The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-02-01
CORRESPONDENCE SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY-MR. Bolts.

CORRESP ONDENCE-S SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY-MR. Bolts.
We insert below correspondence between
Mr.. Wise and the Secretary of the Navy, il
relation TO the assertion so boldly made by Mr.
Bous the other day in the House. We though
denial of the charge, beyond that made by
Mr.. Wise uncalled for. None knowing Judge
Upshur will believe that he is an avowed advo-
cate of dissolution. None noticing the late
rossipping Paul Pry course of Mr.. Bolts, will
deem an assertion made by him worthy Of credit.
declaration by him is worthy only of contempt.
Bnt Mr.. Wise having undertaken to deny
,beasseverations Of Mr. Bolts, il became proper
selfin confirmation of the stand taken by Mr..
Wise. No hesitation can exist in deciding
whom 10 believe.
WASHINGTON, January 3lst, 1912
DEAR Sin:
request that you will publish the inclosed cores
pondence with no other object whatever than to re-
leye myself from the responsibility of denial which
assumed to make on the floor of the House Of Re-
p,esenatiyes in behalf of the Secretary OF the Navy
who it will be seen, now makes that denial his own.
Very respectfully,
HENRY A. WISE.
Tohe Editor Of the Madisoniaa.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January 18th, 1912.
In the debate, yesterday, in the Ho ise of Repre-
Al. - nloll.
Mr. Adams for contempt to the House, in presenting
petition to dissolve the Union of these States the
following remarks were made by my colleague, Mr.
Bolts, and by myself:
Mr. Boris $3.50 Talk about censurng the
gentleman from Massachusetts! Look at the other
end of this avenuei There they found standing
at the head of the right of the defence of this
tlon--he meant the Secretary of the Navy-who, the
last time he had had conversation with him on the
subject, was an open, avowed, undisguised advocate
of the immediate dissolution of the Union.
Mr.. WISE. deny it.
Mr. Boris What authority have you Do you
keep record of the conversations of the Secretary Of
the Navy
[Cries Of s'Order," 'order."1
Mr. WISE said he hoped his colleague would not
fly into flame. He did not mean to offend him but
to say this that he did not believe any author
ity from conversation, from reading, any other
source for saying that the present Secretary of the
Navy went for the unqualified dissolution of the
Union If he advanced this idea of dissolution,
he Mr. w y undertook to say now in his place, and
would risk his authority, that if he ayowed
such doctrine, it on qualifications, conditions
and reasons which the Secretary could defend.
Mr. BORIS said he had been induced, for some time
TO regard his colleague as the keeper of the
science of the King, but had not considered him the
keeper of the consciences OF all connected with the
King. Nor did he recognise his right to say what
~ fkA
of Mr.. Tyler's administration. He Mr. b. asserted
his responsibility that he had expressed such
an idea, He had talked with him for hours and
when the Secretary of the Navy denied it, he (Nlr.
b. would prove his statement. You tsad MIR. Is.
addressing himself to Mr. Wse) have no right to de-
ny it.
Such is the report of the lnteigencer of to-day,
and believe it is very accurate.
These remarks, you will see deeply involved you
personally and your sentiments and expressions on
most important and delicate subject, and were made
under most interesting circumstances, and in most
distinguished place to attract public attention And,
you will also that in the denial of the assertion
of Mr. Botts that you were, in your la rsation"
with him, can open, aro,oed unsguised advocate of
the immediate dissolution Of the Union,n assumed
serious responsibility. This responsibility | should
had you not been long my neighbor had you not been
until very lately my constituent; had not had every
opportunity, public and private, to know your opin-
ions and your mode of expressing them on the subject
referred oand had you not printed and published those
opinions under almost every form of address, essay,
pamphlet, and book. Indeed had MIR. Bots relied
your publications for his proof of the grave charge
he uttered the floor against you should have left
it to reference 10 those publications for its reutation
but he relied conversation" "for hours, by
YOU with him held when or where he did not say,
for the nature and character of which no reference
can be made that know of but to you OF him.
Therefore it was that undertook TO say that MIR.
Bolts must have been Mistaken and to affirm what
did, that you never could have advocated, openly
arolrsdly, and undisguisedly, the immediate dsou-
or contingency.
Will you please say in reply whether veniured to
assume too much in your behalf and whether did
you injustice in this denial which have made on my
own authority
Very truly, your friend
HENRY A. WISE
N. B. My intention is to publish this letter and
your reply.
Navy DEPARTMENT, Jan. %, 1912.
DEAR Sir l thank you for your communication of
yesterday relative TO the charge made against me, in
the House of Representatives, by Mr. Bolts and your
- r