self defence is 
 the privilege of every man ; nay, I even regret the necessi- 
 ty of naming individuals whose characters are long since 
 blasted by public indignation and covered with odium. If- in 
 the course of this defence, I shall be so unfortunate as to fail 
 in completely and effectually establishing the fart of the charge 
 being false, originating in malice and to benefit another's purse, 
 then let no arm be interposed to avert the justice of the blow ; 
 but if on the contrary, 1 do beyond a doubt establish my inno- 
 cence, let it be acknowledged even by my enemies. I shall be 
 as clear and as brief in the detail as possible, 
 
 " Nothing extenuate, 
 '* Nor set down aught in malice." 
 
 One John Rozell of Manchester, found it necessary to raise 
 the sum of $ 1200. the larger part of which he wanted by the 
 10th of June, 1818, for the purpose of meeting his engage-, 
 ments, (but of what nature I do not recollect:) Some days- be- 
 fore the 10th, he came to me for the purpose of getting his ob- 
 ject effected. It was agreed to, provided the security he offered 
 was given. For the greater certainty of negotiating the paper, 
 it was thought advisable to divide the amount. He therefore 
 executed and procured, the endorsement of Mr. Lewis Con- 
 vert of this city, Dr. Beverly Smith, and Frederick Clarke of 
 Manchester, to two notes of g> 600 each, at four and six 
 months date from the 7th June, very properly supposing 
 time would be required to raise the money. The notes were 
 put in my possession, which f retained as security for having 
 advanced him the amount his necessities would require, in a 
 few days. Astsoou as I succeeded in negociating the paper, 
 Rozell was informed of it and told the balance was subject to 
 his order. In the interim, he finds his necessities did not re- 
 
19 
 
 quire the amount lie bad anticipated, and the sum required 
 was so very inconsiderable, that a friend of his offered to loan 
 it to him. This communication he made to me, and requested 
 the notes to he returned, which was out of the question, for they 
 were no longer in my possession ; in consequence of which, a 
 difference took place between Rozell and myself, and it was 
 agreed he should pay up the amount I had advanced him, and 
 the balance be pai(| iuto the hands of Samuel Taylor, esq., 
 who was to pay the notes at maturity, which was punctually 
 complied with. Thus it rested for eight months, and yet 
 
 " No whisper told all's not well." 
 
 About this time, one Peyton Drew* of this city, (and the con- 
 fidential friend and associate of A. P. Upshur, as I shall pre- 
 sently shew,) heard of the difference which had taken place 
 at the time of the negotiation, and knowing the character of 
 Rozell, he at once concluded his object would be attained, by 
 prating some act on me, by which my testimony would he in- 
 validated, or by possessing himself of John Rozell and Frede- 
 rick Clarke, to testify to what he desired : he then would, 
 through me. force my brother to acknowledge his unjust de- 
 mand ; the latter of which he first attempted, by speaking of 
 the controversy between Rozell and myself, and saying he 
 had secured Clarke and Rozell, to swear to what he wanted, 
 then alluding to the pretended claim of Dance against my bro- 
 ther for his benefit, and saying if he could procure money, he 
 would be silent. He spoke several minutes in this unconnected 
 manner. Feeling as I did. not only conscious of my innocence 
 of improper conduct, hut ignorant of what the creature actually 
 alluded to ; I suffered it to pass, without notice at the time. Be- 
 fore I proceed further on this subject, it is proper that I should 
 not only let the reader know who this Peyton Drew is, but at 
 the same time, shew that he is a creature intrinsically too in- 
 significant to notice, but from the relation in which he stands 
 to A. P. Upshur, and this transaction, (however offes six e to 
 the touch in doing so,) I am under the necessity of submit- 
 ting. Therefore, to bring both Drew and Upshur, before the 
 public in the most imposing attitude, and that there may be 
 no doubt, as to the high authority by whom they are intro- 
 duced, I will cause the records of Virginia to perform that 
 
 * It is proper here to remark, that, previous to this, there was a 
 suit instituted by H. Dance, for the benefit of this Drew, against 
 my brother, in which I was a witness. 
 
20 
 
 office of civility, and of myself will say but little, farther 
 than explanation is essential ; but will give the language of 
 others, suitable to the enormity of the crime. I now mean 
 to establish the fact, that he did forswear himself on the 26th 
 day of July, 1817, in this city. 
 
 " This look of thine will hurl my soul from Heaven, 
 " And fiends will snatch at it." % 
 
 The first step (as I am informed,) required of a man when 
 lie intends taking the oath of insolvency, is to notify the 
 party or parties, or their counsel, to whom he is indebted, and 
 at whose instance he is held in custody, of his intention. Mr. 
 King not residing in this city, the following is a copy of the 
 notice, delivered to his counsel : 
 
 " Take notice, that between the hours of eleven o'clock in 
 the forenoon, and seven o'clock in the afternoon of this day, 
 the 26th of July, 1817, at the court-house of Henrico county, 
 I shall take the oath prescribed by law for an insolvent debtor, 
 upon two executions, issued from the superior court of law 
 for Henrico county, one of them issued on behalf of Robert 
 King against myself, and the other on behalf of said King, 
 against Harrison Dance and myself. 
 
 PEYTON DREW." 
 
 He then sends a petition to any two magistrates, praying 
 for the removal of his body from jail, that he may effect 
 his intended object (that of taking the insolvent oath.) In com- 
 pliance with the prayer, the following order is issued : 
 
 " Henrico County , to wit. 
 
 *«To THE KEEPER OF THE JAIL OF SAID COUNTY. 
 
 '< Whereas, Peyton Drew of the city of Richmond, now 
 a prisoner, upon execution for debt in your custody, hath by 
 his petition to us Joseph H. Mayo and George Williamson, 
 justices of the peace for the county of Henrico aforesaid, 
 prayed that he may be discharged out of custody, pursuant to 
 the act of the General Assembly, in that case made and pro- 
 vided : these are therefore in the name of the common wealth 
 to require you to bring immediately before us, or any two 
 just'ces of this county, at the court house of this county, on 
 this day, the body of the said Peyton Drew, together with a 
 
21 
 
 list of the several executions wherewith he stands charged in 
 your jail, and have then there this precept. Given under our 
 hands and seals, the 2.6th day of July, 1817. 
 
 " GEO. WILLIAMSON, [Seal.] 
 
 "JOSEPH H. MAYO, [Seal.] 
 " A copy — Teste, 
 
 « J. ROBINSON, Cl'k." 
 
 His hody is now removed from prison by the jailor, before 
 the justices, who administer an oath, by which the deponent 
 declares he surrenders his all. It is long — I will, therefore, 
 only give an extract, which is fully sufficient to shew to what 
 he swears : he begins by saying : " In the presence of Al- 
 *< mighty God, I solemnly swear, &c. &c." that he has no ef- 
 fects in possession, or has any person for him, a part of which 
 is in the following words, " whereby any money may hereof- 
 "■ ter become payable, or any benefit or advantage accrue to 
 " me> or to my use, or to any other person or persons in trust 
 "for me ; and that I, or any other person or persons in trust 
 " for me have not land, money, stock, or any other estate, real 
 6i or personal, in possession, reversion, or remainder, of the 
 " value of the debt, or debts, which I am charged in execu- 
 " tion ; and that I have not, directly, or indirectly, sold, les- 
 " sened, or otherwise disposed of in trust, or concealed all, 
 " or any part of my lands, money, goods, stocks, debts, secu- 
 " rities, contracts, or estate, whereby to secure the same ; or 
 * i to receive, or expect any profit therefrom, or to defraud or 
 '* deceive any creditor, or creditors, to whom I am indebted 
 *« in any wise howsoever. So help me God." 
 
 The oath having been made, and some other forms requir- 
 ed, complied with, the following warrant is issued for his re- 
 lease : 
 
 «« To the Sheriff, or keeper of the Jail of Henrico county. 
 
 " We hereby command you, in the name of the common- 
 wealth, forthwith to release, and set at liberty, Peyton Drew, 
 a prisoner, now in your custody, by virtue of an execution 
 against him, at the suit of Robert King, for the sum of three 
 thousand dollars, with interest from the 30th of March, 1816, 
 till paid, and costs; and of another execution against Harri- 
 son Dance and said Drew, at the suit of said King, for the 
 sum of one. thousand and thirty dollars, and eighty three 
 cents, with interest from the 10th of March, 1816, till paid, 
 and three dollars and seventy five cents, and costs, and thirty 
 
seven dollars and twenty one cents damages, the said Peyton 
 Drew having complied with the directions of the art of the 
 General Assembly, for the relief of insolvent debtors, if the 
 said Peyton Drew is detained in your custody for ho other 
 cause than the executions aforesaid, and for so doing, this 
 shall be your warrant. Given under our hands and spals, as 
 justices of the peace for Henrico county the 26tti day oj July, 
 1817. 
 
 « GEO. WILLIAMSON. [Seal.] 
 " JOSEPH H. MAYO, [Seal.] 
 
 « A copy — Teste, 
 
 "J. ROBINSON, Cl'k." 
 
 The prisoner Drew is now set at liberty, and scarce had he 
 passed without the threshold of that door, within which he 
 had but that moment, before his God, made oath he had not ef- 
 fects of the value of the one debt with which he then stood 
 charged, when he consents to become the security of another, 
 and repairs forthwith to the clerk of the court of appeals for 
 the purpose. Now to the sequel, for which there can be no 
 apology ! 
 
 " Blow me about in winds ! Roast me in sulphur !" 
 "Wash me in steep-down gulfs of liquid fire!" 
 
 Although the clerk of the court perfectly well knew, Drew 
 was insolvent and not responsible for one cent, provided he 
 (Drew) chose to comply with the law in making oath, that 
 he was worth the sum for which he was then to be bound, the 
 clerk could not refuse receiving hinj, and in obedience to the 
 duties of his office he administers the oath (holding in his 
 hand at the same time the bond to which Drew had that mo- 
 ment subscribed as security.") Being of the usual form, it is 
 unnecessary to insert it here : 
 
 «*To wit : 
 
 « c This Q6th day of July, one thousand eight hundred and se- 
 venteen, Peyton Drew the surety to the within bond, person- 
 ally appeared before me, and made oath that his estate after 
 the payment of all his debts, is worth one hundred dollars. 
 Given under my hand the day and year above mentioned. 
 
 " H. DANCE, C. C. A> 
 
 <t Copy — Teste, 
 
 « fl. DANCE, Clerk." 
 
23 
 
 Reader, if you doubt, read again, and again, and then 
 question the truth of the records of Virginia. 
 
 " There is a God, 
 
 " All nature speaks aloud." 
 
 Then just as firmly must be believed, that on the 26tk 
 day of July, 1817, Peyton Drew did forswear himself. At that 
 moment his hand which held the Holy hook should have wi- 
 thered and dropped from his body, ere he suffered the sacred 
 record to be polluted by his lips. What must be the feelings of 
 a jury, when called on by a creature to hold sacred that oath, 
 the solemnity of which, and the enormity of its violation he 
 himself totally disregards ; nay, the very hand which holds 
 tin- book, and records the oath, is *« perjured to the bosom," 
 and what the feelings of the judges of that court ot which he is 
 ; clerk ? What security have they for the records of their official 
 acts ? But what must be the sensations of the legislature of Vir- 
 ginia, when told that to such a creature's trust, is confided a 
 portion of the records of the state, and they the guardians of 
 the people, allow a sacrilegious wretch, to hold an office 
 within their gift ? What does the honor of the state claim, w hat 
 does the honor of their own body loudly call for, and above 
 all, what does the sanctuary of the courts of justice imperiously 
 demand ? The same answer must be given by all ; a change. 
 Ignorance will no longer be a shield for the omission of a 
 hallowed duty. Bear in mind the legal maxim, that *« the judge 
 is condemned when the Criminal escapes." 
 
 The law very correctly presumes every man to know what 
 is on record. This inference is very justifiable towards A. P. 
 Upshur, not only from the particular intimacy between him- 
 self and Drew, and the relation in which they stand to each 
 other at this moment, and have for years, a client and 
 counsel in numerous suits, but from the positive proof which 
 I shall now introduce from the records, to shew the manner 
 in which he was connected with Drew in the foregoing fact: 
 
 « k I certify that Abel P. Upshur. Esq. is entered on the 
 docket of the superior court of law for Henrico county, as 
 attorney for Peyton Drew, in a suit brought against the said 
 Drew by Robert Ring, in which suit a judgment was ren- 
 dered for the plaintiff, on the 25th day of, April, 1817, for 
 g 3,000, with interest thereon, from the thirtieth day of 
 March. 1816, till payment, and 8 3 75 cents, and costs 
 J5 9 90 cents. 
 
 « J. ROBINSON, Clerk." 
 
24 
 
 It is~perceived, that judgment was obtained on the 25th 
 of April, 1817, and on the 26th of July following, while held in 
 custody for that very debt, he swears he has surrendered his 
 all, and was not worth sufficient to pay that one claim, and 
 on the same day he not only swore he had property sufficient 
 to pay all bis debts, but that he had at least one hundred dol- 
 lars more. The reader being now thoroughly convinced that 
 A. P. Upshur was privy to this specific fact, anu no doubt 
 many others equally vile, might enquire what has the num- 
 ber or enormity of his crimes to do with my defence ? It is 
 not because he is the confidential friend and associate of A. 
 P. Upshur, and the one he did send post haste to Philadelphia 
 in the month of May last, five years after the perjury, with 
 letters of introduction to his friends, and to prevent, if possible, 
 my getting possession of the letters he had written to Mr. 
 Campbell, relating to me,* and if necessary, to procure a cer- 
 tificate of the interpolation, in the 18th page of my pamphlet, re- 
 lative to the sale of my library ; not because it is the same Drew 
 who did, without authority, announce to the citizens of Phila- 
 delphia, through the " Democratic Press," and the " Ame- 
 rican Daily Advertiser," (refer to Mr. Binns and Mr. 
 Poulson the editors,) that a reply to my pamphlet, circu- 
 lated in that city, would shortly appear, '« by a citizen of 
 Richmond;" and because Upshur who had previously determin- 
 ed not to answer my publication, (see his exordium) did com- 
 ply in obedience to the annunciation of his friend Drew ; not 
 because, this is the creature who communicated with Upshur, 
 and informed him that my publication had covered him with 
 odium, in Philadelphia ; not because he was Upshur's right 
 hand man in getting up his pamphlet ; not but what these 
 facts shew at this time and long anterior, the existence of 
 the most confidential communion between them, and all of 
 which are strictly true, and shew in the clearest point of 
 view, the link by which they are connected, and " he who 
 communes with the wicked must perish with them ;" yet 
 they were by no means the causes which induced me to 
 shew the fact of perjury. My object is to shew that this 
 Peyton Drew, who in January, 1819, before a magistrate 
 in this city, made oath that I had committed a forgery, is 
 the same who 18 months before, to wit: on the 9.6th July, 
 1817, did forswear himself, which is shewn by the records of 
 the state, and to which act Abel P. Upshur was privy, and 
 who in Jan. 1819, with a thorough conviction, that not the least 
 
 * In this effort he was disappointed. I had received them, be- 
 fore his aid-de-camp reached there. 
 
25 
 
 credit was to be attached to Drew's oath, did, as one of the 
 police officers of this city, direct and advise said Drew, how 
 to proceed for obtaining my arrest. I will not pretend to say 
 the paltry sum of five dollars, which is allowed him by the 
 city for conducting a prosecution, could have been the object 
 he had in view, in wishing to convict me ; no, he was to par- 
 take in the sum recovered from my brother, by invalidating 
 my testimony, by hook, or by crook ; how, he did not care. 
 For it is a fact, well known, that Drew is indebted to Upshur, 
 a large sum of money, and this, if procured, was to go to le- 
 quidate that debt. ;- 
 
 " Who should be trusted now ? The right hand 
 " Is perjured to the bosom." 
 
 This Peyton Drew on the 7th of January, 1819, did make 
 oath before a Magistrate that I had been guilty of forgery, 
 and to sustain the charge he introduced John Rozell and 
 Frederick Clarke. I wish it to be remembered, that the notes 
 spoken of bear date the 7th of June, 1818. Frederick Clarke 
 swore that he endorsed them on the 18th of June, and then 
 they bore date on the 17 th of June, «< I know this fact (said 
 he) having made an entry of it at the time." Rozell went mea- 
 sureably to support Clarke's testimony, but not fully. This was 
 considered sufficient ground for the call of a court of exami- 
 nation to enquire into the circumstances and the testimony, 
 and to see whether the charge was founded on truth or false- 
 hood ; consequently the 14th day of January, 1819, was the 
 day appointed for the court to convene. In the interim (that 
 is between the 7th and 14th of January,) I was employed in 
 ascertaining how to rebut the charge. Upon examination, the 
 signature of Messrs. Moncure, Robinson & Pleasants, was 
 found to be the last endorsement on one of the notes,* and 
 
 *As the whole "controversy turned on the fact of the altera- 
 tion," and the fate of one note decided that of both, I shall for 
 the present only speak of one, and will therefore exhibit that, be- 
 ing the one on which the police Lawyer relied, and tried the 
 question. 
 8 600. Richmond, 7th June, 1818. 
 
 Six months after date, I promise to pay to Lewis Convert, or or- 
 der, six hundred dollars, negotiable and payable at the Bank of 
 Virginia, without offsett, for value received. 
 
 (endorsed.) JOHN ROZEL. 
 
 L. Convert, 1 Fred. Clarke, 7 
 
 Bev. Smith, $ Moncure, Robinson Sf Pleasants. 3 
 
 A Copv— Teste, TH : C. HOWARD, Cl'k. 
 
 4 . 
 
26 
 
 the firm to whom the money was actually paid. • This infor- 
 mation was given to Mr. B. W. Leigh and Mr. M. M. Robin- 
 son. Mr. Leigh forthwith called on Mr. Frederick Pleasants, 
 (one of the firm of Moncure, Robinson & Pleasants,) who 
 stated the following fact, u that the note was dated on the 7th 
 June, 1818, and was in their possession on the 16th of the 
 same mc/nth with Clarke's endorsement," and he offered the 
 books of the firm in evidence. Mr. Robinson, (without any 
 knowledge of the enquiry made by Mr. Leigh,) also called 
 oh Mr. Pleasants, and received for answer the same. Both of 
 the gentlemen called on me at my brother's, and expressed to 
 him and myself their full conviction, that the examining court 
 Would acquit me. I state this fact to shew that they not only 
 performed their duty as counsel, but a duty of greater magni- 
 tude, that of defending and establishing the innocence of an 
 injured man. Previous to the convening of the court on the 
 14th, Peyton Drew, who was aware of the fact I should estab- 
 lish by Mr. Pleasants, and knowing it would weigh down a 
 world of testimony on the other side, apprised Clarke of it.* 
 On the 14th of Jan. the court of examination was formed, and 
 Frederick Clarke was brought in,f who, at this time declined 
 saying wha* he had sworn to on the 7th, but stated that he be- 
 lieved it was on the 14th or 15£/iof June, that he endorsed the 
 notes ; at which time they were dated the 1 7th June, as well as 
 his memory served him, as he made no memorandum of it. Mr. 
 Frederick Pleasants was then requested to state what he 
 knew. He not only established the fact by the records:): of 
 their business, that the note was in their possession, on the 
 16th June, then bearing date the 7th of that month, with the 
 
 * I deem it unnecessary to speak of Rozell. As Upshur has 
 thought him an unfit subject to constitute any part of his dehnce, 
 he cannot be a fit one for me to criminate. I think I am correct in 
 believing his testimony had not the least influence with the court, 
 but not as Upshur says, "owing to the relation in which he stood, 
 as drawer of the note," but from an act of his own life, which 
 was then held up in judgment against him ; and having no wish to 
 injure the man, I shall decline speaking of him, more at this 'time. 
 
 tit was requested by my counsel, and adjudged correct by the 
 court, that the witnesses for the prosecution should be sent out of 
 court, and one at a time ufi ughtin, to prevent the one from know- 
 ing what the other had stated ; and it had the best possible ef- 
 fect in " upholding truth and lair dealing." 
 
 Jit is proper for me here to remark, that the firm of Moncure, 
 Robinson & Pleasants, (of whose books I am now speaking,) is oue 
 amongst the most respectable mercantile houses in this country. 
 
2.7 
 
 endorsement of Frederick Clarke, but on his oath, gave it 
 confirmation by declaring bis conviction of its truth. Fred- 
 erirk Clarke was then called up by my counsel, to say whe- 
 ther he did not positively swear on the 7th of January, that 
 he endorsed the notes on the ISth of June, which he most po- 
 sitively denied. My counsel then requested Mr. Charles 
 Copland, (who was a magistrate on the 7th that heard Clarke's 
 testimony,) to say what was Clarke's evidence at that time. 
 Mr. Copland, who, with thp most perfect recollection of what 
 it was, and without the least hesitation ; (I will .give his own 
 words) stated, that «* Mr. Clarke declared positively, that he 
 <« endorsed the notes on the 18th of June, that be bad made 
 an entry of it at t\w time." Mr. Lewis Convert the first, and 
 Doct. Beverley Smith the second endorser, were then called 
 on, who declared they had no recollection of the date of the 
 note, and whether dated the 7th or ■* 7*h, wou d not have the 
 least influence with them as to endorsing. Thus stands the 
 testimony of Frederick Clarke, the witness relied on by A. 
 P. Upshur, to support the charge. 
 
 The testimony of Frederick Clarke, 
 on the 7th of January, 1819, before the 
 magistrate, who ordered my arrest " I 
 endorsed the notes on the Wlh June, 
 181 8, at which time they bore date on the 
 17*Aof the same month. "I know the fact, 
 having made an entr ■ of it, at the time." 
 
 Frederick Clarke's testimony, on the 
 14th January, 1819. "I believe I en- 
 dorsed the notes, on the 14th or 15th 
 June, 1818, at which time they bore 
 date on the 7th of the same month, as 
 well as my memory serves me, having 
 made no memorandum of it " 
 
 Frederick Clarke was then called up, 
 examined, and required to say, whether 
 his testimony was not on the 7th, what 
 is stated above, which he positively de- 
 nied. 
 
 The testimony of Mr. Frederick Plea. 
 sants, on the 14th June, 1819 F Our 
 books shew the note was in our posses- 
 sion, on the 16th June, 1818, with the 
 endorsement of Frederick Clarke, at 
 which time it hore date on the 7th same 
 month, which fact, I believe to be per- 
 fectly correct and true." 
 
 After Clarke's denial, Mr. Charles 
 Copland was called on to say, what his 
 (Clarke's) testimony was, on the 7th Ja- 
 nuary, who stated thus : " Mr. Clarke 
 declared positively, that he endorsed the 
 notes on the 1 8th June, 1818., that he 
 made an entry of it at the tune. p 
 
 The books of one of the banks, (which, I do not recollect,) 
 corroborated the fact of the occurrence of the transaction, 
 on the 1 6th of the month, as exhibited bv the books of Messrs. 
 Moncure, Robinson and Pleasants. Here my counsel proposed 
 to leave it to the court, without argument, which A. P. Up- 
 shur, who was the corporation lawyer, refused. He commenced 
 on the part of the prosecution, by attempting to offer some 
 impertinent remarks, on the testimony of Mr. Frederick Plea- 
 sants, who instantly checked his assurance, and he did not 
 presume to hint any thing offensive afterwards. The case be- 
 
28 
 
 ing argued on both sides, the court at once acquitted me. 
 Immediately after which, in open court, information was 
 lodged with A. P. Upshur, and he was directed expressly to 
 indict Peyton Drew and his associate, and his A. P. Upshur's 
 oath of office binds him under such circumstances to prose- 
 cute, but in this instance, he failed to comply, and he now 
 stands publickly charged with a violation of his official duty. 
 Mr.' Leigh and Mr. Hay, (who made as usual, an able de- 
 fence,) in their zeal for their client's cause, and from a tho- 
 rough conviction of my innocence, and the very contradic- 
 tory statement made by Clarke himself, induced them both 
 to animadvert on his testimony with freedom. Mr. Hay, 
 made a direct charge, (which his letter that here follows, will 
 * explain,) in which he was fully justified, by the testimony 
 before the court. These facts were made very current, as 
 well as all the circumstances of the examination, going much 
 to the prejuduce of Clarke ; and although it will be quite con- 
 trary to the expectation of A. P. Upshur, I am determined 
 to do him (Clarke) all the justice in my power. I will there- 
 fore, re-publish the means placed in his hands, to remove, if 
 possible, the imputation of perjury, under which he labored, 
 and with which he had been charged in open court. 
 
 [The following letters appeared in the Enquirer on the 11th Feb. 1819.] 
 
 To the Editor of the Enquirer. 
 
 I send you (with a request that you will give them an in- 
 sertion in your paper,) the enclosed letters, which, although 
 they relate to an affair that has been settled some time since 
 between those gentlemen and myself, privately and satisfacto- 
 rily ; yet as the imputation made on my character and feel- 
 ings, to which they apply, was made by one of those gentle- 
 men, and a report, that a similar imputation was made by the 
 other, having become as public ; that painful as it is to appear 
 in a newspaper on such a subject, I have no means left to 
 counteract the public impressions, but in publishing their let- 
 ters ; in which will be found the retraction of the one gentle- 
 man, and the denial of the other that he ever made the charge. 
 "Whether Doctor Hendree was guilty or innocent, and whether 
 /was mistaken, or Mr. Pleasants was mistaken, is a matter 
 of no sort of concern to me ; and are certainly not subjects 
 for newspaper discussion. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 FREDERICK CLARKE. 
 
 February 5th. 
 
29 
 
 RICHMOND, January 29th. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 As you have already declared yourself perfectly satisfied on 
 the subject of the conversation that took nlacc between us on 
 the 27th, you may perhaps be surprised at my renewing the 
 subject. In truth, though you are satisfied with me, 1 am 
 not exactly satisfied with myself. 'I he manner of your con- 
 versation witii me, left no other sentiment on my mind to- 
 wards you, but sympathy for your wounded feelings. No 
 man shall have reason to complain of even an unintentional 
 injury at my hands. As I learn that a report has gone abroad, 
 that in my defence of Doctor Hendree, I made an imputation 
 on you, which you know I did not make, and which I know I 
 did not intend to make, I really sec no effectual way of reme- 
 dying the mischiefs, such reports are calculated to produce, 
 but the making public what I have said in private. I there- 
 fore take this method of stating explicitly, that the whole and 
 sole object of the remarks I made on your evidence in Doctor 
 Hendree's case, was to prove that you were mistaken, and 
 Mr. Pleasants was right in respect to the date of the trans- 
 action, concerning which you were examined, that date being 
 almost the only point in the cause. I then thought, and still 
 think, that my client was perfectly innocent of the offence of 
 which he was accused. 1 then thought, and still think you 
 were mistaken as to the matter of the date ; but I never ex- 
 pected that a charge of perjury would be inferred from the 
 imputation (however unqualified) of a mistake concerning 
 the date of an ordinary transaction which occurred six 
 months ago. I did indeed discuss the subject with freedom 
 (for that was necessary to the faithful discharge of my duty,) 
 and with the more freedom, so far as you were concerned, 
 from a belief that you were not at all likely to misunderstand 
 me. I am happy to hand you herewith a letter from my 
 friend Mr. Hay, which I think cannot fail of being very 
 grateful to your feelings. And I advise you to publish both 
 his letter and mine. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 B. W. LEIGH. 
 
 .Vr. Frederick Clarke. 
 
 RICHMOND, Jan. 29th. 
 
 Sir, — T have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
 the 28th ; and I am glad you wrote it, since it puts it in my 
 power to do you effectual justice, voluntarily. When I made 
 
3d 
 
 the imputation upon your character, to which you allude, I 
 certainly thought mysHf justified hy the circumstances; and 
 bound in duty to my client, to make it. At the same time, 
 you may be assured, -that it was very painful to me to wound 
 your feelings in so tender a point. I have reflected a great 
 deal on the subject since, and while I am more and more con- 
 vinced of Doct. Hendree's innocence of the offence laid to his 
 charge, my impression in regard to your evidence, on his tri- 
 al, is altered. No false pride shall ■ever induce me to perse- 
 vere in an unjust imputation on the character of any man. 
 I can readily believe, that a witness at one time may be wry 
 positive as to such a fact as the date of a particular transac- 
 tion's occurring months before ; and at another time, have on- 
 ly a strong impression on the subject ; and that both when he 
 swears positively, and when he swears to his impressions only, 
 he may be mistaken, without the least intentional violation of 
 truth. I still think you are mistaken, as to the date of the 
 transaction, concerning which you were examined, but I also 
 now sincerely believe, that you were perfectly innocent of 
 stating any thing on that trial, which you did not believe to 
 be true. The fairness of your character, reported to me by 
 gentlemen in whom I completely confide, and, above all, 
 the feelings you have manifested on this occasion (in which, 
 as you suppose, I really sympathise,) would, of themselves, 
 have been sufficient to induce me to acquit you, bearing false 
 witness against your neighbour. 
 
 My design, is to make you complete reparation, and the 
 most effectual way of doing that, is certainly to publish this 
 letter. I think, however, I ought to leave that entirely to 
 yourself; and, therefore, I shall only say, that you have my 
 free consent to make this letter public, or not, as you please. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 Wm. HAY, Jk. 
 
 Mr. Frederick Clarke. 
 
 What magnanimity of conduct! While Messrs. Leigh and 
 Hay, are displaying the most noble and generous feelings of 
 honorable men, towards redeeming an individual, whose in- 
 consistency of testimony, had stained his integrity, A. P. 
 Upshur is seeking to exalt his own character, by suffering 
 Mr. Stout to lead him by the nose, through the city of Phila- 
 delphia, to injure by falsehood, one who " is not offending. ,> 
 "While the soul swells with admiration of the two first, the 
 cheeks mantle with indignation, at the conduct of the latter, 
 and the heart sickens with pity, that as a human being, he 
 
31 
 
 should have sunk beneath the meanest reptile that crawls, in 
 thus prostituting the character of a man. Let my opinion of 
 Clarke's testimony be what it may, and let that opinion he 
 founded on facts, known to myself however strong, as to 
 whether he wilfully or innocently swore wrong, it is my sin- 
 cere wish, that the public may unhesitatingly, subscribe to 
 the opinion of the two gentlemen, whose letters arc published 
 above. For, if Clarke was innocently mistaken, I was inno- 
 cent of t;ie charge, and if he wilfully swore false, I was no more 
 than innocent, and to establish that, is all I can possibly de- 
 sire ; therefore, may his oath be thus recorded in Lleaven, 
 ** he was innocently mistaken." Although it is fair to pre- 
 sume, I did know of the publication of the above letters, yet 
 as they were written and received without my kuowlcdge, 
 it is proper I should put the fact of my having known their 
 contents beyond a doubt. I will therefore, shew what Mr. 
 Trueheart, who was connected with the Enquirer, says on the 
 subject. 
 
 «« I have been on the most friendly, and intimate terms with 
 Dr. John Hendree, duri g his residence in this city, and have 
 several times spoken with him, on the subject of the charge of 
 forgery, which was preferred against him ; he invariably#mam- 
 tain "d his innocence, and never admitted for a moment, any 
 thing to the contrary, and always spoke of it, as a malicious 
 prosecution. I recollect well, to have spoken with him on the 
 subject of the letters of Messrs. B. W. Leigh and Win. Hay, 
 addressed to Mr. Frederick Clarke, who published them in 
 the Enquirer of the 11th February, 1819, wherein they do, 
 in the strongest terms, declare the innocence of Doctr. Hen- 
 dree, and with my knowledge of him, 1 always did, and do 
 still, believe him perfectly innocent of the charge. 
 
 D. TRUEHEARTV' 
 
 Richmond, Va. 1822. 
 
 I will now establish, by Mr. Johnson, together with Mr. 
 Trueheart, this one important fact, that I never confessed to 
 those who are among my best and most intimate friends, hav- 
 ing made the alteration : 
 
 '* I have been on the most intimate terms of friendship with 
 Doct. J. Hendree. during his residence in this city, and have 
 on several occasi-ois spoken with him on the charge of forge- 
 ry, which was preferred against him. He always maintained 
 
S2 
 
 liis innocence, and spoke of it as a malicious prosecution 5 
 and with my knowledge of Doctor Hendree and the circum- 
 stances which came out on the trial, I always did, and do still 
 helieve him perfectly innocent of the charge. 
 
 DAVID JOHNSON." 
 
 Richmond, Va. 1822. 
 
 Suppose I admit for a moment, that the notes were made 
 on the 17th of the month, and Frederick Clarke endorsed 
 them on the 1 8th, and they were altered to the 7th, then enquire 
 into the injury to he sustained by the parties, and thoroughly 
 examine the quo anitno, the intent of the act, and see how far 
 it was criminal. Was the amount of the notes altered ? No. 
 Was any name forged ? No. Were the notes improperly ob- 
 tained ? No. Was the money which they were to produce, 
 withheld from its rightful owner ? No. For Jnhn Rozell re- 
 ceived from me, the larger portion immediately on putting 
 them in my possession, and the balance was offered him a few 
 days after ; then what benefit was I to derive from the altera- 
 tion ? Was it that of getting the money ten days earlier, than 
 it was in reality due ? No, that could not be, for one of them 
 was in the possession of Messrs. Moncure, Robinson and 
 Pleasants, on the \6th June, and the other Mr. John J. Werth, 
 certainly held on the 8th of July, how much earlier, I do not 
 know ; for the fact is, neither of them were passed to the hol- 
 ders by me, but they received them from a second or third per- 
 son. It is unnecessary to go further into that enquiry, as it ne- 
 ver has been pretended that gain was the object for which 
 the alteration was made. The next enquiry is, who was to be 
 injured by the alteration, the drawer ? No, for he received 
 the money agreeable to contract. Then were the endorsers 
 to be injured ? No, for Mr. Convert and Doctr. Smith ex- 
 pressly stated, it was of no importance to them, whether dated 
 the 7th or 17th of the month. Was it then Frederick Clarke 
 alone, who was to suffer? No, that is impossible, for, in the 
 paper published by A. P. Upshur, page 41, he (Clarke) is 
 made, (when speaking of the interview he had with me in 
 June 1818,) expressly to use the following words, " and besides 
 u such had been his confession, as to protect, in my opinion, the 
 < l drawer and endorsers of those notes from any liability under 
 lt them." Consequently, by his own shewing, he was not to 
 be injured, but, on the contrary, exonerated from any liabili- 
 ty as endorser : then who was to be the gainer or loser by 
 the alteration ? No one. The next question is, did Frederick 
 Clarke endorse them on the 1 8th of June ; if he did, it is more 
 
3S 
 
 than probable lie was right as to their being dated on the 17th 
 of the month ? !No ; it is impossible be could have endorsed 
 on the 18th, when one of them was in the possession of 
 Messrs. Moncure, Robinson & Pleasants on the 16th, which 
 is a fact beyond the least question, as is not only shewn by 
 the testimony of Mr. Pleasants, and the occurrence of the 
 transaction on that day corroborated by the banks, but by the 
 fact that Clarke not only refused to repeat on the 14th of 
 January, what he had sworn to on the 7th of the sam<* month, 
 but positively denied the statement he made on the 7th which 
 Mr. Copland proved on him. Let any man take a view of 
 the foregoing statement, and then believe there was guilt (ad- 
 mitting the alteration to have been made) in the intention, if 
 he can. If, therefore, it be admitted, that it was a guiltless 
 intention, it must also be admitted, that it was a harmless act. 
 But, can it be believed that John Rozel, or any other person, 
 whose necessities required money to be raised under such cir- 
 cumstances, would be so stupid as to think it possible a note 
 could be negotiated before it was in existence ? Who would 
 receive in payment an obligation with four names (the drawer 
 and three endorsers) before the arrival of that day of the 
 month on which it bore date ? An accident to either party 
 previous would at once cancel his liability. Such a transaction 
 might occur between honourable and confidential friends, but 
 never in the ordinary transactions of business v\ here confi- 
 dence and friendship extend no farther than is justified by 
 the security held. It must now be admitted, that I have not only 
 shewn that i could gain nothing by the alteration, but have 
 proved I never made it, (if made at all.) I have also shewn ; 
 first, that the individual who preferred the charge on his oath, 
 did eighteen months previous forswear himself ; secondly, 
 the witness who was to sustain the charge, was in his testi- 
 mony mistaken, say r the least of it ; thirdly, my acquittal by 
 the only tribunal on earth, who could, as I then stood, estab- 
 lish the fact of my innocence or guilt ; fourthly, a declaration 
 of my innocence made by two among the most eminent mem- 
 bers of the Virginia bar, to whom qualification and opportu- 
 nity had given every advantage to judge, and their declara- 
 tion made without my knowledge or solicitation ; fifthly, that 
 there was no motive to prompt me to the act ; and sixthly, the 
 result was perfectly satisfactory to my friends, in whose con- 
 duct towards me, I have not experienced the least change. Is it 
 not fair to presume that I should here be willing to let the matter 
 rest ; will any man doubt it ? Yes, there is one ; the same who 
 was told immediately after the adjournment of the court, by 
 
 5 
 
34 
 
 a perfectly disinterested man. '« What you have done to Dr. 
 H 'iidree, I would not have done for the world, no, not to save 
 my right arm." It was A. P. Upshur, who had it given him, 
 and however severe that may have heen to his feelings, his 
 disappointment was greater in not setting aside my testimony * 
 to aid the cause of Drew, by which his pecuniary concerns 
 were to be benefitted. To shew the visionary mind of thtB 
 creature, Upshur, I will here insert an extract from his letter 
 to Mr. Campbell, of the 19th September, 1821, (see his 
 pamphlet, page 4.) When noticing the interview, he says he 
 held with me in Philadelphia, in the summer of 1821, he 
 writes thus : « l He requested permission to explain to me, 
 " the circumstances of a supposed forgery, for which he had 
 <' been put on his trial in this city. Although I conducted the 
 " prosecution, it had wholly escaped my memory, and I made 
 " no mention of it in the conversation I had with Mr. Stout. 
 ** The forgery of which he was accused, consisted in the 
 " fraudulent alteration ot the date of a note from the 13th to 
 « the 10th of the month.* There was much,conflicting tes- 
 " timony on the subject, the witnesses on both sides being 
 '< highly and equally respectable. The whole controversy 
 M turned on the fact of the alteration, and the court not con- 
 «« sidering it sufficiently proved, he was acquitted. In the 
 " course of the conversation which I had with him in Phila- 
 «' delphia, he acknowledged that he did make the alteration, 
 " but at the same time stated such reasons for so doing, as if 
 '« true, would greatly extenuate, and perhaps wholly remove 
 «« the moral guilt of the act. At his trial, however, and be- 
 lf fore it, he always denied very strenuously that any altera- 
 lf tion had been made. He st >ted in Philadelphia, that the 
 * l alteration was made by direction or with the consent of 
 •' Rozel, one of the parties to the note, and I think the maker 
 «' of it. There were endorsers, however, whose consent was 
 « not obtained, but against whom, as he asserts, no* fraud was 
 « designed." 
 
 It has been the misfortune of this " knight-errant," through 
 the whole of this controversy, to have the lie given him flatly, 
 by his best friends, (as he calls them.) They being a kind of 
 testimony entitled to implicit credit, under such circumstan- 
 ces, I feel no disposition to change the course originally 
 adopted. When in Philadelphia in May last, Mr. Campbell 
 handed me, the original letter he had received from A. P. Up- 
 
 * "In this I was mistaken. It was from the 17th to the 7th of 
 rt the month. See Frederick Clarke's deposition." 
 
35 
 
 shur, (of which the above is an extract.) On finding the fol- 
 lowing pass ge in it •• although I conducted tin prosecution, 
 " it liad wholly escaped my memory, and / made no mention 
 " of it, in the conversation I had with Mr. Stout" I called 
 on Mr. Stout to say, whether Upshur spoke of that specific 
 circumstance or not, and lor answer, I received the following 
 note. 
 
 " Mr. Stout understood from A. P. Upshur* Esq. that 
 «« Doctr. Ilendree had been prosecuted for forgery, and that 
 '* he appeared to escape being convicted, from some technical 
 «* circumstance or irregularity, not now particularly rccol- 
 * lected. 
 
 *« Philadelphia, 6th May, 1 822. 
 " To Doctor J. Ilendree, \ 
 Walnut Street." J 
 
 How can he possibly get over an assertion made by himself 
 in writing, and the direct opposite by his friend Mr. Stout? 
 lie returns to Richmond, so fully possessed of the truth of 
 the dream he had in Philadelphia, that he scarce could re- 
 ceive the welcome of his friends, ere he seeks his faithful 
 friend and herald Peyton Drew, to give the story currency. 
 lie omitted one important point in his dream ; the vision 
 should have told him, that I had taken leave of my senses, and 
 had become an ideot ; that was very necessary before any, 
 who know me, would believe him. I will now shew what 
 "change has taken place in the opinion of my counsel and the 
 court, in the year 1822, three years after the occurrence. 
 
 «« We the subscribers do hereby certify, that we attended the 
 trial of Dr. John Hendree in this city, in 1819, when he was 
 charged with having committed a forgery, and from what was 
 communicated to us before the trial, and from the testimony ad- 
 duced at the time of the trial, (before the examining court of 
 this city, when he, Doctr. Hendree, was acquitted,) we 
 have no doubt of his perfect innocence of the charge. 
 
 M. M. ROBINSON, 
 B. W. LEIGH." 
 
 '• At the tune referred to above, upon the trial and acquittal of 
 Doctr. John Hendree, before the examining court of this city, 
 I was the presiding magistrate. S. JACOBS." 
 
 *« We were members of the court, alluded to above. 
 
 JAMES WHITLOCK, 
 Richmond, 1 5th Jan. 1 822. FRANCIS WICKER, 
 
 JOHN GODD1N." 
 
36 
 
 Such testimonials are not only sufficient to convince every 
 disinterested person, but are almost sufficient to convince me 
 of toy innocence, even suppose I knew the contrary. A. P. 
 Upshur says " there was much conflicting testimony on the 
 «« subject, the witnesses on both sides, being highly and equally 
 " respectable." What matchless impudence to level Mr. Cop- 
 land and Mr. Pleasants, (the only witnesses introduced on my 
 behalf,) two among the most respectable citizens in Richmond, 
 with those I have before mentioned, who appeared on the part 
 of the prosecution ! Although I shall shew that the deposi- 
 tion of Frederick Clarke, in Upshur's pamphlet, beginning 
 at page 41, and ending page 46, which purports to be taken 
 in the suit between Dance, for Drew's benefit, against my 
 brother, is a mere fabrication, and that no such deposition is 
 on record ; yet, I will go into an examination of it, and 
 give clear proofs of its gross absurdity, and shew that it is a 
 miserable invention of a diseased mind. In this deposition, 
 page 43, Clarke is made to say «* on the next day according 
 *'« to George Hendree's promise, he did pay to Mr. Taylor, 
 « the full amount of the notes aforesaid, with my directions* 
 *< to apply it to the payment of those notes, specially, which 
 < l were described, as dated on the 17th of the month, in which 
 lt they were executed ; and I understood afterwards that I had 
 '* narrowly escaped a protest on account of those notes, in con- 
 ** sequence of the forgery committed on them, by the chang- 
 " ing of their date from the 17th, to the 7th day of the month, 
 « which rendered it, in the first instance, doubtful whether the 
 " money so deposited with Mr. Taylor, ought to be applied 
 « to their payment or not ; and then it was for the first time, 
 " that I had conclusive evidence by seeing the notes of the 
 " fact, that a forgery had been committed on them." I will 
 now shew from the records, the second note. 
 
 * Frederick Clarke is not in that assertion I believe, as is 
 common for him to be, when on his oath, " mistaken," but he 
 first volunteered to receive the money, and act as trustee. His 
 kind offer not being accepted ,t it must have been after this, I 
 presume, he gave the "directions." His proffered services were 
 very silently declined, apprehending his treacherous memory 
 would not serve him, to remember the object to which it was in- 
 tended to be applied, and while in possession of the g 1200, he 
 might have discovered at an earlier date, than that he has not 
 only the doubtful propriety of its being " applied to their pay- 
 ment," but that the alteration had exonerated him, as an endor- 
 ser from any liability. 
 
 t At which he took great umbrage. 
 
37 
 g 600. RICHMOND, 7th June, 1818. 
 
 Four months after date, I promise to pay Lewis Con- 
 vert, or order, six hundred dollars, negotiable and payable at 
 the Bank of Virginia, without offset, for value received. 
 
 JOiiN ROZEL, 
 (endorsed.) 
 L. Convert, ") Fred. Clarke. ") 
 
 Bev. Smith, J J 
 
 Received the within amount in full from Samuel Taylor, Esq. 
 July 8th, 1818. 
 
 JNO : J. WERTH. 
 A Copy — Teste, 
 
 TH : ,C. HOWARD, Cl'k. 
 
 This note was not due until the 7th of October, 1818, but 
 in fact the holder of it received the money from Mr. Taylor, 
 on the 8th July, 1818, about one month after it was executed. 
 The feelings of Mr. John J Werth must have been very 
 hostile to Clarke, and the notary could have known but little 
 of, his business to suffer him to have '* narrowly escaped a 
 protest* 9 three months before the money was due. In page 45, 
 says he, " the last interview'' (Which appears by his own state- 
 ment to have been in June, 1818,) '« he was agitated and un- 
 guarded in his purpose, and confessed the alteration of the 
 dates of the notes" This is very strange, that I confessed the 
 ^Iteration to him in June 1818, and yet he ** narrowly es- 
 caped a protest" from being ignorant ol'.tlic date. In his de- 
 position, speaking of the notes, and the alteration, he says 
 " which rendered it in the first instance doubtful whether the 
 " money, so deposited with Mr. Taylor, ought to be applied 
 " to their payment or not." Could there have been much 
 doubt with Mr. Taylor, as to the propriety of the application 
 of the money to the purposes for which it was expressly in- 
 tended, when he actually paid one of them three months be- 
 fore it was due ; (but on this very note, poor Clarke '* nar- 
 rowly escaped a protest." Such a doubt never was for a mo- 
 ment entertained by Mr. Taylor; but says Clarke, the propri- 
 ety of the application of the money to "their payment" was 
 rendered doubtful at the instant he " narrowly escaped a pro- 
 test." I should think five months was sufficient time to de- 
 cide on the propriety of the payment of the money, which 
 time he actually had (independent of my confession to him in 
 June, as he says,) from the fact of one of the notes actually 
 
having been paid on the 8th of July, and the second was not 
 due until the 7th of December following. How can Mr. Werth 
 (the holder of the note) ami the notary, make amends for the 
 shock given to the feelings of Clarke in suffering him only to 
 have *«• narrowly escaped a protest" on a note which had been 
 paid long befoi* it was due ? Have the notary turned out of 
 office : his conduct has l * convinced me that he is a most acute 
 " villain :" he has violated his oath. In the 43d page he says, 
 " my recollection of the fact that the notes aforesaid, were 
 " dated on the 17th of ihe month and not on the 7th, is 
 " not only corroborated by entries on my bill book, which I 
 " have examined, but is also confirmed by this further circuin- 
 « l stance, that shortly after John Hendree was tried for the 
 " forgery aforesaid, Mr. Rozel found amongst his pa- 
 *« pers the receipt given to him by John Hendree for the notes 
 »* before mentioned, in which receipt the date of the notes was 
 " particularly specified to be on the 17th of the month, which 
 ** receipt Mr. Rozel delivered to me, and I carried it in my 
 " pocket, for the purpose of shewing it to many in proof of 
 " the fact that John Hendree had committed the forgery ; so 
 " that after a length of time the said receipt which I knew to 
 «* be in the hand writing of Jno. Hendree, has been either worn 
 *'« out in my pocket, or lost, or mislaid, so that I cannot at this 
 " time, lay my hands upon iU" Mark his words k * is not on- 
 **■ ly corroborated by entries on my bill book, -which I have exa- 
 Si mined." See his evidence on the 7th of January, 1819, 
 when he swore he had made an entry of it, and on the 14th, 
 denies having said it, which Mr. Copland proved on him. This 
 is explained by the letters of Mr. Leigh and Mr. Hay, very 
 fully. He (Clarke) says Rozel found my receipt and gave it to 
 him, which he lost or mislaid ! Is there a man in the world, 
 who has the least desire, that his oath should be entitled to 
 credit, who would have lost a voucher, so important as my 
 receipt to Rozel, specifying the notes to be dated on the \7th 
 of the month — that established, would have at once removed 
 the imputation which he now, and forever must labour under, 
 that of being mistaken on oath. But, says he to the editor 
 of the Enquirer, of the 5th February, 1819, ** whether Dr. 
 •'« Hendree was guilty or innocent, and whether I was mista- 
 <* ken, or r. Pleasants was mistaken, is a matter of no sort 
 "■ of concern to me." Very true, his losing the receipt shews 
 his unconcern j but how is it that in Upshur's pamphlet, he is 
 made to say " the receipt Mr. Rozel delivered to me, and J 
 «* carried it in my pocket, for the purpose of shewing it to ma- 
 " ny in proof of the fact, that John Hendree had committed 
 
59 
 
 «« the forgery." What motive could have prompted him to shew 
 my receipt to **muHij, n in m. proof" of my •' guilt," when 
 it was •• of no sort of concern to him ?" Did he believe 
 public impression was, that he hud been guilty of perjury, 
 that he carried it in his «* pocket" so long, and had shewn it 
 to so ll many," as to wear it out ? Such being the fact, what 
 concern would he feel, when it is a matter of perfect indifference 
 whether he 'was "mistaken," or Mr. Pleasants was « mista- 
 ken ?" There certainly would he something strange, in seeing 
 an individual traverse the town, (eight or nine months after the 
 transaction,*) exhibiting a paper, proving a crime on a man, 
 as to whose guilt or innocence he had publickly declared him- 
 self perfectly indifferent, and this too, after his innocence 
 had been established by an examining court. The circum- 
 stances under which this affair stood before the public, was 
 such that had a receipt ever existed, and got in the possession 
 of an honest man, situated as Clarke was, he would have valued 
 it more highly than the wealth of the Indies. If he is so 
 careless of re-establishing his integrity, how idle is it for me 
 to go on to invalidate it, or say more, further than to shew 
 precisely how the case stands ? G. V. Clarke, (the brother of 
 Frederick Clarke) in his deposition, page 39, of \. P. Up- 
 shur's pamphlet, says, that I always denied the charge of for- 
 gery, before, and at the .time of the prosecution. Frederick 
 Clarke, in the 45th page, same pamphlet, says, in June, 
 1818, " I confessed the alteration of the dates of the notes;" 
 and in the same deposition, that he had conclusive evidence 
 of it, when the notes were paid, (one of which was paid on 
 the 8th of July, 1818, thirty days, only, after it was executed.) 
 The year 1819 arrives ; nothing is heard of any confession, 
 nor is there any receipt found, or even spoken of. 
 
 A, P. Upshur, in his letter to Mr. Campbell of the 19th 
 September, 1821, when speaking of my confession of the for- 
 gery, says, " at his trial, however, and before it, he always 
 *' denied, very strenuously, that any alteration had been 
 <4 made." I stand between the poiice lawyer and the broth- 
 ers thus. I confessed being guilty of the act, and I did not 
 confess it! I acknowledged the alteration of the notes,. and I 
 denied that any alteration had been made ! I was guilty and I 
 was not guilty ! But, most wonderful to tell, A. P. Upshur, in 
 1821, returns from Philadelphia so completely surcharged 
 
 •It is a fact, that in January, 1819, the time of the examina- 
 tion, nothing was heard of any confession or receipt, ever bavins; 
 been made or given, and it is evident, it was not known in Febru- 
 ary, when he wrote to the editer of the Enquirer. 
 
40 
 
 with the effects of his dream, that lie not only contaminates 
 those immediately around him, but the whole community be- 
 comes so infected, that " two or three persons in the presence 
 of several others in the street," are telling it at the same time, 
 and all in the same breath.* My guilt is now clear ; I have 
 confessed it, says one ; it is publicly stated, says another ; and 
 on the 18th of May, 1822, says a third, a receipt, said to be 
 mine, is found and lost, which never was heard of before or 
 since. He also recollects, at this time, that I confessed the 
 alteration of the notes to him in June, 1818, which he never 
 knew of before, and that he had *' narrowly escaped a pro- 
 test," in 1818, on a note, which had been paid three months 
 before it was due. He also, discovered, at this time, that 
 the propriety of the appropriation of the money in the hands 
 of Mr. Taylor, to the payment of these notes, was render- 
 ed doubtful, five months after it had been appropriated to the 
 very purpose for which it was intended. Can any one believe 
 other, than the creature is mistaken in toto ; and that the 
 whole story is but the vapours of one whose mental faculties 
 are impaired from conscientious conviction of the injuries he 
 would have done me ? But not content with trying to con- 
 vict me, he undertakes to impeach the tribunal of his coun- 
 try. In this he certainly overstrides the bounds of prudence : 
 the fountain of justice should be kept pure and uninterrupted : 
 the court is sacred, its members are the choice of the people, 
 to whom is confided to a certain extent the dearest rights of 
 man, and none should censure the rectitude of their conduct. 
 No doubt, those who have seen A. P. Upshur's pamphlet, 
 page 41, containing a paper purporting to be the deposition 
 of Frederick Clarke " to be read as evidence in a suit de- 
 <* pending in the superior court of chancery for the Rich- 
 « mond district, in which Harrison Dance who sues for the 
 " benefit of Peyton Drew, is plaintiff, and George Hendree, 
 (t and John Hendree are defendants ;" and purporting to be 
 both certified by Lewis Burwell, Not. Pub. and sworn to be- 
 fore Daniel Weisiger, a justice of the peace, were surprised 
 at the boldness of my assertion in page 36, " that no such 
 deposition is on record" 
 
 1 will now go further, the deposition never was taken in the 
 suit, consequently never existed. It might here be enquired, if 
 such is the fact, why have 1 taken off its mask and exhibited 
 the hideous skeleton of a diseased imagination ? I have 
 
 * See G. V. Clarke's deposition, in A. P. Upshur's pamphlet, 
 page 39. 
 
41 
 
 pointed out its gross absurdities to shew that I haKnothing to 
 fear from it, and I have done so the more freely in c<W S eqnence 
 of my ability to completely exonerate Clarke, and\| H » w ^|, c 
 whole to be a mere invention; for, those who know ^tcdirkk 
 Clarke, should also know that his adherence to fictswiien I19 
 is on oath, is such as to defy the most rigid scrutiny, bod w»l/ 
 not only challenge the detection of a contradiction, but e-vei 
 of an error or mistake : and more, those who know him, alst 
 know he is fully A. P. Upshur's equal in point of respecta- 
 bility, and should* also know he is too honourable to suffer 
 himself to be coupled with John Rnzel, Wm. Mallony and 
 Peyton Drew, as the mere creatures of A. P. Upshur, to pro- 
 pagate calumnies, particularly to the injury of one whose bro- 
 ther had " by supplications" appeased his wrath : for, none can 
 know the feelings of an humble supplicant, better than poor 
 Mr. Clarke; (see Mr. Leigh and Mr. Hay's letters,) and 
 more, those who know " Mr. Clarke," should know his feel- 
 ings are very sensible, and ihat he has too much prudence to 
 revive the discussion, in 1822, of a subject which had in 1819, 
 given him so much pain, and wounded his feelings so deeply; 
 (see Mr. Leigh and May's letters,) and as he says in his letter 
 to the editor of the Enquirer, the affair has been settled some 
 time since, '« privately and satisfactorily" and concludes the 
 same letter thus : « whether Doctr. Hendree wan guilty or in* 
 *• nocent, and whether/ was mistaken, or Mr. Pleasants was 
 " mistaken, is a matter of no sort of concern to me ,*" with 
 such feelings of innocence and indifference, as to the fact of 
 the case, and with feelings of such distress as excited the sym- 
 pathy of Mr. Leigh and Mr. Hay, who regretting the impu- 
 tations under which his character laboured, were willing to 
 believe, he was only mistaken. Will any man of common 
 sense believe, that Frederick Clarke did in the year 1822, 
 voluntarily write five pages on a subject, which was of *• no 
 sort of concern" to him, and of which his own conscience ac- 
 quitted him of having sworn falsely ? Would not the man who 
 could believe under such circumstances, that he did write the 
 paper in question, or was the least concerned in it, do him an 
 act of great injustice? For would one, who did not feel a 
 conscious guilt of " bearing false witness against his neigh- 
 bor," voluntarily hold the attitude, to excite such a suspicion ? 
 But the very time the paper is certified to by the notary, and 
 sworn to before the justice, to wit : the month of May last, 
 at that very time, I was out of the State of Virginia, 1 be- 
 lieve in Philadelphia or New York, and on that very day, to 
 wit ; the 18th of May, mv counsel was positively out of 
 
42 
 
 the city o' Richmond, and I believe in Norfolk ;* and those 
 who have any, knowledge of legal proceedings, must know that 
 Mr Bnf el V the notar 7 public, is bound by his oath of of- 
 fice*, "to Jtam all depositions taken before him, in his own 
 possessi/m, / nt '' completed, then to be sealed and transmitted 
 fry lib* to /he clerk of that court, where they are to be filed 
 » evidenc/ ; and those who know Mr. Burwell, should also 
 (now he is scrupulously exact in the performance of his duty, 
 md never would have consented to so gross a violation, as 
 /that of suffering a deposition to go out of his possession, a 
 sufficient length of time to send it to an adjoining county, to 
 •wit : the county of Chesterfield, and there to be qualified to 
 before a justice, which could as easily have been done before 
 him, whose duty it was to have it done in the presence of the 
 parties. I state these things out of respect for Mr. Burwell, 
 and the justice which is due him, who, it is fair to presume, 
 never would, either (officially, or privately certify to that, as a 
 fact, which he did not know to be so, and in the case spoken 
 of he could not have suffered the original to go out of his pos- 
 session, to others than the clerk of the court : if he had, ma- 
 ny alterations might have been made, which, from memory, 
 he could not detect. But, what makes it still more bare-fa- 
 ced in A. P. Upshur, (as I shall, in another page, shew by 
 the recortls,) the very suit it pin ports to be taken in, was not 
 in existence, but was dismissed on the 22d April, and stood so 
 throughout the whole month of May. 
 
 Here follows the certificate of Mr. Ames, which will do 
 Frederick Clarke complete justice, and relieve him from the 
 disagreeable situation he holds in Upshur's pamphlet, that of 
 criminating himself. 
 
 « I do hereby certify that the deposition of Frederick Clarke, 
 published in a pamphlet addressed to the citizens in Philadel- 
 phia, by Abel P. Upshur, Esq. page 41, is not filed in the 
 suit of Dance, for the benefit of Drew, against John and 
 George Hendree, depending in the superior court of chan- 
 cery for the Richmond district. 
 
 6th August, 1822. B. AMES."f 
 
 * As to that particular fact, A. P. Upshur can speak with more 
 certainty than myself; he has cause to recollect it, should he live 
 to the years of Mathusalah. 
 
 t Was Mr. Ames's certificate confined to Virginia an explana- 
 tion would be unnecessary. It is the business of Mr. Hening, 
 (who is the clerk of the chancery court,) to certify officially to 
 affirmatives only. Mr. Ames is the chief clerk in that office. I 
 therefore made the request of him to state a negative fact indi- 
 vidually, which he could not do officially. 
 
4S 
 
 To what stratagem lias the creature resorted to sustain 
 himself? What must he the feelings of Frederick Clarke, 
 (should it reach his ear,) towards the individual who has 
 thus dared to take such liberties with his name ? To publish 
 a paper purporting to be his deposition, wherein he is made 
 to action the 18th May, 1822, indirect opposition to the 
 declaration he made on the 5th February, 1819, in his letter 
 to the editor of the Enquirer, declaring the fact of the case, 
 to be v « of no sort of concern to" him, and as an evidence of 
 his indifference, he says he lost my receipt/which, if genuine, 
 would not only prove me guilty, and Mr. Pleasants mistaken, 
 but what he should desire above all things, that of his having 
 sworn to the truth. Will it be believed, that any individual 
 who has such independent feelings of indifference as is ex- 
 pressed, would give himself the trouble of writing a deposi- 
 tion of five pages, trying to criminate a man, as to whose 
 guilt or innocence he is totally indifferent ? Can A. P. Up- 
 shur ever expect forgiveness from Clarke, lor an act of such 
 cruelty and vile injustice ? Can he read it without feelings 
 of resentment ? To bring forward a paper, (purporting to 
 be his deposition,) in which every word he is made to say, 
 sinks him deeper and deeper in his own folly, and all for 
 what ? To try and swear me guilty of forgery. If the pa- 
 per was genuine, and then entitled to credit, it would not have 
 the least bearing on what Abel P. Upshur, wants to establish ; 
 for he says, I called on him in Philadelphia, in the summer 
 of 1821, and confessed my guilt. The question therefore, is 
 not whether I am guilty or innocent; but whether or not, / 
 made the confession to him. If I confessed the act, no other 
 proof was necessary. It was idle to bring Clarke forward, 
 to prove my guilt, unless he could prove at the same time my 
 confession to Abel P. Upshur. But the fact is, A. P. Upshur 
 felt so conscious, that no man in his common senses, would 
 credit his tale, that he attempts to impose the paper in ques- 
 tion, on the public as genuine, in support of his assertion. 
 But if it were so, it is just as foreign from the point in ques- 
 tion, as A. P. Upshur himself is, from a man of truth or 
 honour. 
 
 "Man's inhumanity to man, 
 "Makes countless millions mourn." 
 
 Can it be possible, that A. P. Upshur believed this cheat 
 attempted on the public would pass unnoticed? Was it his 
 policy, by this invention to throw this controversy from his 
 own shoulders on Frederick Clarke ? Could he believe that 
 
44 
 
 I would censure the testimony of Frederick Clarke sooner 
 than expose the fraud ? Is it because Clarke was instrumen- 
 tal in leading him into error, in the prosecution against me, 
 that he now desires to throw the censure attached to his con- 
 duct on Clarke ? Is it because Clarke refused to confirm on 
 the 14th of January, what he had sworn to on the 7th same 
 month ? Is it because Clarke on the 14th wished to adhere 
 to the truth, though in violation of what he had said on the 
 7th,- and by which he failed setting aside my testimony in the 
 suit for Drew ? Is it because this failure affected his pecu- 
 niary concerns ? Is it, because the failure of that prosecution 
 caused information to be lodged with him in his official capa- 
 city, against his particular friend Peyton Drew, and he hav- 
 ing failed to prosecute, now stands inculpated with the viola- 
 tion of the oath of his office ? Is it I say, from these causes that 
 he has thus made Clarke the victim of his resentment, and 
 not of his policy ? Or, is it that A. P. Upshur, has become 
 the guardian genius of the morals of society, and has thus 
 determined to pursue him as though he had been guilty of 
 perjury, until he shall exile him from the land of his fathers ? 
 Will it be believed that in this enlightened age, among a peo- 
 ple who boast of the purity of their morals and their laws, 
 that there is one individual sufficiently infamous to pursue a 
 course of persecution, unexampled and without an apology, 
 against an unfortunate man. the extent of whose crime was 
 only a mistake, and which only injured the purse of his pur- 
 suer ? Suppose the man was guilty of ** bearing false wit- 
 ness" against his neighbour ; because the legal authority did 
 not take cognizance of it,, is A. P. Upshur to erect himself into 
 both judge and executioner, and pursue him as though he was 
 a convicted felon ? No earthly tribunal has a legal righ to 
 hold it up in judgment against him. The question of his 
 guilt or innocence is between him and his God, whose sen- 
 tence, whether pronounced in anger, or in mercy, is eternal ; 
 and while on this earth, his own conscience must be his mon- 
 itor, either of approval or punishment. Is the crime of that 
 degree, which his conduct can never expiate ? Was there 
 something peculiar in it, that Abel P. Upshur, who is as 
 heartless as death, and as unforgiving as the grave, will re- 
 duce the man to his own level, and cause him to walk in vice 
 and infamy ? Was it a case so peculiarly marked as to give 
 to its features a melancholy distinction, that he is to be eter- 
 nally damned to the society of this world ? But, if he is an 
 honest man, and one who is «* disposed to speak plainly," 
 when on oath, and who abhors '< an acute villain," he must be 
 
45 
 
 invigorated by that hope, which points to an eternity hereaf- 
 ter, which will support him in his struggle against the rude 
 stream which assaults on every side, and threatens to over- 
 whelm him with disgrace and ignominy. But, what is the 
 enormity of this crime, for which Abel P. Upshur, is deter- 
 mined Clarke shall never sufficiently atone, to be restored to 
 his fellows in society ? Simply, that of being mistaken on 
 oath, and that so innocently committed, that when the impu- 
 tation of perjury was thrown upon him, it so deeply wounded his 
 feelings that his humiliation excited the sympathy of the very 
 gentlemen, who, it was said, had charged him with the fact ; and 
 who, in a few words, did more towards redeeming him from 
 the odium, with which he stood covered, than he would do to- 
 wards* redeeming himself, if he were to write a deposition of 
 five pages long as to my guilt, regularly every day, until the 
 day of eternal judgment. 
 
 The nature of t'lis charge of the confession i.s such, that no 
 positive proof can be introduced oil either side; and although 
 my giving it the negative, is amply suffcient to convince any 
 man of the falsehood of that which rests on the authority of 
 A. P. Upshur only ; I am desirous that the public should 
 rely on the assertion of the party, supported by the best cir- 
 cumstantial evidence; and, although Abel P. Upshur might 
 persist in its truth, I can scarce think, that after his being 
 publicly convicted by the best of proofs, of so many false- 
 hoods, that he will ever presume to repeat the story ot a con- 
 fession to him. Is it possible he can reconcile it to himself 
 to believe, I ever did confess to him to whom I " never was 
 known f who met me as a # perfect stranger," who " receiv- 
 ed me coolly," who " declined to receive" my hand, who be- 
 lieved me guilty when he prosecuted : confess to him, what 
 all who heard, and were capable of judging, believed me in- 
 nocent of, and what I had denied to my best friends ; confess 
 to him my having been guilty of a most ignominious offence, 
 and this a voluntary act, and sought after by me, and 
 without enjoining secrecy, (presuming he would not be 
 treacherous ?) If A. P. Upshur can possibly believe thai 
 such an occurrence ever took place, he will believe more than 
 any man on earth ; and until he shall convince the world that 
 I am either an ideot or a fool, and contrary to every natural 
 feeling of propriety sought my own disgrace, he must stand 
 convicted of a falsehood, evidencing a vicious and dcpiavd 
 heart. But, as he does not design to «« injure the miserable 
 man so long as he is not offending," in christian spirit, he 
 should have applied the maxim so familiar in his profession : 
 
" whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad," and have 
 disbelieved me, not only from tlie circumstance of my derange- 
 ment, but he knew me to be ll a man, without truth," and hu- 
 manity called loudly on him, to doubt the truth of my asser- 
 tion. Fellow-feeling for my mental derangement, forbade his 
 repeating after me, that which was adding disgrace to one of 
 the heaviest afflictions of providence; but there is a reason be- 
 yond all other considerations why he should have believed my 
 confession not founded on truth. 
 
 I was adjudged innocent, by the only legal tribunal of my 
 country, to whom an appeal could be made ; consequently, 
 my confession (if any I made,) and their declaration was at di- 
 rect variance, and that should have caused him to doubt its 
 truth. He was but the instrument of their will, and was both 
 morally and politically bound to cause his opinion to acqui- 
 esce in their decision, which should be held sacred, and re- 
 garded as one of the principal head pearls, secured in the insti- 
 tutions of our country. But of all other men, he was religiously 
 hound to believe and declare my innocence ; he knew v ell the 
 ground on which the prosecution was instituted, and the infa- 
 mous character of the individual, with whom he had leagued 
 to convict me, if possible, by fair, or by foul means ; he knew 
 well his habits of forswearing himself, whenever his own 
 convenience required it, or the necessities of others justified 
 a reward sufficient to purchase his oath, which was in market 
 at the command of those, who thought proper to use it ; and 
 that the records of this city, shew innumerable instances of 
 his forswearing. He therefore was-hound at lea9t to doubt the 
 truth of my guilt, whatever I should say to the contrary ; but 
 he imagined what he desired, and retailed as a truth, the visions 
 of a disturbed mind, and believed and disbelieved to suit his 
 own convenience ; and that he went to Philadelphia, with a 
 determination of having me confess forgery, although he ne- 
 ver should have seen me, I am as thoroughly convinced, as 
 I am of never having done it ; and I am equally certain that 
 if John Rozel, Peyton Drew, Frederick Clarke and A. P. 
 Upshur, were to swear from this, until the day of resurrec- 
 tion, they never will convince the public, that I am either 
 guilty, or ever confessed a forgery to A. P. Upshur, nor will 
 all the swearing on this earth, of John Rozel and Frederick 
 Clarke as to my guilt, ever change the nature of their oaths 
 recorded in Heaven, nor blot it from the book of life. 
 
47 
 
 In entering on the subject of the arrangement made with 
 my creditors, it will be unnecessary to recapitulate the causes 
 which led to the necessity ; nor again mention the proposi- 
 tions which wei'c offered by me and accepted by them, all of 
 which are sufficiently detailed in my former pamphlet, page 
 17 ; but shall in the course of this shewing, add proof upon 
 proof in confirmation of what is therein contained. It is pro- 
 per for me to shew here, who were the agents of the creditors, 
 and with whom I had to negociate as their representative. 
 Messrs. Parkhills, Dunlop & Copland, were the chosen agents 
 of the creditors. Mr. Nathaniel Dunlop being the acting 
 partner of that firm, had the direction and management of 
 the whole business, as will be seen by bis answer to the suit, 
 instituted by the creditors in the chancery court, in which 
 Messrs. Parkhills, Dunlop & Copland are made defendants. 
 Mr. Dunlop in his answer to that bill, makes the following 
 declaration : *« Nathaniel Dunlop, one of the said late firm of 
 *« Parkhills, Dunlop & Copland, saith. that the agreement be- 
 " tween John Hendree and Parkhills, Dunlop & Copland, in 
 " relation to the sale of Hendree's goods, was on the part of 
 " Parkhills, Dunlop & Copland, made by this defendant ;" 
 (that is, by Mr. Dunlop himself, who is the defendant.) This 
 is only introduced to shew who the agents were, as the term 
 will of necessity be frequently used in the course of this ex- 
 pose. By introducing the commissioner's report, I shall shew 
 amongst other important facts the ground on which the credi- 
 tors have instituted the suit, and against whom, ostensibly. It 
 will be perceived by what follows, that the commissioner 
 speaks of " the foregoing order of court" which I omit to 
 publish, being drawn in the usual form required by law, is 
 made lengthy, but is in substance nothing more than direct- 
 ing the commissioner to summon the parties, plaintiffs and 
 the defendants, Parkhills, Dunlop & Copland, and George 
 Hendree and John Hendree, before him, to state what they 
 know, and to exhibit their claims and produce their vouchers 
 in support of them, which he is directed to examine, settle 
 and report accordingly, and it has not the slightest bearing 
 on what is before the public : 
 
 " Commissioner's office, ") 
 Richmond, July 6th, 1822. J 
 
 " Pursuant to the foregoing order of the court, and at the 
 instance of P. N. Nicholas, Esq. of counsel, with plaintiffs; 
 notices were issued on the 7th July, 1821, requiring the at- 
 tendance of the parties at this office, on the 13th of October, 
 then following ; which notices were returned duly .served, on 
 
48 
 
 <he day set. The plaintiff M. Price and P. N. Nicholas, Esq. 
 of counsel with, and agent for the plaintiffs, and the defendants 
 John Hendree and George Hendree, onh attended. The defen- 
 dant George Hendree, filed a copy of the bond of Park hills, 
 Dunlop & Copland to him, and the accounts were considered 
 commenced ; and for the accommodation of P. N. Nicholas, 
 Esq. of counsel with plaintiffs, were continued till the fifteenth 
 day of the same month, on which day the defendant John 
 Hendree alone attended, and frequently afterwards, called to 
 express his readiness to give such information as he possessed, 
 but owing to the continued absence of all the other parties, 
 (with the exception of the plaintiff M. Price, who has occa- 
 sionally called, to ask whether any progress was made.) have 
 never since attended. Your commissioner has not been able 
 to resume the accounts, and is now required by the said de- 
 fendant John Hendree, to specially report the foregoing state- 
 ment of facts ; and also, specially to report the following re- 
 marks, handed in by the said defendant, viz." 
 
 Before I proceed any further with the commissioner's report, 
 I beg to call the attention to that part, wherein he says, that 
 I not only diligently attended in obedience to the summons, 
 but have expressed my readiness to be at his office whenever 
 necessary. It is impossible for me to compel others to attend, 
 nor is it my business ; it is sufficient for me, to comply with 
 the order so far as I am concerned, aod no more can either be 
 expected or required, indeed I can do no more, however great 
 my desire may be to bring it to an issue. 
 
 I will now proceed to shew, the nature of the bill and docu- 
 ments accompanying it, which are filed in the court, and see 
 how far A. P. Upshur is borne out by truth, in what he 
 states : 
 
 M The bill filed in the superior court of chancery, for the 
 Richmond district, by Thos. Sergeant, Mortimer & Hook, 
 G. W. Skellorne, Tweedy & Benedict, Abraham Bell and 
 Robert H. Bowen, formerly trading under the firm of Bell 
 & Bowen, William & Abraham R Luyster, Benjamin Looker, 
 Stephen Dando, John Bowen, Henry Fishery W. & H. Ches- 
 ter, Thos. & I. F. Lawrence & Co. and Abraham Knapp, citi- 
 zens and residents of the State of New York, and Luther 
 Goble of New Jersey, former creditors of John Hendree, 
 is a suit instituted by said creditors, against Parkhills Dun- 
 lop & Copland, for the purpose of recovering the proceeds of 
 the effects assigned to them by John Hendree, for the benefit of 
 the said creditors ; and John Hendree is made a party to the 
 said suit, for the purpose of shewing the origin and existence 
 
49 
 
 of the debts due from him to the parties therein concerned, 
 and by reference to document marked A, filed by said credi- 
 tors, which document is the exhibit of the property surren- 
 dered by John Hendree to Parkhills, Dunlop & Copland, 
 the agents of the creditors, and the original of which is au- 
 thenticated by Parkhills, Dunlop & Copland in the words 
 following : «« Inventory of stock in trade of John Hendree, 
 taken 2nd June, 1817 > and assigned to us ;" in the body of 
 which, every article of merchandize is specified, and at the 
 bottom the sum total amount 825,700, to which is added 
 on the " 14th of June, 155 kegs manufactured tobacco 
 S 4,0 14 74." An acceptance of an auctioneer in Lynchburg, 
 for the proceeds of the sale of merchandize in his possession 
 belonging to John Hendree, supposed to be about S 700 ; sum 
 total S 30,414 17, to pay debts amounting to about g 38,000. 
 The inventory of John Hendree's stock, was taken by order, 
 and under the immediate direction of Nathaniel Dunlop, one 
 of the partners of the firm of Parkhills, Dunlop & Copland 
 (the agents of the creditors,) and the same who acknowledged 
 receiving said merchandize from John Hendree by affixing 
 the name of said firm of Parkhills, Dunlop & Copland, to 
 the aforementioned document. 
 
 H. BAKER, M. C. 
 
 Comm'rs fee two dolls. } 
 paid by deft. John Hendree. 5 
 
 A Copy — Teste, 
 
 Wm. W. HENING, C. C." 
 
 Compare the foregoing statement of the substance of the 
 bill in chancery with the one which appears under the sig- 
 natures of J. R. Potter, H. C. Doswell, E. S. Seabrooke and 
 P. P. Mayo, in A. P. Upshur's pamphlet, page 20, and see 
 what an imposition is attempted. Their certificate is word- 
 ed in so ingenious a manner, as to produce an impression on 
 the mind, totally different from the true spirit and meaning 
 of the bill. This, A. P. Upshur well knew would be its effect, 
 and it is what he intended. If he wished an impartial state- 
 ment of the substance of the bill given to the public, support- 
 ed by four names, why did he not call on gentlemen, whose 
 legal acquirements qualified them to examine and state for 
 themselves the facts to which they were to subscribe, and 
 whose certificate would be entitled to credit ? Will A. P. Up- 
 shur dare to say that the above is not substantially, both the 
 object and contents of the bill and d»>cuments filed in the suit ? 
 No : he surely will not hav<- the hardihood to sacrifice his pro- 
 fessional judgment, although he has long since offered up his 
 
50 
 
 integrity at the altar of falsehood. From the style in which he 
 ha* introduced their certificate in his pamphlet, every reader 
 (except those who know them,) would inter it to be from the 
 pen of the most profound in equity, made after a deliberate 
 investigation, and founded upon truths and farts beyond the 
 possibility of contradiction ; nay, even the chancellor himself 
 would scarce have made a more laconic condensation; but, <.n 
 what authority does it rest ? Lo ; and we find three of them 
 to be his dependants, the other his siudent, and who have not 
 yet matured the age to know right from wrong. 1 have not 
 a doubt but it was couched in his own words, and they feeling 
 every disposition to throw in their mite to redeem his fallen 
 character, were not fastidious as to the course, believing that 
 his feelings towards them (however important their certificate 
 might be) would not suffer him to expose them to animadver- 
 sion, and in the spirit of humility subscribed to what he dicta- 
 ted. Abel P. Upshur knows, and all who know them know, 
 that they are no better qualified to judge of the merits of a 
 chancery suit, than he is to oppose with success the truth of the 
 existence of the Deity. The peculiar situation in which three 
 of them stood to him, should have forbid his using of them 
 for his purposes ; their inexperience must shield them from 
 censure, and in charity let it be attributed to a greater zeal 
 than prudence, particularly of young Seabrooke, (who is 
 Upshur's student.) I take pleasure in saying that I am not 
 willing to believe he would deliberately and wantonly violate 
 any of the principles of truth, so strongly inculcated by his 
 parents. «* shame ! where is thy blush." Is A. P. Up- 
 shur regardless of the claims of those, who have confided to 
 his care, their sons ? How can he answer for his conduct in 
 thus causing them to appear before the public in an attitude, 
 which they are totally incompetent to sustain ? Thus would 
 he have put a stain on the fair name of those, who, for aught 
 I know, have not as yet paid the debt of their apprenticeship, 
 and who had scarce budded into existence, ere he would like 
 the killing frost blast their beauty. Can it be possible after 
 this disgraceful act, any man of respectability will associate 
 with him ? Necessity, will it be said, is his plea ? There is a 
 sanctuary in virtue and true friendship, to the violation of 
 which our wants should never penetrate. If there was not, 
 they would indeed be hollow names to suit the leisure of him 
 who is disobedient to every law, both human and divine, and 
 insensible to the claims of honour and generosity. 
 
 Having shewn by the documents in the suit, the amount of 
 property assigned to Messrs. Parkbiils, Duniop & Copland, 
 
51 
 
 for the benefit of the creditors, it now behoves me to shew in 
 det iil, what goods they offered for sale as my assignees ; and 
 it is proper here to remark, that I put them in possession of 
 the whole property on the 3d of June, 1817, which they re- 
 tained until the SOth of the same month, (as will presently be 
 shewn by depositions,) on which day, agreeable to their own. 
 declaration, they were to be sold by public auction : 
 
 " VALUABLE STOCK AT AUCTION. 
 
 On Monday, the 3Cth instant, will be sold, at the corner 
 store next to the Merchants* Coffee House, a valuable assort- 
 ment of dry goods and groceries, amounting to about £ 2^,000. 
 Among the dry goods, are about 40 pieces of the very best 
 superfine broad cloths of every colour; 20 pieces of the very 
 best cassimeres, most of which are blue ; 180 pieces of elegant 
 Irish linens; 11 do. of bed-tick ; 5 cases of beaver hats; 2 
 do. worsted hose ; 1 do. mens* fine shoes; carpeting, man- 
 chestry, &c. &c. 
 
 The groceries consisting of 160 boxes soap; 100 boxes 
 candles ; 2 3 bags green coffee ; 9 hhd's 4th proof W. I. rum ; 
 4 pipes Bordeaux claret ; hhds. Muscovado sugar; 30 boxes 
 pipes; 120 sacks salt, &c. &c. Also, 48 slope back fancy 
 gilt chairs ; 24 do. tortoise gilt do ; 24 do. green sattin wood, 
 cane seats ; 36 ball back bamboo do ; 84 fancy gilt do. cane 
 seats. 
 
 The sale of the above groceries, will commence at 10 
 o'clock, and the dry goods at 12 o'clock. Terms 3, 6 and 9 
 mouths credit. 
 
 PARKHILLS, DUNLOP & COPLAND, 
 
 •Assignees of John Hendree." 
 June 18*/i, 1817. 
 
 To the above add 155 kegs tobacco, S4014 74, and the 
 goods at Lynchburg, S700, and then compare it with the 
 statement made in the commissioner's report, and it will be 
 perceived, that the agents make the property in amount, near- 
 ly equal to what I am charged with having represented it to be. 
 
 Philip Triplett & Co. instituted a suit against me ex- 
 pressly on the ground of a violation of contract, in conse- 
 quence of which, a commission was issued from the district 
 court, (where the suit was depending) directed to Robert 
 Dmthat Esq. appointing him a commissioner to receive and 
 commit to writing, the answers of witnesses to such inter- 
 rogatories, as were stated in the said commission ; and on the 
 9th day of August, 1820, he proceeded to comply with the 
 
52 
 
 order of court. These depositions commence and end with 
 all the legal forms; the commission, the interrogatories, the 
 answers, the certificates and attestation of the commissioner, 
 the seals of office &c. &c. I therefore deem it unnecessary, to 
 give that which has no bearing on the point in question. 
 
 Philip Triplett and Christopher Neale, trading under the firm 
 of Philip Triplett & Company, - Plaintiffs, 
 
 vs. 
 John Hendree, - Defendant, 
 
 John P. Mason, being first duly sworn on the Holy Evan- 
 gelists of his Almighty God, true answers to make to such 
 interrogatories, as shall be put to him. 
 
 Interrogatory. — Do you know the parties above named, or 
 either of them, and how long have you known them, or either, 
 and which of them ? 
 
 Answer. — I do know Philip Triplett, of the house of Phi- 
 lip Triplett & Co. but do not know Christopher Neale, as he 
 does not reside in the city of Richmond. I have known Philip 
 Triplett, previous to the year 1817 : I have also known John 
 Hendree, previous to that time, and was his clerk, from the 
 time he commenced business, until his failure. 
 
 Interrogatory. — Are you, or are you not acquainted with 
 the circumstances of the arrangement made between the de- 
 fendant, and his creditors in the year 1817 ? Be pleased to 
 examine the paper hereto annexed, purporting to be a copy 
 of the original release signed by the said creditors, in fa- 
 vor of the defendant. Compare the said copy with the ori- 
 ginal, and say whether it be correct, and whether the signa- 
 tures of the plaintiffs to the said original paper be true and 
 genuine ? 
 
 Answer. — I am acquainted with the circumstances of the 
 arrangement, made between John Hendree and his creditors, 
 on the 3rd June, 1817 : and the annexed paper purporting to 
 be a copy of the original release, signed by the creditors in 
 favor of John Hendree ? is to the best of my recollection a true 
 and genuine copy of the original, which is now presented me, 
 unimpaired from its original execution ; and the signature of 
 P. Triplett & Co. to the said original release, is to the 
 best of my knowledge and belief, the hand-writing of P. Trip- 
 lett of said company. 
 
 Interrogatory. — Did or did not, the defendant promptly and 
 faithfully surrender to Parkhills, Dunlup & Copland, his pro- 
 perty according to the terms of the release aforesaid ? Was, 
 
53 
 
 or was not, any thing withheld, concealed, or otherwise kept 
 from Ihe possession of the said assignees, which they were en- 
 titled to receive ? 
 
 Answer. — The defendant Hendree, did promptly and faith- 
 fully surrender all his property to Parkhills, Dunlop 6c Cop- 
 land, agreeable to the before mentioned contract. I was the 
 clerk that transacted all his business, and do not believe that 
 any thing was withheld or concealed from the said creditors. 
 The said Hendree gave up the keys of his store, at the same 
 time that he made surrender. The property in the store was 
 retained some time before the said Parkhills, Dunlop & Cop- 
 land effected a sale. 
 
 JOHN P. MASON," 
 
 It will be perceived, that the interrogatories are precisely 
 the same, in the following deposition ; and must so have been 
 to any number of witnesses, as they were incorporated in the 
 body of the commission. 
 
 ** The deposition of John Kincaid, taken at the same place 
 and under the same circumstances, being first duly sworn, 
 &c. &c. 
 
 Interrogatory. — Do you know the parties above named, or 
 either of them, and how long have you known them, or ei- 
 ther, and which of them? 
 
 Answer. — I do know Philip Triplett and Christopher Neale, 
 trading under the firm of Philip Triplett & Co., and have 
 known them previous to the year 1817. I have also been ac- 
 quainted with John Hendree previous to the year 1817, to 
 this time. 
 
 Interrogatory. — Are you, or are you not, acquainted with 
 the circumstances of the arrangement made between the de- 
 fendant and his creditors in the year 1817 ? Be pleased to 
 examine the paper hereto annexed, purporting to be a copy of 
 the original release, signed by the said creditors, in favour of 
 the defendant ; compare the said copy with the original, and 
 say whether it be correct, and whether the signatures of the 
 plaintiffs to the said original paper be true and genuine? 
 
 Answer. — I was clerk to Parkhills, Dunlop & Copland, 
 when they were chosen agents for the creditors of John Hen- 
 dree and his assigns ; and to the best of my knowledge, the 
 arrangement made between John Hendree and his creditors, 
 was, that he should assign to the said Parkhills, Dunlop & 
 Copland, his goods, wares* merchandize, &c. &c. &c, a 
 schedule of all his goods, wares and merchandize, agreeably 
 to an inventory taken by myself, by order of the said Park- 
 
54 
 
 hills, Dunlop & Copland, being exhibited, which property 
 was surrendered to them, the agents of the creditors, and re- 
 mained in their possession from about the 3d day of June, 1817, 
 until about the latter part of said month, when it was sold ; for 
 which surrender the said creditors of John Hendree did, to 
 the best of my knowledge and belief, sign a discharge. I 
 have examined the annexed copy, which is a true copy of the 
 original discharge, (or release.) I have examined the origi- 
 nal release, and can certify that the signature of P. Triplett 
 & Co. is written in the hand writing of Philip Triplett, one 
 of the said company, whom I have often seen write. 
 
 Interrogatory. — Did or did not the defendant, promptly and 
 faithfully surrender to Parkhills, Dunlop & Copland, his pro- 
 perty according to the terms of the release aforesaid ? Was 
 or was not, any thing withheld, concealed, or otherwise kept 
 from |the possession of the said assignees, which they were 
 entitled to receive ? 
 
 Answer. — I do know, that the defendant did promptly and 
 faithfully surrender the property, to the said Parkhills, Dunlop 
 & Copland, agents of the creditors, agreeable to the terms of 
 said release. Nor do 1 believe that any thing was withheld, 
 concealed, or kept from the said agents' possession, to which 
 they or the creditors were entitled. 
 
 JOHN KINCAID." 
 
 The suit in which the above depositions were taken, was 
 dismissed on the 7th day of January, 1822. 
 
 The foregoing depositions, being a clear exposition of facts, 
 made, first by the clerk of the party who had to surrender j and 
 secondly, by the clerk of the party who had to receive j and the 
 very man who actually took the inventory of the stock, by order 
 of and under the immediate inspection of the agents ; it is, 
 therefore, impossible to introduce witnesses who either could or 
 should know all the circumstances more correctly. Although, 
 this is the testimony of men, who are most fit to give an im- 
 partial statement, being free from every thing like prejudice 
 arising from an affected interest, and whose depositions were 
 taken by authority of the court, and have been deposited in 
 its archives, full two years and mope ; yet with all this, I was 
 not disposed to let my defence rest here, being conscious of 
 an honorable acquittal, if honest and impartial testimony 
 could be had of John O. Lay and Philip Triplett, the two 
 creditors who volunteered to impeach me, and shall pre- 
 sently shew how far I have succeeded. 
 
 In the arrangement made with the creditors, it was agreed 
 
55 
 
 that the sum of 8 4,970 94, should be allowed to ]>ay my confi- 
 dential debts. Now mark ! Philip Triplett and John O. Lay, 
 are made to say in A. P. Upshur's pamphlet, page 19* a hen 
 speaking of the amount of my property, these words, «» of which 
 John Hendree has himself received, g 5,0 18 04." By their as- 
 sertion, it would be inferred that 1 had possessed myselt of that 
 amount of the funds ; but A. P. Upshur makes application to the 
 agents, from whom he gets the truth, and in page 23. speaking 
 of the amount of my confidential debts, being g 4,970 94, he 
 says « this sum John Hendree himself received, for the pur- 
 pose of paying those confidential debts." I do not call the at- 
 tention to the difference in the amount said to have been re- 
 ceived by me, but to t se manner in which persons of the same 
 party express the same thing. While A. P. Upshur's state- 
 ment (which is made on the authority of the agents) shew in 
 a clear point of view, the fact of the case, Philip Triplett and 
 John O. Lay, in their zeal to injure me, and serve their friend, 
 are not content with stating what is incorrect, as respects the 
 amount received, but m>st artfully give an entire differ- 
 ent impression as to the purposes for which ihe sum was re- 
 ceived. 
 
 I give this as an evidence of their candour, in doing that 
 of which they knew the reverse was the fact, and to shew 
 with what slight temptation they deviate from the truth. Con- 
 sequently, when they are biassed by strong interest, no reli- 
 ance ought to be placed in their assertions, and particularly 
 when contradicted by men who are above misrepresentation. 
 
 The following is a statement in detail, of the manner in 
 which the sum of g 4,970 94, was disposed of, which sum 
 was, by special agreement, allowed by the creditors to pay my 
 confidential debts : 
 
 To Moncure, Robinson & Pleasants, - - S 290 64 
 
 To" John O. Lay & Co S85 95 
 
 To George Hendree who accepted my draft in favor 
 
 of Charles Warfield of Baltimore, - - 882 68 
 
 1559 27 
 60 days interest, - - - - - 15 59 
 
 Parkhills, Dunlop & Copland, made their note 
 payable to me at 60 days for the above amount, 
 g 1574 86, that if necessary it might be dis- 
 counted to meet the demands when required. 
 
 1574 8f. 
 
56 
 
 Amount brought forward, g 1574 86 
 
 Parkhills, Duulop & Copland's note paid to 
 Cornelius R. Duffie of New York, payable at 
 120 days, for - - * 1961 90 
 
 Parkhills, Dunlop & Copland's note at ISO days, 
 paid P. Triplett & Co. for - - - 106 92 
 
 Do. do. do. 120 days paid A. & 
 
 J. Otis, for 178 77 
 
 Parkhills, Dunlop & Copland's note at 120 days, 
 which sum was finally paid to Saml. G. Adams, 
 Esq. as agent for a house in New York, - - - 171 70 
 
 There were a number of small debts to be paid, 
 
 which were specified at the time, amounting to 976 79 
 
 84970 94 
 
 Which last mentioned sum of 8 976 79, Parkhills, Dunlop 
 and Copland enabled me to settle by giving, as well as I now 
 recollect, a portion of it in cash, a part in a check payable at 
 a subsequent period, and a note for the balance. It is suffi- 
 cient for the reader to know that they so arranged it as to 
 answer the intended object. As Mr. Warfield resides in Bal- 
 timore, I publish his certificate to shew that my brother re- 
 ceived that sum expressly to pay him : 
 
 " On or about the 25th October, 1816, Mr. John Hendree 
 purchased of me sundry merchandize amounting to 8 882 68, 
 for which he gave me a draft on Mr. George Hendree of 
 Rich in ond, payable the first day of July following ; the draft 
 was accepted and paid at maturity. The above facts are 
 stated at the request of Mr. John Hendree. 
 
 CHARLES WARFIELD, Baltimore." 
 
 As Mr. Cornelius R. Duffie resides in New York, I be- 
 lieve I can refer to Messrs. Asa & Joseph Otis of this place, 
 who will (as well as the note if produced) confirm the fact as 
 to him. The others reside in this city ; consequently can be 
 applied to for confirmation, if necessary. 
 
 The above is the only money ever paid out of the assign* 
 ment by Messrs. Parkhills, Dunlop & Copland to my know- 
 ledge ; what John O. Lay and Philip Triplett say, to the 
 contrary notwithstanding ; and for a confirmation of the fact, 
 I appeal to the agents to exhibit my receipt which they hold, 
 for all the money ever paid out of the proceeds of the effects 
 by my direction. It is now clearly shewn, that my brother 
 never received one cent from the agents further than as my 
 security or acceptor, which sum, when he received it, was 
 
57 
 
 forthwith paid to those to whom it was due. At the time I 
 assigned my goods, merchandize, &c. &c. to Messrs. Park- 
 hills, Dunlop & Copland, as the agents of the creditors, which 
 was on the 3rd day of June, 1817, I was indebted to Mr. 
 George Hendree, and for the security of that debt, I had pre- 
 viously conveyed to him a parcel of tobacco then lying in the 
 city of New York ; this fact Mr. Dunlop was apprised of, 
 and proposed giving the bond of Parkliills. Dunlop & Cop- 
 land, (of which firm he was a partner) payable at 6 months 
 for the nett amount of Mr. Hendree's claim against me, and 
 received from him (Mr. Hendree,) a conveyance of the to- 
 bacco, or its proceeds. This arrangement was agreed on by the 
 parties, and to shew the fact 1 will introduce a passage from 
 Mr. Dunlop's answer filed in the suit in Chancery, to which 
 lie is a defendant. When speaking of the bond and the ar- 
 rangement between himself and Mr. Hendree, he says " this 
 *< defendant at the time he executed the obligation to George 
 " Hendree, believed that the tobacco would produce a greater 
 «' sum than g 5,398 42." It is at once perceived Mr. Dun- 
 lop was influenced by a wish as the agent, to get in his pos- 
 session the surplus. I will now in a few words sum up the 
 whole arrangement between the creditors and myself. I of- 
 fered security or the surrender of my property ; the latter 
 was accepted, (see page 19 of my first pamphlet.) Messrs. 
 Parkliills, Dunlop & Copland were appointed the agents, and 
 on the 2nd day of June, 1817, took an inventory of the stock, 
 (see commissioner's report page 47, and Mason and Kincaid's 
 depositions page 52,) and on the 3rd received the whole pro- 
 perty agreeable to that inventory, and gave their acceptances 
 to the creditors, and mine were cancelled. The confidential 
 sum of S 4,970 94, was paid and disposed of agreeable to 
 contract. I was released from every claim, and from that time 
 to this, I have neither had a right nor have I ever attempted 
 to exercise any controul over the agents or the assigned ef- 
 fects. 
 
 Presuming as I very correctly should, that every honest 
 man who voluntarily engaged in a controversy, (in which he 
 was not in the least implicated) to the injury of another, 
 would for the salvation of his own credit give the injured 
 party an opportunity of a cross examination if required ; and 
 as there was no legal mode by which I could bring the par- 
 tics, who had so committed themselves before a notary, I ad- 
 dressed the following note to them : 
 
 " Mr. John 0. Lay. You are in possession of facts which are 
 important to me; I therefore request of you to appear at the 
 
 8 
 
58 
 
 office of Herbert A. Claiborne, Esq. Notary Public, in this 
 city, between the hours of twelve and one o'clock this day, to 
 answer on oath such interrogatories as I shall put to you. 
 
 JOHN HENDREE." 
 
 Richmond, July 13th, 1822. 
 
 " I do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the ori- 
 ginal notice which I delivered to Mr. John 0. Lay, on the 
 morning of the thirteenth instant, who refused to attend. I 
 also certify that I delivered to Mr. Philip Triplett, on the 
 morning of the fifteenth instant, a copy of a similar notice di- 
 rected to him, and dated on that day, and that he refused very 
 positively at first to attend, but afterwards suggested that he 
 probably might, but he did not attend. 
 
 HERBERT A. CLAIBORNE, 
 
 .-} 
 
 Not. Pub. for the city oj liichmond 
 Richmond, nth July, 1822. 
 
 What is the inference to be drawn from such conduct? 
 Why fear to give that manly disclosure of facts, which dis- 
 tinguishes a firm and independent mind, and which neither 
 the fear of offending, nor the hope of pleasing any party, 
 can prevent from exculpating or criminating according to 
 truth and justice ? The conclusion is irresistible, that both 
 John 0. Lay and Philip Triplett are in possession of facts, 
 which, if disclosed, will corroborate the testimony 1 have 
 brought torward, to remove every charge of improper con- 
 duct alledged to me ; and which they are induced by A. P. 
 Upshur (who holds over them, an undue influence,) to with- 
 hold. I knew well the certificate which A. P. Upshur has 
 published of theirs, page 18, was substantially untrue, and 
 they tacitly admit the fact, in refusing to give it confirmation, 
 by their oaths. II* they would state the truth, the whole truth, 
 and nothing but the truth, they must confirm, not only what 
 Mr. Budlong, (who is far above an untruth, or servile feeling 
 towards any man,) has stated, in my former pamphlet, page 
 19, and who was one of the creditors ; but, also, eyery cir- 
 cumstance therein detailed, in relation to the arrangement, as 
 well as what is stated in this. They have suffered themse ves 
 to be seduced into an act, upon a review of which, they must 
 recoil, at seeing the situation in which it places them before 
 the community in which they live ; and indeed, so sensible of 
 it was A. P. Upshur, that, after his ends are answered, he is the 
 first to waive towards them the courtesy due from one man to 
 
59 
 
 . another; nay, even less respectful than he is towards his friend 
 «« Mr. Drew," (see his pamphlet, p. 48.) However the opinion 
 heretofore entertained by others, as well as myself, may have 
 inclined favourably towards Philip Triplett, his conduct, in this 
 instance, has not tended to strengthen it ; but, on the contra- 
 ry, it not only shews a want of self-respect in the manner in 
 which he has coupled himself in the certificate, but has involv- 
 ed his character in mist and doubt. 
 
 Next comes the letter of Goble h Thomas. It is true, Lu- 
 ther Goble of New Jersey, is incorporated in the bill in 
 chancery as one of the creditors, but no such firm as Goble 
 and Thomas of Newark. On perusal of the letter purport- 
 ing to be from them, I discovered that they wrote (if they 
 wrote at all) under an improper impression arising from the 
 communication of Silas Hayes ; for, it will be perceived they 
 acknowledged the receipt of a letter from him on that subject. 
 It was intimated to me by those who had conversation with 
 Abel P. Upshur's friends on the subject, that every thing re- 
 lative to the appearance of that letter before the public was not 
 correct, and indeed the character of the individual to whom 
 it purports to be directed, was sufficient to excite such a sus- 
 picion. I therefore determined, if possible, to put Hayes on 
 his oath, and I addressed the following note to him : 
 
 " Mr. Silas Hayes, 
 
 I wish to make an enquiry of you relative 
 to the correspondence between yourself' and Goble £f Thomas of 
 Newurk, relating to me. I therefore request of you to appear 
 at the office of John L. Newby, esq. Notary Public, in this 
 city, between the hours of 12 and 1 o'clock to morrow, to an- 
 swer on oath such interrogatories as 1 shall put to you. 
 
 JOHN HENDREE," 
 Richmond, 1 9th July, 1822. 
 
 U City of Richmond, to wit : 
 
 Be it remembered, that I John L. Newby, Notary Pub- 
 lic of the city of Richmond, delivered to Silas Hayer, of the 
 said city, a copy of the within notice ; whereupon the said 
 Hayes positively refused to attend as therein requested. ■ - 
 Given under my hand this 20th day of July, 1822. 
 
 JOHN L. NEWBY, Not. Pnb" 
 
 I was careful to specify the object of my calling him before 
 the notary, as it never was, nor never shall be, my wish to 
 have any man forswear himself. I preferred, therefore, let- 
 ting him know my intention before he was put on his oath ; 
 and if he could then, in truth, substantiate what appeared in 
 
60 
 
 A. P. Upshur's pamphlet, with his name, lie would attend ; if. 
 he could not, \\e would decline it ; the latter of which he has 
 chosen, for which I commend him ; but I do condemn him for 
 suffering himself to be made the cat's-paw of any man. Who 
 can believe that Goble & Thomas would descend to such vul- 
 gar language, or be the authors of so ungentlemanly a letter as 
 the one spoken of ? Before I can credit it, higher authority 
 than Silas Hayes, or A. P. Upshur, must vouch for its truth. 
 I deem it very unnecessary to animadvert more on the conduct 
 of John O. Lay, Philip Triplett, or Silas Hayes, at this stage 
 of the business, having occasion, as I shall presently 
 shew, by the declaration of their best friends, to what extent 
 they are entitled to credit, on oath. It would be idle for me, 
 here, to speak further of their certificates. I had intended to 
 introduce, from the records of the state, evidence to invalidate 
 some of the parties above named ; but it is not essential to my 
 defence, and I feel no disposition to bring forward testimony 
 to their injury, when for my purposes, by their own conduct 
 and shewing they are sufficiently criminated. 
 
 Can it be possible to conceive a character more despicable 
 than one who will, to the injury of a man, persist in a charge 
 which he knows to be false, and in support of his assertion, 
 will descend to every trick to procure and palm on the public 
 as respectable, the testimony of those, who, from youth or im- 
 becility, are incompetent " to uphold truth and fair dealing" 
 against the machinations of a fellow whose fort is low cun- 
 ning. 
 
 In the 12th page of A. P. Upsher's pamphlet, after speak- 
 ing of the result of the suit at common law being against his 
 client, he says, « 4 a rumour had also prevailed, that John 
 «' Hendree was not purely white ; and as a negro, cannot, by 
 " the laws of Virginia, give testimony in any cause to which 
 '« a white man is party. Mr. Drew, early in January* 
 < l last, filed an amended bill, charging this fact also; which, 
 « if proved, would destroy the competency of Jno. Hendree as a 
 « witness, and entitle him, (Mr. Drew,) to the new trial which 
 < 4 he asked. The subject was in this manner brought before 
 ** the public, and became the subject of general conversation, 
 «« and the certificate above mentioned, was obtained solely to re- 
 lt move this imputation ; it was published, among others, by 
 
 * The bill was filed in October, and not in January, which 
 A. P. Upshur well knew This false statement is intended to 
 induce a belief that he had as " promptly" retracted as his friend 
 Drew, with whom and his counsel the story originated. 
 
61 
 
 (* George Hendree in the Mercantile Advertiser of the 19th 
 " January last, and in the Compiler of the 17th of the same 
 * month. Mr. Drew was convinced heforc these publica- 
 " tions, that this charge against the Hendrees could not he 
 " sustained, and very promptly retracted it. It never was 
 " countenanced hy myself, which both John and George Hcn- 
 « dree well knew." 
 
 Had A. P. Upshur, in bringing this subject again before 
 the public, given a fair explanation and confined himself 
 to truth, 1 most certainly should have allowed it to pass with- 
 out further notice; but, to conceal his cloven foot, he has de- 
 scended, as usual, to falsehood, thereby concealing facts from 
 those who before had heard nothing of it. The suit at com- 
 mon law, instituted by Harrison Dance for the benefit of Pey- 
 ton Drew, and conducted by A. P. Upshur, as counsel for 
 Drew, and not for Dance, having been decided against him, 
 he, Drew, instituted a suit in chancery,* for the purpose of 
 setting aside my testimony ; and in the month of October last, 
 he, Drew, filed a bill in the name of H. Dance, against my 
 brother and myself, charging me with being a man of colour, 
 (this is the same Drew, who, on the 26th day of July, 1817, 
 forswore himself.) That I might more effectually rebut the 
 charge, I traced my ancestors to a distant date, and procured 
 documents, duly authenticated by public functionaries, estab- 
 lishing the fact that my grand father and grand mother, botli 
 by my father and my mother's side were natives of the city of 
 Zuric, in Switzerland, and emigrated to this country many 
 years before the revolution. 
 
 I also proceeded to Portsmouth, my native place, and the 
 residence of my parents for near forty years, when I caus- 
 ed to be taken the depositions of ten ladies and fourteen 
 gentlemen, among the oldest and most respectable inhabitants 
 in the county, proving it to be without the shadow of truth. 
 It is true, after these depositions were filed, together with ma- 
 ny others, all of which went to shew that the " rumour" ori- 
 ginated solely with Drew and his counsel, he, Drew, did, on 
 the 5th of January, 1822, retract the charge by making oath 
 before a magistrate of this city that it was false ; both Drew 
 and his counsel perfectly well knew before the charge was 
 made that it could not be sustained, and that it was a diaboli- 
 
 * In chancery suits, all testimony is by deposition, which may 
 be taken in any section of the country; and both Drew and his 
 counsel were aware that they would be most likely to get their 
 ends answered in that way, by testimony which truth would no' 
 uphold before a court where it was delivered orally. 
 
$2 
 
 cal invention of their own, for the purpose of extorHng mo- 
 ney from my brother under pretence of a claim ; thus cover- 
 ing murder with the mantle of the law. Dance in whose name 
 the suit was instituted for the benefit of Peyton Drew,* de- 
 clares he did not believe it at the time, as his certificate hand- 
 ed to my brother after the charge was made, will shew. 
 
 RICHMOND, January £nd, 1822. 
 
 The bill filed in the court of chancery in my name for the 
 benefit of Peyton Drew ; I here state, that I believe the scu- 
 rilous charges made in that bill as to colour, to be false. The 
 said bill would not have been filed with these charges contain- 
 ed therein by my consent. I objected to the filing the said bill 
 for several months, under the belief that the said charges 
 were not correct ; but at length was advised to do it by Mr. 
 McRae the counsel, and Mr. Drew, for whose benefit the said 
 suit was brought. 
 
 H. DANCE.f 
 
 It is of my own accord that I have given the above certi- 
 ficate. 
 
 H. D. 
 
 That, together with a mass of other testimony, was publish- 
 ed in the * 4 Richmond Commercial Compiler" of the 7th of 
 January last, shewing the fact that it originated with Drew 
 and his counsel. On the 18th of the same month, Drew ap- 
 peared in the same paper, and on his oath he both recanted 
 the charge and gave up lieut. Walter G. Anderson, of the Uni- 
 ted States Navy, as the authority on which he made it4 The 
 Lieutenant soon after replied through the same channel, and 
 denying most positively the truth of Drew's assertion, con- 
 eludes his answer with these words : 
 
 * I have but liflle doubt, but what before a court ,of justice, I 
 shall be able to establish the fact, that the larger portion of what- 
 ever sum should be recovered from my brother, was by spe- 
 cial agreement made with Drew, to be appropriated to the liqui- 
 dating of a debt due from him to Upshur. 
 
 t Dance has since assured me that Peyton Drew, and his coun- 
 sel have both confessed to him, the only object they had was, un- 
 der that pretence, to force money from Mr. Hendree. 
 
 % Lieut. Anderson assured me when in Norfolk last, that an ex- 
 planation had taken place between himself and the parties, when 
 the latter confessed having done him great injustice by saying he 
 was the author. The lieutenant also assured me that they had no 
 authority whatever, and stated the necessity, which compelled 
 them to pursue that course to extort money from Mr. George 
 Hendree, was of too delicate a nature to make public. 
 
63 
 
 « F did by the request of McRae and Brew make enquiry 
 " relative to Doct. Hendree's family, and never heard any 
 *' person who knew them speak otherwise than in the most 
 i( respectful terms ; all of which McRae and Drew knew 
 " well, as the certificates herewith published will shew.* 
 « Had I known McRae and Drew were the abandoned wretch- 
 « es they have proved to be, I most certainly would not have 
 *, noticed them when they were here. I do most solemnly de- 
 " clare, that Peyton Drew has sworn to a base and malicous 
 '* falsehood, as far as relates to any thing he says I told him 
 <* injurious to the Messrs. Hendrees or their parents. 
 
 WALTER G. ANDERSON, 
 
 Lieut. U. S. JYavy, 
 
 Norfolk County, January Slsf, 1822. 
 
 A. P. Upshur, when speaking of the certificate of judges 
 Marshall and Brockenbrough, and Messrs. Leigh and Wick- 
 ham, says, «* and the certificate above mentioned, was ob- 
 '* tained solely to remove this imputation. It was published 
 *« among others, by George Hendree, in the » Mercantile 
 «« Advertiser,' of the 19th January last, and in the * Compiler* 
 '« of the \7th of the same month." The documents relating 
 to the origin of my grand father and grand mother being too 
 long for an ordinary publication, were, as I expressly stated 
 in my former pamphlet, submitted to those gentlemen by my 
 brother, that he might obtain the substance of them in a more 
 condensed form. What a glaring and contemptible perversion 
 of that passage in my pamphlet to which he alludes ! I ori- 
 ginally had no intention of introducing it in my publication; 
 but, before it was ready for press, information which I receiv- 
 ed from Philadelphia, (from a source which will not be used,) 
 induced me to believe that something of the kind had been 
 spoken of ; but, not being possessed of any positive proof on 
 the subject, I could not lay the charge at his door. I there- 
 fore wrote to each of those gentlemen, explaining the neces- 
 sity of its publication : that, if the report did exist in Philadel- 
 phia, these certificates would at once prove it false ; and J 
 shall presently shew that the report did exist there, and by 
 whom it was circulated. Upshur says f it was published 
 H among others, in the Mercantile Advertiser of the 19th 
 < l January last, and in the Compiler oj the \7th of the same 
 
 •Many certificates were published bv the lieuten.inf, in sup- 
 port of his assertion. 
 
64 
 
 " month.*' I called on Mr. Cary, one of the editors of the 
 Compiler, whose certificate will shew Upshur's assertion to 
 be false : 
 
 ** The certificate of judges Marshall and Broekenbrough, 
 and Messrs. J. Wick ham and B. W. Leigh, in relation to the 
 ancestors of Mr. George Hendree, was, together with other 
 documents, published by Mr. Hendree in the Compiler of the 
 7th January last, but nothing of the kind appeared in the 
 Compiler of the 17th of that month. 
 
 TRUEHEART, CARY & CO." 
 
 Compiler office, July 1st, 1822. 
 
 I wish the reader to bear in mind, that " nothing of the 
 kind appeared «« in the Compiler of the 17th of that month ;" 
 the misrepresentation of the date, changing it from the 7th 
 to the 17th, is in itself unimportant ; but if I shew, before I 
 conclude this subject, how material it was for him to elude 
 detection, by the ordinary reader ; that not only the usual 
 order of arranging dates should be reversed by placing the 
 19th before the 17th, and that of the Compiler made the \7th of 
 the month, instead of 7th ; it will then be admitted that it was 
 on oversight, nor a typographical error, but intentionally and 
 designedly done to conceal a falsehood, which his own letter 
 shall prove. 
 
 A. P.Upshur says, " Mr. Drew was convinced before these 
 " publications, that this charge against the Hendrees, could 
 « not be sustained, and very promptly retracted it. It never 
 " was countenanced by myself, which both John and George 
 " Hendree well knew." He denies that he ever countenanced 
 the charge. I pledge myself to prove, that he not only coun- 
 tenanced the charge, but that his conduct was not as honorable 
 as Drew's in recanting, and that he even went further than 
 ever Drew did in his assertions, to induce others to give it 
 credit. The first step is, to shew that he was counsel in this 
 identical suit, and that too at the very time the charge was 
 made. 
 
 The following letter was addressed to Wm. W. Hening Esq. 
 clerk of the chancery court, enclosing the amended bill charg- 
 ing me with being a coloured man : 
 
 " Sir — You are hereby requested to file our amended bill 
 in our suit against George and John Hendree, and to mark 
 
65 
 
 for us, as our counsel, Messrs. Alexander Mcllae, ■ ■* 
 
 » and A. P. Upshur. 
 
 Respectfully, &c. 
 
 H. DANCE. 
 PEYTON DREW." 
 
 I do not intend to implicate him in consequence of his being 
 counsel, but by his conduct, not only subsequent to the filing 
 of the bill, but prior, by which I mean to make his guilt mani- 
 fest. The charge was made in the latter part of October, 
 1821 ; about the 10th of November following, I proceeded to 
 Portsmouth to get such proofs as were necessary to rebut it. 
 Scarce had 1 left Richmond for the purpose, before Upshur, 
 Drew's counsel, understood the object of my going to Ports- 
 mouth and followed me. 
 
 « l I do hereby certify, that Mr. Upshur went passenger 
 from Richmond to Norfolk,! m tue Steam Boat Powhatan, on 
 the 44th November, 1821. 
 
 D. W. CRQCKER, Captain." 
 
 I had understood in this city that Upshur had taken an ac- 
 tive part in bringing forward the charge, but that he kept 
 himself behind the curtain, and indeed at that time I was not 
 willing to believe him so thoroughly a scoundrel. He re- 
 mained in Norfolk about five days, during which time he 
 found it quite out of the question, that of getting any respec- 
 table person who knew my parents to say that a suspicion of 
 the kind ever existed. There being no chance of his success he 
 determined to return to Richmond, and send to Norfolk with 
 bis client (if to be procured) one more expert at bribery to ef- 
 fect his object : 
 
 " I do hereby certify that Mr. A. P. Upshur was a pas- 
 senger from Norfolk to Richmond on hoard the Steam Boat 
 Richmond, on the 20th November, 1821, and on the very next 
 day the 21st of November, by the return of the same boat to 
 
 * The counsel whose name I have omitted, is that of a gentle- 
 man whose standing in society forbids my insulting him so grossly 
 a9 I should, in allowing his name to be. coupled with A. P. Up- 
 shur's in any fact I bring before the public. Were I to do so, it would 
 revive the recollection of the mode in which our Saviour was cru- 
 cified by placing him between the two. 
 
 tThe town of Portsmouth and the Borough of Norfolk are in 
 Norfolk county, and distant about half a mile. The communica- 
 tion between the two places is kept up with great facility by 
 means of Team Boats, which pass and repass every five or ten 
 minutes. 
 
 9 
 
66 
 
 Norfolk, Messrs. Alexander McRae and Peyton Drew, went 
 down as passengers.* 
 
 Wm. COFFIN, Captain." 
 
 My introducing the following certificate of Mr. Butt, is t6 
 shew that Drew without ceremony coupled the name of Up- 
 shur with himself ; a liberty, he w;ould not have taken unless 
 authorised or warranted by the friendship existing between 
 them, and this too at the very time the unfortunate Mallony 
 was bribed : 
 
 " I am authorised to say on the authority of a branch of 
 my family in whom I have the most perfect confidence, that 
 some time last fall when Peyton Drew was in this town ma- 
 king efforts to get testimony that Doct. Hendree was a col- 
 oured man, he did, in conversation, couple Mr. Upshur with 
 himself; but how far Mr. Upshur was interested, was not un- 
 derstood. 
 
 JAMES B. BUTT." 
 
 Portsmouth, June QSth, 1822. 
 
 «' I certify that the above named James B. Butt, is a man of 
 good character and strict integrity. Given under my hand 
 this 27th June, 1822. 
 
 ARTHUR EMMERSON." 
 
 It may be said that this is but circumstantial proof, and is 
 not sufficient to convict him of being directly concerned in so 
 diabolical an act. Such reasoning is fair, but those circum- 
 stances occurring at the very moment when rumours were a~ 
 float, implicating Upshur with a direct agency in the business, 
 will be sufficient to convince those of the inhabitants of Ports- 
 mouth, Norfolk and Richmond, who are acquain ed with these 
 rumours, of his guilt. It may be said that he was spoken of 
 freely, because he was counsel in the cau^e, and business dis- 
 tinct from that, carried him to Norfolk at that time. Such 
 may be possible, but not probable ; nor do I mean to let the 
 fact of his guilt rest on these proofs alone j but, if he stated 
 the object of his visit to Norfolk at that time, was not con- 
 nected with what I charge him, he tells an untruth, as I shall 
 shew by proofs positive. 
 
 *It was at this time that Drew and his counsel did seduge and 
 bribe one Wm. Mallony, an unfortunate convict from one of the 
 garrisons, to swear falsely, which has been proved on him, as will 
 appear by the depositions published in the Compiler of the 7th of 
 January last. 
 
67 
 
 In the month of April, (some days after my pamphlet had 
 appeared,) I received a letter from Mr. George Campbell of 
 Philadelphia, who when speaking of the contents of a letter 
 he had received from A. P. Upshur, in January last, he says 
 that Mr, Upshur did ** inform me, that he was satisfied that 
 " the reports relative to your being a married man, and to 
 •'« anotker matter were unfounded " 
 
 Immediately on my arrival in Philadelphia, I called Mr. 
 Campbell's attention to these words *« another matter," and 
 told him, 1 did not know to what he had allusion ; he replied 
 by assuring me, he had been under the impression he made the 
 communication to me, and thought I had omitted to notice it. 
 I desired him to state in writing, what had been commu- 
 nicated to him by A. P. Upshur, which he did at the bottom 
 of the letter thus : 
 
 " The «« other matter" alluded to above, was that Doctr. 
 *« Hendree had been refused as a witness in court, on the al- 
 *« ledged ground of his being a coloured man ; and was com- 
 " municatcd to me by Mr. Upshur, at the time he made the 
 *« other communications, stated in my letter of the 22ud Scp- 
 ¥ tember, 1821, of which I had until then, known nothing. 
 
 GEO. CAMPBELL." 
 
 Philadelphia, May 1st, 1822. 
 
 Heavens above! what a matchless liar. Not content with 
 stating, what as he says originated with his client, but must 
 go farther by saying it had received confirmation by a court 
 of justice ! When and where has any thing ever occurred to 
 give the semblance of truth to his assertion? I defy him or 
 any man on earth, to say that even an objection was ever of- 
 ieVed to my testimony before a court, under any circum- 
 stances. I defy him to say, that there is an individual on. 
 earth, who has ever thought of attempting such a thing, ex- 
 cept his client, who is a perjured man. I defy him to say, I 
 ever gave testimony in any case, except the one spoken of 
 against his client ; he cannot shield himself by saying he was 
 misinformed, for he professes to know nothing of me but 
 what occurred in Richmond where he resided long ere I 
 did. What must be the feelings of an honourable man, to- 
 wards a wretch, who can deliberately slate a falsehood of that 
 enormity, for which there is no apology, and for which there 
 is ifo language adequate to depict the baseness of the crime ! 
 Will any man question the truth of Mr. Campbell's statement, 
 when A. P. Upshur the monster whom it criminates with 
 
68 
 
 falsehood, near two months after the communication is made 
 to me, in the 10th page of his pamphlet, speaks of him in the 
 following terms : " 1 do not mention these things, however, 
 *< with any view to inculpate Mr. Campbell ; his character for 
 " probity, is perfectly well established, arid perfectly well known 
 " to me ; it places him very far above the suspicion of intention- 
 '« al misrepresentation under any circumstances whatsoever." 
 It will now be said, that Mr. Campbell was not authorised to 
 make this communication by his letter of the 19th of Septem- 
 ber, 1821 ; but will it be said, that he was not authorised by 
 the verbal communication made to him by A. P. Upshur pre- 
 vious? No, that cannot be ; for Mr. Campbell did not give 
 me the information, until the 1st May, near four months af- 
 ter he received the original letter, of which, the following is 
 a true copy, as sworn to by Mr. Campbell : 
 
 RICHMOND, Jan. 14th, 1822. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 Adverting to the contents of my letter to you, 
 relative to Doct. Hendree, in which, at your request, I re- 
 peated the substance of our conversations on that subject, I 
 think I mentioned a rumour that Doct. H. was, or had been 
 married ; and also, that suspicions were entertained, by some, 
 that he was not purely a white man. I mentioned these, how- 
 ever, as rumours, which I could not trace, and to which I 
 could not undertake to say that any respect ought to be at- 
 tached. Doct. H. has taken great pains, since his return to 
 Virginia, to collect and lay before me, evidence to remove 
 these suspicions ; and a recent visit to the neighbourhood of 
 his place of nativity, ♦ has enabled me, personally, to satisfy 
 myself farther on the subject. I am now convinced, that in 
 these respects, he has been injured : Not by me, who stated 
 only that which was matter of public rumour, but by those 
 who originated that rumour. I am now convinced, that there 
 is no reason to attach to him any reproach on the score of any 
 previous marriage ; and I am equally certain, that his blood 
 is free from the stain imputed to it. I have seen certificates 
 from very respectable men, stating, that his parents were cer- 
 tainly white, and that they held a very respectable station in 
 the world : some of them, also, speak favourably of the doctor 
 himself, during his residence with his parents. 
 
 You must be convinced that I can have no interest in this 
 matter, and no motive to speak about it beyond a desire to 
 uphold truth and fair dealing. My only written communica- 
 tion on the subject, [having been made to you, you will have 
 
69 
 
 no difficulty in excusing any other communication to which 
 that may give occasion. Doct. II. tells me, that I have 
 blasted his prospects in Philadelphia, and that I alone can re- 
 instate him. It would certainly give me more pleasure to 
 speak in his favour than to speak against him, and whenever 
 he gives me reason to do so, I shall he highly gratified to 
 avow it This he promises to do, and I shall examine his 
 proofs and listen to his communications with all the indulgence, 
 patience and attention of a parent to his child. My only 
 object at present is, to remove any ill-impressions which may 
 have been made by so much of the public report as I have re- 
 peated, relative to his marriage and blood. On these sub- 
 jects I believe I have never expressed any very definite opin- 
 ion either one way or the other. I shall take the liberty to 
 write to you again, should I hereafter have reason to change 
 in other respects the opinion I have expressed. This will de- 
 pend altogether upon the nature of the evidence which Doctor 
 Hendree may lay before me. 
 
 Very respectfully, &c. 
 
 A. P. UPSHUR. 
 
 George Campbell, Esq., Philadelphia. 
 
 Will any man believe that Mr. Campbell, with this letter 
 before him, from the middle of January, would on the first 
 day of May following, state what he has without a thorough 
 conviction of the truth of every word ; and this too, to the 
 injury of the creature with whom he is at the time corres- 
 ponding in the most respectful and friendly terms, on the sub- 
 ject of his former communication ? No, it must first be 
 shewn that Mr. Campbell is an ideot, before its truth can be 
 doubted. Will it be said that A. P. Upshur, when in the 
 month of June, in his pamphlet, is upholding Mr. Campbell 
 as a man of undoubted integrity, was ignorant of Mr. Camp- 
 bell's communication to me, on the 1st of May preceding? 
 No, tjfiat cannot be, for we find in the 51st page of his pam- 
 phlet,Mr. Campbell holding communion on the 23rd day of 
 May, with one of A. P. Upshur's best friends, and signing a 
 certificate to aid his cause ; and A. P. Upshur in a note at 
 the bottom of the 9th page of his pamphlet, acknowledges 
 holding correspondence with the parties at the xcry time; 
 but by his letter, his guilt is made manifest. Why should a 
 man be sensible of the sting of reproach, who is a stranger 
 to the guilt that is implied, or subject himself to the penalty, 
 when he knows he has never committed the crime? Why re- 
 peat in so many different places, " I only mentioned these, how- 
 
70 
 
 ever, as rumours" or words to that effect? Is it not evident 
 he wished to impress on the mind of Mr. Campbell, that he 
 had not said more than that which was rumour r It is pal- 
 pable, he was conscious of having said much more than what 
 *f truth and fair dealing" would uphold him in, and wished to 
 efface it from Mr. Campbell's memory. He would not have 
 committed himself so far, if he had recollected a correct 
 maxim : " Once said, and that well said is sufficient, and he 
 " that repeats more than three times, has a bad cause." Will 
 it now be said, that Mr. Campbell was not authorised to make 
 the communication relative to the partnership and accounts, 
 and the marriage in Richmond, as coming from A. Ft Up- 
 shur, because they were not mentioned in his letter of the 19tU 
 September, 1821 ? Certainly not, the charge of colour was 
 not mentioned in that letter ; but a subsequent one shews he 
 had made it verbally at the time he made the others. 
 
 It is now perceived, that if he had shewn the fact that my 
 brother's publication appeared on the 7th January, in the 
 Compiler ; how culpable he would be for suffering a delay un- 
 til the 14th, (seven days) to take place before correcting the 
 communication he says he made to Mr. Campbell. He says, 
 «« Mr. Drew was convinced before these publications, that 
 " this charge against the Hendrees could not be sustained, and 
 " very promptltj retracted it." His conduct is by no means 
 as honourable as Drew's ; he had said much more than Drew 
 has ever said on this one charge, and he could not then do me 
 justice without coupling something in my conduct humilia- 
 ting. In the foregoing letter he uses these words, « Dr. H. 
 i( has taken great pains since his return to Virginia, to collect 
 " and lay before me evidence to remove these suspicions." A 
 more pitiful falsehood never was uttered by any man. Only 
 compare the publication made by my brother on the 7th Jan, 
 with his letter written on the 14th of the same month, and it 
 will be found that just so far as trie publication relates to me 
 directly, just so far has he given in his letter. And the f* evi- 
 dence" he speaks of was no doubt laid before him in common 
 with the public through the press : but as to his being individu- 
 ally selected, is an untruth. He says « 4 and a recent visit to the 
 '* neighbourhood of the place of his nativity has enabled me 
 " personally to satisfy myself further on the subject." If he 
 was not directly interested in the result of the suit, for what 
 were those enquiries made ? If his visit to Norfolk was not 
 connected with this business, why make the enquiry ? Were 
 those enquiries to benefit me ? No, for he is satisfied the re- 
 ports are false in November, but does not attempt c < to re- 
 
71 
 
 uuove any ill impressions made by them" until January fol- 
 low ingi Does he do it then on the strength of the information 
 derived by his enquiries ? No. Does he do it on the strength 
 of the documents given to the public on the 7th of January, 
 by my brother, which carried conviction not only to the mind 
 of the disinterested, but to the creatures with whom it origi- 
 nated ? He says, no. But seven days after I called on him, 
 (says In) and supplicated his interference, to restore the pros- 
 pect he had blasted in Philadelphia ; the assertion is too con- 
 temptible to give it the lie. 
 
 In the summer of 1821, A. P. Upshur, while in Philadel- 
 phia, verbally stated to Mr. Campbell, (among other false- 
 hoods,) that I was a married man in Richmond, during my 
 residence there, or some portion of the time, and it was gene- 
 rally supposed my wife was still living some where abroad, 
 (see Mr. Campbell's letter of the 22nd September, 1821, in 
 my first pamphlet, page 7.) Mr. Campbell is apprised of 
 my intention to demand his author; he therefore, to have such 
 authority for his assertion as would exonerate him from the 
 responsibility, writes to A. P. Upshur on the 14th Septem- 
 ber, 1821, requesting a continuation of the verbal commu- 
 nication he had made, and calls his particular attention to 
 the marriage in these words : »« and if it is not generally sup- 
 posed he has a wife now living," (see Mr. Campbell's letter 
 in Upshur's pamphlet, page 3.) A. P. Upshur felt conscious 
 of having communicated to Mr. Campbell, what truth would 
 not justify him in ; and he could not answer his letter without 
 noticing that particular enquiry; he therefore, on the 19th 
 same month, answered him thus: •* whether he has a wife 
 " living, or was ever married or not, 1 do not know. I spoke 
 " of that matter as a mere report, operating to his disadvan- 
 «• tage ; but I do not even know upon what authority it is 
 . « founded. His conduct in the West Indies, is said to have 
 *« been very bad, and I have heard it concerned his wife : 
 •« but what his conduct was, or whether his wife, if he had 
 « any, was concerned in it or not, 1 do not know, and never 
 " intended to state. Mv information is derived from one man 
 
72 
 
 «' only, whose name and station, I mentioned in Vhiladel- 
 06 phia." Could there have been a more vague answer given ? 
 If Mr. Campbell's enquiry, couched in such terms, was not 
 authorised by the manner in which it had been spoken of, 
 why not tell him so ? No, he knew better : at first it was a 
 wife in Richmond : that he finds untenable for a moment : his 
 alternative is then to fly to the West Indies ; how weak and 
 futile are such subterfuges to justify falsehood. I must be con- 
 sidered peculiarly fortunate, when it is recollected that I 
 was but a sojourner in the Islands, and being able after such 
 a lapse of time, to procure such testimonials as I shall now lay 
 before the public, not only for the purpose of shewing that 
 there was no ground for the report, (which the creature with 
 whom it originated has already admitted,) but as having a 
 bearing in my defence of much more importance, that of 
 what my conduct was while absent from mv native country. 
 
 '* I James Johnson, one of the house of Mezick & Johnson, 
 Merchants in Baltimore, do hereby certify that I am person- 
 ally acquainted with Doct. John Hendree, and knew him well 
 during his residence in ^le West Indies ; more particularly 
 in the Island of St. Bartholomews, and returned with him to 
 the United States of America, in the latter part of the year 
 eighteen hundred and fourteen.* We both landed at Pro- 
 vidence, Rhode Island, and I have no hesitation jn saying 
 that he was not a married man at that time to the best of my 
 knowledge and belief, and I have never heard that he was 
 married, since or before, and I feel warranted in saying that 
 it is not probable such could have been the case in the West 
 Indies, and I to have remained ignorant of it. And further 
 I do state, that Doct. Hendree was much respected by his 
 own countrymen who were there, as well as the natives, and 
 that he associated with and mixed in the most respectable socie- 
 ty in the islands. And further more, there was such a con- 
 tinued intercourse between the Islands, that had such a cir- 
 cumstance existed, it could not well have remained secret 
 from myself and others, during our long residence there. 
 
 In testimony whereof, 1 hereunto subscribe my name, add- 
 ing that I never knew nor heard of any thing in the deport- 
 ment of Doct. Hendree, but that of a gentleman. 
 
 JAMES JOHNSON." 
 
 * From that time to the present, my residence has been confined 
 chiefly to Richmond and Philadelphia. 
 
" I, John H. Holmes, having read over the above statement of 
 James Johnson, do certify to all and every part of the same, 
 with the exception of that part where he speaks of returning 
 to the United States with Doct. Hendree, as I did not return 
 to America at that time. I furthermore state, I have very 
 frequently been to the West Indies since that time, and never 
 have heard shch a report, or any thing 'disrespectful of him. 
 
 JOHN H. HOLMES." 
 
 «* United States of America, 
 State of Maryland, to wit : 
 
 I, John Gill, Notary Public, by letters patent under the 
 great seal of the state of Maryland, commissioned and duly 
 qualified, residing in the city of Baltimore, in the state afore- 
 said, do hereby certify that James Johnson, and John H. 
 Holmes, acknowledged that the several matters and things set 
 forth in said certificate are just and true, as stated. I further 
 certify I have long been intimately acquainted with said James 
 Johnson, and said John H. Holmes, and they are both res- 
 pectable inhabitants of this city : the former of the respecta- 
 ble house of Messrs. Mezick & Johnson of this city, mer- 
 chants, the latter a master .Mariner, and both of them entitled 
 to full faith and credit, of which an act having been of me 
 requested, I have granted these presents. In testimony, 
 &c. &c. &c. 
 
 (Seal.) . JNO: GILL, Not. Pub." 
 
 "I, William Small, of the borough of Norfolk and state of 
 Virginia, do hereby certify, that I am well acquainted with 
 Doct. John Hendree, (now of Richmond.) I knew him and 
 his connexions in this county, before he, (Dr. Hendree,) 
 went to the West Indies. I also knew him during his resi- 
 dence in the West Indies, and have no knowledge, nor have 
 I ever beard that he was a married man. I also further 
 state, that I have frequently been to the West Indies since 
 Dr. Hendree left there, and had he ever been married, 1 have 
 no hesitation in saying, it is more than probable I should 
 have heard of it. I have never heard of his conduct there 
 being other than correct and gentlemanly. 
 
 WM. SMALL." 
 
 « Norfolk borough, to wit : 
 
 I, John E. Holt, mayor, do hereby certify that William 
 
 10 
 
Small is personally known to me, and he is a man of integrity, 
 and entitled to full confidence and credit. 
 
 In testimony whereof, &c. 
 
 (■Seal.) JNO. E. HOLT, Mayor."* 
 
 il I was personally acquainted with Doct. John Hendree be- 
 fore he went to the West Indies, and during his residence 
 there. I never heard of his being a married man, at any 
 time or place ; and, as to his conduct, I never knew, nor heard 
 of its being otherwise while there, than that of a gentlemanly 
 young man. I have been to the West Indies frequently, since 
 his return to the United States, and think it more than pro- 
 bable I should have heard it, had such a circumstance oc- 
 curred. 
 
 D. A. REYNOLDS." 
 Portsmouth, Va.JuneQ4th, 1822. 
 
 " David A. Reynolds, is a man of integrity. 
 
 A. ExWMERSON." 
 
 On the 14th January, 1822, A. P. Upshur wrote to Mr. 
 Campbell, informing him that the report of my having been 
 a married man, is without truth, (see his letter in page 68.) 
 In the first place, on what authority did he make the commu- 
 nication to Mr. Campbell of my having been married in the 
 West Indies ? He says, " my information is derived from 
 "• one man only, whose name and station I mentioned in 
 «* Philadelphia." In the 14th page of my former pamphlet, in 
 / speaking of his communication to Mr. Campbell on this sub- 
 ject, I lay the origin of the report at his own door, in the fol- 
 lowing words : *■* but to say 1 was seperated from, and denied 
 <* her whom I must have received at the altar, or under the 
 *< sanctuary ot a divine, is an assertion which is worse than 
 " a crime ; it is a fault, and could only have had its origin in the 
 "breast of one, who would be indifferent to such an event in 
 " his own life ; nor do I believe, there is an individual 
 " worthy of being believed on the face of the earth, who will 
 *' say they ever heard or thought such was the case, pre- 
 6i viousto the day on which Mr. Upshur made thecommunica- 
 " tion to Mr. Campbell." Why not boldly give up his author, 
 
 * The certificates of Mr. Gill, the notary, and Mr. Holt, the 
 mayor, are both in the usual form, the whole of which is unneces- 
 sary to publish. 
 
75 
 
 if he lias any ? Why has he failed even to notice in his de- 
 fence, the authority on which he made the assertion ? There 
 can he hut one of two reasons ; he is either some contempti- 
 ble wretch, after whom he is ashamed to let the world know 
 he would repeat ; or, he has none. In the second place, hy 
 whom is he informed, that (he report is without truth ? The 
 person from whom he derived the information, which he 
 communicated to Mr. Campbell, on the 14th January, 1822, 
 must at the same time have informed him, that my conduct 
 in the West Indies was correct and honourable ; for, my mar- 
 riage and my conduct, in his communication to Mr. Campbell 
 on the 19th September, are so connected, that the one enquiry 
 must naturally have followed the other ; and he could not 
 have been informed of the one without the other. He has no 
 honest explanation to give, of which his conduct gives the most 
 ample proofs ; but he found out the one to give him the in- 
 formation, and the other to rebut it $ as Sir John Falstaff 
 found out the true prince, by instinct. 
 
 " I am traduced by tongues, which neither know 
 " My faculties nor person, yet will be 
 " The chronicles of my doing." 
 
 A. P. Upshur has introduced in his pamphlet the deposi- 
 tions of Silas Hayes, Philip Triplett, Frederick Clarke, Wm. 
 Crane, John G. Blair, John 0. Lay, G. V. Clarke, and J. H. 
 Royster,* (the parties commenced the taking of these depo- 
 sitions on the 1 5th October, \ 1821, near two months after my 
 
 * The subsequent conduct of Mr. J. H. Royster has satisfied 
 me he is an honest man, but he unfortunately suffered himself in 
 this instance, to receive improper impressions by the false repre- 
 sentations of an arch villain. 
 
 t That fact Upshur has failed to shew, thereby concealing his 
 agency in procuring these aflidavit-men. 
 
76 
 
 meeting with Upshur in Philadelphia. This it will be well to re- 
 collect,) who say they would doubt my oath if I was interest- 
 ed. Not one of them have nor can they give any honest rea- 
 son for so saying : they should have been mindful that 
 
 " He who says he would not believe another on his oath, with- 
 out cause, knows himself to be perjured." 
 
 Upshur says in his pamphlet, page 46, «« there are other 
 " witnesses who testify in the same case, that they would be- 
 <c lieve John Hendree on his oath, even if he felt an interest 
 " in the result of the cause, and the same thing would be de- 
 " clared by thousands of witnesses of any other individual 
 " whatever ; for we take it for granted, that every man is a 
 «' lover of truth* until the contrary is shewn, and not to know 
 li is therefore sufficient reason for believing him" His decla- 
 ration bears very hard on the integrity of all his affidavit- 
 men, particularly Frederick Clarke, Silas Hayes, John G. 
 Blair and J. H. Royster, with either of whom, to my almost 
 certain knowledge, I never had a transaction ; and with John 
 G. Blair, I do not know that I ever exchanged one word. On 
 G. V. Clarke's testimony it bears with a peculiar force 
 against its credibility ; for, he expressly says in a deposition of 
 his (which I shall presently exhibit) that he has had trans- 
 actions with me at various times, all of which have been as 
 correctly settled as with any other man. It is a correct maxim 
 to speak well of that bridge which carries you over safe ; but 
 his swearing not only stains the purity of his own deposition, 
 but also that of his brother Frederick's. The following is an 
 extract from G. V. Clarke's deposition taken after the \5th 
 October last, and which appears in Upshur's pamphlet, 
 page 39. 
 
 " Question by Mr. John Hendree. Are you not a brother 
 «« of Mr. Frederick Clarke of Manchester, who has already 
 «' given a deposition in this cause ? Answer. I am." 
 
 lt Question by same. Do you, or do you not know, that 
 " the said Frederick Clarke is very hostile to me ? Answer. 
 " Not without reasons / believe him to be so." 
 
 «* Question by same. Will you state the cause ? An- 
 « swer. Because of a prosecution against John Hendree for 
 " forgery ^ his denial of the said charge, and after the pro- 
 " secution had been decided, the said John Hendree has con- 
 *« fessed that he committed this forgery, as I have understood 
 
 * How is it he makes an assertion so directly in opposition to his 
 own conduct and feelings ? 
 
77 
 
 * 
 
 " from general report, .and some other circumstances attend- 
 f* ing said prosecution. Whatever hostility may have been 
 " between Mr. Hendree, and my brother, has had no influ- 
 «* ence with me, but what I have stated has been from general 
 **. report." 
 
 It is now clearly seen, from what the hostile feelings of 
 Frederick Clarke arise. First, he is mad, c * because of a 
 prosecution against John Hendree, for forgery." Secondly, he 
 is mad, because of " his denial of the said charge." Thirdly, 
 he is mad, because " the said John Hendree has confessed that 
 he committed this forgery." Fourthly, he is mad, in conse- 
 quence of " some oilier circumstances attending said prosecu- 
 tion." For the first cause of his anger, I am not to blame; 
 for the second, if he is a lover of truth, lie surely would not 
 have me tell a falsehood ; for the third, (if any confession,) it 
 was the effect of mental derangement, and it should have ex- 
 cited his sympathy, not his revenge ; for the fourth, if he feels 
 conscious that perjury was proved on him at the time of the 
 examination, he should revenge himself on the faithful me- 
 mory and sterling integrity of those who proved it, not on 
 me. If G. V. Clarke did not participate in the hostile feel- 
 ings of his brother, why anticipate the question ? My object 
 was to shew, what the feelings of his brother Frederick were 
 towards me, and the causes which gave rise to that hostility. 
 Revenge is sweet, no doubt, and it is the ruling passion of the 
 savage ; and by his answer, anticipating what never was in- 
 tended, I feel bound to protest against any inferences or con- 
 clusions being drawn, that I ever intended to class the feelings 
 of any man, entitled to " christian burial," with those of a 
 savage ; more particularly when on his oath, to speak the 
 truth without prejudice. At the time I put the question, I an- 
 ticipated weakening the testimony of one only ; my object has 
 been more than accomplished. As great strength of mind 
 and firmness of character is required to resist contamination, 
 when located in the hot bed of corruption, I am not surprised 
 John G. Blair should have said what he did, (although on 
 other subjects, perhaps his oath might possibly claim some 
 respect,) when I recollect he is the partner in business of Pey- 
 ton Drew's brother, consequently the frequent associate of 
 Peyton Drew, and living immediately under the office of A. 
 P. Upshur, with whom no doubt there has been a daily, 
 nay, almost an hourly intercourse. * 
 
 * John G. Blair, has recently retired from the agency in which 
 he was connected with Peyton Drew's brother; consequently, he 
 has removed from the " infected district," 
 
78 
 
 Mr. Royster has voluntarily given his deposition, and I have 
 caused G. V. Clarke and Silas Hayes's to be taken, all of 
 which will soon follow, shewing how they were led into the act, 
 by false representation made by Peyton Drew: as their second 
 depositions remove effectually the whole tendency their first 
 had to injure me, they are entitled to credit, for making that ef- 
 fort to redeem themselves. Philip Triplett and Wm. Crane's 
 conduct heretofore, entitled them to the notice of those, in 
 whose immediate neighbourhood ihey live. The conduct of 
 Triplett and 0. Lay, in relation to the certificate given to 
 Upshur, as it now stands, cannot, I am willing to hope, be 
 satisfactory to themselves. If William Crane, Philip Trip- 
 lett and John O. Lay, who are the only persons (that have 
 deposed) with whom I had transactions ; which, if they say 
 were not settled agreeable to their wishes at the time, I am 
 ignorant of it ; but as we are the adverse parties, let us re- 
 main silent, and introduce our proofs, by which one or the 
 other must fall. John Rozel's deposition, was taken by 
 Drew and his counsel, to the same effect of the other affidavit- 
 men ; but A. P. Upshur, has thought proper to omit its 
 publication, which is an act of great cruelty to the creature, 
 who was always ready to serve him with his oath. Whether 
 Upshur anticipated the fate of his, would be like that of poor 
 Mallony, (a discharged convict, who was bribed to swear 
 falsely in this very suit,) I will not pretend to say, but so it 
 is, he has omitted it without one single word, why or where- 
 fore. 
 
 Those very affidavit-men were procured through the in- 
 strumentality of A. P. Upshur, whose cunning was exercised, 
 and whose means were used to obtain them ; it will then be 
 enquired for what purpose did he want their depositions ? 
 For two purposes ; the first he believed my knowing of their 
 existence would prevent me from arraigning him before the 
 public, though he should refuse to deny to me what he did to 
 my brother ; the second, to send them to Philadelphia for the 
 purpose, as he supposed, of corroborating what he had com- 
 municated to Mr. Campbell : and it is an actual fact they 
 were sent to Philadelphia, or a portion of them, and shewn 
 to some, or the whole of the very persons whose names ap- 
 peared in his pamphlet, page 51 ; and his intention to do so was 
 long since known to me, as the following certificate will shew : 
 
 <* On or about the time the taking of depositions in the suit 
 of H. Dance, for the benefit of P. Drew, (in the superior 
 court of chancery,) was going on, Mr. Drew told me that 
 the said depositions were or would be copied and sent to Phila* 
 
79 
 
 flelphia. Mr. Drew did name Mr. A. P. Upshur in the course 
 of the conversation, but, whether Mr. Upshur or Mr. Drew 
 was to send on the said copies, I do not now recollect. The de- 
 positions above alluded to, were in relation to the character of 
 Duct Hendree, said by Mr. Drew not to be a man of inte- 
 grity. 
 
 M. WATKINS." 
 Richmond, 14th January, 1822. 
 
 It is publicly known in this city, that the very great inti- 
 macy, and friendly intercourse which has heretofore existed 
 between Mr. Watkins and A. P. Upshur and his friends, pla- 
 ced Mr. Watkins in a situation, to know the fact perfectly 
 well, but from having heard it more than once spoken of 
 Casually, and feeling no interest in it, could not be positive 
 as to the date or person ; no particular motive to serve me, 
 could have influenced Mr. Watkins, for at the time he gave 
 it, I was almost a total stranger to him. It could not have 
 been Drew who intended to send them on ; he had no acquain- 
 tance in Philadelphia ; he had not spoken of me there, and if 
 he had it was not a pin's difference to him, whether he was 
 believed or not. It was no other than Abel P. Upshur, who 
 wanted them to go to Philadelphia. Having shewn they were 
 used to meet the convenience of Upshur in one way, I will 
 now shew, that they were used for the purpose of endeavour- 
 ing to procure the subornation of witnesses, to swear to my 
 being a coloured man ; and that they were the instruments 
 actually employed to seduce the unfortunate Mallony, to re- 
 ceive a bribe to forswear himself, which was proved. I have 
 before mentioned, that lieutenant Walter G. Anderson, replied 
 through the press, to the allegation preferred against him by 
 Peyton Drew, that of his being the author of the story of my be- 
 ing a man of colour. Before I introduce any thing from the pub* 
 liration of Lieut. Anderson, to invalidate the testimony of 
 the affidavit-men, I must shew that he stood in relation to 
 their best friends and associates, not only by them much res- 
 pected and esteemed, but in the must free, and open com- 
 munion. 
 
 PORTSMOUTH, 21st Nov. *21. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 Our friendAlexander Mc Rat, Esq. and I ar- 
 rived here this morning, in the steam boat from Richmond, in 
 pursuit ol an object of great importance. 
 
 To accomplish it, it is necessary that we should have the 
 aid of an otlicer of the navy, distinguished for his experience, 
 
80 
 
 his skill, and his valor, and for such a service we have not 
 thought it possible to make a more judicious selection than by 
 fixing on our friend lieut. Anderson. The aid too, that it may 
 be effectual, must he prompt ; we have therefore thought it 
 proper to forward this despatch to you by express. Fail not 
 if you please to be with us at Portlock's tavern, at as early 
 an hour as possible to-morrow morning. We shall be happy 
 in your company to breakfast with us, if convenient to you ; 
 if not then, we hope you will be with us as soon after as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 Mr. McRae, joins me in best respects to Mrs. Anderson. 
 And I am, dear Sir, 
 
 Very respectfully, &c. 
 
 PEYTON DREW. 
 
 N. B. I have brought a choice quid of tobacco for you. 
 
 P. D. 
 
 Lieut. Walter G. Anderson, 
 Pr. express.* 
 
 } 
 
 Independent of the profession to which Lieut. Anderson 
 belongs, entitling him to every confidence, it is seen by that 
 letter, he was placed in a situation, to be informed by others 
 of every thing connected with this business without reserve, 
 and of which, he speaks in plain terms, and with a perfect 
 recollection of the facts. The following is . an extract from 
 his publication on the 31st January last, which appeared in 
 the " Commercial Compiler," in February : 
 
 " Peyton Drew did, previous to the taking of my deposition 
 *' on that evening, shew me a parcel of papers, purporting to 
 '< be the depositions of John Rozel, Frederick Clarke, Silas 
 «« Hayes, Philip Triplett, William Crane, John G. Blair, 
 «< J. H. Royster, G. V. Clarke, and John O. Lay,f all of whom 
 " had sworn to things, 1 thought very strange, and Drew told 
 ** me they were his particular friends, and would support him 
 *< in the business he had engaged in against the Hendrees, as 
 '« you see, said he, here are their depositions, and they shew 
 « you to what lengths they have gone to serve me. Yes, said 
 
 * Lieut. Anderson's country residence is about five miles from 
 the town of Portsmouth, to which place the letter was forwarded 
 in the night, at a late hour. 
 
 t With an'exception or two, I think it very questionable wheth- 
 er the same number of persons could be found, on whom suspicion 
 would more readily light, as to the want of propriety of conduct, 
 than the above named affidavit-men. 
 
81 
 
 " M'Rae, (addressing himself to me) they are all tuned to 
 * the very key, we want them in swearing against John Hen- 
 " dree. I would now ask, if such assertions would not stag- 
 i( ger any man $ assertions, made to the injury of an indivi- 
 *« dual of whom he had never known any thing improper. I 
 «« was not present at the taking of Mallony's deposition ; 
 f( but previous to its being taken, McRae and Drew had him 
 " in their room, conversing about what they wanted him to 
 «* swear to. Mallony told them, he knew nothing about it, 
 " That is nothing, says McRae : hear what these men in Rich- 
 " mond have said. Read, (said he to Mr. Drew,) such and 
 *« such depositions, (naming them,) which Drew did of them, 
 " two or three, as well as I recollect. « Hear that,' said Mc 
 " Rae 5 < one tells you he knew nothing himself of John 
 M Hendree, and another tells you John Hendree has been fair 
 '* in his transactions with him ; still you hear what they say 
 " against him \ do not be uneasy, Mr. Mallony, we will carry 
 «' you to Richmond with us ;' and says Drew, < we will put 
 l « you in the employ of some of our friends, or send you to 
 « see your relations." 
 
 It is by that clearly seen, poor Mallony fell a victim to the 
 means they had put in the hands of Drew and his counsel. 
 What is to be understood by their being «> his particular friends 
 ** and would support him in the business he had engaged in 
 * l against the Hendrees" ? They are not, I hope, formed in 
 " battle array." The odds would be against me. Is it to be 
 understood that they will swear tq any thing to serve their 
 friends and injure me ? Or, is it as he says, " they shew you 
 to what lengths they have gone," that they have already 
 sworn to more than «« truth and fair dealing" would uphold 
 them in ? But what will any man of common sense, who 
 shall give that sense fair play, understand by «« tuned to the 
 very key we want them"? What is the plain explanation 
 under the existing circumstances ? Evidently not to sound a 
 true note as witness poor Mallony ; then why sound a false 
 one ? Could they be benefitted by injuring me? They have 
 no apparent interest in it : can they have a secret one, or do 
 they swear for the accommodation or convenience of others ? 
 Because they are coupled in the same suit as witnesses, with 
 one who did receive a bribe, is it a sufficient reason to believe 
 they were bribed also ? Heaven forbid, that fact should be 
 so,clearly proved, as to stain the birth of their posterity ! Is 
 it because the rain which talis on one, drops on the other, that 
 we are to class them with Vlalony ? Is it because William 
 Malony and Peyton Drew have sworn falsely, and A. P. Up- 
 
 11 
 
82 
 
 shur is a common liar, and that " birds of a feather will flock 
 together" that we are to charge them with crimes of the same 
 nature ? Can any man question for a moment that their zeal 
 to serve their friends is such that they will swear to that be- 
 ing a fact of which they know nothing? And does not their 
 own conduct, and the declaration of their best friends, shew 
 that they have already gone beyond what justice would dic- 
 tate to an honourable and conscientious mind ? The facts are 
 before the world, and whether their oaths are justified by 
 " truth and fair dealing," every man should at least exercise 
 the right of thinking for himself; but if Drew and his counsel 
 did use them for purposes not authorised by the manner in 
 which they were procured, then chastise them for taking a 
 liberty with their names so degrading to their memory 
 
 «' The deposition of James H. Royster of lawful age, taken 
 before me, John L. Newby, a notary public, for the city of 
 Richmond, on the 11th of January, 1822, between the hours 
 of nine o'olock A. M. and five o'clock P. M., pursuant to 
 the notice and commission hereto annexed, to be read as evi- 
 dence in a suit, now depending in the superior court of chan- 
 cery, for the Richmond district ; wherein Harrison Dance, 
 who sues for the benefit of Peyton Drew, is plaintiff, and 
 George Hendree and John Hendree are defendants. 
 
 The deponent being first sworn on the Holy Evangelists of 
 Almighty God, deposeth and saith as follows : 
 
 Question by defendants. — Be pleased to say what you heard 
 Harrison Dance say in relation to filing the hill in chancery, 
 against the defendants in this suit ? 
 
 Answer. — I have frequently heard Mr. Dance say, that he 
 objected most pointedly against filing the bill, as to colour $ 
 that he (Dance) objected to that part of the bill, which char- 
 ges the Messrs. Hendrees, with being persons of colour. 
 
 Question by the same. — Did you, or did you not, at the 
 time your deposition was taken by the plaintiffs in this suit, at 
 the VVashington Tavern, say you would not believe John Hen- 
 dree on his oath, from no other cause, but that of having seen 
 and heard read, some depositions in the possession of Peyton 
 Drew, which he (Drew) represented to you, as having been 
 taken in this suit, on behalf of the plaintiffs ; wherein the 
 persons therein deposing, stated that they would not believe 
 the said John Hendree on oath ? 
 
 Answer.— That the only reason why I said, that I would 
 not believe John Hendree on his oath, was from having seen 
 and heard tlmse depositions read ; as I did not have any 
 kuowledge of Mr. Hendree at all, or did I know that they 
 
83 
 
 were depositions, except from the representation of Mr. Drew, 
 who stated to me that they were, and read them to me. 
 
 Question by the same. — Have you any knowledge of any 
 act of John Hendree, that would cause you to doubt his word 
 or integrity ? 
 
 Answer. — No, not of my own knowledge. 
 
 Question by the same. — Some time previous to the taking 
 of your deposition, by the plaintiffs in this suit, did or did 
 not, Peyton Drew call on you, and voluntarily shew you pa- 
 pers, purporting to be depositions taken in this suit, deroga- 
 tive to John Hendree, as a man of integrity ? 
 
 Answer. — He did, without any solicitation on my part. 
 ' Question by the same. — Would you. or would you not, pre- 
 vious to that circumstance, have believed John Hendree on 
 his oath ? 
 
 Answer. — Certainly, I would have believed him. 
 
 Question by the same. — Do you, or do you not, believe the 
 papers shewn you, by Peyton Drew at that time, purporting 
 to be depositions, were in the hand-writing of the said Pey- 
 ton Drew ? 
 
 Answer. — I do believe they were, as I am well acquainted 
 with the hand-writing of said Peyton Drew, and further, this 
 deponent saith not. 
 
 J. H. ROYSTER." 
 
 M The deposition of Silas Hayes, taken at the same place on 
 the 14th of January, 1822, &c. &c. The deponent being 
 first sworn, and &c. &c. 
 
 Question by defVs. Did, or did not Peyton Drew, call on 
 you previous to the day on which your deposition was taken 
 at the Washington tavern, on behalf of the plaintiff in this 
 suit, and state to you things and circumstances prejudicial to 
 the character of John Hendree ; and if, so be pleased to state 
 them ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. P. Drew, gave me to understand that there 
 was testimony which he should produce, proving them to be 
 the descendants of a coloured woman. I have had conversa- 
 tion with Mr. Peyton Drew, wherein he explained the cha- 
 racter of John Hendree as a bad one, going to say that he 
 would disbelieve John Hendree on his oath. 
 
 Question by the same. Did, or did not you do business as 
 a merchant or trader, in the town of Newark, in the state of 
 New Jersey. . 
 
 Answer. I have. And further this deponent saith not. 
 
 SILAS HAYES." 
 
84 
 
 < c The deposition of Gustavus V. Clarke, taken at the same 
 time and place, &c. The deponent being first sworn, &c. &c. 
 
 Question by the dejfs. Did, or did not Peyton Drew, with- 
 in the last three months say in your presence and hearing, that 
 heirould prove John and George Hendree, to be coloured 
 men? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Drew did say within my hearing, that he 
 thought he could prove Messrs. John and George Hendree, to 
 b.e men of colour. 
 
 Question by the same. Have you, or have you not had ma- 
 ny transactions in business at various times, within the last 
 four years with John Hendree ; and what has been his con- 
 duct in those transactions towards you ? 
 
 Answer. I have had transactions at variuiis times with 
 John Hendree ; all of which transactions with me, have been 
 as correctly settled as with any other man. 
 
 Question by the same. Previous to the time on which your 
 deposition was taken at the Washington tavern, on behalf of 
 the plaintiffs in this suit, wherein you stated you would not be- 
 lieve John Hendree on his oath, did not Peyton Drew call 
 on you, and leave with you to read, depositions which had 
 been taken to the same effect ? 
 
 Answer. He left with me a bundle of papers said to be de- 
 positions, which he told me I might read, but which I did not 
 or any of them, but I believe my partner Chastine Clarke 
 did read some of them. And further this deponent saith 
 not. 
 
 G. V. CLARKE." 
 A Copy — Teste, 
 
 Wm. w. HENING, C. C." 
 
 The foregoing depositions have a two-fold effect : while re- 
 pairing the injury done me formerly, they shew in a clear point 
 of view, the course which has been pursued with the whole, 
 and that an effort was making at the same time, to induce them 
 to believe, I was a coloured man. I have ascertained it to be 
 a fact, from several others, independent of what is said by 
 Messrs. Royster, Hayes and Clarke, that Drew commenced 
 shewing papers, purporting to be the depositions, (all in his 
 own hand-writing,) of very respectable men in this city, 
 speaking to my injury long before any were taken, and at 
 which very time, I was residing in Philadelphia. Thus he 
 would shew to A, a paper purporting to be the deposition 
 of B, and then reverse it; and I am told, he has been 
 handling his friend Upshur freely, by shewing a paper pur- 
 porting to be his deposition. Justice regards with a sacred 
 
85 
 
 and scrupulous horror, every thing so shaped as to convey to 
 the witnesses, the least intimation of the nature of the answer 
 desired. Nay, it even forbids a leading question from the 
 counsel examining; hut what do we find? Not only bribery 
 clearly proved in one instance, but the stream of justice pol- 
 luted in the others, by continued exertions to prejudice the 
 minds of individuals against me, by false representation, 
 before they gave testimony. Be assured, he who begins with 
 severity in judging another, and can discern with rapidity the 
 bad, and is slow to see the good, commonly ends in false- 
 hood. There arc names among the affidavit-men, which A. P. 
 Upshur has published, that no doubt would surprise some at 
 seeing them connected with the buyers of subornation, and 
 the agents of corruption. Did they not know their local si- 
 tuation has, of necessity, made them their daily associates, 
 and that nature has made them accessible with devices 
 and fabrications, which had almost been fatally and success- 
 fully employed to seal my fate. Such repeated efforts to fo- 
 ment and excite prejudices against me, by representing every 
 act of my life, distorted by prejudice and blackened by false- 
 hood, as even to sap the foundation of justice, would almost 
 induce honest men, who were above contamination, to doubt 
 my integrity ; for, when calumnies are thus propagated, and 
 the man against whom they are levelled is silent, they take 
 wind, and the minds of many are poisoned, who act 
 and speak under that influence ; but when on oath, they 
 should be very cautious ; it ceases to be between individuals 
 of this earth, but is between them and their God : and when 
 prejudice and "calumny shall have sunk beneath the sun-clad 
 power of truth and justice, a thorn may rise from their past 
 conduct, which perhaps may not be felt for a week, a month nor 
 a season ; but it may be an unwelcome visitor on a dying 
 pillow. 
 
 Although the situation in which Upshur's affidavit-mien 
 stand, may offer some apology for the manner in which they 
 have suffered themselves to be tampered with, yet their con- 
 duct has made it very questionable as to their correct under- 
 standing of the sacred obligation they owe to God and man, 
 when speaking on oath. To deprive a man of the most precious 
 of human possessions " his good name," should first awaken" 
 some of the most serious reflections as to the justice of the 
 course. 
 
 Censure me not for the freedom with which I have animad- 
 verted on your testimony : so far as is essential to self-defence, 
 (to which I have confined myself) it is a privilege givenby 
 
86 
 
 nature's God. It is a right you have, and enjoy ; you must not 
 deny it to others. You entered into it voluntarily ; you did 
 not even wait to be called on lor testimony by authority of 
 the law ;* yet with all this, had I even the weapon of Rhet- 
 oric, or the sting of satire, to lacerate and goad the plun- 
 derers of reputation, and however ample the field, I should 
 still have confined myself to self defence. For be assured, 
 no harsh feeling mingles in this defence, nor there runs not 
 one drop of blood in any vein of my body hostile to the hap- 
 piness and prosperity of any individual, either named or to 
 be named in this publication except A. P. Upshur, who I con- 
 sider the common enemy of mankind. No, the only feeling 
 with me which your conduct has excited is sympathy ; a feel- 
 ing, which must be in common with every benevolent being 
 who shall see the unhappy situation in which you have placed 
 yourselves, and my only-wish is that your future conduct may 
 atone for your past. 
 
 Although the want of, reason and consistency with his- 
 affidavit-men in their depositions, made them harmless of 
 themselves, I shall shew the imputation they attempted to 
 throw on my character, was rebutted by gentlemen far above 
 the influence of calumny, without regard to the individual 
 with whom it originates, and in this, as in every other in- 
 stance, will support a character (which I have never stained 
 at home or abroad,) worthy of my associates, by the testimo- 
 nials of those whose standing in society claims the most im- 
 plicit confidence and respect. 
 
 tl He must be a man of worth, who is 
 
 " Not forsaken by the good, when the 
 
 " Mean and malicious unite to oppress him." 
 
 The depositions of Mr. Wrn. Rowlett, Mr. Wm. Murphy, 
 Mr., Daniel Trueheart, Col. Thos. Tinsley, Col. Wm. True- 
 heart, Mr. David Johnson, Mr. Herbert A. Claiborne, Mr. 
 Thos. G. Tinsley, Mr. James Bosher, and Mr. Samuel Cary, 
 were all taken to rebut and make an annulity of those taken 
 to my injury, and as they are all to the same effect, I will on- 
 ly give at full length three amongst the first which were 
 taken. 
 
 * There is an exception; one of the witnesses could not leave 
 his house without having a subpoena served on him to protect him 
 from the hands of the Sheriff. 
 
87 
 
 Harrison Dance, who sues for the bene-'] In the Superior court 
 Jit of Peyton Drew, pltf. against i- of Chancery for the 
 George Hendree and John Hendree, dfts. J Richmond district. 
 
 ** The deposition of William Rowlett, of lawful age, taken 
 before me, Herbert A. Claiborne, a notary public for the city 
 of Richmond, pursuant to the notice and commission hereto 
 annexed. The said Wm. Rowlett being first duly sworn by 
 me on the Holy Bible, deposes and answers as follows, to the 
 subjoined questions : 
 
 Question by dfts. — Have you been acquainted with John. 
 Hendree, one of the dfts. in this suit, any length of time ; and 
 if so, how long ? 
 
 Answer. — I believe I have for four or five years. 
 
 Question by the same. — From your knowledge of him, what 
 opinion do you* entertain of the character of the said John 
 Hendree ? 
 
 Answer. — I know nothing derogatory of his character. 
 
 Question by the same. — Would you, acting as a juror in a 
 suit in which John Hendree might be sworn as a witness, for 
 a relation or friend whose success he might desire in such 
 suit, believe him on his oath ? 
 
 Answer. I have no cause to disbelieve him. I do not 
 know that I ever had any transactions with him as I now re- 
 collect. 
 
 Question by the same. Under the circumstances detailed 
 in the foregoing interrogatory, would or would you not, sit- 
 ting as a juror, believe John Hendree on his oath ? 
 
 Answer. I should. I have no cause to disbelieve him. 
 
 Question by the plaintiffs. Have you that knowledge of 
 the conduct and transactions of John Hendree in his affairs 
 with mankind generally, which enables you to speak with cer- 
 tainty of the general character which ought deservedly to be 
 attributed to him ? 
 
 This question is excepted to by John Hendree in his own 
 proper person.- 
 
 Answer. I know nothing of his conduct with other men, 
 and therefore cannot say that I know any thing of his gener- 
 al character with other men : And further this deponent saith 
 not. 
 
 WILLIAM ROWLETT." 
 
 Richmond, 18th October, 1821. 
 
 « 4 The deposition of William Murphy, of lawful age, taken 
 before me, Herbert A. Claiborne, notary public, for the city 
 of Richmond, at my office in the said city, conformable to the 
 
83 
 
 notice and commission hereto annexed. The said Wm. Mur- 
 phy, having been first duly sworn by me, on the Holy Evan- 
 gelists, deposes as follows to the subjoined questions. 
 
 Question by the defendants. — Have you been acquainted 
 "with John Hendree, one of the defendants in this cause, any 
 length of time, and if so, how long? 
 
 Answer. — Yes, I have been acquainted with him, froni the 
 year 1817, till the present time, say five or six years, as well 
 as my memory serves me. The firm of Murphy & Scott, 
 was dissolved in July, 1817, and I had been acquainted with 
 Doct. Hendree for twelve months previous to that time, and 
 had mercantile transactions with him. 
 
 Question by the same. From your knowledge of him, what 
 opinion do you entertain of the character of said J. Hendree ? 
 
 Answer. — 1 have never considered him in any other light 
 than that of a gentleman. I have never heard any thing of 
 him, to justify me in entertaining a different opinion*; I have 
 considered him as a person in whose honour and probity, 
 I should have no hesitation to confide. 
 
 Question by the same. — Would you acting as a juror in a 
 suit, in which John Hendree might be sworn as a witness, 
 for a relation or friend, whose success he might desire in such 
 suit, believe him on his oath ? 
 
 Answer. — I should without hesitation. 
 
 Question by the same. — Have you not for many years been 
 a resident of the city of Richmond, and have you not been in 
 the habit, daily of having a very general intercourse with the 
 citizens of the said city of Richmond ? 
 
 Answer. — Yes, I have. 
 
 Question by plaintiffs* counsel. — Have you that knowledge 
 of the conduct and transactions of John Hendree in his af- 
 fairs with the world generally, which enables you to speak 
 with certainty, of the general character which ought deserv- 
 edly to be attributed to him, in consequence of that conduct, 
 and those transactions ? 
 
 Answer — I have not, and further this deponent saith not. 
 
 WILLIAM MURPHY." 
 
 Richmond, ISth Octr. 1821. 
 
 « The deposition of Daniel Trueheart, of lawful age, taken 
 before me Herbert A. Claiborne, Notary Public for the city 
 of Richmond, duly commissioned and appointed pursuant to 
 the notice and commission hereto annexed : 
 
The said Daniel Trueheart, having been duly sworn by me 
 on the Holy Bible, dcposetli and sayeth as follows to the sub- 
 joined interrogatories : 
 
 Question by d eft's. Have you been acquainted with John 
 Hendree, one of the defendants in this suit any length of time, 
 and if so, how long ? 
 
 Answer. Between five and six years last past. 
 
 Question by the same. From your knowledge of him, what 
 opinion do you entertain of the character of said John Hen- 
 dree ? 
 
 Answer. 1 have always entertained that of his being a 
 gentleman. 
 
 Question by the same. Would you, acting as a juror in a 
 suit, in which John Hendree might be sworn as a witness, 
 for a relation or friend whose success he might desire in such 
 suit, believe him on his oath ? 
 
 Answer. I would without hesitation. 
 
 Question by the same. Under the circumstances detailed in 
 the foregoing interrogatory, would or would you not, sitting 
 as a juror, believe John Hendree on his oath ? 
 
 Ansxver. I would. 
 
 Question by the puff's. Att'y. Have you that knowledge of 
 the conduct and transactions of John Hendree, in his affairs 
 with mankind generally, which enables you to speak with cer- 
 tainty, of the general character which ought deservedly to be 
 attributed to him in consequence of that conduct and those 
 transactions ? 
 
 The question was excepted to by the deft's. in their own 
 proper persons. 
 
 Answer. I have had some important transactions, and I 
 believe a great many with him, in all of which I have uni- 
 formly found him just and honourable. As to his transac- 
 tions generally, I am not sufficiently acquainted to form a cor- 
 rect opinion ', and further this deponent saith not* 
 
 D. TRUEHEART. 
 
 Richmond, ISth October, 1821. 
 A Copy— Teste, 
 
 Wm. W. HENING. C. C." 
 
 So effectually did those depositions make null and void the 
 effort made by the plaintiffs to invalidate my testimony, that 
 they suffered the suit to be dismissed. 
 
 12 
 
§0 
 
 VIRGINIA : 
 
 At rules held in the Clerk's office of the superior court of 
 chancery, for the Richmond district, the 22d day of April, 
 
 1822 : 
 
 Harrison Dance, who sues for the benefit of P. Drew, plt'ff. 
 
 against 
 George Hendree and John Hendree, dft's. 
 
 The plaintiff having failed to file the exhibit referred to in 
 the original and amended hills pursuant to the rule entered 
 on the twenty second of March last, this suit is dismissed 
 at the costs of the plaintiffs. * 
 
 A Copy — Teste, 
 
 Wm. w. hening, c. c. 
 
 It is true the suit has been revived, but on what ground, 
 and for what purpose I will shew. To revive a suit is I be- 
 lieve a legal right, provided any cause can be shewn for so 
 doing however trivial. 
 
 « City of Richmond, to wit : 
 
 This day Peyton Drew made oath before the subscriber, an 
 alderman tor the city aforesaid, that he v\as under a mistake 
 as to the day on which the rules expired in the office of the 
 clerk of the superior court of chancery for the Richmond dis- 
 trict, at which it was required by the defendants in the suit 
 lately depending in the court aforesaid, between Harrison 
 Dance, who sued for the hem fit of the said Drew, plaintiff, 
 and George Hendree and John Heodree, defendants, that an 
 account referred to in the amended bill filed in that cause, 
 (which account had not been theretofore actually exhibited,) 
 should be, (according to a rule of the said court) filed among 
 the papers of the cause aforesaid, the said Drew having 
 been underthe impression that t^e rules aforesaid, expired on 
 the 24th day of \pril last, whereas, in fact they expired on 
 the 22d day of that month ; and but for that erroneous im- 
 pression the said Drew further saith that he would most cer- 
 tainly, as he was recpiired to do, have filed the account afore- 
 said among the papers of the said cause in due time before 
 the rules aforesaid had expired. Given under my hand this 
 8th day of June, 1822. 
 
 SAM'L. M'CRAW, 
 ISenr. Mderman. 
 
 A Copy — Teste, 
 
 Wm. W. HENING, C. C." 
 
91 
 
 I do this to shew what a convenience his oath is, and the 
 use Upshur has made of it, for the accommodation of his pub- 
 lication. Will it b^ believed by those who know Peyton 
 Drew's haunts and habits, and who know he is living under 
 the si me roof, and within Jive feet of the office where the rules 
 are held, that he forgot it ? Will it be believed, that his three 
 counsel unintentionally suffered the suit to be dismissed, two 
 of which have been so deeply interested in the success of its 
 result? Will it bo believed they were so neglectful of their 
 duty to their client? Will it be believed that he was mista- 
 ken, when it is known that he was notified some days before 
 the 22nd of April, by an officer of the court, that such would 
 be the result, provided he failed to comply with the rule made 
 on the 22d March, thirty days previous, and thus having had 
 thirty days to comply with the order ? And what was the 
 labour or time required to perform what he was called on to 
 do ? Nothing more than handing a paper to the clerk of the 
 court, which was within his reach at any moment. Can it be 
 believed he was mistaken as to the day ? No, never. It 
 must be recollected, that Upshur, in his exordium in his pam- 
 phlet that appeared in the latter part of June, when speaking 
 «' of one of the most imposing and ingenious libels that ever 
 issued from the press," (alluding to my former pamphlet) be- 
 ing before the public, he says, «* I have not, until very recent- 
 ly, designed to take any notice whatever of this truly dis- 
 graceful production." After assigning his reasons for so 
 having determined, he says, ft I ccrtaiuh should have con- 
 *f tinued to be governed by this feeling, had the circulation of 
 '* the pamphlet in question been confined to Virginia. I Un- 
 " derstood, however, that he has distributed his copies with 
 «« great industry among the citizens of Philadelphia." 
 
 As my pamphlet was not in fact circulated in Philadelphia 
 until the month of May, it is evident he had given up all idea 
 of a reply, until after the suit was dismissed ; consequently, 
 after determining to attempt a justification of his conduct, the 
 same instruments which had been employed to seduce Malony, 
 he found u*ssential to employ, as was originally intended, ei- 
 ther to hold me in terrorem or Constitute, as he supposed, a jus- 
 tification of his conduct ; but, to do so v .hen the suit was ac- 
 tually dismissed at the cost of the parties for w hose benefit 
 they were taken, and who had actually not suffered it to come 
 before the court, would have been a justification of his con- 
 duct, (as far as they go to justify it,) by an imposition on the 
 public of so glaring a nature, that his feelings are not quite 
 case-hardened, sufficient to countenance so contemptible a 
 
92 
 
 cheat. He therefore informs Peyton Drew of his wants, that 
 the suit must be revived ; who, in the true spirit of accommo- 
 dation, swears to suit his purposes, and on the 8th June, on 
 the strength of Peyton Drew's oath, the suit is revived, with- 
 out the least opposition on the part of my brother or his coun- 
 sel. 
 
 " What have I done that thou dar'st wag thy tongue 
 '• In noise so rude against me ?" 
 
 "When charges are made against any man, which tend to 
 destroy his fair standing with that community in which he 
 lives, it becomes his indispensable duty to seek redress in 
 that way which is pointed out to every honorable mind ; that 
 being denied him by the party injuring, it would then be said 
 he must seek it at the hand of the legal tribunal of the land. 
 Although true philosophy and sound reasoning point that out 
 as an alternative which is sure, but so slow in giving redress, 
 that his character might sink under the wild decrees of pub- 
 lic opinion, founded on false representation, and gaining 
 ground from the want of a firm and manly remonstrance 
 through the press ; and when an appeal is made to the great 
 inquest of public opinion, before whom his proofs are to ap- 
 pear, by which he is to stand or fall, it becomes the duty of 
 every man who feels a friendship for either party, to weigh 
 with due discretion the step he is about to take, and not to 
 suffer himself to be led into error by passion, by prejudice or 
 by folly ; for, without regard to the motive which actuates 
 him, if he give countenance to dishonorable acts in others, 
 he tarnishes his own fair name by a violation of that pledge 
 which nature's God exacted at his birth ; equal justice to all 
 men. 
 
 " You know the right, and approve it too, 
 
 " You know the wrong, and yet the wrong pursue." 
 
 Soon after the circulation of my pamphlet in this city, en- 
 titled, " A refutation of calunrhies propagated by A. P. Up- 
 shur, by John Hendree," a publication issued from the press , 
 purporting to be from the friends of A. P. Upshur, which in 
 hand bill form, together with copies and extracts of letters 
 said to be from respectable gentlemen in Philadelphia, im- 
 peaching my conduct and standing in that city, were by his 
 creatures, like so many ballad-singers, retailed through the 
 streets, telling a different story at every corner. I called on 
 
93 
 
 the printer, who handed ine the following names as the au- 
 thors of the publication : George. Cabell, Walter F. Jones, 
 
 ,* II. C. Doswcll, Joseph Mayo, J. R. Potter, 
 
 Wm. II. Tarpley, P. P. Mayo. Oil finding the names of 
 George Cabell and Walter F. Jones, at the head of the list 
 I must confess I felt some degree of surprise, and no doubt 
 others will be equally so, when they read the following extract 
 from that publication : " Comment is unnecessary. Mr. 
 *« Upshur would not himself have condescended to take even 
 '* this notice of Hendree, or his pamphlet, but some of his 
 ** friends have thought proper to do so." Are there any in 
 this community (who previous to seeing their own declaration 
 to the contrary,) would have said they were not in respectabili- 
 ty A. P. Upshur's equal, or even the equal of an honourable 
 man ? Are there any who could have believed they would 
 have descended to an act unworthy of their associate? If 
 there are, I am not of the number. 
 
 Any remark on introducing the following testimonials to 
 remove the imputation, would be superfluous and unnecessary 
 further than to say, I intend they shall convince the " knight- 
 errant" alias A. P. Upshur, that the man for whom he has no 
 other than «' a feeling of pity and benevolent regret, that as a 
 « human being he should have no merit at all," contrary to 
 his expectations, has at least some merit in his profession, and 
 a good name among those who know him. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, May 7th, 1822. 
 
 The undersigned, professors of medicine in the University 
 of Pennsylvania, do certify that Dr. John Hendree of Virgi- 
 nia, while a student in this school, was exceedingly distin- 
 guished by the diligence and success with which he prosecuted 
 his studies, and by a course so far as came within our know- 
 ledge, of undeviating rectitude and propriety of conduct. 
 
 PHILIP S. PHYSICK, 
 JOHN REDMAN COXE, 
 N. CHAPMAN, , 
 THOS. C. JAMES, 
 W. E. HORNER, 
 
 Adjunct Frofessor. 
 
 I cheerfully subscribe to the above, and feel myself called 
 upon to add that Doct. Hendree peculiarly conciliated my 
 approbation. 
 
 ROBT. HARE. 
 
 * The person whose name is omitted is absent from the city. 
 
94 
 
 I do hereby certify, that I have been acquainted with Boct. 
 John Hendree for more than two years, that he has diligently 
 attended two courses of my Anatomical Lectures in the Uni- 
 versity of Pennsylvania ; that he received the degree of M. 
 D. after an examination which gave full satisfaction ; and that 
 his conduct as far as I have had an opportunity of observing 
 it, has always been correct and honourable. I do also certify 
 that very soon after having received his degree in medicine, 
 influenced by a strong desire of improving- himself in his pro- 
 fession, he applied to me to admit him into my office as a pri- 
 vate pupil, and evinced so much anxiety to obtain practical 
 information that I felt desirous of assisting him ; and therefore, 
 though I had for several years declined takingpupils into my 
 office, I determined to invite him to see my surgical business 
 whenever it was in my power. This intercourse with Doctr. 
 Hendree made me intimately acquainted with his conduct and 
 qualifications.' The result has been that I have the pleasure 
 of certifying, with regard to his conduct, that in my opinion, 
 it has been not only irreproachable, hut highly amiable and sa- 
 tisfactory ; and that his professional qualifications place him 
 deservedly among our best informed young physicians. 
 
 PHILIP SYNG PHYSICK. 
 
 Philadelphia, 9th .May, 1822. 
 
 Having been requested to state my opinion, as to the assi- 
 duity and attention of Doctr. John Hendree, whilst pursuing 
 his medical education in the University of Pennsylvania, I 
 have no hesitation to say, that so far as my observations en- 
 abled me to judge, I never witnessed a more attentive stu- 
 dent. His attendance on the lectures, was, I believe unin- 
 terrupted, and he was equally attentive to avail himself of 
 several courses of lectures, that are delivered during the sum- 
 mer months. During the period that I have been acquainted 
 with Doctor Hendree, I have always seen in him, the 
 general behaviour of an honourable and gentlemanly charac- 
 ter; in that light, he has been a frequent and acceptable 
 visitor in my family. Nor am I acquainted with any thing 
 which leads me to suppose, that Doctor Hendree has forfeited 
 the good opinion, I have always entertained of him. 
 
 With respect to the former part of this statement, I think 
 myself very adequate to form a very accurate opinion ; hold- 
 ing as I have done for several years past, the situation of 
 Dean of the Medical Faculty ; my connections with the stu- 
 dents, especially of the candidates for Medical Honours, were 
 perhaps more intimate, than those of the other members of 
 the Faculty. 
 
95 
 
 I may also add to this, that in the examination which Dr. H. 
 underwent, preparatory to receiving his degree, his qualifica- 
 tions and pretensions, were perfectly satisfactory to the 
 board. 
 
 JOHN REDMAN COXE, M. D. 
 
 Profr. of Mat. Med. and Pharmacy, in the U. of P. 
 
 Philadelphia, May 9th, 1 822. 
 
 Being called upon, to express my opinion of the character 
 and conduct of Doctor John Hcndree, I have only to state, 
 that while he was my private pupil, which was about two 
 years, he afforded me the most entire satisfaction, by the in- 
 dustry with which he pursued his studies, and the uniform 
 propriety of his deportment ; and that I have reason to be- 
 lieve, he had a standing in the estimation of the general so- 
 ciety of this city, very honourable to any young man. 
 
 N. CHAPMAN. 
 Philadelphia, May 9th, 1822. 
 
 Being called upon bj Doctor Hendree, to state my impres- 
 sion of his character, when he was a student of medicine in 
 Philadelphia, I have no hesitation in declaring, that I al- 
 ways considered him, as a gentleman of highly correct de- 
 portment, and as a student, he certainly acquitted himself in 
 a very satisfactory manner, on those branches of his educa- 
 tion, superintended by myself, viz : Anatomy and Surgery. 
 
 W. E. HORNER. 
 
 Pha. May 9th, 1822. 
 
 We the undersigned, were members of the same family 
 With Doctor John Hendree, during his residence in Philadel- 
 phia, and on terms of intimacy with him. and have no hesi- 
 tation in saying, we have never seen nor known any thing in 
 his deportment, other than that of a moral, correct, and gen- 
 tlemanly man. The society with which he associated, was 
 highly rcspectai^c. 
 
 B. W. RICHARDS, 
 
 Wm. k. corry, 
 
 JNO. JACOBS, Jk. 
 JOHN G. JACKSON. 
 
 Philadelphia, May 7th, 1822. 
 
96 
 
 We were associates and fellow students, with Doctor Hen- 
 dree, during his residence in Philadelphia. We take plea- 
 sure in saying, we never saw or knew any thing in his con- 
 duct, other than became a diligent student ; and in his man- 
 ners and deportment, the gentleman. And we do know Dr. H. 
 did associate with highly respectable society in this city. 
 
 SAMUEL M. FOX, M. D. 
 
 FRANCIS WALK, 
 
 WILLIAM W. FENNELL, M. D. 
 
 EDW'D JENNER COXE, 
 
 SOL. MORDECAI, M. D. 
 
 GUSTAVUS COLHOUN, Jr. 
 
 ALEX. J. H. DUNCAN, 
 
 FRANCIS LIGHTFOOT LEE, M. D. 
 
 FRED'K MARKS. 
 
 Philadelphia, 7th May, 1822. 
 
 I confess I feel proud, in being able to keep the field with 
 such " implements of warfare ;" and I believe it is not possi- 
 ble to act on the defensive, with more powerful weapons than 
 such as are placed in my hands, by gentlemen, the most ele- 
 vated in the ranks of their profession, and all equally so in 
 private society. 
 
 A. P. Upshur in the 10th page of his pamphlet, after com- 
 paring his letter of the 19th September, 1821, to Mr. Camp- 
 bell, with Mr. Campbell's letter to me of the 22nd same 
 month, says : " I do not mention these things however with 
 ** any view to inculpate Mr. Campbell. His character for 
 « probity is perfectly well established, and perfectly well 
 " known to me ; it places him very far above the suspicion 
 «* of intentional misrepresentation under any circumstances 
 « whatsoever. His correspondence with ffm sufficiently ex- 
 " plains his mistake. At the time he wrote to John Hendree, he 
 " did not advert to my letter, or probably had not received it $ 
 '* he had heard from various sources, much more of the Hen- 
 •« drees than I had ; it is highly probable, that these rumours 
 « were mentioned by one or the other of us, in the course of 
 
97 
 
 «' our conversations, and Mr. Campbell gave the hasty statft- 
 ** inent, part of which ha9 been published merely to enable 
 " Jno. Hendree to acquit himself if he could, and did notthere- 
 «« fore think it necessary to distinguish particularly between 
 M the information he had received from me, and that which 
 ** he received from others, nor between those things which 
 « were stated as facts, and those which were casually spoken 
 " of merely as existing rumours. It was in cither case the 
 " interest and duty of John Hendree to explain them, and 
 *' for that purpose he was informed of their existence." 
 
 The object of this enquiry is to be, whether Mr. Campbell 
 heard the reports stated in his letter of the 22d September, 
 1821, from any other source than the one he gives up as his 
 authority, to wit : A. P. Upshur; and whether Mr. Camp- 
 bell in his private correspondence with Abel P. Upshur, has 
 acknowledged that he had unjustly surrendered him as his 
 authority ; and whether he has made such explanation as ought 
 to be satisfactory to a gentleman or a ** knight-errant" for 
 having made " assertions calculated to affect a man of honor, 
 in the tenderest point." By A. P. Upshur's own shewing in 
 page 3, it is evident he gave Mr. Stout the first information, 
 who in consequence of his departure from probability would 
 not repeat after him, but told him he might tell it to others, 
 and very correctly thinking, if there is venom in it, let it poi- 
 son itself. And Upshur was like a common Sewer, made the 
 convenience of every man and actually carried* by Mr. Stout 
 to Mr. Campbell, to invent and repeat falsehood, as he 
 (( Bobadil-like," moved within the walls of the Philadelphia Lii 
 brary, pluming on his sudden elevation in being able to ca- 
 lumniate a man *« who is without any merit at all." Mr. 
 Campbell is apprised by the 14th September, of ray intention 
 to call on him to demand his authority : he therefore wrote to 
 A. P. Upshur, requiring him to state in writing what he had 
 verbally communicated (see Upshur's pamphlet, page 3.) On 
 the 19th same month, A. P. Upshur answers Mr Campbell's 
 letter, but fails to state in writing what he had verbally com- 
 municated, (see his pamphlet, page 4.) This letter, by the re- 
 gular course of the mail, should have reached Mr. Campbell 
 on the 21st at 12 o'clock, and no doubt it did. On the 22wd Mr. 
 Campbell made his communication to me expressly stating he 
 received the information from A. P. Upshur, in which there 
 
 * It is a fact, that Mr. Campbell did not call on him, but he ac- 
 tually called on Mr. Campbell with Mr. Stout, at the Philadelphia 
 Library. 
 
 13 
 
93 
 
 are charges very separate and distinct from any thing con- 
 tained in Upshur's letter to him. 
 
 Mr. Campbell, in a letter to A. P. Upshur, dated the 24th 
 September, acknowledges the receipt of his letter of the I9th 9 
 thus: '« I received your favour ot the 19th in due course," 
 (see Upshur's pamphlet, page 8.) It is now certain r. 
 Campbell had Upshur's letter of the 19th before him on the 
 24th y and on the Q5th or %6th, he made the communication re- 
 lative to the partnership between my brother and myself, and 
 our proving accounts, &c. &c, which he endorsed on the back 
 of the letter to me of the 22nd September, (then in my posses- 
 sion,) without any remark whatever, as to the body of it 
 having been written in haste, and it is utterly impossible he 
 could have confounded the charges in his letter to me, with 
 those contained in Upshur's to him ; but, the identical char- 
 ges which Mr. Campbell endorsed on the back of his letter 
 to me, after he had received Upshur's letter, is among those 
 which Upshur most positively denies ever having made, and 
 not one syllable touching any thing of the kind is contained in 
 his letter to Mr. Campbell. I contend, that at the time Mr. 
 Campbell wrote the letter of the 22nd September to me, he had 
 no reference nor regard whatever to the contents of A. P. 
 Upshur's letter of the 19th, (which I have no doubt was be- 
 fore him,) but, expressly intended to state what Upshur had 
 verbally communicated to him ; and I am equally certain he 
 intended to surrender Upshur as the only authority which he 
 had, and the only creature from whom he ever had heard a 
 word on the subject of the charges contained in his letter pub- 
 lished in my first pamphlet, page 7. It Mr. Campbell had 
 heard those charges before, what does he mean in that letter, 
 by saying, " I told Mr. Upshur it was a subject I had no in- 
 *• terest whatever in, and the information he gave me, was, as 
 " I reminded Kim; totally unsolicited and unsought for by 
 " me." Mr Campbell did not call on Upshur to make any 
 enquiry about me, nor did he solicit it when Upshur called on 
 him. Mr. Campbell had no acquaintance with Upshur, and 
 it is more thjan probable he did not know such a thing as he 
 is, was in existence. If Mr. Campbell had heard them from 
 another source, why should Upshur request him not to com- 
 municate it to others ? Why did Mr. Campbell write to Up- 
 shur on the 14th September for a confirmation? Did he ex- 
 pect Upshur to confirm the lies of others? It is true, such an 
 opinion would he very naturally entertained by Mr. Camp- 
 bell, or any other man, of a creature who had suffered himself 
 to be led by the nose to calumniate a man who is not " offend- 
 
99 
 
 ing." "Why did A. P. Upshur pledge himself to " vouch for 
 tiie truth of" assertions Mr. Campbell had heard from others? 
 If Mr. Campbell had heard it from others, why had he not 
 communicated it to his friends Messrs. Kunsman and Don- 
 aldson before ? I did not leave Philadelphia until the 3rd or 
 4th of October; why did not Mr. Campbell call on me and 
 correct the statement? He was just as well acquainted with 
 the difference in the two letters then, as he is at this time. 
 Would any man of Mr. Campbell's understanding, write as 
 lie does, without fully intending it to be most distinctly un- 
 derstood that A. P. Upshur was the only creature from whom 
 he received the information? Can there be a man on earth, 
 who will believe Mr. Campbell would so stupidly have sub- 
 jected) himself to the indignation of that enlightened commu- 
 nity in which he lives, by being instrumental in unjustly hold- 
 ing up A. P. Upshur to the public execration of every honest 
 man ? No, none ; and he gives a farther confirmation on the 
 first of May, that he never intended to say other than A. P. 
 Upshur was the author. I arrived in Philadelphia on that 
 dav, and handed Mr. Campbell the original letter and my 
 publication, desiring him to compare them, and see if they 
 agreed. He did so, and on the margin of the publication he 
 wrote the following certificate : 
 
 <l Having compared this letter with the original, I find it 
 correct. 
 
 GEO. CAMPBELL." 
 
 Philad. \st May, 1822. 
 
 Not a word about having heard it from any other person. I 
 then put the question ; he answered it at the bottom of the letter, 
 on the subject of my being refused as a witness in a court, on 
 account of Colour, page 67, thus : «* and was communicated to 
 «« me by Mr. Upshur, at the time he made the other comuiu- 
 '« nications stated in my letter of the 22nd September, 1821, of 
 ** which I had until then known nothing. 
 
 GEO : CAMPBELL." 
 
 Philad. 1st May, 1822. 
 
 Mr. Campbell meets me at Mr. Stout's room. I handed 
 Mr. Stout the original letter : he perused it, and said he 
 should confirm in substance, what Mr. Campbell had stated. 
 If Mr. Campbell has either made an acknowledgment of his 
 having been in error, or made any explanation which ought 
 to satisfy an honourable man, it is strange that no one can 
 get sight of it, but the " knight-errant" himseH ,* but, if Mr. 
 
100 
 
 Campbell himself was now to say, he had heard these reports 
 from sources, other than A. P. Upshur, he would not be be- 
 lieved. To let such an assertion gain credit, he must not only 
 make it publickly, and the authority given up, but it must be 
 accompanied with undoubted proofs, or his authority must be 
 respectable and within communicating distance. 
 
 That I may not be charged with having failed in what I 
 never attempted ; it is proper for me to shew the extent of 
 my design, in placing before the public, the certificates of gen- 
 tlemen, with whom my mercantile transactions justified the 
 declaration made in that certificate. I intended it to extend 
 to those transactions alone, as will not only be perceived from 
 the manner in which I have introduced it, and the place it 
 holds in my former pamphlet, page 19 ; but from previously 
 having had the fact of my standing in society established, and 
 inserted in same pamphlet, page 12, by gentlemen whose ac- 
 quaintance with me authorised them to say what I never did, 
 nor never intended to request of the others. Many of those 
 gentlemen, from false representation made to them by A. P. 
 Upshur and his minions, were led to draw inferences not 
 justified by the facts, (and of which his own shewing convicts 
 him,") did make communications to him by his own solicita- 
 tion, which tended to change the import of their former 
 declaration and to injure me, both of which were foreign to 
 what they intended, and having no feelings of vassalage to- 
 wards any man, have by the following declarations, restored 
 their first certificate to its original strength. 
 
 RICHMOND, July 2nd, 1822. 
 
 Doct'k, John Hendree, 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 Mr. Peter P. Mayo, (the friend of Mr. A. P. 
 Upshur,) called on me, and desired to know if I was aware of 
 any controversy between you and Mr. Upshur, at the time I 
 signed the certificate published in your pamphlet, page 19. 
 I told him I was not ; he enquired if I would have any objec- 
 tion to state that fact. I told him I would do so : he wrote the 
 certificate* and worded it in his own way, which I signed ; 
 but I assure you, I did not mean to convey the most distant 
 
101 . 
 
 idea, unfavourable to your character, very far from it ; nor 
 did I mean to appear as a volunteer, in giving Mr. Upshur 
 the certificate, as / told Mr. Mayo expressly, to mention in 
 the certificate, that it was given by the particular reqiiest of 
 Mr, Upshur, which he did not do. 
 
 I am, yours respectfully, 
 
 ROBERT PLEASANTS. 
 
 RICHMOND, July 2nd, 1822. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 In reply to yours of this morning I have to 
 state, that in the certificate which I gave Mr. Potter, the 
 friend of Mr. Upshur who called on me, I did not mean to 
 be understood as reflecting on your general character, by any 
 means, as you never called on me to say any thing in relation 
 to it whatever. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 E. WALLS. 
 Doct. J. Hendree, ") 
 Present. J 
 
 RICHMOND, July 3rd, 1822. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 A friend of Mr. Upshur's called on me in the month 
 of May last, and requested me to certify in writing that I 
 knew nothing of the controversy between you and him, at 
 the time I signed the certificate for you, also wished me to 
 specify the extent of my dealings with you. I told him they 
 were very limited, and further I knew nothing of the contro- 
 versy existing between you and Mr. Upshur, until the ap- 
 pearance of your pamphlet ; observing at the same time to 
 him J thought it unnecessary to give a certificate to that effect ; 
 and further felt some delicacy in doing it. He expressed a dif- 
 ferent opinion, and urged the necessity of a compliance of his 
 request. I then observed he might call on me the next day, 
 and I would reflect on the occasion : he did so, and on meeting 
 a second time, I told him Iwas still of the same opinion, that 
 such a certificate was of no importance any way ; but he still 
 contended it was absolutely necessary and proper, I should give 
 such a one ; and finally concluding no improper inferences 
 could be drawn therefrom, I complied with the request. But 
 Sir, if any thing therein can be construed to reflect on your 
 character in the slightest degree, I disclaim any such inten- 
 tion. 
 
 With respect, I am vours, 
 
 JOHN WINSTON. 
 Doct. Johx Hendree, 
 
102 
 
 Doct. John Hendree, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 In giving the certificate to the friend of Mr. Up- 
 shur, who called on me on 3rd June, I do not mean to be un- 
 derstood as reflecting on your general character by any 
 means. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 
 JAMES BOSHER. 
 3rd July, 1822. 
 
 Doct. John Hendree, 
 
 Bear Sir, 
 
 In my note to Mr. Upshur of the 4th June, 
 speaking of my regret at seeing my name in your pamphlet, 
 I wish to be distinctly understood that I do not regret having 
 put my name to the certificate you published, as it was a truth 
 to which you were fully entitled to from me. When Mr. Up- 
 shur requested me to give him a letter, I never intended to be 
 understood as offering any reflection on your character what- 
 ever, and if such construction be put on it, I disclaim any such 
 intention. 
 
 Respectfully, I am yours, 
 
 JOHN GODDIN. 
 August 4th, 1822. 
 
 Doc'r John Hendree, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 In my letter to A. P. Upshur, esq. of the 28th 
 May last, since published in a pamphlet, I had not the most 
 remote intention of saying that you had obtained my signa- 
 ture improperly, to a certificate given you in March, to 
 which my letter had reference. You did not state your ob- 
 ject, nor did I require you to do so, or hesitate in signing it. 
 I did not intend in my letter to express any opinion injurious 
 to your character. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 M. H. RICE, 
 5th August, 1822. 
 
 In my letter to Mr. Upshur respecting the certificate I had 
 signed for Doct. Hendree, I stated I was under the impres- 
 sion I had added the word « 4 ditto" to my signature, but on ex- 
 amining the original I find J was mistaken. 
 
 EDM. ANDERSON. 
 
 July Slst 9 1822. 
 
108 
 
 By artful intrigue and arrangement, he clothed himself for 
 a moment with a respectability in society, which Ik- neither 
 held nor merited. To lead the letters of those gentlemen which 
 he has exhibited in his pamphlet, one (who did not know the 
 contrary,) would not only suppose they were unsolicited, but 
 from the feelings they appear to express would suppose him to 
 be some nabob (or at least the fag end of nobility) whose 
 honour was identified with that of the city in which he lived, 
 and to whom every man in the community bowed with feudal 
 homage. He may have gained a momentary triumph, hut his 
 ultimate discomfiture and disgrace is the more complete and 
 exemplary ; make the comparison, and lo ! what do we find ? 
 He is still Abel P. Upshur, no more ! Most if not all of the 
 gentlemen on that certificate were called on for similar letters ; 
 but no said they, ' the testimonials we have given to Dr. Heu- 
 dree, he was entitled to, and should have had under any cir- 
 cumstances, and no act of ours shall give to the improper 
 conduct of any man the mantle of justification.' In the 27th. 
 page of his pamphlet he has introduced a letter purporting to 
 he from Mr. Willis Cowling, speaking of the certificate I 
 published with his signature, relative to my transactions in 
 business, in which he says » v when I subscribed to that paper, 
 f* 1 had no idea what use he intended to make of it. If I 
 ** could have conceived that it was to have appeared in the 
 « way it has, I should most assuredly not have given it." 
 "Will it he believed by any who know Mr. Cowling, that he 
 would privately or publicly thus commit himself ? Is it 
 not a liberty that A. P. Upshur has taken with his name un- 
 authorised ? This suspicion is justified from the fact that 
 Mr. Cowling was above all other men hound to say of me 
 what he did from the number, the extent and the very friendly 
 manner in which our transactions in business have been con- 
 ducted : but a motive which would influence Mr. Cowling to 
 ** uphold truth and fair dealing," much more powerful than 
 any private consideration, is his being an active member of a 
 numerous and highly respectable religious society, where he 
 must teach by example as well as by precept. Delicacy for- 
 bids my making the enquiry of Mr. Cowling, as to the genu- 
 ineness of the letter in consequence of his living in the imme- 
 diate neighbourhood of A. P. Upshur, and with whom no 
 doubt there exists the most friendly intercourse, nnr am I wil- 
 ling to insult his feelings by such an enquiry. I who know 
 him so well, for a moment to believe him the author of a let- 
 ter declaring he would withhold truth and justice to (he injury 
 of any man, his «' general character" forbids my giving it 
 
104 
 
 credit until 1 have it from higher authority than A. P. Up- 
 shur. ' 
 
 No false pride shall influence me to withhold from any 
 jnan a just explanation of that part of my conduct, which 
 may have induced him to commit an act, subsequently, wound- 
 ing to his feelings ; thus publickly, 1 feel it incumbent on me, 
 to assure Doct. Cabell, that I was ignorant of the relation in 
 which he stood to A. P. Upshur's connexion, when I requested 
 his name to the certificate. Had it been otherwise, I certain- 
 ly should not have called on him, and thereby, would have 
 saved him the trouble of the calls he had to make to procure 
 letters to A. P. Upshur, from those gentlemen who were on 
 the certificate with him. This explanation is not prompted 
 by the fact of the part, the Doctr. did take in publishing the 
 hand bill spoken of, in page 9£ j nor in consequence of hav- 
 ing seen his letter to A. P. Upshur, (now before the public,) 
 with an assurance that he would not gain say, the man 
 « s who is above the reach of calumny, and would scorn to 
 propagate it ;" but from a belief that the Doct. acted and 
 wrote in haste, and did not intend the idea that is conveyed ; for 
 I am well convinced, by reference to his (t general character" 
 that he is an advocate for « truth and fair dealing," and 
 would uphold it, even though it should sever the most tender 
 ties in nature, and that his natural frankness and candour is 
 at war with his feelings of friendship. Most certainly the 
 Doctr's. zeal in the cause, deserved better of his friend Up- 
 shur, than by an arrangement of the letters, contrary to the 
 usual mode, has made his the last, when it should have been 
 the first; thereby concealing from the ordinary reader, the 
 fact of the Doctr's. embracing the earliest opportunity, not 
 only to ascertain the sentiments of the other gentlemen, but 
 to procure their letters. A. P. Upshur should have been si- 
 lent, or told the whole truth in relation to Mr. M. M. Robinson, 
 who was actually called on, and of whom a similar request 
 was made. Mr. Robinson, being one of those spirits of the 
 is ancient dominion," who know no superior, and abhorring 
 even the semblance of an untruth, would do nothing like giv- 
 ing it countenance, and very promptly replied, «' for Doctr. 
 Hendree I have stated a truth to which he was entitled." 
 
105 
 
 ■ The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wick- 
 ed : who cair know i£? 
 
 Jeremiah, ch. xvii. v. 9. 
 
 In the intercourse which most men have with society, there 
 are occurrences intrinsically not worthy of recollection, but 
 they may take place at- a time when there are circumstances 
 existing between individuals, which give them great weight 
 in the subsequent conduct of either party. Having shewn 
 that the pamphlet of A. F. Upshur, has not the least relation 
 to truth, I will now shew that his sentiments bear precisely 
 the same relation to his conduct. On the 14th September, 
 1821, A. P. Upshur is informed by Mr. Campbell that what 
 lie, (Upshur,) had stated to him, had been communicated to 
 me, and that I most positively denied the truth of his asser- 
 tions, and he requested of Upshur a confirmation in writing 
 of what he had communicated to him in Philadelphia, (see 
 Upshur's pamphlet page 3.) On the 19th of the same month, 
 A. P. Upshur in answer to Mr. Campbell's letter, wrote an 
 epistle of near two folio sheets, in which he says every thing 
 that a liar could invent to my injury; and when speaking of 
 an interview, he says I held with him at his room in Phila- 
 delphia, he remarks " During our conversation, Mr. N — — , 
 <* called at my room, but I did not introduce him, because I 
 " did not wish that a gentlemen of his character, should suppose 
 « ( that Doctr. Hendree visited me on terms of equality," (see 
 his pamphlet, page 4.) On the 24th of the same month, Mr. 
 Campbell acknowledges that A. P. Upshur's letter was re- 
 ceived " in due course," and informs him, that he had, in a 
 note addressed to me, communicated what he, Upshur, had 
 related to him, (see his pamphlet, page 8,) previous --to my 
 arrival in Virginia, and after his answer to Mr. Campbell's 
 letter, he (Upshur) wrote to Mr. Stout, (who was then in 
 New York as well as I recollect, what he said on the subject,) 
 informing him, that he understood, I intended visiting Virgi- 
 nia, for the purpose of calling him to account for his con- 
 duct in Philadelphia, or words to that effect. The object of 
 the foregoing statement, is, first to to shew that A. P. Upshur, 
 previous to the month of November, 1821, had expressly 
 said he did not consider me «« on terms of equality" with him : 
 secondly, that he knew the object of my visit to Virginia 
 was with him. Will it be believed, that any man with such 
 sentiments, who was not conscious of having uttered the most 
 base and malicious falsehoods, in which his cowardly soul 
 dare not uphold him, would extend to me, more than the or* 
 binary civilities of a public dinner table, that he would from 
 
 14 
 I 
 
1 . 106 
 
 among many gentlemen select, and invite me among the first 
 to drink wine with him? Such is the fart relative to this 
 " knight-errant," alias A, P. Upshur, and myself; but it must 
 be remembered, that at the time he wrote the letfer to Mr. 
 Campbell, he was in Richmond, and I was in Philadelphia, 
 separated by a distance of near three hundred mdes, which' 
 having approximated to within a personal interview, worked 
 a prodigious revolution in his conduct and sentiments. 
 
 I proceeded to Richmond sometime in the month of Octo- 
 ber, for the purpose of making A. P. Upshur answer for his 
 conduct, forthwith. On my arrival, various circumstances 
 prevented my executing that determination immediately. 
 Early in the month of November, (soon after my arrival) I 
 proceeded to Norfolk and Portsmouth, (for the purpose of 
 obtaining testimony to rebut the charge of colour,) accompani- 
 ed by my friend Mr. Murphy, to whom I had communicated the 
 contents of Mr. Campbell's letter relating to A. P. Upshur. I 
 had been there but a few days when I was informed of the ar- 
 rival of A. P. Upshur, and that he had taken lodgings in the 
 same house with Mr. Murphy and myself. Here it was for 
 the first time 1 had seen him since our meeting in Philadel- 
 phia, at which time he says, * l I gave him my hand precisely 
 in as friendly a manner as I should have done to a perfect 
 stranger," (see his pamphlet, page 4.) On learning he was 
 there, and previous to meeting him, the propriety of at once 
 calling him to account was spoken of between Mr. Murphy 
 and myself, but the object I had to effect (for which purpose 
 I went to Norfolk,) being one which involved every branch of 
 my family, and consequently of much greater importance than 
 what existed (as far as I th«n knew) between Upshur and my- 
 self, it was thought advisable to decline noticing it at that 
 moment, and not to suffer any thing in my conduct to evidence 
 a hostile feeling towards him, until an opportunity had been 
 given him either to recant or deny the statement made by Mr. 
 Campbell. I met him precisely as I should any other indivi- 
 dual whose person I knew perfectly well, but with whom I 
 had no particular acquaintance, and whose conduct (from 
 what I had heard) excited a feeling of indignation natural and 
 beyond my own controul. From the fact of Mr. Murphy's 
 knowing the relation in which A. P. Upshur and myself stood 
 to each other, he noticed with attention his conduct towards 
 me. 
 
 *« During my visit to Norfolk, in the month of November last, 
 With Doct. Hendree, after being there a few days Mr. Up- 
 shur became a lodger in the same house, and while there I 
 
107 
 
 distinctly recollect having seen Mi*. Upshur pass his wine and 
 invite Dock Hendree to a participation. This act of civility 
 induced me to converse with Doc to* Hendree, about the 
 standing of Mr. Campbell, and to question the truth' of the 
 statement made in his letter of the 22nd September, 1821. 
 
 PETER MURPHY." 
 
 Richmond, August 2nd, 1822. < 
 
 This instance of civility does not stand alone ; while he re- 
 mained in the housethere was something in his manners and 
 deportment towards me, both friendly and courteous : but I 
 am now convinced he is the most arrant hypocrite I have ever 
 known. I mention these things, thoroughly convinced that 
 those who know me will not believe, I considered it an honor 
 worthy of a moment's recollection, but with a view to shew 
 how pliant the honour and conduct of this " knight-errant," 
 is to his situation ; for, had I known as well as I now do the 
 character of the man, it is most probable my feelings would 
 have got the better of my manners, and I should have rebuked 
 him by throwing the contents of the glass in his face. 
 
 " You cannot call it love, for at your age, 
 
 " The hey-day in the blood is tame ; it's humble." 
 
 This modern " knight-errant," alias A. P. Upshur, who only 
 differs from the knight-errants of yore, by changing the lance 
 for the goose quill, and '« bucklers falsehood with a pedigree," 
 and who instead of boldly roving in pursuit of honourable 
 adventure, prowls through the country seeking whom he may 
 destroy by calumnies, seems to have taken umbrage, at the 
 accidental disclosure of the years which perplexes his genius. 
 To him who has no particular age, when wooing « It was 
 the unkindest cut of all ;" and although, two score and more, 
 have but slightly furrowed his cheeks, and with his «• robust 
 form, admirable health and strength, in reasonable measure," 
 he got the *« bag to hold." 1 claim not the merit of antici- 
 pating that eflfect, by the disclosures made in the publication of 
 fay pamphlet ; but had I known it's existence, the obligation 
 
108 
 
 which «< involves the same moral duty, which ,would have re- 
 quired of me, to give warning against the torch of an in- 
 cendiary, or the dagger of an assassin," would have de- 
 manded that I should '« undeceive and save her from ruin and 
 misery." It is a pleasing sacred duty imposed on our na- 
 ture, to vindicate and throw ourselves between innocence and 
 danger; the fair, are objects of no common interest: they 
 , blossom, unfold and diffuse their sweets to all around, and give 
 to domestic life, a heavenly charm. Their gentle influence 
 meliorates the condition of ruthless man, and sheds over all 
 creation, a delicate and tender bloom. i( If there be any, who 
 
 . could pause coldly to calculate consequences," whether or not 
 to interpose between the '« wiles" of a libertine and the hap- 
 piness of lovely woman, « they are of much too tame a 
 spirit to merit my respect." I regret having to connect in 
 any scene, so unworthy an object with a lady ; but she, who 
 is not to be won by the chirpings of a pedant, or dazzled by 
 the glittering tinsel of a '« knight-errant," will suffer no fee- 
 lings of offended delicacy to mingle in her sensations. Al- 
 though, to me she is unknown, I feel bound to say, that one 
 whose mind is so elevated, as to forbid the union of her des- 
 tinies, with a disgraced individual, at the expence of feeling, 
 gives immutable proofs, that she holds as sacred as the vestal 
 flame, the honour of him, to whom she might be wedded, and 
 « feels a stain like a wound." Such conduct is an example of no 
 common magnanimity ; the one, who can sustain under such 
 circumstances, the dignity of her sex, as pure as the virgin 
 dew-drops of the morn, must live with posterity, an example 
 
 / worthy of imitation. 
 
 " There are my lord three sorts of persons with whom I am re- 
 *■ solved never to dispute : A high- way man with a pistol at my 
 " breast ; a troop of Dragoons who come to plunder my house, 
 " and a man of the law who can make a merit of accusing me. 
 " In each of these cases, which are almost the same, the best me- 
 « thod is to keep out of the way, and next best is to deliver your 
 *« money, surrender your house and confess nothing." 
 
 What would the Dean say at seeing me thus engaging two 
 at once, and one a Philadelphia Lawyer, the other in addition 
 a « knight-errant ?" Would he not suppose me possessed pf 
 
log 
 
 an uncommon share of firmness ? No, it is truth which will 
 prevail against all the artifices of men, and put at defiance 
 their malignant shafts. 
 
 In the 51st page of A. P. Upshur's pamphlet, the following 
 certificate is inserted : 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, May 23rd, 1822. 
 We the undersigned, hereby certify, that in a number of co- 
 pies of a pamphlet entitled lt Refutation of calumnies pro- 
 pagated by Abel P. Upshur of Richmond, by John Hen- 
 dree," the amount of the sale of John Hendree's library is 
 stated at S 1*,912 00 on page 18, 15th line from the top, 
 the left hand figure 1*, being crowded in, and evidently bear- 
 ing the appearance of an interpolation ; and not agreeing with 
 a copy of the same publication shewn to us to-day by Mr. 
 Peyton Drew of Richmond, in which the amount on corres- 
 ponding page and line is S912 00. The above copies were 
 received through the Philadelphia Post Office, during the pre- 
 sent month with the exception of one copy given by Dr. John 
 Hendree personally to Z. B. Stout. 
 
 GEORGE CAMPBELL, 
 RIC'D POVALL, 
 Z. B. STOUT, 
 L. R. CABBEL, 
 JOHN BARNES. 
 That such an interpolation does actually exist in the copies 
 of my pamphlet, which were circulated in Philadelphia, there 
 is no doubt ; but, to that city alone it is confined. Nothing of 
 the kind appears in those forwarded to any other section of 
 the country. It is strange, Geo. Campbell should have put his 
 name to that certificate, for more reasons than that of his 
 knowing I was in Philadelphia on the first day of that very 
 month, and did not return to Virginia, until after the date of 
 the certificate ; consequently, I could not have forwarded 
 them through the post-office that month ; but from the fact 
 that I shall prove, he was about the middle of April, in posses- 
 sion of the whole, (with one or two exceptions) of those 
 copies which were circulated in Philadelphia, and they never 
 were distributed until some days after my arrival there, which 
 was on the 1st May, as the copies of my pamphlet were fin- 
 ished and received from the office, they were directed and 
 circulated through Virginia. That being accomplished, I then 
 prepared and had directed, such a number as I thought fit to 
 send to Philadelphia, to which I added a few in blank : the 
 whole constituted three tolerable size bundles of about 30 each. 
 
110 
 
 "In the month of April last, (soon after the publication of 
 Dr. Hendree's pamphlet,) 1 did by his request, direct a num- 
 ber of them, to persons in Philadelphia, and prepared th< m to 
 be forwarded by mail, at which time no interpolation or altera- 
 tion in the amount put down as the proceeds of his library ex- 
 isted. Those so directed were casually taken from among 
 the number of copies received from the printer, (of which 
 there are many still on hand.) A few days after I proceeded 
 to Philadelphia with Doctr. Hendree, where we arrived on 
 the 1st of May, on which day I understood, (for the first time,) 
 that Doctr. Hendree's pamphlet had not been circulated in 
 that city. About a week perhaps elapsed, when Doctr. Hen- 
 dree received at his lodgings, the whole or a greater part of 
 the copies, I had, when in Richmond, directed to indivi- 
 duals in Philadelphia. Doctr. Hendree then gave them cir- 
 culation. 
 
 PETER MURPHY." 
 
 Richmond, August 2nd, 1822. 
 
 They went into no other hands, but Mr. Murphy's and my 
 own, after coming from the office; and there are many on 
 band, in which there is no interpolation ; the three bundles 
 epoken of, were directed to " Mr. George Campbell, Phila- 
 delphia," accompanied with a note requesting him to have 
 them distributed, agreeable to their direction, and to give 
 those in blank, to such of his friends as had been made ac- 
 quainted with the reports. In this state they were put in the 
 post-office. 
 
 > RICHMOND, June 21st, 1822. 
 
 " I do recollect, that about the middle of April last, that 
 Doctr. John Hendree did deposit in this office, three packa- 
 ges or bundles of his pamphlet, directed to Mr. George 
 Campbell of Philadelphia^ which were forwarded by mail in 
 due form, on which Doctr. Hendree paid the postage. 
 
 i 
 A. SPENCE, 
 dsst. Post Master." 
 
 "What makes the fact so fresh in the memory of Mr. Spence, 
 on reaching the office, I found the envelope of one of the 
 packages had bursted which made me require his aid to re- 
 pair the accident, and at the same time gave him an opportu- 
 nity of learning the contents, and ascertaining with precision 
 
Ill 
 
 lho number on which T had to pay the postage. T can speak 
 with an almost positive certainty as to the date, for by the same 
 mail I wrote to several gentlemen in Philadelphia informing 
 them that my pamphlet was forwarded ; which letters were 
 dated on the 18th of April, and were received in due course ; 
 but the pamphlets did not reach them until some time alter my 
 arrival there in May. Thus I remained with a full belief 
 that my pamphlet had been circulated in Philadelphia, until 
 the day on which I reached there ; when to my great sur- 
 prise I was informed that such was not the case, and Mr. 
 Campbell himself told me he had neither seen nor heard any 
 thing of them, and expressed his wish to see one. By acci- 
 dent there were two in my trunk, but I was not aware of 
 there being more than one for several days ; that on* was 
 sent to Mr. Canyibell for perusal, in a few hours after my 
 arrival in Philadelphia, and I pledge myself he was the first 
 male person in Philadelphia who had it, and when it went in- 
 to his hands there was no interpolation, and the amount of 
 the sale of the library was $912. and when he returned it, 
 it was found to be altered to g 1912.* This is the same which 
 was read by those of my most intimate friends who called on 
 me and expressed the wish, and to whom I was bound to give 
 the most immediate satisfaction of the reports then in circula- 
 tion, being false. Mr. Z. B. Stout speaks the truth ; for the 
 pamphlet thus spoken of is the same which I gave to him at 
 myVoom, where he called a few days after my arrival. Im- 
 mediately on being informed by Mr. Campbell, that they had 
 not been received, 1 wrote to Richmond to know the cause. A 
 day or two before I received an answer, the larger portion or 
 perhaps the whole of those which had been forwarded to Mr. 
 Campbell in Philadelphia, were brought to my lodgings.f but 
 by whom I am ignorant. They had the appearance of being 
 in the original state, except the general envelope, and I con- 
 cluded they had met with some delay on the road, and Mr. 
 Campbell but that moment having received them, sent them to 
 me ; and there being nothing to excite the least suspicion, I 
 forthwith by a servant gave them circulation, arid no one in 
 Philadelphia with my knowledge ever received one through 
 
 *I am in possession of proof from Philadelphia, of that specific 
 fact, which I may perhaps have occasion to use through the medium 
 of some of my friends, in that city. 
 
 tit is a fact susceptible of the best proof, that they did not re- 
 ceive a general circulation, for some days after my reaching Phila- 
 delphia. 
 
112 
 / 
 'the Post Office from me, or mine, save George Campbell.^ 
 The first intimationf (which was on the eve of my departure 
 from Philadelphia,) I had of the interpolation, was from a 
 gentleman a friend of Mr. Murphy's, with whom he has since 
 corresponded, and the cause of his making the communica- 
 tion, the following extract from his letter to Mr. Murphy will 
 explain : 
 
 " I have a distinct recollection of calling on Doct. Hendree 
 t( at Mrs. E wing's, and asking him how it was, that $ 1912 
 " appeared in the pamphlet he sent me, having previously 
 " understood, that the pamphlet circulated in Richmond, 
 " named $912, as the sum received ; he expressed astonish- 
 " ment at my information, and pledged his honor to me, that 
 '« he neither made the alteration, nor knew of it, until I 
 **. named it, and said, that $912 was the correct amount. I 
 " also recollect, that he took a pamphlet out of his trunk, in 
 " liis room, and pointed out to me, that g 912 was printed in 
 " the pamphlet/"' The above is an extract from a letter in my 
 possession, received from a gentleman in Philadelphia. 
 
 PETER MURPHY. 
 
 The pamphlet this gentleman speaks of my having shewn 
 him, is the one found in my trunk several days after my arri- 
 val. If I had been privy to the interpolation, why tell this 
 gentleman the fact of the amount of the sale ? Why confine 
 the interpolation to those circulated in Philadelphia ? If I 
 wished the amount to appear more than what it actually was, 
 I could so have put it in the manuscript ; there are none who 
 could deny its truth. If I had been privy to the interpolation, 
 I would not have suffered one pamphlet to have been read by 
 any person there, which exhibited the amount as it was origin- 
 al do not mean to be understood as doubting the truth of the 
 assertion of Richard Povall, L. R. Cabbel or John Barnes, who say 
 " they were received through the Philadelphia post office." I 
 only contend, they did not receive them from me, or with my 
 knowledge in that way ; but the copies they speak of, were di- 
 rected to them and enclosed in the general envelope to George 
 Campbell. •• 
 
 t Previous to this information, and on the second or third day 
 after they were circulated in Philadelphia, and sometime before 
 the arrival of Upshur's friend, Drew, a particular acquaintance, 
 I believe a friend of Mr. Campbell's, remarked to a lady, that he 
 had understood the pamphlet circulated in Philadelphia, was 
 i not precisely the same as those circulated in Richmond, but in 
 what particular they differed, he did not know. 
 
113 
 
 ally published. It can, with equal propriety, be enquired 
 what motive actuated Mr. Campbell thus to commit himself ? 
 The same motive which prompted him to write A. P. Upshur 
 on the 24th September, that he treated me sternly, and he 
 felt indignant at my baseness, because I denied the truth of 
 A. P. Upshur's statement, and required of him his author ; 
 the same motive which has prompted him to write to A. P. 
 Upshur in April, that he believed me to be the author of the 
 endorsements on the proof sheets ; the same motive which in- 
 duced him to write Upshur, that I was not received in the 
 light of a gentleman by any respectable families in Philadel- 
 phia ; the same motive which induced him to become the jack- 
 all to the puppy-lion of the day, in circulating his pamphlet, 
 and wishing, to suppress mine ; the same, which made him so 
 industrious in giving currency to A. P. Upshur's falsehoods 
 to my injury. Whether I stood in the way of Mr. Campbell's 
 prosperity or happiness, I know not ; the former it cannot be, 
 for he is a dealer in law, and I am in physic ; he was not a 
 member of any of the society with which I associated in 
 Philadelphia. I never, to my knowledge, once met him in 
 company 5* consequently I could not have been in the way of 
 his happiness ; but, there is something so unaccountable in 
 Mr. Stout's taking A. P. Upshur by the nose and leading him 
 to the Philadelphia library, to tell Mr. Campbell tales in re- 
 lation to me, (a man, who, before the month of September I 
 never knew as Mr. Campbell, but only as the librarian, and 
 not until the month of May last, when Mr. Loher, the notary, 
 before whom he, Campbell, went to swear to the truth of the 
 papers he had given me, inserted his name as " George 
 Campbell, attorney at law," did I know he was a member of 
 'the bar f) that it does require some explanation from the par- 
 ties, is evident : that Mr. Campbell is the avowed friend of 
 A. P. Upshur, to my .injury, there are many proofs before the 
 public ; nor has he stopped to enquire into the means he should 
 employ to serve him, thinking all fair which might tend to re- 
 deem his character. He should have recollected, that there 
 are certain reserves, which, even amidst the most keen and 
 difficult struggle to restore or save the integrity of a falling 
 friend, a man of honor disdains to out-step, at the very head 
 of which stands truth, and a scrupulous regard for equal jus- 
 tice to all men, and can never be departed from without for- 
 feiting all claims to the gentleman, and that man is neither fit 
 
 * On this subject Mr. Campbell assured me, when I was in Phila- 
 delphia last, that he had met me once or twice in society; it may be 
 so, but I have no recollection of it. 
 
 15 
 
114 
 
 for the society of honorable men, nor deserving of public con- 
 fidence* whom the desire of redeeming an undeserving friend, 
 will knowingly and wilfully depart from «* truth and fair 
 dealing," particularly to the injury of one who has never 
 offended. 
 
 In the facts I have stated, I am supported by the authority 
 of a public officer, and by personal friends. The world are 
 now to decide, who made the interpolation. 
 
 " Insolence when there is no danger, is despair when there is." 
 
 I discovered nothing about Mr. Campbell in September, 
 but a punctual compliance with my request, nor did I in May 
 last, see other than a pliant obedience to my will.* 1 re- 
 quested the letters he had received from Upshur; he de- 
 livered them. I was informed by Mr. Stout, that A. P. Up- 
 shur had spoken of Mr. Murphy, in one of his letters to Mr. 
 Campbell. I required of Campbell, so much of the letter as 
 related to Mr. Murphy or myself; he delivered it. I desired 
 him to swear to the copies, being correct and true ; he com- 
 plied.! Nay, I led him as easily as a lamb to the slaughter. 
 There was uothing in his conduct to inspire me with awe. At 
 my entering the library on the first of May, the rose of his 
 youthful cheek fled, and the drops from his juvenile brow 
 trickled down in rapid succession, leaving aught but the evi- 
 dences of fear and trembling ; and Mr. Campbell, for having 
 suffered himself to be made the dupe of A. P. Upshur, in 
 committing the interpolation, can in justice be compared to 
 nothing more than the web-footed fowl, from whose wing the 
 
 * By what magic power, Mr. Campbell has kept the braggadocio 
 of a " knight-errant," alias A. P. Upshur, so completely in awe 
 and fear of him, I do not know, nor can I conceive other than his 
 conscious guilt makes him a coward, for I am not willing to be- 
 lieve there is another Virginian, nay, one who even claims America 
 as his home, either by birth or adoption, who would suffer any man 
 to be the cause of his being made a public example of (unless he 
 merited such fate) without making him publicly avow the false- 
 hood of his statement, or atone for it at the threshold of another 
 world. 
 
 t That all trouble of fending and proving may be saved, I offer 
 for the perusal of those who. think proper to call, the original ex- 
 tracts from A. P. Upshur's letters to George Campbell, and also a 
 true copy of his original letters which relate to me, sworn to by 
 Geo. Campbell, before J. Luher, Not. public, Dock street, Phila- 
 delphia. 
 
115 
 
 instrument was plucked, with which lie painted his fancy on 
 the 24th September, as to his treatment of my request. 
 
 I wish it to be distinctly understood, that no private cor- 
 respondence on this subject, between Mr. Campbell and my- 
 self, can take place: and as there is but one enquiry, which 
 he can desire to make, and which it is essential should be 
 private, if he wishes to be informed on that subject, to prevent 
 all mistakes, he must communicate under cover, to my friend 
 Mr. Peter Murphy. 
 
 I have now done more, than any honourable man could have 
 expected. I have even descended to introduce proofs against 
 charges which rested on the assertions of A. P. Upshur 
 alone ; and in doing so, I have of necessity laid bare and ex- 
 posed to public view, the most malignant individual, that ever 
 disgraced any age or country. His own private letters are held 
 up, convicting him of falsehood in his statement to the public ; 
 he has connived at getting under false pretences, that which 
 a man of honour would disdain, and none but a guilty con- 
 Science, would have countenanced ; he has leagued heart and 
 hand with sacrilegious individuals, in polluting the fountain 
 of justice, even to its source ; he has made false representa- 
 tions of every fact, in support of which, he has seduced both 
 youth and aged infirmity. He has attempted to put a stain upon 
 the innocent and unoffending, and his hovel has become the 
 den of apostates from truth and justice: he has denied the 
 truth of charges privately, which he has refused to do pub- 
 licly ; he has suffered himself to be led by the nose, through 
 the streets of Philadelphia to retail falsehood ; nor has he 
 scrupled at any act, however base or contemptible ; nor has 
 any pledge or confidence, been too sacred to violate for his 
 purposes. He has been guilty of acts, at the bare imagination 
 of which, humanity shudders, and he has but few, if any of 
 the virtues of civilized life, and among the many of his vices, 
 
116 
 
 falsehood and hypocrisy are very prominent. His conduct has 
 left a stain on his character, which time cannot remove ; 
 nay, one of the darkest hue. All of which facts, those who are 
 not already convinced of, must be happily elevated above the in- 
 fluence of proofs and argument. Such is the despicable cha- 
 racter I have for my enemy, and it may therefore be boldly 
 asserted, whenever there is any vulgar publication pointed at 
 me, that it was written by A. P. Upshur or his satelites, or 
 any despicable calumny circulated, that he is the author.* 
 
 If I have thus been obliged in self-defence, to present the 
 disgusting spectacle of an abandoned miscreant, regardless 
 of truth Hind humanity, and a monster of depravity in human 
 shape, what would it be, were I to act on the offensive and 
 '< unfold a tale," of one whose unsuspecting innocence repos- 
 ed confidence warranted by his situation, and by his *< wiles" 
 is reduced to " ruin and misery," and now the bleeding 
 victim of his treachery ; but let us draw a veil over crimes of 
 such enormity ; they are too much for recital : a life of peni- 
 tence will scarce prove an atonement; they are what he must 
 account for in that *« world beyond the grave." 
 
 It is the fate of most human vultures, who feed on private 
 character, sooner or later to be held up to public view ; the 
 miserable and deluded victims of their own hypocrisy and 
 falsehood, being lost to all shame, consequently to all virtue : 
 and the great truth will be illustrated, that guilt though 
 it may obtain temporal splendour, can never confer real hap- 
 piness, and the natural result of great crimes is to bring dis- 
 tress and ruin upon all connected with the perpetrators, and 
 the evil consequences shall long survive their commission, and 
 like the ghost of the murdered forever haunt the steps of the 
 malefactor. 
 
 He (A. P. Upshur,) complains that his " character is but 
 little known :" a want of notoriety shall no longer be a cause 
 of complaint, but no honourable mention will be made of his 
 name : no longer shall he hold an honourable rank among his 
 cotemporaries : he will live but to be forgotten, and shall be 
 
 * A. P. Upshur having put his shoulder to the wheel, no ques- 
 tion, the public will be favoured with a production from him, or 
 his bosom friend, Peyton Drew : may espouse his cause ; in either 
 case, it will no doubt, be ably supported by" Mr. Drew's" certifi- 
 cates, or if desired by his friend, "A. P. Upshur, Esq." " Mr. Drew" 
 will swear to any statement he shall make, the latter of which, I 
 would advise him against ; not only because it will then most as- 
 suredly not be believed, but it will be confirming falsehood with 
 perjury. 
 
117 
 
 handed down to posterity in that hideous form as damned to 
 perpetual remembrance and execration among his fellows. 
 He who has nerve enough to arraign him and prove to the 
 world he is «' thoroughly a bad man," has not " chosen his 
 mark too high for his strength," and liowever powerful he 
 may fancy his talents, he has deceived himself if he conceives 
 them sufficiently so, to make me change the course I have de- 
 termined to pursue. 
 
 It might perhaps be expected, that I would before conclud- 
 ing, call him some hard names: such would breathe too much 
 the spirit I condemn. I have proved him to be a base 
 minded, malignant, false hearted poltroon, which in humani- 
 ty is more than I desired ; and the public may be assured that 
 A. P. Upshur, is the least of a man in truth or stamina, that 
 ever dared presume to foist himself on any community, as 
 one of any settled principles of honor whatever. 
 
 It is time to close a subject, which in this way is already 
 too long. The next step will be to record his foul deeds in their 
 darker and more proper colours, before a tribunal of his 
 country, when he will have to answer for an act of a most hei- 
 nous nature, where if he wants law, he shall have it : if he 
 wants justice he shall have it, and I will go with him, from the 
 courts of this commonwealth to every other court in the 
 United States, thence to the high court of Heaven, for the 
 justice of my cause. 
 
 JOHN HENDREE. 
 
 Hichmond Va., October, 1822. 
 
 N. B. This pamphlet would have appeared in the month of 
 August ', but, having previous, (in July,) made application 
 at the office for the purpose of putting the manuscript, when 
 ready, in the hands of the printer, was in a few days after 
 informed that A, P. Upshur, being apprised of my intention, 
 left the city. I therefore thought proper to delay its publica- 
 tion until his return, that his absence might not be a plea for 
 the necessity of a rejoinder from any other individual whom 
 I have unfortunately been under the necessity of criminating. 
 
 If, in the course of this defence, I have charged any fact on 
 an individual which I am not competent to sustain, or couch- 
 ed any part of it in language admitting of a construction dif- 
 ferent from its true intent and meaning, I am not only open to 
 conviction, but shall feel proud in publicly avowing it ; and if 
 any expression has, in an unguarded moment, escaped me, 
 which respect for the public car should have forbid, I can 
 
118 
 
 only offer as an apology, feelings perhaps too much alive to 
 the calumnies of a disgraced individual, who is no longer 
 worthy of the notice of a gentleman ; and, if possible, has 
 sunk too low even to hope for reformation, or to merit re- 
 proval by an honorable man. 
 
 JOHN HENDREE. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 11, line 1, for "honest," read honourable. 
 
 33, 7, for " banks," read bank. 
 
 39, 17, for " honest," read honourable. 
 
 45, 40, for " ideot," read idiot. 
 
 63, 36, for " these," read their. 
 
 64, 21, for "on," read no. 
 69, 29, for "ideot," read idiot. 
 u 41, for "of," read to* 
 76, 38, for " of," read in. 
 
 79, 40, for " McRat," read McRae. 
 Ill, 6, for "pamphlets," read pamphlet. 
 
 * Mark the sentence a quotation. 
 


 
 ,0 
 

 ^4. * ' * 
 
 *-* 
 
 
 rf-M 
 
 • ** 
 
 ?*►:.*: 
 
 ***** 
 
 
 >w