Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1856-06-21
to receive General Webb's note from Mr..
Graves, this last-named gentleman handed to
Mr.. Cilley the following: Ns

FEBRUARY 20, 1888.
| In the interview which had with YOU this
morning, when you declined receiving from me
The note of Colonel j. w. Webb, asking whether
| you were correctly reported in the Globe in
what you are there represented to have said of
him In this House, on the 18th instant, you
will please say whether you did not remark, in
substance, that in declining to receive the note
| you hoped | would not consider it. in any re-
spect, disrespecful to me; aud that the ground
on which you rested your declining to receive
the note was distinctly this: That you could
not consent to get yourself into personal diff
culties with conductors Of public journals for
what you might think proper to say in debate
upon this floor in discharge of your duties as
representative of the people; aud that you did
not rest your election, in our interview, upon
| any personal objections TO Colonel Webb as a
gentleman.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
w. j. GRAVES.
Hon. JONATHAN CHLEY.
After receiving this note Mr.. Ciey had an
interview, on the same day, with Gen. Pierce
and DR.. Duncan, both of whom testified before
the committee. Of that interview Gen. Pierce
says in his testimony: "Mr. Cilley took excep-
tons to this note, because he said it implied
that he had placed his refusal on grounds that
he had not indicated in his conversation with
Mr.. Graves, and seemed indirectly to dictate to
him what should be the tenor of his answer.
He stated that he declined to receive Mr.. Webb's
communication expressly on the ground that
he would be drawn into no controversy with
him, and added that no po,cer could i,npel lin
to place his refusal ON the ground of priyilege
or admit that he regarded him (Webb) as a
gentleman" General Pierce in his testimony
added; He (Mr. Ciley) wrote in our presence
the answer which appears over his signature"
DIR. Duncan's testimony is to the same purport
This answer of Mr.. Cilley to Mr. Graves's note
is as follows:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
February 81, 1885,
| The note which you just placed in my hands
has been received. In reply, have to state
| that IN your interview with me this morning,
when you proposed to deliver communication
| from Colonel Webb, of the New York Couric,
and Enquirer, declined to receive it, because
l chose to be drawn into no controversy with
him. | neither affirmed nor denied ANYTHING
In regard to his character; but when YOU re-
marked that this course on my part might
place you in an unpleasant situation, stated
to you, and now repeat, that intended by the
refusal no disrespect to you.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
| IONA. CILLEY.
| Hon. w. ]. GRAVES
| 1t will be seen that in Mr.. Graves's note he
intimates, interrogatively, that Mr. Cilley had
| declined to receive General Webb's communi-
cation, not on account of personal objections
to him, but because he chose to claim his
prirttege as member. 1t will be observed
that Mr.. Clley, in his interview with Messrs.
Pierce and Duncan, as well as in his answer
to Mr. Gravcs's note, distinctly negatives the
grounds on which Mr.. Graves seemed to wish
him to place his refusal From those two
notes 1T might be inferred that there was a
question of yeracity between Messrs. Graves
and Cilley; but the next note of Mr.. Graves,
on the next day, seems TO us to indicate no
such question as operating on the mind of Mr.
Graves. That note is as follows:
House. OF REPRESENTATIVES.
February %, 1888
SIR Your note Of yesterday, in reply TO
mine of that date, is inexplicit, unsatisfactory.
and insufficient; among other things, in this
that, IN your declining to receive Colonel
Webb's communication, it does not disclaim
any exception to him personally as gentle.
man. l have, therefore, TO inquire piether
you declined 10 receiDe his communication ON
The ground Of any personal exception TO him as
gentleman or man Of hon0rf A categori-
cal answer is expected.
Very respectfully,
VIM. j. GRAVES.
Hon. j. CILLEY.
The gravamen of Mr.. Graves's dssatisfac.
ton, as here stated, was that in Mr.. Cilley's
declining TO receive Colonel Webb's communi
ton, be does not disclaim any exception to
him personally as gentleman. Not word
is said Of any question Of veracity between Mr..
Ciiley and himself, but he proceeds to demand
a categorical answer to the question rhether
Mr.. Cittey declined 10 reccire Gen. Webs CON-
mu'ication on The ground Of any personal er-
ception.to him as a gentleman or man of
honor. 1t will be observed that in General
Webb's letter TO us above he says and final.
ly, my friend Mr.. Graves) challenged the
party alluded to Mr.. Cilley) on the ground
that be had, by his refusal 10 gire hin, The ex.
PLANTATION in writing, raised bet,oeen then,
question Of veracity." We repeat, that in Mr..
Graves's note, to which Mr.. Cilley refused to
give any further response, the point Of dissaiis.
faction with Mr.. Graves was, that Mr.. Ciley
declined 10 recognize General WcJ6 as gen.
tleman and man Of honor.
On what grounds, then, did Mr.. Graves pro.
coed to challenge Mr.. Cilley? General Webb
says, on The ground that question Of peracity
,cas raised Jetreen Messrs. Grares and Cilley.
The following is the challenge:
WAsurScToS CRY, February %, 1888.
As you have declined accepting commu.
nication which ! bore TO you from Colonel
Webb, and as by your note Of yesterday you
have refused to decline on grounds which would
exonerate me from responsibility growing out