Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-03-13
interviews between Mr.. Daniel Van Voorlis and Su-
nuel r.. Clement mentioned In tho foregoing aflida-
Wit and that all states, i'm the said affidavit is true
And further this dcponent saith not.
JOHN PIERCE.

And further this deponent saith not.
JOHN PIERCE.
Sworn to before me, this 9th day OF Feb 1882
JoHN DIkEMAN, First Judge, &c. of Kings Co.
The foregoing must be conclusive to Clements
having made the statements and the following cdito-
rial remark which appears in the Telegraph of the
Tin OF February with the appreciation OF the Homo
rd6e Senators, is sufficient demonstrate that they
d'd make him the offer which he repeatedly com
municated to those with whom he conversed. That
they did mako the offer doubted, and that
their object in doing was to purchase his tesiino
my against Mr.. Van Buren,, equally satisfied.
From The u. .S.'Itiegroph Of 1lM Fsb.
"Gov Moore may have offered to do the same
thing. They both may have conversed with him
about the expense Of establishing and conducting
newspaper"
Thus much for the charge that the Honorable Geo
Pondextcr and Gabriel Moore purchased the testi-
nIony Of Samuel T.. Clement against Mr. Van Bu-
ren. Now for the truth of the testimony. Clement
informed Mcssrs. Hoffman, Bergen, Soue and An
gel, that Inc had never MIR. Van Buren, but fcice
that his first interview was entirely accidental
when he introduced himself to Mr. V. b. and when
MIR. V. H. made the confidential communication re-
vealed IN his letter to Gov. Poindcxter.
State Of .Ns,c York. County of Kings, SIS.
Eugene Farnan, of the village of Brooklyn, coln-
~ of Kings, and state Of New York, Counsellor at
Law, beng duly sworn, says that, in the month OF
June last past, this dcponent with several gentlemen
of said Brooklyn, and Samuel f.. Clement, then
postmaster of Brooklyn, were returning from West
Point in stcamboat,-tl,at on the passage down the
river, this deponent said Clement, and some others
were introduced TO Mr.. Van Buren, The son of the
Hon. Martin Van Buren,, who informed us that he
should stop at the City Hotel in New York, where
he would be glad to see us--that on the following
day. being Monday, this deponent, with the said
Clement, went to the CITY Hotel i'm New York tn
call on Mr. Van Buren,, agreeaby to his invitation.
Not Knowing at the time that the Hon. Martin Van
Buren, was in the city of New York. we inquired at
the Bar for MIR. Van Buren,, and were shown by the
waiter into the room of the then late Secretary of
Hcttr
n Mr. lloyt, as deponent thinks member of the
bar OF the city Of Now York, whom deponcnt had
frequently seen in court, but had no personal ac-
q"a'n'ance with Feeling, as this deponcnt did,
much embarrassed at making n call upon entire
stranger without introduction, which he considered
intrusive Inc left the business of apology Clement,
who informed MIR. Van Buren, of the mistake and
very awkwarlly begged pardon for tho intrusion.
hr. Van Buren, very politely desired us to remain us
his son Inc said would soon be in which we declin-
cd, saying VIC would call at another time The CON
Versition above stated is the substance of all that
passed at this interview, as we Immediately left the
apartment and returned to Brooklyn and this Demo
nent says that he and the said Clement did not sit
down while in the room of Mr.. Van Buren,. The
deponent has seen letter published in the ncwspa-
pers addressed TO MIR. Poindcxter, U. S. Senator
from MISSISSIPPI, and signed samuel Clement"
winch details conversation said to have been held
between MIR. Van Buren, and Clement, at the CITY
Hotel IN New York This deponent uBhesatinrly
says no such conversation passed at the time above
referred to, as he was in such situation that he
must have heard all that was said Mt the time in re-
laton TO the then late cabinet at Washington, or its
dissolution.
This deponcnt says that the day he called on Mr..
van blircn as above mentioned was the day immc-
diaely before the said Clement with Mr. Iawrence
shcrIif OF Kings county, Mr. Rockwell and others
rom l\Ings county, called upon Mr. Van Blu
rem at the City Hotel of which last mentioned in
tervicw, this deponcnt heard said Clement and the
gentleman who went with him, speak nj the time
EUGENE FARNAN
Subscribed and sworn to before me, Feb 81, 1892
JOSEPH DEAN, Commissioner of Deeds,
i'm and for Kings county
Thus much for the first interview with Mr.. Van
Bnren. Now for The second which Mr.. Clement
admits was the last he had with him. at which
MIR. Bergen was present. 1t will be perceived tbot
MIR. IL. being present at the second interview. Gle
mcnt jim vouchng to Mcssrs Bergen, Hoffman. sc.
for the truth of his statement, was compelled to saw
mat the conversation alleged to have taken place.
was at the first interview.
State Of .Nc,o- York, County of Kiuos &C.
Nathan Il. Morse, of said county, being dulv
sworn, says, that he was introduced to Mr. Van Bue
rcn, the son of the Honorable Martin Van Buren, ON
board steamboat, some time i'm the month of limo
last past on the passage down from West Point =
That Samuel f.. Clement, then Post-NIaster MI
BROOKLYN in said county, held some conversation
with Mr. Van Buren, at the same time on board the
boat: that on the Monday following said Clement
spoke 10 this deponent, and urged him to call on Mr.
van Burcn, to whom we had been introduced with
him Clement lie did so; and on Tuesday follow
ing, us he believes, dcponcnt in company with said
Clement, MIR. Lawrence, sheriff of Kings couptv
and some others from said county, called on Mr. "
Buren, then late Secretary of State at the Civ Uo-
tel III New ork that this deponent was present du
ring the whole time that said Clement wa, i'm The
room OF Mr.. Van Buren,, and came away i'm com
pany with him aud others: that this deponent paid
particular attention to all that was said at the time bv
any OF the persons then present, and was i'm such a
situation as To hear all that passed. that nothing was
SAID III the hearing of this deponcnt by Mr. Van Blu
rcn, or any one else, in relation TO the then late
breaking mp of the Cabinet at Washington or i'm re-
laton to the cause that led TO it. N. Ii. MORSE
sworn before me- the I'd day of March, 1892
JOHN DIKEMAN, First Judge &c. ofKings coun,y
~ sllll more testimony wanting to prove tie
utter ialsehood and worthIessuess Of Clement il will
be found in the following affidavit:
Kings County, SS.-IIenry G. Murphy, being duly
sworn, says that he held conversation with Sa,nu-
Cd H. Clement, in regard TO his visits to Mr. Van BI
rem; IN which, after other heterogeneous he enm,ir
cd OF him whether, those OCCASIONS there was
any reference made to the dissolution of the lote
Cabinet: he replied, and his answer is distinctly inn
pressed upon deponcnts mind, that there was NOR
and that it was too delicate subject TO be referred
to-. HEN. G. MURPHY.
Sworn before me, March I'd, 1882.
JoHN DIKEMaN, First Judge &c. Of KINGS Co
In an editorial article of the 9TH of Febr,orv
which called forth the bullying Card" oftbe Homo
robte Senators Poindexter and Moore and for which
Clement commenced suit for libel we held the
following language at was subsequently discov
mi tlnI 81.