the _Richmond Enquirer_, etc.; and it is evident that the accusation was
wholly groundless.

Shelby and Sevier rest their case:

1st, on their memory, thirty years after the event, of some remarks of
Campbell to them in private after the close of the battle, which they
construed as acknowledgments of bad conduct. Against these memories of
old men it is safe to set Shelby's explicit testimony, in a letter
written six days after the battle (see _Virginia Argus_, Oct. 26, 1810),
to the good-conduct of the "gallant commander" (Campbell).

2d, on the fact that Campbell was seen on a black horse in the rear
during the fighting; but a number of men of his regiment swore that he
had given his black horse to a servant who sat in the rear, while he
himself rode a bay horse in the battle. See their affidavits in the
_Enquirer_.

3d, on the testimony of one of Shelby's brothers, who said he saw him in
the rear. This is the only piece of positive testimony in the case. Some
of Campbell's witnesses (as Matthew Willoughby) swore that this brother
of Shelby was a man of bad character, engaged at the time in stealing
cattle from both Whigs and Tories.

4th, on the testimony of a number of soldiers who swore they did not see
Campbell in the latter part of the battle, nor until some moments after
the surrender. Of course, this negative testimony is simply valueless;
in such a hurly burly it would be impossible for the men in each part of
the line to see all the commanders, and Campbell very likely did not
reach the places where these men were until some time after the