The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1838-05-01

II Ito give you a general idea OF the line oil de-
e fence adopted in answer to the stern de-
i mand made by the moral sense and public
ltice of society, to account for the blood o
d the murdered CIlley. 1t is, substantially
y that the duel was fought and prosecuted on
' The point of Uerdcity, and not on the char
. scer of james Wntson Webb. That it was
= because Mr.. Cilley in his first written state
2 ment changed the ground on which, in his
personal interview with Graves, he had re-
. fused to receive Webb's note, thus impeach-
ing by implication the veracity of The latter.
This is the point on which the defence
wholly rests. II is of course a rUtHal
abandonment Of all hope of successful in
, dcaion of the other ground, namely,
: Webb's character and Mr.. Graves's respon-
sibility to protect it as a friend and endorser
No portion Of the arguments of the parties
) of the challenging side land you may read
; lily conceive that they are woven with all
the subtle ingenuity that sophislry, reduced
to desperate extremity, can EXERT is directed
to justify the proprlety, even on the prlnci-
Piles of 81 the code of honor" of the chal-
lenge aud deadly prosecution ,of it on that
latter ground. 1t is rested on the point Of
veraclty, and on that alone. This defence
is an utter, total, and overwhelming failure.
The committee do not affect even to treat
it with any respect, and show fully that
they consider it "A faIsehood and an after
thought Their report places the question
in slight luce clarion. The duel was be-
gun, continued, and ended, on the ground
of Webb's character, and Graves RESPONSE
bility for it, and on no other. The fact was,
unquestionably, that Clley in his personal
interviews did net dream of declining on
the ground of privilege, but " because he
chose TO be drawn into no controversy with
Webb" Saying nothing, good or bad, of
his character, he simply declined without
statement of any reason, protesting only his
personal respect and good feeling towards
Graves. He probably may have made an
allusion in conversation to his privilege but
that his refusal was not rested on that
ground, and that it was no. understood as
being rested on that ground, admits of no
doubt, Notwithstanding that Mr.. Graves
may have made some such representations,
to justify in some sort the challenge. The
evidence on this point may be thus briefly
summed up:
l. Mr.. Ciley, when he goes to consult
his confidential friend, Instantly nfer his
first interview with Graves, explicitly in
forms him that hc declared 10 receive the
note, and declined to give any reason; aud |
throughout, up to the last moment, repeats
the snme version distinctly to all his friends. |
lie goes back to the second interview from
this consultation with his friend, Mr.. Pierce,
lofthe Senate, confirmed by his advice to
maintain the same ground.
| 2. On the receipt Of Graves's first note,
| Mr.. Cilley Immediately takes exception
TO if, in his consultations with his friend,
ns debating to him ground of refusal
which was not that which he had adopted
adding " that he should not be forced to
place his refusal 20 accept, either on the
ground of privilege, or that J. w. Webb
was or was not gentleman, though n bat
terry Of artillery were arrayed before him"
3. Not the slightest alusion ls made, in
any portion Of the correspondence, to that
idea of change of ground, or veracity. On
the contrary, the other ground appears,
unequvocaly throughout, on the whole
face of the correspondence, and especially
on the face of the challenge itself
A. The fact that there was no disclaimer
of personal exception of Webb, and that
the ground of privilege was not assumed,
is proved by the one single fact of Graves
saying that it might impose an unpleasant
responsibility on him, and of Cilley's dsa-
vowal Of disrespect to Graves himself
5. The version of the affair given by I
Graves himself to his own surgeon, Dr. t
Fol;z, of the Navy, on the way to the field, t
was in these terms. as given by DR.. Foltz,
who committed his notes 10 writing imme- |
diately on his return: /" that he had been |
the bearer of note from Col. Webb to MIR. /
Cilley, inquiring if his speech had been +,
correctly reported in the Globe. Mr.. c.. {
refused to receive the note, aud declined t
giving his reasons, which implicated me, Y
in consequence of which challenged him c
but have no personal aiimosity towards q
him." v
q. Not the sighted allusion is made on t
he field to this idea of veracity, or to any @
change of ground. The following ques- 4
ion was addressed to Mr.. Bynum by Mr.. Il
Jones, and thus answered Il
Did you ever hear from Mr.. Cilley or a
any of his friends before going on the field, -,
Or from Mr.. Graves or any of his friends,
Or either of the parties after their arrival b
here, that there was any discrepancy be- C
tween MIR. Cilley's private conversations t
with MIR. Graves, and his (Mr. Cilley's) n
written notes to Mr.. Graves IN
4" Answer.-I never did hear any thing !
of it intimated 10y any one of the parties, @
either before going on the field, or while ,
there"
And similar testimony is borne explicitly |
by all Cilley's friends, and by DIR. Fol,z. I
Mr.. Wise only thinks he mentioned it, but !
pW not be positire.'-The difference be- d
tween them is constantly referred to us $
mere point of honor Ia the first state $
ment OF the two seconds, MIR. Jones recol- C