Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1838-09-18

attributed TO you, and whether or not am ID regard
as Withdrawn or retracted.
Very respectfully,
Your obd't servant,
W. THOMPSON, Js.
Hon C. CALHOUN
FuRr Hut, Sept g, 1888.
Sr:-l yesterday received your mole of The 30.h Au.
You commence by giving your understanding OF The
occurrence Tuesday last 10 which your note refers
beure you ask the questions TO which you desire an an
swer; and shall follow your example OF giving mine
before answer.
Afer presenting my views to The audience against the
union of the Government and the Banks, proceeded to
reply 10 The objections which had heard alleged from
various quarter against the separation; and among others
that The proposition had originated with Col
BENTON and was, what is called one OF his humbugs
This directly con,radcted, and asserted 10 be untrue,
stating at the same time, the facts which rested my
assertion This in your reply, as understood you you
positively denied and asserted tina, in spite OF all tha,
had been said he the author OF The proPosi!ion md
in proof, read proposition that Col Benton made in
the Senate in 1896 for the separation. 1t was hcn re-
oueated you give way, when asked you, if you did
not know that Gen Gordon Of Virginia had made pro-
position in The House Of Representatives for the sepaa
lion in 1884, years before Col Benton had made his;
and thu, Condy Racquet had suggested before General
Gordon had made his proposition, and that had at
still earlier period declared in my place in the Senate,
that il no one else moved the SEPARATION would. To
eoch of these questions you answered yes succession
AZ propounded them which drew the inference
/ did and which rresstbly followed under the impres
sion | made it; that is, with the knowledge OF these
facts you had asserted that Col Benton was the hrst to
prpose it, or in other words that the proposition TO
patate the Cover nnen from the Banks originated with
him But now understand from your note, that in this
was mistaken and that instead of the broad assertion
supposed YOU made the one, "thai the de-
,nanS of the public dues in gold and silver had been r
presented in Congress- distinct and specific PROPOSE
ton, by Col Benton
IL is not al all necessary in reference 10 The point be
tvcen u.s. 10 inquire what precise meaning you intended
to attach these words, whether yo" not ista
ken, when taken even in their most restricted sense
Il is sufficient to say, that the inference drew and the
expression 10 which you object was drawn on the sup
position that you had directly conadrted in unqualified
terms nv assertion that the proposition for The separa
,ion had no, originated with Col Benton, and OF course
the expression is not applicable 10 the more restricted
proposition, which now understand you had used
Respectfully, =. CALHOUN.
Hon. w. THOMPSON.
The above letter Of MIR. Calhoun dsclaming the up.
pcaion Of his offensive expressions "to The proposition,
as he now understands to have used it,, puts end
tn the controversy between u.s. SO far as was ola person
al character is due to myself however, 10 soy that
the language recilcd in my letter to MIR Calhoun, was
verbatim the language which used, and if otherwise
understood first by Mr. Calhoun, it was SD explained
be the time and Mr. G. then replied to that expa
na,on-withholding, however, them that explanation
Of his own language, which he now properly makes
was discussing separately the two great features OF
the Sub Treasury bill, and whilst remarking upon the
feature demanding gold and silver only for Government
dues said that it had first been submitted TO Congress
as a separute and distinct proposition by Col Benton, in
1885, and, on being interrupted by MIR. c. also suited
that Gen Gordon had submitted beinre, but in conuex
lou with another fea,urethe place and mode OF keeping
.he public revenuc-but that the distinct and isolated
queson Of the election OF bank notes for Government
dues FIRST presented by Col Benton, in proof OF
which, read the following act, introduced by Col Ben
ton in June, 1856:
"Bs It enacted, &c, that bank notes and paper cur.
rrncy vf every description shall 10 be received
offered in yment account OF the w. States Of the
Post Office, in fees in the Courts of the u S fol
lows of less denomination than $50; none, after the Sd
day of March, 1885, of less denomination than $780,
none after the Sd day Of March, 1870 of less denomi
nation than 81 600; none, after the Sd day Of March
ISil and Of any denomination, from and after the
Sd day of March, 1912
did no, surpnse that Mr. Calhoun could have under.
stood NE con,radctiDg bis statement as to Gen Cor
don measure in any offensive sense, or as questioning
his veracy or he would not have replied by ptort Of
the insult | very we'll knew that Gen Gordon, ad in
Produced his in February, 1885, and not in 1884
as Mr. Calhoun states it, ] repeat then, in the very
words which uttered at the Barbecue, without rc,rac-
on modification, tina, the proposition 10 receive goc
and silver only in paynen, Of public Dues distinct
and sprcic proposition was first made by Col Benton
Mr.. Calhoun understood me otherwise regret il, az
al unpleasant difficulty grew out Of this misconcep
ton.
have deemed it my duty to make this full statement
rs il has been sedulousy reported that had reuncted
what said on that occasion have retaced no single
fact that stated; and may add that in all that have
said and written this and every other political ques
ton am not conscious Of any single mistake Of an i'm
por,ant fact might have gone farther and stated hat
/ supposed almost every man in the u s. knew, that
Col Benton was The author the first tosuggest this gold
and silver nolicy IF he not why has he been called
"humbuy Benion, hard money Benlon:" Why arc