The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1842-03-01

S<>N\ NAM
1eSO lie causes of the death of a member, and
were not permitted to state any extraneous matter
regarded myself rather allowed to confess touch
ing my own part IN the affair, than TO testify as wit
ness TO all knew touching incidental facts No one
felt called to state than what occurred pub
| licy, and what involved the known actors IN the
scene. And no felt at liberty, or bound at the
time, TO state the the advice Of all the pri-
vate friends who knew of the matter, and who were
consulted about it, MIR. Clays friends, particularly,
were very anxious for obvious reasons, not to IN
yolye his name, especially, IN the affair mus many
| confidential facts remained unknown on both sides
Mr.. Clay himself it is true, whilst all his friends
trembling lest the part he took in 1t should be
disclosed boldly came to me and said " Sir, II Is
nine days bubble If they want to know what did
in the matter tell them to call before them, and
| / will tell themn This excited my admiration at
the tme and was etectual TO prevent me from unne-
cessarily bringing his name before the committee II
was not my wish that he should be called and he was
not called. feared responsibility as little as he did.
blame him not for the part he took in the affair
censure no one in the matter. | think only that the
time is come when | should be relieved from the
burden of all odium which does not properly attach
| to my conduct in the duel. | wish only the aohole
truth stated, and upon that ,ciH rely for my defence.
Richard II. Menefee, sincerely lament, is dead.
His memory, too, demands the ichOte rrah-and the
part he bore shall never want defender in me. His
testimony yet survives in the most authentic form,
and would not take for it countless thousands
l 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.. Cilley | had
| been Intimate with and was under Obll-
cations to you for friendsh in personal diff
Guilty which had before then occurred. But with
James Watson Webb, at the time you carried his let
ter to Mr. Cllley, | had no personal acquaintance
whatever and had never communicated correspondent
with him, directly 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 2Ist, and should be dated
the 10th of February, 1888; your first letter to Mr.
Cilley was enormously dated on the Goth, it was
written in consequence of the refusal by him to re-
ceive Webb's. 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 Gath Of February
1888
These points of time fixed, proceed to state, en-
phatically, that l wholly ignorant, and unn
formed by you or by any other person. that you in
tended to bear, that Webb intended to send the
10Th or 2ls. day of February, 1888, any other
day, letter to MI Ciley, or any body else, any
subject whatever; that you never conferred with me
OF the subject until after you had borne the letter.
and until after you had held verbal interview with
Mr.. Ciey concerning it and that then, to wit on
the evening Of Wednesday, the 2Ist of February,
1888, you, for the il st time gave the first ntma
ton that you had borne such letter from Webb to
Ciley. That then, Wednesday, the 2lst you called
out of the Hall of Representatives and related to
me the following facts, to wit You said that you had
borne letter for Col. Webb calling on Mr.. Ciey for
explanation of remarks made by him in the House
the 18th Of February. You did not then show
he Ia far Vnn oh yUal To fha
10Th of February, after the duel and after the
mtee raised by the House to inquire into the
of the duel called on me for it, when you furnished it
to me, and handed it to the committee, with
dorsement to that effect. relied your description
of it at the time of this first interview when you
further told me that MIR. Cey had refused to receive
it at your hands. | Immediately rebuked you for
beaIing such letter from COL Webb and asked how
you to do SO for him. You replied that
he had been very kind and hosp,tabe to you during
your then late visit to the North, and that you were
gnoIa that the act would olive you in any respon
sibilty not being conversant in such matters. You
said that when you presented the letter MI. Cley
he declined to receive it, and said that she hoped his
declining would not be thought disrespectful to you;
that he could not consent 10 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 decline upon
any personal objections to Col. Webb as gentle
man" And you then asked whether | though,
this of Mr.. Ciley satisfactory. an
SWeIeu that IL UdS SULlS)ucIOTyS LnaL the reasons
were very proper, and that no more could be asked.
You then inquired what l thought was the proper
course for you to pursue. advised you to return Col
| Webbs note TO him Immediately, enclosed in letter
from YOURSELF stating what Nh Cllley had said to
you, and that you Considered his verbal for
not receiving Col. Webbs letter satisfactory. You
suggested that it possible MIR Cilley might deny
what you m ght state to Col. Webb l then advised
you to send Mr. Ciey copy of what you might
write to Col. Webb and that would be time enough
hnl - h,E Il A.
consideration. Such the of my advice to
you at our first interview. Whether you had
suited any one before you consulted me, was not
intormed but you seemed to think it BEST to prevent
misunderstanding contradiction, to have Mr. Gil
leys answer in lcriting, and we parted went back
to the House, and you went know not where, but,
thought, TO get written reply from Mr. Cilley.
neither saw 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 22d, hav-
ing again called me out of my in the House. that
you had consulted with another friend Mr.. Clay, of
Kentucky and that he had advised you get Gil
ley, In an amcable way if you could, to put what he
had to you in writing before you addressed Col.
Webb that he thought with me that the reasons of
Mr.. CIlley for declining to receive Col Webb's note
were satisfactory, but with you he concurred that it
was 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 Mr.. Cilley
IN person, and requested him. at first 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 h IN note containing your re-
quest; and that you had accordingly, addressed him
nole and delivered to him yourself, and he had
returned answer; aud you theieupon showed
the two notes as follows, to wit
| Mr. Grdres to Mr.. CiHey
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
FEBRUARY Goth, (2lst,) 1888
| In the interview which had with you this morn
| lnl when ueCIIneu u the no OF
Col. j. w Webb asking whether you correctly
rennrttd IN the Globe In What there renresen