Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1847-06-18
To he Editors ~ The Enquirer:
D,.rx,n,,n 11th Inr

To he Editors NJ The Enquirer:
RICHMOND, l4th June, 1917.
| returned to the city las, evening, and have
today, Tor he first lime, seen The Wing OF the TN
and Sih June Having been referred 10 by The
Editors os the Wing and MIR. Bolts as having
made statements in conflict with these Of Mr..
TYLER, | feel il due 10 him as well as myself 10
say, they are mistaken, and that Mr.. is refer
ence 10 the date Of the arrangement between the
Secretary Of State and MIR. Van Iandt, and Of
The entire secresy Ct The negotiation until The
terms wcrc fully understood between those par
ties fully comedies with my own knowledge,
as far as il goes, and my belief on The subject.
The Substance OF Mr.. Tyler's statement is, that
no one interested in Texas lands or STOCK, knew
even OF The existence Of negotiations ill ",he pre-
liminaries were nearly all arranged, their com.
plcion being alone prevented by The death OF MI.
Upshar, and The appointment OF an additional
commissioner 10 Mr.. Van Zandt By Texas" Now
have 10 say certainly never had The slightest in
limaton or suspicion Of The existence OF such he
goialion until the terms had thus been agreed on,
nor do | believe any other person interested IN
Texas land or stock had.
After those arrangements were made, nc par
licular sec.csy was enloined or observed, as lar
as know, although they were not proclaimed 10
the wo!l6-the object OF the secresy having been
accomplished in The unmolested progress o. the
negotiation. Ii will be seen that Mr.. Tyler does
moi refer 10 The da'c when The Treaty was COM
p!stcd, [l2lh April nor 10 the dale Of the alleged
Club House speech, l2Sh March nor even 10
the date OF Mr.. Upshur's death, [2Slh February
bu! 10 an anterior period. What was that precise
date TO not know, bu; | DO know it was before
the li,h February, 1874 as | wrote TO friend on
that day, and stated had The day before learned
that such a negotiation had been informally ar
ranged and ha, the treaty would probably, With
in lwen,y.tour hours after the return oil the mes
scnger from Texas, be submitted 10 The senate.
Uni! the 9Th Of February, ! had no suspicion
ha!hc negotiation Yas eYsa n prosTeS.s 5J a. a.
| Washington who were interested in Texas, and
! never heard any such suggestion from them, my
| belief is that they were as ignorant as was on
| the subject
The explanation of The Editor of The Wing, In
his paper Of The 9Th, cxcupales the parties from
| Improper a,otircs, bu, adcs-"Our design was,
simply 10 show that Mr. Tyler's memory was at
fault by The citation Of facts in direct conflict with
his statement, and which, we presume, will not be
questioned BY himself or by any OF his friends"
On the contrary, think The editor must now
see there is no such conflict, and that the appa-
rent incongruity results from his own mis-read-
ing OF Mr.. rs statement in regard TO the date OF
"the preliminary arrangements, prevented from
being completed by The dealt OF Mr.. Upshur," &c.
Mr.. Gilmcr was moi 4 member OF the Cabinet al
the date oilhose arrangemcnts-and do not know
or believe that MIR. Upshur had an acre Of land in
Texas, or owned one dollar OF her public debt. |
never heard Mr.. Tyler say one word on The sub
jeci, before or aler that date.