Daily American telegraph. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1851-1852, 1852-04-27

OFFENSIVE character u SOME poruVnS " ~ III "nicn
he undertook to denounce Mr., Kennedy as Ha
BORE ga rufian," &c.; but, after some re-
Election, concluded to send copy Of it to- Mr..
Kennedy, with request that he would respond
to the charges contained in IT, This was done,
think, on the day after received 1t. On that
day Mr.. Kennedy went to Baltimore to submit TO
IN operation which was necessary to relieve him
from the injuries received at the hands OF Mr..
Borland Shortly after his return, called at his
house to ascertain the state of his health, and to
request him to answer with as little delay as
possible | found him in bed, but he promised
me that he would reply rs soon as he could
procure some testimony which he desired to OBJ
tain AT the same time he informed me that Mr..
Pearce, whose statement he wished to have, had
left the city, and would probably not return for
some time.
Some days afterwards, Mr.. Kennedy sent me
reply to Mr.. Borland's letter. which was writ
ten in an indignant style, and contained express
sions and epithets, in reference to Mr. Borand,
which deemed exceptionable | therefore re-
turned it to him, and informed him Of my objec-
tons, and requested him to withdraw or modify
those parts of his reply. He accordingly changed
the phraseology of the letter in many respects,
and sent it to me. Upon careful examination
of it, found that it was still Objectionable in
some of its sentiments and language; and as
anxiously desired to avoid all difficulty with Mr..
Borland, / again returned it to Mr.. Kennedy,
with instructions to withdraw all commentary on
Mr.. Borlands conduct and motives, and to con-
fine himself simply to reply to the allegations
| of misconduct contained in his letter.
| On the 26th of February received commu-
nication from Mr.. Borand complaining of the
delay which had occurred in reference to the
matter. To this / replied, stating that it was
owing to causes which | could not control, but
that hoped the answer would be ready the fol-
lowing day.
| On the first or second of March received Mr..
Kennedy's reply, but, being very much engaged,
l did not have time to examine it carefully for
day or two afterwards. On the 9th Of March
addressed Mr.. Borland letter. couched in the
most respectful terms, in which communicated
to him the conclusions to which my mind had
come on careful consideration OF his complaints.
| considered myself acting throughout in judi
cial capacity, and | desired to discharge my
duties with judicial impartiality.
Mr.. Borland not having been gratifed in his
Wishes in regard to Mr.. Kennedy, has thought
proper, after the lapse Of twenty days, not only
to appeal to you from my judgment, but to en-
deavor to involve me in his quarrel. In this he
must allow me to disappoint him. can have
no controversy with Mr.. Borland.
| Mr.. Borland complains, in the first place. Of the
delay which occurred in answering his complaint.
against his (my) official subordinate was limited
to inquiries of that individual alone, who could
have answered in day as well as month"
And yet, in subsequent part of the same COM
munication, he complains that / did not enter
I into an examination Of Mr.. Pearce and other
Senators as to the facts of the case. 1t is for
Mr. Borland to reconcile this inconsistency.
The first intimation l had of the ARRAY be.
tween Mr.. Borland and Mr.. Kennedy was de-
rived from Mr.. Pearce, who mentioned it to me
on the evening of the day it occurred. In that
conversation Mr.. Pearce informed me that he was
present, but did not hear the commencement Of
the quarrel, nor did he see the blow struck by
Mr.. Borland. After this conversation should
have deemed it unnecessary to apply to Mr.
Pearce, even if he had been in the city at the
time l was called on to investigate the transac-
ton. But Mr. Pearce left the city before the
date of Mr.. Borlands communication, and be-
lieve has not'yet returned.
AS to Mr.. Towerss statement, it contains no
facts, but merely his impressions; and his testi
mony is, moreover, discredited by the statement
of Mr.. Magill, before whom he made different
| statements. Mr.. Magills statement is forwarded
to you, and he is proved by Mr.. Farrelly to be
man of responsibility.
This was all the testimony before me- except
the statement of Mr. Borland himself. In regard
to that statement | can only say that whilst !
have no reason TO doubt the purpose of Mr. Bor-
land TO give an accurate account of what trans
PRED, it is impossible for any one, heated with
passion, and fresh from violent personal con-
Hct, to view the conduct of his adversary with
an impartial eye. | regarded the opposing state
mcnts of Mr. Borland and Mr.. Kennedy, there
FORE in the same light as the allegations and
denials of the parties-or, in other words, as the
indictment and the plea
The statement of Mr.. Kennedy, that he had
nothing to do with the writing or publication of
the articles in the newspapers rejecting on Mr..
Borland's conduct, is sustained by the certificates
of the authors of those articles which accompany
this communication.
That Mr.. Kennedy is one Of the most indus
trious and diligent officers in the governUen is
known to me personally, and is matter Of gen.
eral notoriety. think it very probable that Mr..
Kennedy has frequently attended the sessions of
the Senate during the time the bill making pro-
vision for printing the Census was under debate.
That bill involved many details, and much infor-
nation was needed by Senators in regard to the
plan and the reasons for incorporating particular
features into it, which Mr.. Kennedy was more
competent than any one else to explain. i can,
therefore, see no objection to his attendance on
the deliberations of the Senate, but, on the con
trary, manifest propriety in his being present
on that occasion.
Mr.. Borland complains that did not call on
Senators to ascertain whether Mr.. Kennedy did
not intrude himself on them. certainly made
no such inquiry. In the first place, it is no part
of the duty Of judicial officer to turn prosecu-
tor, or to hunt up testimony against the man
whose cause he is to decide. Mr.. Borland was
the accuser, and it was his duty to prove his
charges. He offered no testimony, except tie
statement of Mr.. Towers, and referred to no
Witnesses. l certainly could never consent to
compromise my own responsibility so far as to
poll the Senate to ascertain who had been,
and who had not been, bored by an Off
Ger Of the government. There may well be