The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-06-25
WAsHlNGroN, June 81, 1852

W. A. RICHARDSON
WASHINGTON, June 81, 1852.
Sir: The "Daily Washington Union" OF the 18th inst
contained communication from YOU in which you
language in relation TO myself that gentleman per-
nit TO pass unnotced. My present purpose in addressing
you this is direct your attention to the papable
injustice OF the many Objectionable and hgAly offensive
terms to be found in your communication, as well as TO
point out the exact matter at issue between u.s. as can
not be made occupy different position from that in
which my published declarations have placedme.
had supposed that the language used by me in debate
appears from my published Speech followed as was
by my note of the 10th instant, and published in the
"Daiy Union," in which gave an Interpretation not
only the language, but also 70 the idea intended to
convey by that language was sufficiently clear to relieve
me from all possibility OF being again misunderstood 10
my communication of the 10Th instant, which was called
out in reply to card issued by yourself and the Hon A.
c. Dodge after having quoted the precise language Of
my speech, said that he language here used and the
idea that intended 10 convey by the word consdera
ton do not even by implication charge that the votes OF
the Iowa delegation purchased Tor consideration
but merely that the bill furnished equivalent and full
consideration for the support which The measure received
from the State Of Iowa by extending The road 70 Dubuque
OF Illinois from all obligations which, under other cir
cumstances, she might conceive were still resting upon
her to the State OF Iowa for her support OF that
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 bad placed upon it, and upon
which erroneous construction your last communication
seems to be wholly based.
You state that "the charge" (meanng that made the
charge) s that the votes of the delegation Congress
for that bill given for consideration and that that
consideration the extension OF the road to the Mis-
sssippi river The proof relied to sustain that false
accusation is, that had told Mr. Douglas that would
not dare to 20 home if voted for the bill was with
out making effort 10 extend the road TO Dubuque"
In The paragraph just quoted you put words INTO my
mouth which never uttered, and make express an
idea which il was never my intention to convey, and
which the language did does not justify. Having
done this, you indulge in the most offensive personalities
which most respectfully call upon you TO react
Again, you state that che" (meaning y basely
charges bonorable men with corrupt motive in the
discharge of their official Duty he alleges that votes
were given for consideration which he labors 10
prove improper" You have marked the words "ior
consideration 10 indicate that you were quoting my
precise language | aver that it was not used either in
the you have given to II, in the connection IN
which you have placed it, In no par, OF my speech and
In part of my reply to your card, have charged you
Your colleagues "with corrupt motives" in your sup
port OF that any other measure; but the contrary
could not well be expressed in clearer or more explicit
terms. Neither have |, by implication or otherwise
labored 10 prove that The motives which prompted you
your colleague the late members OF the House from
Iowa, 10 support the Illinois grant were in any way im
proper" therefore respectfully submit That the oten
siye language here used be also retracled.
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 circum
Stances proves that there considerations which
perver his Judgment and ente his conduct 10 the
baton OF all honorable men,. Ii is unnecessary for
language which you in the sentence just quoted assert
contains offensive charge against you and your col
leagues. Suffice it TO say that words have used
suscepbleo OF any such construction neither were they
intended TO convey any such idea and insist that iht
very unjushable terms which you were pleased 10 use
in relation to myself, and TO which have REFERRED be
reiracied and wholly withdrawn.
Again, IN your communication you ask the question
" Does the law OF Illinois make Galena the terminus oil
the road in question p To which you reply, does
not and he" (meaning y has therefore msepresented in
Illinois teI.
minus OF the Illinois Central railroad Gaena years be
fore the act OF Congress making grant OF land 10 ait
in its construction was passed. II was 10 that law
referred my speech when said "the laws OF Illinois
had fixed Its termination" The act OF Congress max ing
the grant extended the termination from Galena 10 Du
buque Your avermeni therefore, that "msrepreseut
ed IN hst PARTICULAR" respectfully submit is not sup
ported by the facts
The subsequent part OF my communication OF the 10th
ins Argument based upon the declarations made by
you TO Judge Douglas, for the purpose of sustaining the
statement made IN my speech, viz THAT II was at the
urgent request OF at least OF her senators that the
road was extended from Galena" TO Dubuque. Neither
the argument the deductions draws from the words
used by you that occasion, charge corrupt rimprop,
motives nor were they intended for that purpose.
The following passage in my publication needs revis-
ion IL is as follows "But taking the language
used IN the assumed in their card do the let
ter OF Judge Douglas and the record taken either sngy
or together. justify the conclusion that the amendmen
offered by Senator Jones insisted upon condi-
ton precedent TO receiving his for the 'br" The
language used by YOU detailed n Judge Douglass let
Ter, does not justify the construction which the words
have used would seem TO imply but would merely make
the oGsrlng of your amendment condition precedent
your voting Tor the bill without conveying the idea that
the amendment was rejected you would vote against
the bill
Again. the following passage occurs "Bu bis deterni-
nation 10 offer H." tmeaning The amendmentD and in
sst upon ITS adoption, unaerabe and he expressed
bis intention in the following strong language, that be
would not dare 10 return home II he voted for the bill
as u was, whou, making effort TO extend the road TO
Dubuque Does not the language express in the clear
est terms that he demanded The extension OF the road
his own town. The place OF his residence ndspen-
sable condition 10 the support OF the bill" Upon criti-
cal examination OF the language used by you above
quoted, am satisfied that the inference have drawn
from IL too broad and that The declaration made by you
to Judge Douglas, that yon would dare TO return
home II you voted for the bill il was without ng
an effort 10 extend the road TO Dubuque applied the
obligation which you conceived yourself TO be under 10
your constituents 10 make the ''s6orf;' and, having
done So il did not follow from your language 10 Judge