Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1856-06-21
THE WEBB AND orLLEY AFFAIR.

his own version OF the matter, although address
ed to another paper. We copy from the Union
General Webb's statement and the reply Of
the Union, which latter will relieve us from
the necessity of further comments. The Gen.
eral has perhaps read the fable in which +" 1t
was your bull that gored my OK"
General Webb's version OF the Ciiiey Duel.
The Truth OF History Vindic ated-Gen.
Webb's Championship OF the Freedom
OF Debate Exposed.
The following letter from General Webb
was received on Monday, and, with full dis
position to do him Justice we give it place
in our columns
10 the Editor Of tie Uaioa:
In your paper of Saturday evening | find
the following in reference TO my letter 10 the
Courier and Enquirer upon Brookss assault
upon Sumner:
. But who is General Webb, that he should
assume the championship Of the freedom Of
Congressional debate! His conversion on
this subject has been rs remarkable as that
which now fluids him the champion Of black
republicanism. If we have read history cor
rectly, General Webb, some years ago, challeng
ed member o tile House Of Representatives 10
mortal combat for cgeycislug Tie freedom of
debate; and It'll a melancholy fact that the con-
sequence. of that challenge was The death of one
OF the most gallant as well rs the most talent
ed, OF the sons OF New England. He FELL not
| by The hands of General Webb, but by those of
his friend. Where then was General Webb's
high appreciation of the sacred privileges
which guaranty to a member OF Congress the
freedom OF debate? We submit that General
Webb's antecedents disqually him for cham
| plon OF The exemption OF members Of Congress
from personal responsibility Tor words spoken
III debate"
| You are in error 10 the cause Of the mean-
choy affair alluded TO, | never " challenged
a member of the House Of Representatives 10
mortal combat for exercising the freedom of
debate" but simply addressed letter TO a
member who had abused me on the floor of
the House, asking whether he held himself
personally responsible for the language used
lie promptly replied to my friend that he could
not, and would not, be answerable !" elsewhere"
| Tor language used on the floor of the House,
and pleaded his constitutional privileges. Ny
| friend reported to me what had transpired !;
! ana as ! did not know the member even by
! sight, and there existed no personal hostility
between us, considered the matter definitely
! disposed OF. Subsequently, my friend came to
me, and said that he had been advised TO re-
qulre OF the party addressed statement an
loritulg IF ichat had occurred | entreated of
him not to make any such application; in
deed, insisted that, having received his an
swer 10 my application, and reported it to me,
and having expressed myself perfectly willing
to let 1t rest where that answer had placed it.,
he had no right to do anything further in the
matter
/
Other counses, however, most unfortunately,
prevailed. My friend was forced into demand.
ing, IN disregard Of my earnest remonstrances,
a written statement Of what had passed YER
bally. This was promptly refused. Recrimi-
nation followed; and, finally, my friend cha-
lenged the party alluded 10, on the ground
that he had, by his refusal 10 gice him the ex-
PLANTATION In writing, raised bet,ceea them
question of veracity.
You will perceive by the foregoing that was
satisfied with the answer given, claiming the
privilege which the Constitution confers. of
entire exemption from personal responsibility
| for words spoken in debate. / did not assail
the offending party without first making the
inquiry, which was alike courteous and proper;
and when he pleaded his pririlege, promptly
| acknowledged its force, and abandoned all idea
OF violating his person, or in any other way
| interfering with "the freedom Of debate"
In the conviction that you have not "read
history correctly" and in the full reliance that
1t will afford you pleasure to do me justice by
| the publication of this note, am, very respect
fully, your obedient servant,
J. WATSON WEBB,
1913 III Street.
We read the foregoing note with profound
establishment, and when we have given The
facts in connexion with the death OF Mr.. Ciley,
the reader will wonder how General Webb could
Intimate that we had failed to do him "juslice.'
In this matter we shall have little else to do
but TO cite the record, made up by a special
committee appointed by the House Of Repre-
sentatives to investigate and report the facts.
General Webb says: q never challenged
member Of the House TO mortal combat for
exercising the freedom of debate, Int simply
addressed a letter 10 a member icho had abused
nae on The floor Of The House, asking ,chether
he held himself personally responsible for tie
language used" We shall not stop 10 com.
ment on so barefaced quiJJle. What else
could he mean by asking Mr.. Ciley If he held
himself personally responsible" than that he
was to be called 10 "morial combat" if he
should answer that he did hold himself respon.
sible? But General Webb's memory is treach.
erous. He did not ask Mr.. Cilley whether he
"held himself personally responsible FOR the
language used" His language to Mr.. Cilley
was: "Tbe object Of this communication is to
inquire Of you whether ! am the editor to
whom you alluded, Ton the floor; y and, If so,
10 ask the explanation rhich the character Of
your remarks renders necessary" 1t strikes
our mind that this language could bear no
other Interpretation than that il was to be re.
garded by Mr.. Ci!ley as notice Of clallenge
10 mortal combat If he failed to make either an
explanation or a retraxt Of what he had said.
The special committee of the House the Hon.
Isaac Toucey being chairman) reported on this
language that "this demand of explanation,
under the circumstances which existed, was
| not susceptible OF INSTRUMENTATION and tho