The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-03-08
TO THE PUBLIC.

insupportable odium fell upon my reputation ior my
conduct in the affair. The world knows WIN whs'
rancor of malice, If not with what ingenuity Oh Iae
hood, was assailed. not only justly ernllia,
ted with the offence of sling but most unJusty ana
cruelty charged far beyond that onence D.
A committee was appointed by the House Oh re
representatives. h investigate the question oil preach
of privilege involved in the dea of one OF its mem
hers and made its examination and reported the re-
suit AT first awaited a formal trial before the
House for full opportunity OF defence That OPP
portunty never was afforded The House, after
months Of discussion which served only to afford ma
lice its privilege of persecution contrary to my most
earnest remonstrances, laid the whole subject the
table forever In the investigation and the discus
of the duel by others, my conduct had been laid
bare, without explanation and without the deiences
which open trial before the House would have
thrown around it,
Denied trial, was left to time and the certain
trumphs of truth. Fearless though not regardless, OF
public sentiment, was willing to abide the UNJUST
censure which had thickened around my name until
the moment of my vindication should come. And
determined that moment should be-whenever re-
sponsible person. in tangible shape should venture
TO make the accusation, which had been intangioly
and irresponsibly made by anonymous PuDhca-
tons These last determined never to notice IN any
shape.
hut in the mean time however, from the fatal day
of the duel to this time, whenever my friends, and
especially any Of my confdng constituents, who ne
YER doubted, even whilst all the rest Of the world
seemed to condemn me-when those who had the
right to know inquired of concerning the partcu-
lars Of the duel which constituted my defence, ne
yer hestated to inform them. There were many
points on which they wanted to know the reasons OF
my conduct. For example
lst Why did Mr.. Graves at first require Of Mr..
Ciley TO put his verbal for declining to re-
ceVe Webs note in writing
ID. Why was the point Of reraeity not alleged IN
the challenge as its cause?
3D. And was that point made on the ground
These two last queries were, as its journal VIII
show reiterated by the Committee OF investigation
4th Why were such unusual terms as were pro-
posed accepted?
: was continually compelled to answer such inqui-
ries these and frequently compelled TO discuss the
points they involved. invariably answered the first
of these questions by saying that had differed with
Mr.. Graves the point of requiring Mr.. Ciley to
reduce his reasons Or reply writing but that he was
fortified in his opinion on that point by the better
counsel of Mr.. Clay. Again In answer to the Sc
cond and third questions, | said thai. Mr.. Clay drew
the form of The challenge with his own hand and
put the point Of punetiio, which he consid-
cred easier settled Than the of reracfyi that for
The the latter point though often men,
toned not pressed upon the ground and that II
was not the subject Of adjustment upon the ground
because 1t was not the point put IN the challenge
And In answer to the fourth said that opposed,
but that Mr.. Clay approved Of the adoption of the
terms, Tor the reasons have already published. 10
defence of the pursued by Mr.. Graves never
failed quote the authority of the advice OF his friend
Mr. Clay; IN defence of my own course on the
ground quoted the authority of Messrs Cntenden
and Meneiee. This have done in more than
hundred instances in the last four years and many
times of late dare say that Mr.. Graves may have
done the same thing / aude to these particulars to
show how ht,e imagined that | was not al liberty
to use in defence both Of Mr. Graves and myself an
authority hign that Of Mr.. Clay never dreamed
that was doing any thing Improper in this, though
careful at all times not unnecessarily to involve
his name. At the tine first did so, and years after
| was the devoted admiIer and friend of Mr. Clay,
and would have made any honorable sacrifice to make
him the President Of the United States. always
found his authority, particularly among his political
friends TO prevail IN my defence when used in pr-
yate and il was alwaysa qualification to know that
it would be equally avaiing when it became necessa
~ to in pubic not only to refute the charge that
insgated the duel, but to prove that was not the
controlling adviser of MIR. Graves
l always, indeed, intended TO appeal to Mr.. Clay,
the proper time, and was confident that he would
not hesitate to obey respectful summons nor fail to
the world OF the truth In no hostile sp mt did
ever mention his part in the affair but, the con-
l.ary looked with confident satisfaction to him as q
witness Of such high character that his mere pord,
when spoken, would dispel the cloud OF caupny
from around my name. Thus, then, was divuged u
many, private, the palt which Mr. Clay had in this
duel, Never divuged by me to impute for moment
to him the base conduct Of instgang or causing the
duel; not to inculpate him even in giving wrong adj
vice to MI. Graves; but simply to satisfy my friends
that Mr.. Graves had higher counsel than nine to
rendered voluntarily, shows that the very morn.
ing after the duel this the spirit Of my informa
tion then to him.
Except as have thus described | have never quoted
Mr. Clay name in come xion with the affair Indeed
| have ever repealed the idea that he any else
inslgated Mr. Graves to the challenge and, lest it
might injute Mr. Clay in the least, have purposely
abstained from publishing that he advised in the mat
tel all and published The fact until lately,
when the moment, thought, had arrived which I'M
on el-uet tO a
lie appeal 10 him as a witness in my behalf.
For nearly four years had been waiting for that
moment. At the extra session of Congress- in the
spring of lS4l, John q. Adams made a most brutal
and unproNoked attack upon me for the part bore
that duel. The nation was witness OF my for
bearance at that time. Again at this session, IN the
debate upon Mr. MarshalIs resolution to censure him
for presenting petition to dissolve the Union he re-
newed his attack with redoubed violence and ven
geance. Tie distinctly charged in his place that was
a murderer, more guilty Of the blood of Mr.. Cilley,
than the man who pulled the trigger" AT the mo-
nent he uterlng this false accusation, under the
pIetext of citing legislative precedent in his own
case, there, Immediately behind him, in range with
my eye, sat the witness, who, above all men, was the
to prove my innocence TO the very accuser him
self! There sat Mr.. Clay, who knew the accusation
was false and there stood John Quincy Adams max
ing it, and attemI ting to make the world believe It
was true! Mr.. Adams had been the President of the
United States; Mr.. Clay had been his chosen Secre-
tary Of State Mr. Adams hoary with honors
with aye his character was 50 high that 1t had be-
come national property, and his word likely TO
become history. No less n witness than the man be-
hind him. hearing him. could make up the fearful odds
against the accused But that witness, his own trust
ed and tried rend-one great, if not far greater
than himself-one who could balance word against
word, and give proof against assertion one whose
fame was part Of the accuser's own hislory-was
there. word from him would silence the accuser
io1ever; ny, perhaps cause even him to retract the
accusation. True, that then and there that witness
could not speak, but elsewhere he might speak, or
write If not 10 the pubic prints, to his old friend he
rdshi drop line saying oay: f" You are wrong,
know it, and you have wronged an innocent man by
charging hun with what no man guilty. advised
In he duel OF Graves and Cilley, and know that
caused OF nstgoted the former to challenge OF
4, fJnt The latter than this ,nord- h nj