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

The following papers have been placed in hands
by the Hon. Mr.. Wise, with request TO give them
place in columns:
WAsHISoTos, Feb. -, 1899.
Dear Sir: John Quincy Adams having lately declared
in his place in the House Of Representatives, that he
anever did believe but what the guilty man in
your duel with Mr.. C,lley," and that the man who
pulled The trigger was but instrument in my hands;
and an article in the "Weeky Courier and New York
Enquirer, edited BIZ James Watson Webb, Of the 18th
inst" having charged me and my "asSocsetes with
decering Mr. Clay as 10 the time OF your meeting; and
having cha rged, also that the place of your meeting
rhGnged at suggestion, and that but for such de-
cep,ion Of Mr.. Clay, no hostile meeting could have
taken place between you and Mr. Ciiley at all had
prepared the suloincd statement TO BE- submitted 10
you Tor confirmation correction.
Your letter in this mornings lnielligencer, dated
Louisville, Kentucky, February IT, 1912, addressed TO
The Honorable Henry Clay, compels 10 submit
my statement TO you through the public print which
contains your letter.
This do First, That suspicion may rest upon
me least of getting such answers as want before
publishing them. Secondly, to correct your own let
ier Thirdly, to correct the misrepresentation of Jas.
Watson Webb in the Courier and Enquirer. And,
fourthly to vindcate myself forever from the impnta-
ton that nstgn;ed you either 10 challenge or 10
fight Mr. Cilley:
In the first place, your letter is inaccurate in this, to
wit
lst You say: "From the commencement Of the diff
fcultv between Mr.. Cilley and myself, np 10 tie time
CNHHtHnt,
toned it you (hr Cay) ''or any other colleague or
friend, except Mr.. Menefre and Mr.. Wise Tins you
state as your recollection merely. Now, beg 10 re-
fresh your recollection little
In your statement before the select committee OF the
House of Representatives the duel you first dcscrb-
ed the verbal interview between you and Col. Webb,
when he requested YOU TO bear his note you then de-
scribed the interview between you and MIR Ciley,
when he declined receive the note Of Col Webb, and
assigned his reasons for so doing. You add: "Then
consulted friends" They agreed with you that Mr..
Cilley reasons satisfactory. You then saw Mr..
Cilley again. and you say awe went behind the Speak
ers chair, and remarked 10 him that, on consolation
1eith friends" &c. you happy 10 inform him that
h reasons were deemed satisfactory 10 relieve
you from all responsibility lie expressed his pleasure
Mt the information, and yon say: q" then remarked, as
he and had been alone in all our interviews, II 7eas
desirable that he should reduce TO 'crRg the reasons
thus assigned for declining TO receive the commun!ca-
ton.
Mark that this happened of course, before you wrote
your first letter to him. Now, ask you Who ad-
vsed YOU "at he should reduce to 'crng the reasons
thus assigned for declining TO receive the communlca-
tom"
Whoever It was il certainly noti for as state
below, insisted that you should noi require Mr.. Cey
10 put his critag IL could not have been
Mr. Menefee alone, for he alone was not yrtends ::
never heard him say, you say that he gave such adj
vice When debating with you, as did pontedy,
whether that your proper course and whist urging
YOU simply TO in letter TO Col. Webb what Mr..
il he chose, you never quoted any other authority
against my opinion but that of MIR. Clay, with whom
you informed you advised on that ana on other
points, and whose advice you followed in preference to
mine. About this cannot be at fault because it was
matter Of such argument well as statement as to be
indelibly impressed upon my memory and informed
others of the fact we'll myself and there is other
evidence Of the fact al your friends concurred that
Mr.. Ciey's reasons were satisfactory but Mr. Clay
and myself were divided in opinion
A yhath Won lould Mr Icy Ia
reduce his verbal reply to you, assigning his
for declining 10 receive Webb's note, 10 1cruing.
2dv We, in your presence, differed as TO the form
of the challenge and 10 the true issue OF your con-
troversy.
3dly. We differed, consulting togetier at his room,
whether the "unusua and Objectionable terms should be
accepted
One of these points at the rery beginning Of the
correspondence-the other two were at and immediately
after the challenge.
Aqain YOU saw 81 do not recollect naming the sub.
iect 10 YOU" (Mr Clay 'until the morning before the
meeting" FRIDAY morning, the esd "when called
a, your room, think in company with Mr. Wise, and
exhibited TO you the correspondence and perhaps de-
tailed 10 you the circumstances Of the affair.
was in company with yon. You had expressly
taken me TO Mr. Clay's TO hear his opinions and
views for myself which lie had before expressed TO you
when was not with you. Thus taken by you to note
his advice and counsel, did note It, and never can
forget it, You exhibited 10 HIM q mean on Friday
morning. The 2d OF February, lcS, the day before the
due none Of the correspondence, erctp the challenge
Won had drawn. II obvious that he had seen and
known all the preceding correspondence beforehand.
You did not detail the circumstances of thu affair for
there was no necessity for that either. He already
Knew all, and entered directly and familary into
versation upon the main points, as fully known TO him
from the beginning. What IS has recollection on that
pon' Does he not recoect that he 'cas informed be-
fore that morning.: His recollection might, possibly,
aid yours and mine both very much
When you saw Mr.. Clay again, "abont nine o'eioeh
of the night preceding The meeting, and. az you say
had ga moments conversation with him, ain which
YOU made known to him your 'cant Of sill m he use 81
then fully know, and he not shown, the aor'!en
terms prescribed by Gen JONES' the second OF Mr. Gil
10y, Did he not advise their adoption, as state
in the relation Of facts hereto appended
Ia the second place As far as YOU know or believe