Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1855-02-13


exclaimed "D-n ze Secretaire of 20 Nave !
FIRE re Board of War; and go to ze devil
every body, by gar"
TO THE EDITORS OF THE STAR.
Sirs: Do me the favor to publish the en-
closed letter to Mr.. Eddy. The gentleman
himself do not know, and therefore have
nothing against him personally. In his
char ac:er as Judge, he has grossly wronged
Col, Colt and me, and in that character
complain Of him. In defeating Colts bill,
members voted under the statements made on
the floor Of the House by Mr.. Letcher and Mr..
Eddy, "a minority of the committe,) that we
b ad ,efuSsd to account to the committee for
900; and that such refussl argued fraud
II the fact had been true, the inference would
not have been just, since it's use was entirel y
in other affairs; but the fact is not so, and Mr..
Letcher knew it. Now that the bill is de
feate1, desire to expose the means by which
il was done; so that whatever bad IMPRESSION
was left on the minds Of members in regard to
Col. Colt or myself by its perpetratioD, may be
removed. Persecution lent its aid when facts
and reason failed.
Yours, &c, END.
No. 81 CHAMBERS STREET,
NEW YORK, Feb 10 1855 {
Hon. NORMAN EDDY-Sir As the enclosed
letter addressed to Mr. Letcher, comments up
Cd the minority report in Colts case, signed
by you and Mr.. Rufhn, as we'll as by him,
have thought 1t proper to offer you some ex-
PLANTATION why did not address it to both you
and Mr.. Rufin. Mr.. Letcher's course in this
whole matter has been marked by such a vim
dictive spirit, and by such a determin ed per
sistence in wrong, that there can be no doubt
of his wicked intent, and therefore addressed
him. Mr.. Rufin, on the contrary, is so obvi
iafya oto1 nd
young man, that the House, presun Q, would
have thought 1t a waste Of time to read or
listen 20 any argument with him since a
mans accountability must be always meas.
ured by his intellectual capacity to distinguish
between right and wrong; no one, I presume.
would think it right to weigh him in the same
sclle as Mr.. Lstcher. You occupy, however, a
medium position between these two, and while
your speech on last Monday, shows that YOU
are not entirely insensible to the good opinion
of your fellows, (since in it you claim tb at you
did give parties accused an opportunity to be
heard0 it also proves that your intellect is of
such character as to enable you, whom a
question1s very plainly and simply stated, to
understand the broad shade of distinction be.
tween right and wrong, las you admit in
confused way perhaps, the injustice of con.
demning man unheard) Giving you, there
fore, the benefit of the presumption tn at you
track through his report, so as to see wherein
be misstated the evidence or suppressed the
truth, and that you signed the document un-
der the belief which the more adroit mind of
MI Letcher impressed upon yours, that he
would not violate the right of parties and the
law, L propose to state, if 1 can, in an ele
mentary way, so that you will be able to un-
derstand 1t, the points of which I COMPLAIN.
Ii, however, You find difficulty in following
the premises to the conclusion, 1 would re
spectfully suggest that before you condemn me
you should ask some friend accustomed to "a.
tionsl processes, to aid you.
In the hrst place, please to ead your report,
and when you have thought of it enough to
under stand 1t, you will see that its principal
attack on Col Colt and me is based upon the
statement that both of US have refused to
tell you, and "studiously concealed" how we
spent $l3, 900. Is not that 500 Read page
Ss4- Then keeping this in mind, (perhaps YOU
would De aided by writing it down on slip of
paper) proceed to examine the testimony to
see whether either was ever asked about that
money. 1t you find that We were, and refuse
10 answer, you may conclude that Mr.. Letcber
and the rest OF you told the truth but if You
do not, you may safely conclude that You did
not tell the truth. Do you not agree that this
is nationally correct? Now, sir, you will see
that ne such question was asked either of US.
First, l was asked page 30) how much had
spent IN this extension, and / answered less
tnan S6,OOO. told you that it had been en-
ployed to pay counsel, whom named, and to
defray the expenses of living in Washington
and that lot one cent had been paid for any
other purpose Is not that so? | refused to
tell you how much Of that amount charged
ior my services or how much l paid the other
caunsel employed; and that was not yonr
anar was it! The next question 1 was
asked about money, was on page 80, and it
was how much Of Col. Colts money 1 had
had l answered not more than sI5 000 If
you md desired to know how spent il. ought
you not to have asked mei Ii you have any
doubt about your duty in that respect corsuit
some Trend But you did not You turned
the examination to another matter-to wit
the title in the patent. Then | was asked
again by Mr. Eliot, on page SO, how much of
Col Colts funds had spent ia the extension,
winch was repetition Of the question on page
3U; and L answered that could not saw more
definitely than 1 had done already, viz: that
1t was less than $4,000. Is not that 30 SuII
no one asked me how spent the SIS 900, or
SO much OF it as had not already accounted
Tor, by stating that the extension had cost
$4,000. If there is any such a question YOU
can find it no doubt
Now, sir, by tnrnipg to any elementary work
on moral philosophy-Paley, for instance
you will be instructed that it was gross iujus-
tice to me to say as you do, that had &" pc 81 .
lively refused" to give you information how
L spent this $4,000 for The simple reason
that you never asked me any such question,
and therefore l could not have refused.
Col. Colt was not asked one word about the
slo goo, and consequently he did not refuse.
mr' Joslin, the bOokkeeper, who was exam
inea after We were, told you that he knew
notning about Col. Colts or my money mat
ters, except as to the armory business. He
was not asked how spent the money, and he
SSsl.alniy did not know, and, as the book
Keeper OF the armory, has no business to know
ou. upon MS testimony Mr.. Letcher, on the
moor Of ,ne House, repeated his charge, and
argued that because had not cemmunica ted