6
"But it is still said, you were not a principal in the speculation—you were only a security. I will presently examine the strength of this amusing and shallow apology; but I must, in the first place, express my admiration of the conclusive and able argument by which it is attempted to establish the fact of your securityship from the contract itself. The following is an extract from your defence:
'The very face of the agreement indeed, would be sufficient to convince a man of business of this fact. Gen Jackson was known to be a man of property and credit. Green was a young man just commencing business, without fortune, and Coleman's circumstances any thing but flourishing. If then it had been the understanding of the parties, that Gen. Jackson was a principal in the transaction, would not his name have been put first in the contract? Would it not have been Jackson, Coleman, and Green, instead of Coleman, Green, and Jackson? This consideration of itself is sufficient to rebut the supposition, that he was a principal in the transaction.'
"Whether this argument were original with your amanuensis, or were suggested by yourself or some of your council of war, I cannot say; but it is a specimen of logic worthy the brain of a profound attorney at law, a judge of the supreme court, senator in congress, and aspirant to the presidency! The man, whose name is placed last in the style of a firm, if he happens to possess more capital or credit than the others, is to be regarded as security and not as a partner!! It would be difficult, I imagine, according to this rule, to determine whether the 'junior editor,' so called, in your printing establishment, is really a partner or only a security. Which of the ostensible members of that firm has the largest amount, either of capital or credit, I, at least, am unable to decide. But who does not feel the full force of the argument contained in the above extract? 'Gen Jackson was~known to be a man of property and credit, Green was a young man just commencing business, without fortune, and Coleman's circumstances any thing but flourishing;' therefore, it most conclusively and irresistibly follows, that the two last, without money and without credit, were the principals in the transaction, and that the former was involving himself—assuming responsibilities, and running risks, without the slightest chance or hope of profit, merely as security to the trifling amount of $10,000, for a young man 'just commencing business, without fortune,' and for a man whose 'circumstances were any thing but flourishing!!!' The irresistible force of this reasoning will not surely be denied by any Jacksonite in the land."
But it remained for Col. Andrew Erwin, of Bedford County, Tennessee, who had also been defending himself against some violent personal attacks, made from two of Gen. Jackson's presses, to probe the subject.of negro speculations to the bottom, and exhibit full proof of the truth of the charge. The facts and proof contained in his address to Gen. Jackson, have never been refuted, or denied, It may be found in the National Banner of August 1st, last, and republished throughout the union.
