The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-03-01

lege and the causes Of the death Of member, and
were not permitted 10 state any extraneous matter
regarded myself rather allowed TO confess, touch
ing my own part in the affair, than 10 testify wit
ness 10 all knew touching incidental facts. No one
felt called on TO state more than what occurred pub
liely, and what involved the known actors in the
scene And no one felt at liberty, or bound, at the
time to state the names the advice of all the pri-
vate friends who knew of the matter and who were
consulted about it. MIR. Cays friends, particularly,
were very anxious for obvious reasons, not to IN
yolve his name, especially, in the affair Thus many
confidential facts remained unknown on both sides
MIR. Clay HIMSELF it is true, whilst all his friends
were trembling lest the part he took in It should be
disclosed, boldly came to me and said; Sir II Is a
nine days bubble If they want to know what did
in the matter tell them TO call me before them ana
/ will tell them" This excited my admiration AZ
the time, and efiectua to prevent me from unne
cessarily bringing his name before the committee IL
was not my wish that he should be called, and ne was
not called feared responsibility as little as he did
| blame him not for the part he TOOK IN 'he anar'
censIre no one in the matter thlnk only that the
| time is come when | should be relieved from the
burden of all odum which does not properly attach
| 10 NV conduct in the duel. | wish only the iohoie
truth stated and upon that ,oiu rely for my defence
| Richard ii. Menefee, sincerely lament, Is dead
| His memory too, demands the tchoe t,1ah-and the
testimony yet survives in the most authentic FORM
and would not take for it countless thousands.
| beg you to answer me at your earliest convent
ence
Yours very truly,
HENRY A. WISE.
w. j. GRAVES, Esq,
Louisville, Kentucky.
STATEMENT.
AT the time of your duel with Mr.. Ciley had
been intimate with you for years, and under obi-
cations to you for friendsh TO in personal diff
Guilty which had before then occurred But with
James Watson Webb, at the time you carried his let
| ter to Mr.. Cilley, had personal acquaintance
whatever and had never communicated corresponded
with him, directly or indirectly in my life did not
know that you acquainted with him until you
informed me you had borne his letter
That letter is dated the 2lst and should be dated
the 10th of February, 1888 your first letter to Mr.
Cilley was enormously dated on the 10th, as It was
written in consequences of the refusal BY him to re-
ceive Webbs The Goth of February, think, was
the date of the beginning of the correspondence, and
that day was Tuesday of the week. The duel was
on the succeeding Saturday, the oath OF February,
1888.
These points Of time fixed proceed to state, en-
phatcaly, that was wholly ignorant, and unin-
formed by you or by any other person, that you in
tended to bear that Webb intended 10 send, the
10Th or 2lst day of February, 1885, or on any other
day. letter to MI. Ciey, any body else on any
sucJtct tNat you never conferred Win NE
on the subject until after you had BONE the letter,
and until after you had held verbal interview with
MI. Cilley concerning it and that them to wit, on
the evening Of Wednesday, the Dist of February,
1885, you for the il ST time, gave me the first ntma.
ton that you had borne such letter from Webb TO
Cilley. That then, Wednesday, the 2lst you called
me out of the Hall of Representatives, and related to
the following facts to wit You said that you had
borne letter for Col Webb calling Mr.. Ciley for
explanation OF remarks made by him in the House
tha If Eahr a., Il th..x. oh,
the letter. and you showed 1t to me until the
26lh Of February, after the duel and after the com
mttee raised by the House to inquire into the
OF the duel called me for 1t, when you furnished
to Inc, and handed it TO the committee, with
dorsement to that effect. | relied your description
of il al the time of this first interview, when YOU
further told me that MIR. Cey had refused to receive
it at youI hands. | Immediately rebuked you for
bearing such letter from Col Webb, and asked how
YOU came TO do so for him You replied that
he had been very kind and hosplable to you during
your then late visit TO the North and that you were
ignorant that the act would involve you in any respon
slblity, not being conversant in such matters. You
said that when you presented the letter to MI Cilley
he declined to receive it, and said that she hoped his
declining would not be thought disespectful to YOU
that he could not consent TO be involved in personal
difficulties with conductors Of public journals for
what he had thought proper to say in debate the
floor of the House and that he did not decline upon
any personal objections to Col. Webb as gentle
man" And you then asked whether thought
this of Mr. Cilley was satisfactory an
swered that it satisfactory that the reasons
were very proper and that no more could be asked.
| You then inquired what thought was the proper
course for you to pursue advised you return Col
| Webb's note to him Immediately enclosed in letter
| from yourself, stating what Mr. Ciey had said to
you, and that you Considered his verbal for
not rec, living Col Webbs letter satisfactory. You
suggested that ii was possible Mr.. Ciey might deny
what you IN ght state to Col. Webb. | then advised
! you to send Mr.. Cilley copy Of what you might
write to Col. Webb, and that il would be time enough
when he denied it, if he did ALL to take that into
consideration. Such was the tenor of my advice to
you at our first interview. Whether you had con
suited any one before you consulted me- was not
normed but you seemed to think il best, to prevent
misunderstanding contradiction, to have Mr., Gil
leys answer in priting, and we parted | went back
| to the House, and you went know not where, but |
thought, 10 get written reply from Mr. Cilley. |
neither nor heard syllable Of the affair from you
or any body else afterwards until the next morning
You informed me on the morning of the I'D hay-
ing again called me out of my seat in the House, that
you had consulted with another friend, Mr. Clay, of
Kentucky and that he had advised you TO get Mr.Ci-
ley, in amicabe way if you could, to put what he
had to you in writing before you addressed Col.
| Webb; that he thought with that the of
Mr.. Ciey for declining 10 receive Col Webbs note
were satisfactory, but with you he concurred that it
best to have what he had said reduced to writing
and that you had, in pursuance OF this advice after
parting with me the day before, gone to MIR. Clllcy
In person. ana requested MIN, al firs orally, TO put
his reasons for not receiving the note in writing that
he at consented to do so, but afterwards had
quested you to write HIN note containing your
quest and that you had, accordingly, addressed him
note, and delivered it to him yourself, and he had
returned an answer; and you theieupon showed me
the two notes as follows, to wit:
! Mr.. Grares 10 Mr.. CiHey.
! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,,
FEBRUARY 10th, (2lst,) 1888
In the interview which | had with you this morn
ing, when you declined receiving from me the note of
Col. J. w. Webb, asking whether you correctly
reported in the Globe in what Won are there