ARTICLE SIGNED “VINDEX.”
[Boston Gazette, December 24, 1770.]
To the Printers.
SOMEBODY, in Mr. Draper’s paper of Thursday last, charges me with PARTIALITY, in my two first performances on the subject of the late Trial—I DENY THE CHARGE, AND DESIRE HE WOULD EXPLAIN HIMSELF. He also says, I freely charge PARTIALITY on others: I UTTERLY DENY THAT ALSO; AND CALL UPON HIM TO POINT OUT ONE INSTANCE. He desires the publick would not be influenced by any remarks made by me on the late Trials: WITH REGARD TO THAT, THE PUBLICK WILL DO AS THEY PLEASE. He INSINUATES that I have cast the most INJURIOUS reflections upon Judges, Jury and Witnesses: AGAIN, I DENY IT.—It remains then that he either retract his charges or proves them: Otherwise the publick will judge him to be guilty of something worse than “THE FAULT” OF PARTIALITY. He THREATENS to bring out some facts which were not allowed to be given in evidence: THIS IS WHAT I EARNESTLY DESIRE, FOR THE REASONS I HAVE ALREADY MENTION’D. And among other FACTS he intends, to ASCERTAIN THE PERSON IN A RED CLOAK, mention’d on the trial, IF VINDEX AND HIS Adherents DESIRE it. Vindex has no Adherents but in the cause of truth: And Vindex, FOR THE SAKE OF TRUTH, REQUESTS IT AS A FAVOR THAT THE PERSON IN A RED CLOAK MAY BE ASCERTAINED. He says that this person WAS DECLARED BE SOME OF THE WITNESSES, TO HAVE BEEN VERY BUSY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRAGEDY; I affirm, that neither of the witnesses declared that he was VERY BUSY at the beginning, or any part, of the Tragedy. There were two only that made mention of him, viz. Mr. WILLIAM HUNTER & Mr. JAMES SELKRIG: The one declared that in dock-square “there was a tall gentleman in a red Cloak; that he stood in the midst of them (the people); that they were whist for some time, and presently huzza’d for the main guard: The other said, there was a gentleman with a red Cloak & a large white Wig; that he made a speech to them (the people) 4 or 5 minute—(this witness mention’d nothing of their HUZZAING for the main guard, which one would have thought must have been OBSERVABLE by ALL, but only adds) they went and knock’d with their sticks, and said they would do for the soldiers—What THE TALL GENTLEMAN said, neither of them could tell.—I cannot help observing here, that some of the late LETTER-WRITERS from hence to London, have mark’d the RED CLOAK AND WHITE WIG, as the garb of a Boston HYPOCRITE; but I have never yet heard it hinted, that such a dress was the peculiarity of an ACTOR in TRAGEDIES—Great pain have been taken to make the world believe that men of “estates, of figure and religion” had formed a plan, BEFORE THE 5TH OF MARCH, to drive off the soldiers; witness a DEPOSITION LATELY PUBLISH’D: And perhaps it may be the LOW CUNNING of this writer to INSINUATE, that there was a mob at that time, AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, on dock-square; and that their leader MUST be a man of figure in the town, BECAUSE HE WORE A RED CLOAK—As it is not yet known what the TALL GENTLEMAN WITH A RED CLOAK said to the people; whether he gave them good or ill advice, or any advice at all, we may possibly form some conjecture concerning it, when his PERSON is ascertained. THE SOONER IT IS DONE THE BETTER.
VINDEX.
Dec. 22.