The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-06-26

as will be seen by the correspondence RESPECTFULLY
w. A. RICHARDSON.
WASHINGTON. June 81. 1852.
Sin; The "Daiy Washington Union" OF the 10Th inst.
contained communication from you In which you use
language in relation 10 myself that gentleman can per-
nit 10 pass unnotced My present purpose in addressing
YOU this note 10 direct your attention to the palpabe
Injustice Of the many Objectionable and highly offensive
terms to be found in your communication. as well as TO
point The matter issue between US. as can
not be made to occupy different position from that IN
which my published declarations have placed me.
bad supposed that the language used by me IN debate,
as appears from my published speech followed as i was
by my note Of the 10th instant, and published in the
DAILY Union" in which gave an Interpretation not
only TO the language, but also to the idea intended to
convey by that language, sufficiently clear to relieve
me from all possibility OF being again misunderstood. In
my communication OF the 10Th instant, which was called
out in reply card issued by yourself and the Hon A.
my speech, said that he language here used and the
idea that intended to convey by the word consldera.
lion do not even BY implication charge that the votes Of
the Iowa delegation purchased Tor consideration,
but merely that the bill furnished an equivalent and tull
consideration for the support which the measure received
from the Stale OF Iowa by extending the road 10 Dubuque
instead OF terminating Gaena, and released The State
OF Illinois from all obligations which, under other cir
cumsiances she might conceive were still resting upon
her to the State OF Iowa for her support OF that meas
ure" The foregoing explanation relieved, in my judg-
ment the word consideration from the offensive mean
ing which The construction in the card issued by your
self and General Dodge had placed upon 1t, and upon
which erroneous construction your last communication
seems to be wholly based.
You state that 'the charge" (meanng that made the
charge) sis, that the of the delegation in Congress
for that bill given for consideration and that that
consideration the extension OF the road TO the MIS-
sssippi The proof relied TO sustain that false
accusation is that had told Mr. Douglas that would
not dare 20 home if voted for the bill was, with
out making effort TO extend the road 10 Dubuque"
In the paragraph just quoted you put words into my
mouth which never uttered and make me express an
idea which it my Intention TO convex, and
which the language did nse does not justify. Having
IN Tho nctyan
which now most respectfully call upon you to reiract.
Again. you state that he" (meaning y "basely
discharge Of their official duty he alleges that
given for consideration which he laboTs 10
prove improper" You have marked the words ''or
consideration to indicate that you quoting my
precise language. that it was not used either in
the you have given to it, or in the connection in
which you have placed it, In part OF my speech, and
in part OF my reply to your card, have charged you
your colleagues "wh corrupt motives in your sup
port OF that any other measures but the contrary
terms Neither have |, by implication or otherwise,
'labored to prove that The motives which prompted you
your colleague the late members OF the House from
Iowa. to support the Illinois grant in any way Sim
proper" therefore respectfully submit that The olen-
sive language here used be also retracted
Your communication contains the further statement
which is as follows: These facts were known 10 the
member from Illinois when he made his offensive
charge. The repetition of that charge under the crcum
stances, proves that there are considerations which
pevert his judgment, and enie his conduct the repro
baton OF all honorable men," II is unnecessary for me
here repea; what have before said in relation the
language which you in the sentence just quoted assert
contains an '.oensve charge" against you and your col
leagues Saice 1t to say that no words have used are
susceptible OF any such construction neither they
intended TO convey any such idea and insist that the
very unustfable terms which you pleased 10
IN relation to myself, and to which have referred, be
retracted and wholly withdrawn.
Again, in your communication you ask the question:
Does the law OF Illinois make Gaena the terminus OF
the road in question r. To which you reply, Il does
not and hen (meanng y has therefore msrepresented in
mt The Illinois had fixed the
minus of the illinois Central railroad at Galena years be-
fore the act OF Congress making grant OF land 10 aid
in lis construction was passed. II was TO that law
referred my speech when said ihe laws OF Illinois
had fixed its termination" The acf oil Congress max ing
the grant extended the termination from Gaena TO Du
buque. Your averment, therefore, that misrepresen-
ed in that particular respectfully submit, Is not sup
ported By the facts.
The subsequent part OF my communication OF the 10th
inst is argument based upon the declarations made by
you Judge Douglas, for The purpose OF sustaining the
statement made IN my speech, viz "that II was al the
urgent request of at least OF her senators that the
road was extended from Gaena" 20 Dubuque. Neither
The argument the deductions draws from the words
used By sou that OCCASION charge corrupt or improper
motives they intended 10. that purpose.
The following passage in my publication needs reyis-
ion. Ii is follows "But taking the language
used in the assumed their card do the let
OF Judge Douglas and the record, taken either singy
together justify the conclusion that the amendment
offered by Senator Jones insisted upon condi
lion precedent receiving his vote Tor the 'bll'" the
language used by you, detailed in Judge Douglass let
Ter, does not justify the construction which the words
have used would 10 imply, but would merely make
the o6erng OF your amendment condition precedent 10
your voting for the BILL without conveying the idea that
II the amendment was rejected you would vote against
the bill
Again. the following passage occurs; "Bs his determi-
nation 10 offer it," meanng the amendment) ''and in
upon IFS adoption unaterable and he expressed
his intention in the following strong language that be
would dare TO return home II he voted Tor the bill
was, without making effort TO extend the road to
Dubuque Does not the language express IN the clear
that he demanded the extension OF the road TO
his town. the place of his residence as an ndspen-
sable condition 10 the support of the bill" Upon criti
cal examination OF the language used by you above
from il too broad and that the declaration made by you
to Judge Douglas, that you would not dare to return
home II you voted for The bill it was, without king
an effort TO extend the road to Dubuque applied TO the
obligation which you conceived yourself 10 be under 10
your Constituents 10 make the "e6orf;" and, having
done So did not follow from your language to Judge
Douglas that you would oppose The bill it your storr
10 extend The road Dubuque should be unsuccessful
under first Impressions, had construed your Ian
gusge TO mean. This declaration, upon careful consid.
Grafton, choose 10 make IN just regard Tor the primer
pies by which eelmyself 10 be governed, and which,
10 my card OF the 10th Instant set forth as follows:
g" am incapable Of incorporating any gentleman upon
the floor Congress oil tj and II unknowingy do In
justice any one, am always ready to correct H."
have been thus explicit in stating the true ground OF
issue between u.s. for the purpose OF preventing any fur
tier msconsirucon OF the language used in my speech
and OF preventing any further msapprehension Of the
idea intended 10 convey; and also Tor the purpose Of
preserving the position my own acts and declarations