The Ohio Democrat. [volume] (Canal Dover, Ohio) 1840-1900, 1844-05-09
Hon. J. Cilley;
Your obedient servant,
w. J. GRAVES.

your oDedfent servant r..... +,
" - W.. GRAVES.
From a statement published by Messrs Wise and
Jones (he seconds) after the duel it appears that Mr.
Jones statedto Mr.. Wise (when Mr.. Cilley accepted
the chalange) that he twas authorizedby Mr.. Cilley
to say, that in declining 10 receive the note from Mr.
Graves purporting to be from COL Webb, he meant no
disrepect Mr. Graves because he entertained for him
then, as he does now the highest respect and the most
kind feelings but that he declined receive the note be-
cause he chose not to be drawn into any controversy
with Col Webb"
Yet afterths second disavowal of any disrepect to
Mr. Graves was this duel pushed under the advice Of
Mr.. Clay, to fatal termination
But this was not The last Of MIR Clay's agency He
was duly informed the acceptance of the challenge
written by him. and ofthe arrangement to fight with the
he deadly rifle. In the same letter he says: ...- r
"My belief is that never saw the terms according
to which the combat was to be conducted prior to tho
del although think they arcre stated and eupainedo
me, probably By yOu." (Mr. Wise) .7f,,
That he was in possession OF all the particulars. is
proved by the statements Of Charles King and Reyerdy
Johnson, Esqrs. published by Mr.. Clay himself, in
which the former says, Mr.. Clay showed them the pa
pers but the latter says: cat neither interview were we
shown the written challenge and acceptance the terms
Of the duel but had them explained to us only by Mr.
Clay"
By Mr. Clays own evidence, therefore, it appears,
that HE advised the written correspondence which led TO
the duel that HE drew the challenge and that HE knew
the terms on which they were to fight
Maxwell, when he knew thai the parties had ar
ranged to commit mtuasmuvde did he not invoke the
power ofthe law to prevent itl .......
DeGSo far from, that he directly refused to do sol
In the letter already referred Mr.. Clay says-"Be-
ing the friend of Mr. Graves could not invoke the a-
thority of the police tn prevent the duel"
His friends Messrs. Charles King and Reverdy John
son, concur in stating that on their urgent appeal to
Mr. Clay aid in aresting the duel Mr. Clay replied
in substance, 'that we saw how ne was situated Mr..
Graves had consulted him. He ought moi, he said, to
have been consued but having been the honor of his
friend who was the challenger might be compromised
by any advance on his Mr Clays) part to arrest the
progress of the affair.""
These gentlemen found Mr. Graves with nm. Clayon
that occasion being pas; six O'Clock in the evening"
and early the next morning the awful murder was con-
summated almost in sight ofthe Capitol e
Mr. Clay says he did not expect the duel to befought
the next day, because Mr.. Graves had not at that time
procured rifle; but Mr.. Clay scolleague from Kentuc
ky in the Senate and one Of his particular friends in the
House. borrowed one about tuelDe o'clock al might with
which the fatal deed was consummated in the morning
Mr.. Wise who was Mr.. Graves second, has always
declared that the Duel was caused by Mr.. Clays adj
vice which differed from his own and Mr.. Clay says in
his letters .... tr
"I admit aoitOnt amy reservation aeaateter, that all
The points Of tie controversy respecting sohch he (ratss)
asked my opion Igave to him. trel according to The
best of my Judgement" ..5....a
1t thus appears;-- ....,sr.
That Mr.. Clay helped to concert the murder. And
That when the plan was all complete he refused to aid
in arreSting 1t.
Doesnot the blood Of Cil!ey rest on Mr. Ciays head
MIN-But Mr.. Graves was Mr. Clay's friend, and
he says he was bound to give his advice when asked
DEA. That may be; but can any man lawfully adj
wise his friend to commit murder2 Can any man,
knowing that murder was in contemplation, acduit
himself Of his duty to God and without taking ef
fcient steps to prevent t7 With Mr.. Clay this was
not can affair of feeling" like his DueI with Randolph.
He at least could "reason' inthis case.
MINIS your case fully sated2
DEA--No; have one point more. The Constitution
of the United States says: glr
"For any speech or debate in either house. they (fe
members of Congress) shah moi be questioned in any
other place" ,sas s,
When Henry Clay was appointed Secretary of Stats
in 1926 he took the following oath prescribed by law
in pursuance OF the Constitution: viz. ..s.s
az HENRY CLAY; do sOlemnlg sseGr that TsciH
support 0s Constitution of Tie United Ssstes
so HELP ME GOD"
Yetthe words for which he challenged and attempted
to kill John Randolph aUwc spoken in debate IN s Se'
ate ofae United States IfMf Clay hadbeen private
citizen this challenge would have been violation ot
the constitatioh being Secretary of State and Under
oath to support that instrument, it was not only yo-
lation the constitution but his SWORN COVE