The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1838-09-19
Hon. J. G. CALHOUN.
FoRT HILL, Sept. 3, 1888.

FoRr HILL, Sept ., 1888.
Sir received, yesterday, your note of the 3Oth
August.
| You commence by giving your understanding Of the
occurrence Tuesday last to which your note refers,
before you ask the questions TO which you desire
answer; and shall follow your example by giving mine
| before ! answer.
After presenting my views to the audience against
the union OF the Government and the banks, proceed
ed to reply TO the objections which had heard alleged
from various quarters against the separation and,
among others, that the proposition to separate had orr
ginaed with Col Benton, and what is called
of his humbugs. This directly contradcted, and
serted to be untrue stating the time the facts
on which rested my assertion. This, in your reply,
understand you positively denied and asserted,
that in spite Of all that had been said he the author
Of the proposition; and in proof read proposition
that Col Benton made in the Senate in 1885, for tho
separation II was then | requested you to give way,
when asked you if you did know that Gen. Gordon,
of Virginia, had made proposition in the House OF
Representatives for the separation in 1884 two years
before Col. Benton had made his; and that Condy
Racquet had suggested it before Gen Gordon had made
his proposition and that had at a still earlier period,
declared in my place the Senate, that if else
moved the separation, would. To each Of these ques
TONS you answered yes, in succession propounded
them on which drew the inference / did, aud which
irresis,bly followed under the impression made it
that Is with the knowledge of these facts you had
serted that Col Benton the first to propose it, in
other words that the proposition to separate the Co
Vetnmeht from the banks, originated win hiW Dut
now understand from your note, that in this was mis-
TAKEN and that instead Of the broad assertion supposed
you made the more narrow one, that the demand Of
the public dues in gold and silver had been first pre-
scented to Congress- a distinct and specific PROPOSE
tion by Col Benton"
II is not at all necessary in reference to the point
between US, TO inquire what precise meaning you in
tended to attach to these words whether you are not
mistaken, when taken in their most restricted
sense 1t is sufficient to say, that the inference drew
and hp Tn xxhic on
the supposon that you had directly contradicted in
unqualified terms my assertion, that the proposition for
the separation had not originated with Col Benton, and
Of course the expression applicable to the
restricted proposition, which now understand you had
used
Respectfully, J, c. CALHOUN.
Hon W. THOMPSON
The above letter of Mr. Calhoun, disclaimng the
application Of his offensive expressions to the pro-
position he understands me 10 have used il"
puts an end 10 the controversy between us, SO far
as it was of personal character Ii is due TO my
self, however, TO say, that the language recied in
my letter to Mr. Calhoun was verbatim the Ian
guage which used, and if otherwise understood at
:, first by Mr.. Calhoun, 1t explained by me at
the time, and Mr.. Calhoun then replied to that ex-
planation-withholdin however, then, that expla-
nation of his own language, which he now pro-
perly makes. was discussing separately the two
great features of the Subtreasury Bill and whilst
remarking upon the feature demanding gold and sill
yer only for government dues said that ii had first
been submitted to Congress a separate and dis
tinct proposition by Col. Benton in 1886; and on
being interrupted by Mr.. c.. ! also stated that Gen.
Gordon had submitted it before, but in connection
with another feature-ihe place and mode of keep
ing the public revenue-but that the distinct and iso
lated question of the rejection OF Bank notes for
government dues, was FIRST presented by Col. Ben
ton in proof of which read the following act, in
troduced by Col. Benton in June, 1886:
BE ii enacted, &C., that bank notes and paper
currency of every description shall cease TO be re-
ceived or offered in payment on account of the U.
S. or OF the Post Office, or in fees in the Courts of
the U. s., as follows OF less denomination than
$50 none after the third day of March, 1882 Of
less denomination than $780, none after the Sd day
of March, 1910, OF less denomination than 81 900,
none after the Sd day of March, lSil, and none Of
any denomination from and after the Sd day OF March,
1912"
did not suppose that Mi Calhoun could have
understood me as conradcting his statement, as to
Gen. Gordons measure, in any offensive sense as
questioning his veracity, or he would not have re-
piled by retort Of the insult / very well know
that Gen. Gordon had introduced his measure in
February, 1885, and not in 1854, as Mr.. Calhoun
states II. | repeat then, in the very words which |
uttered al the Barbecue, without retracon or modif-
cation that the proposition to receive gold and sill
yer only in payment of public dues distinct and
specific proposition was first made by Cot. Benton.
Mr. Calhoun understood me otherwise regret il,
an unpleasant difficulty grew out OF this mscon-
cepton.
have deemed il my duty 10 make this full state
ment, as IL has been sedulously reported that had
retracted what | said on that occasion. have re-
Iacted no single fact that stated; and may add,
that in all that have said or written on this and