Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1842-03-05

4 la al
Is ,J ,rv.alt tbc nex, day u, IL o'clock: Dad they
no, in Their last line prescribe tia. time was 10 De gwen
vou n nroeurc rile: Was the time delayed longer
than was necessary for that purpose, 70 procure your
r;ae md ret i, ready for the field: Did not MI Clay
hoard in he same house with you? Had he not every
means of knowing your movements anu 'iose " 5N
associates on the day Of the meeting
In the third place desire you to read .he su'loh
cd s,n,ereo carefully and aten,vely, and to conhrm
= e erect. ar 10 correct IL if inaccurate in single
material PARTICULAR A., j.. J.. .al
LODI N al, nm you after the lapse OF so long tune, us
witness in nv behalf. But tisne cannot materially I'M.
mir the facts in the The committee on the daei
fortunately for all concerned has III It's report peseleu
nh The landmarks of recollection and many oil the de-
,a;, n minnie statement Of the affair There is other
EVIDENCE written and oral, on the subject and WIZ DC
hard c,r any of US 20 now, except by negligence
IN no. rsferrpu 10 the sources Of refreshing rccolcc
ton have been sufferer ~ reputation ~ e cna,ge
Of being the t o. Hr, nr to- 10 Va" a.
Il, ,o "a No gross Nasee which has been
SSoI .kofc& = party press, from political mo
ns zn1 Va hut also by other causes, most
s For e Gs" jonss and a"s
mvslc w;rc potA d5ie injustice by our JOINT statement
Necessarily 50, because 1t tcns join Neither party
could shte irliy what lie separately knew for, as The
names of bot mad to he signed, the hno'cidSc o. ooM
onIv could be vouched lie could not vouch Tor wha,
knew apart from HIM. could veuch for what lac
knew separaelv from me. That JOINT statement, ne
cessasv thus stripped Of all mitigating circumstances
10 the second, made the first impression. we nave
more or less labored under II ever since
Afterwards kou know The influences and causes
winch prevent II the statements Of witnesses before
the committee Nm Aeing full as 10 the pariicu-
lars now invol IN the inqnry-who were the pr
ya,e advisers d the parties: Tha, class Of questions
was excluded : the committee its journal iuly
and repeatedly vows. The witnesses were confined
to the narrnw ne Of the breoc Of Prtrdege and the
causes of the iih Of menber, and were not per-
United state nEy exiraneous matter regarded my
self as rather allowed 10 confess touching my own part
in the affair, than 10 TESTIFY witness to all Knew
touching incidental facts No felt called on to
state more than what occurred publicly, and what IN
yolved the known actors in the scene Ana no one let
at liberty bound al the ne 10 state the names or the
advice Of all the private friends who knew Of the matter
and who we're consulted about it. alr. Clay friends,
particularly very ANXIOUS for obvious reasons, not
to involve his name especially in The affair Thus many
confidential facts remained unknown on both SIDES
Nh Clay himself it is true whilst all his irenes were
trembling lest the part he took IN should be a's'
closed boldly came 10 me and said "Slr Il is nine
days' bubble If they want 10 know what did in the
matter tell them 10 call before them, and Will tell
them" This excited my admiration at the time, ana
was etecual to prevent me from unnecessarily BRING
inc his name before the committee. II was not my
wish that he should he called, and lie was not called.
feared responsibility as little he did. blame him
not for the part he took in the otlir. censurc no one
in the matter. think only that the time Is come when
| should be relieved from the burden OF all odlum,
which does not properly attach to my conduct IN The
duel | wish only The wh0ic trRH stated, and upon
that tcH rein for mn licncc Richard Ii. Meneee,
sincerely lament is dead. His memory, too, demands
the ,rhoc truth aud the part he bore shall never want
defender in me. His testimony yet survives, in the
mos, authentic form, and would not take for 1t count
less thousands.
beg YOU 10 answer me at yoa! earliest convenience
Yours very truly.
w. J. GRAVES, Esq, HENRY A. WISE.
Louisville, Kentucky
STATEMENT.
At the lime of your duel with Mr. Ciley had been in
innate with you for years. and was under obligations to
You for friendship 10 in personal difficulty which
had before then occurred But with James Watson
Webb at the time You carried his letter 10 Mr. Cilley
had no personal acquaintance whatever, and had
never communicated correspondent with him, direct
" or indirectly, in my life. did not know that you
were acquainted with him until you Informed me you
had borne his letter.
That letter is dated The 2st and should be dated the
goth of February, lcs; your first letter to Mr.. Gil
lev was enormously dated on the Goth, MS it writ
ten in consequence Of the refusal by him TO receive
Webbs The 10Th OF February, think, was the date
was Tuesdag Of the week. The duel was on the
ccedins Saturday, the Gath Feb, 1888
These points Of time fixed, proceed to state, en-
phatcay, that was wholly ignorant, and uniformed
by you by any other person. that you intended to
bear or that Webb intended 10 send the 10Th or 2ls
day of February, 1888 any other day, letter 10
Mi Cilley or any body else, any subject whatever
that YOU never conferred with OIL the subject until
after you had borne the letter, and until after you had
held verbal interview with MIR. Cliey concerning
il; and that then, 10 wit, on The evening OF Wednes
day. the 2st Of February, ISIS, you, for The first time,
gave me the first ntmaon that you had borne such
letter from Webb 10 CIlley. That then, Wednes
day. the 2lst, you called me out OF the Hall of Re-
presen,atves and related 10 me the following facts
TO wit: /" You said that you had borne letter for
Colonel Webb calling on MIR. C,ley tor explanation
of remarks made by him in the House on the 18th of
February You did not then show me the letter. and
you never showed il to M. until the 10Th OF Febru
ary after the duel, aud after the committee raised
by the House 10 inquire INTO the causes p The duel
called on for il, when you furnished IL 10 me- and
handed it to the committee, with endorsement to
that effect ! relied on Your description ri 1t at the
time of this frs, interview, when you further told
me that Mr.. Cey had refused TO receive it at your
hands. | Immediately rebuked you for bearing such
letter from Col. Webb and asked bow you 10 do
so for him. You replied that he had been very kind
and hospable you during your then late visit to the
North and that you ignorant that the act would
involve you in any responsibility, not being conversan
| in such matters. You said that when you presented
the letter Mr.. Cilley lie declined To receive it, and
said that che hoped his declining would be thought
dsrespcctul to you; that he could not consent be
involved III personal difficulties with conductors Of pub
lie journals Tor what he had thought proper TO say in
debate the floor Of the House and that lie did
decline upon any personal objections 10 Col. Webb
as n gentleman. And you then asked me whether
thought this reason of Mr.. Clley satisfactory
answered that it sati:jartory that the
very proper, and Tia, no more could be asked.
You then inquired what ! thought the proper
course for you 10 pursue. advised yon 10 return Col
Webb note 10 him immediately, enclosed in letter
from YOURSELF stating wha, NJ. Clley had said you
and that YOU considered his verbal for
ceivng Colonel Webb's letter satisfactory. You sug
rescd that it was possible ar C,iley might deny what
you nigh, state 10 Col Webb. then advised You 10
send Mr., (illey a copy Of what yor might write 10 Col
Webb and that il would be time enough when he de.
MED it, If he did all, 10 take that consdera
ton. Such The Of my advice at our first in
terview. Whether you had consulted any one before
you consulted me, was not Informed; but you seemed