The political principles of a candidate are certainly a fair subject of speculation. To argue that he is attached to one or the other of the two great political parties may place him in an uncomfortable posture, but no man will say it is a libel. Now this whole publication taken together will be found to be of this character. It is a common electioneering article, the general scope and design of which was, to show that Mr. Keyes was not worthy of the votes of Middlesex, because he was not a staunch friend of the existing administration; and among the symbols of adhesion to the opposite party it adverts to the preference which he had avowed in the Committee of Accounts for the editors of an opposition paper. The fact then was not only in itself proper to be made known, but the occasion and purpose for which it was used were perfectly legal and justifiable.

Is there then any thing objectionable in the manner of the statement? It contains no personal abuse; no language of vituperation; not an epithet applied to Mr. Keyes from beginning to end. The only harsh phrase is that of the "reprobate Jackson Press." This may be a libel upon that press; but surely it is no offence to Mr. Keyes. The statement imputes no corruption, It does not undertake to assign a motive. It simply states the fact as evidence of Jacksonism.

This cannot be a libel. It wants upon its face the stamp of malice. The matter was proper information for the people. It exposed a public abuse which it was for them to know and remedy. It suggested the inquiry respecting misconduct in office to the competent tribunal. It was not an idle and unfounded calumny. There was a real interest at stake, a beneficial purpose in view; and the fact rested upon evidence not lightly to be questioned. It was given too in a form as unexceptionable as its nature would permit. It was therefore employing the liberty of the press according to its most restricted use for the lawful purposes of a popular government. Under such a government it cannot be that this is a crime. If it is, the press is effectually silenced where it is most bound to speak, and no one will hereafter dare to question the conduct of men in power.

According to the view which has been taken it is not material to the defence that you should be satisfied of the truth of the charge. The defendant however still believes it to be true; and we shall now proceed to offer proof, which if it fail to produce conviction of its truth, will at least convince you of the defendants innocence.

Warwick Palfray. I was a member of the Legislature in 1827, and was one of the Committee of Accounts, appointed in the June Session. The Hon. Mr. Keyes was Chairman. He obtained leave of absence about the middle of the session and returned on the last day Conversations

occurred in the Committee several times before he went away respecting the printing.

Solicitor General. Are you sure that Mr. Keyes was present at these conversations.

Palfray. Yes, Sir. The printing was mentioned as an important subject on which we must act. And much praise was bestowed by Ellis and Keyes on True and Greene. They thought that those printers ought to have the contract if their terms were as low as any.

Solicitor General. Are you sure that Mr. Keyes expressed himself so.

Palfray. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Keyes expressed himself in their favour, and on the last day he spoke against the principle of underbidding. The proposals were opened several days before the end of the session. Nothing material was done until Mr. Keyes returned.

Question by Gardiner. Then I am to understand that they were opened during Mr. Keyes' absence but not acted

upon.

Answer. Yes, Sir.

Question by the Same.

Are you a Printer.

Answer. I am Sir.

Question by the Same. You think yourself capable of judging of printer's charges.

Answer. I dont know how far I am a judge; I have an opinion..

Question by the Same. Had you received complaints. Answer. Yes, Sir. I met a person in the State House, who told me that he believed there was unfairness.

Solicitor General. I object to this unless Mr. Keyes was present.

Fletcher. Our object is to show that his attention was particularly drawn to this subject.

Morton Justice. Then ask him the question directly. Gardiner. Now state what took place in the Committee in relation to the contract for printing.

Witness. I made a table of rates before Mr. Keyes returned. He returned on the last day, Mr. Hoyt was in the Chair, Mr. Keyes asked Col. Hoyt to remain, and finish the business but Mr.Hoyt declined. I presented to Mr. Keyes

SALEM, APRIL 2, 1828.

D. L. Child, Esq. Editor of Mass. Journal.

mo

DEAR SIR. In reply to yours of the 1st inst. requesting of me a statement of facts relative to the proceedings of the Committee on Accounts last Summer, in regard to the contract for the State Printing, which you appear anxious to obtain, “in order to correct or substantiate the statement made in the Journal of the 29th ult." I have first to observe, that it was with exceeding regret I perused your publication on this subject, as it contained some material errors, and I thought did much injustice to Mr. Keyes. But when I learnt, to my surprise, that the statement was founded in part on some casual remarks made by me to a friend, at the time the transaction took place, I regretted it still more, as I never mentioned any of the proceedings of the Committee with a view to bring the subject into public discussion, or to impeach the conduct or tives of any gentleman of the Committee. And it is due to Mr. Keyes, the Chairman, to state, explicitly, that during my intercourse with him on that Committee, I had reason to respect him for his gentlemanly deportment, and his usually correct, intelligent and scrupulous discharge of his official duty. With regard to the proceedings relative to the State Printing, although I was deeply impressed with the belief, at the time, that he and one or two other members of the Committee discovered too strong an inclination to give the contract to the former printers, notwithstanding lower terms were offered, I had no reason to believe, and never drew the inference, that it was owing to any particular regard for the publishers of the Statesman, or sympathy in their political sentiments, but attributed it rather to their reluctance to dismiss, from the public service, men whom they believed to have given more than ordinary satisfaction in the execution of their work, and also an indisposition to encounter the displeasure of the Statesman concern, and the consequent abuse which might reasonably have been anticipated.

With these feelings, I submit the following statement of the circumstances, as near as I can at this time recollect them—not having charged my memory with the particular transactions on this occasion, it is possible they may prove in some respects inaccurate. I hope sincerely that I shall do no injustice to any individual, and those who know me, I am confident will acquit me of having "set down aught in malice."

The subject of the proposals and contract for the State

Printing, was talked about a good deal in the Committee of Accounts, from time to time, during the session, and a decision on the various proposals was postponed until nearly the close of the business before the Committee in the June Session of 1827. In the conversations upon this subject, Messrs. Keyes and Ellis spoke frequently of the great merits of True and Greene, as printers, and of the great satisfaction which they had given by their manner of executing their contract, and I thought that a strong disposition was manifested on the part of these gentlemen, and one other, to give the contract to those persons. Towards the last of the session, one of the three gentlemen expressed himself against making a change of printers, unless the difference, or saving to the Commonwealth, by such change, would exceed five hundred dollars. To this suggestion, Messrs. Keyes, Ellis, and one other gentleman, according to the best of my recollection, gave their assent, and as they formed a majority of the Committee, it was considered by the minority as settled, that a preference to the above amount would be given to the printers above named; and the next object of the minority was to show that the proposals of True and Greene were more than five hundred dollars higher than the lowest of the

others.

On examining and comparing the proposals, Mr. Keyes called the attention of the gentlemen to several items of True and Greene's, which he observed were lower than the corresponding ones, in any other proposals, particularly those of Dutton and Wentworth ; and although he observed that there were some items of the latter which were lower, yet, upon the whole, he doubted whether the average of True and Greene's was not as low as Dutton and Wentworth's, and appeared to favor the idea that the contract should be given to True and Greene. Another member of the Committee then suggested, that some of the heavier and most material items, were higher in True and Greene's proposals than in Dutton and Wentworth's, by precisely one half; and the bills of True and Greene for the last year were procured, by which it appeared, that the expense of the printing, on the terms of True and Greene, would not be less than 1000 dollars more than it would according to the terms of Dutton and Wentworth. This fact being shown, there still appeared to be a strong reluctance on the part of Messrs. Keyes and Ellis to reject the proposals of True and Greene. The third gentleman, on seeing the result of the comparison, no longer hesitated, and left Messrs. Keyes and Ellis in the minority.

During all the conversations upon this subject, much was said of the merits of True and Greene, as printers, and a variety of objections started to Dutton and Wentworth; such as that they were unknown, and perhaps irresponsible; and much pains was taken by a gentleman of the Committee to have the testimony of the most respectable booksellers of the city in favor of those printers presented to the Committee, which left no doubt of their respectability. When the Committee came to vote, and three had voted in favor of Dutton and Wentworth, Mr. Keyes observed that a majority had voted, and that it was not necessary to proceed farther. Mr. Ellis did not vote, and Mr. Keyes himself expressed no opinion.

Yours, &c.

W. PALFRAY, JR.

Henry W. Dutton. Witness is a printer, and had compared True and Greene's rates of 1826 with the bills for printing in 1827, and found that those bills, had they been charged according to the proposals of True and Greene, would have been 1290 and odd dollars higher. He had compared True and Greene's proposals and bills of 1825 with those of the same printers in 1826, and found that the latter were as high, and if anything a little higher. There were other proposals rejected in 1826, which were ten per cent lower than True and Greene's in 1825. Had examined the proposals of True and Greene in 1828, and compared them with his own of the same year, and found that the latter were, in the whole, forty dollars higher.

Witness had been at an expense of about 700 dollars to procure the materials for doing the State printing. The difference between the proposals of True and Greene and Dutton and Wentworth in 1828 amounted to about $40 only in favour of the former. The printing that year was taken from us and given to them.

Col. House, is a printer, and put in proposals in 1826, went up to the Committee's room and found them in.

Solicitor General. Was Mr. Keyes there?

Witness. He was; he and all the Committee were standing in the room. Mr. Greene was sitting at the table, writing. When I went out he followed me to the door. Greene then said

Mr.

Solicitor General stopped the witness and asked if Keyes was there.

Witness. He was not at the door.

Morton, justice. I cannot let you state that.

Fletcher. We wish to show that Greene did an act at this time: his words are of no importance.