Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1845-10-03


complerely fuses up the factous and impudent
writer, who seems 10 make use Of his position as
= ouos!.D Democrat, only 10 stab that raI'y in The
dark. Tie mask, however, is now torn away
end he Democrats will know how 10 treat him.
The Wings. 100. are Gu, off from their most val
liable material for attack, which they have drawn
from This so-caled but false champion of the De-
mocranc party Poor fellows. what will be
their game, ae1t
THE "KANE LETTER" AGAIN.
We did not suppose it possible thai, in any
event. the name OF Cyril " Grey could have 3p-
neared in the columns Of the "Union"-a Swiss
.cribblrr, first for BENEFITS Herald, which con-
neYion he was forced 10 cul and next as scrib-
bier for the "Charleslon Mercury" and, as We
shrewdy suspect, hircline correspondent al the
same lime for ]. w. Webb's Wing Courier
and man who has been utterly regardless OF the
decencies Of the public press But the following
communication reached us This day; and We have
determined, for once, and for once only, 10 stain
our columns with the productions OF his PEN
Here arc his communications:
Tohe Editor of the Union:
WASHINGTON CRY. Sept. o., 1645.
Sir: take leave 10 hand you the accompanying,
in reference TO my statement Of The authorship OF
the Kane letter, and reques, It's publication in The
columns of the Union. Should il not appear in
your paner Of this evening, shall conclude that
you have refused It's insertion.
; : : CYRIL v. GREY,
Correspondent Of the Charleston Mercury.
To The Editor Of Tic Union
WASHINGTON CRY, Sept D., ls45
Sir: In letter addressed by me 10 the Charles
Ton Mercury, | stated shat the celebrated Kane
letler, put forth BY Mr.. Polk, is understood 10
have been written BY The present Secretary OF The
Treasury In your paper Of the 18th instant,
were some remarks which did not consider a
denial Of The above statement; and in my letter ol
the 10Th instant, published in the Mercury of The
Oath, called for authoritative denial which
expected in your paper OF last night. You have
| moi given it, In your editorial OF the 10th inst
you pronounce my statement an "impndent hum
| bug table," which "t is unnecessary 10 contra
dict" and you characterize il, together with Other
consequential facts stated. (such as Mr.. Walker
eec,ionepring for Mr.. Polk as the ani-larif and
MIR. Buchanan advocating him as the true pro-
lection candidate rs Gables" and "absurdties. '
You conclude your remarks as follows:
"In making these remarks, il is not our desire
10 show any disrespect 10 The Baltimore Ameri-
can On the contrary, We frankly assure its
Editor that We would not pay any Editor, for
whom we feel less respect the complimen, oil
con,radicing such tables as he has coudcsccnded
10 endorse by his sanction. F'ab!es Mey are
gross sraiaitous, shameless Gbles; for We state upon
the best authority, that tie rhotc aatemc is faist
fran beginning 10 tad, 1cittOnt so'itara cream
stance Of any kind horerer remote, 10 base Il up
on. This is strong, unqualified language lha! we
employ; but we arc aware of lis power, and feel
authorized TO employ j! in all its force"
And in your paper Of the ED instant, yon say
further:
"The scrbbler who puts forth the other story
Of MIR. Walkers having written Mr.. Folks let
ter 10 MIR. Kane, also preends 10 say that we
have not directly conradiced his story. Why,
what DO the authors oil these statements expect Of
us2 Must we not only say that both these stale
menls are false-ihat they are idle, and conlemp-
tbe iabricalions; bnt we must add, that thy are
The shameless iabrcators Of absurd falsehoods ?
True, as The Tribune says, we are mot party in
the controversial bu, We make our statements
upon undoubted authority from those who are
the parties"
Now, sir if You mean 10 deny what said OF
Mr. Walkers and Mr.. Buchanan's course dnrins
the presidential election you call in question The
most notorious facts of that period-of which The
witnesses are innumerable-and you would lose
the power OF giving force TO any denial. But
am compelled 10 suppose (since you do not re-
spond 10 my call for an authorized denia that you
do mean to be understood as affirming, that the
statement iha, MIR Walker was The author of the
Kane letter lis false from beginning TO end, with
out solitary circumstance OF any kind, however
remote, 10 base il upon," and that you profess 10
make this denial upon the "best authority"
l did no, assert that Mr.. Walker wrote that let
ter; but the caution of my language was from no
want uffull conviction of the truth of what put
E,rih hau II / med
'ttc best autamiv," believing MY statement" 10
be true from beginning 10 end based in all its cir
cnmslances upon actual occurrences. have he
Stated some time bui al length have determined
to give you my authority. The Hon. Reverdy
Johnson, now United States senator from Mary
land, was informed by another senator, that MIR.
Walker himself had told him that he was The wri-
ter or author Of the Kane letter. Mr. johnson has
made no secret OF this information among friends
or even acquaintances; and doubtless is both abc
and willing 10 vindicate the truth, on matter
which is connected with great public questions
and the general interests of the country. Not con-
tent with knocking, you have knocked open the
door and now, sir, permit me TO introduce you
into The presence chamber of TRUTH. God send
you safe deliverance.
The CORRESPONDENT OF THE MERCURY
We will not condescend TO criicise every part
Of the above communication. We will mol soop 10
argue with MIR. Cyril V. Grey upon the specula-
tions which he has 50 idly and impudently adj
ranced But we will confine ourselves to the
great issue of fact which he has been SO absurd as
10 make. We will not say, with him, "God send
him safe deliverance II We do not call him
a reckless calumniaior, we will, as Junius says,
at least ''prove him So"
We are authorized by The President Of the