New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-02-02
W. W. Walk, VI. D., VI. q.

w. W. Walk, VI. d., VI. &.
Another letter from the notorious Know Nothing
practitioner. who represents the Long Island Dis
trict. praces our columns this morning, and as we
have taken pains to print 1t without any violence
! TO the honorable gentlemans photography or gram
mar we trust il will receive all the attention and
all the respect which it merits. Ii is reply to
tbe affidavit of Mr. Luther Moore OF Greenport,
and TIE corroborating testimony OF four other
respectable citizens Of that place, all going to
establish the fact that just before his election DE-
Walk did pledge himself if elected, to support the
restoration of the Missouri Compromise and the
Homestead bill. In the communication which we
this morning publish, Dr. Walk denies in the most
positive manner that be ever received any letter
from Mr.. Luther Moore asking for information as
TO his views on these subjects, or indeed, that ne
ever received any letter from Mr. Moore at all or
ever wrote him such reply as Mr. Moore and
biz neighbOrs testify to.
Such are the statements of tie two parties On
one side we have the oath of Mr.. Moore, and the
word Of his four neighb0rs, and on the other the
/ unsupported contradiction of DR.. Walk. Either
Mr.. Moore is guilty of perjury. and his neighborS
of falsehood, or else DR.. Walk must be pronounced
highly defective in either veracity or memory.
There is. however, another piece OF evidence,
which, we gricye 10 say, tells rather severely
against the Doctor and that is his letter TO Mr..
Moore, in his orn handwriting. That letter is now
at Washington some of the colleagues OF the hon.
orable Know Nothing having expressed desire to
see it; and we apprehend that its genuinencss can
not be disputed No forger could so clearly initiate
his chirography; indeed, it affords proof clear
enough to hang man, much more to convict
Know. Nothing Congressman of an O!ense, whose
name, brief as it is, need not here be repeated
Taken along with the testimony of Mr. Moore aud
his neighbors, we fear it must send the Doctor ont
of court with even less of reputation than he had
before he was arragned on this Indictment.
In bis letter to-day this convicted vioater OF
pledges and denier of his own handwriting, attempts
to obyiatc the proof against him By going back to
his own letter, as published in THE TRIBUNE OF
the Attn ult and arguing that because Mr.. Moore's
previous letter is there referred to having been
written the day before, and, because, II sent by
post, as Mr. Moore gay, it was, 1t could not, " IN
educ course of mail" have reached Flashing
in one dav; therefore no such letter could have
been written. Now, it is quite possible that the
honorable Doctor, in the haste and excitement Of
letter intended 10 deceive his correspondent, may
have mistaken The date of the epistle to which he
was replying thus suppcsing it TO have been writ
ten on the 3lst, when it was really written
On the 30th. But even this hypothesis
is not necessary. \ letter mailed at
Greenport On the morning of Oct. 81 would reach
New York that evening, and the next morning at
O'clock il would be semitic Flushing. BY IL o'clock
'in due course Of mall, it would be in the hands
of the aspiring and INSCRIPTIONS candidate for
Congress to whom it was addressed; who, losing
10 time would at once reply to it in the manner
most likely 10 conduce to his election. This is the
simple fact of the case; and it is folly for Dr. Walk
TO pretend that letter mailed at Greenport on one
day cannot be answered at Flushing on the next.
II s not by such futile assertions that he can set
aside the affidavit of Mr. Moore the certificate of
his four neehbors and the undeniable handwriting
of Vim. w. Walk, NJ. d. and ~ c., himself
In A former screed addressed to THE TRIBUNE,
DR.. Walk complained very pathetically Of the
Press for publishing letters without the real names
of their authors; now, be has five real names,
whose good character lie does not presume to
question, and yet he concludes by warning the
Press that its RIGHTEOUSNESS often merits the sever
! eft punishment! With regard to RIGHTEOUSNESS,
and to its not only meriting but sometimes reeeiv-
ing punishment, We are not disposed to question
that the word of DR.. Walk is entitled TO great
weight; but yet we must be allowed to suggest
that it would have been in quite as good taste on
his part to have chosen some other flourish for the
peroration of his letter. And, in conclusion we
beg leave to tender TO him the advice, when next
he desires TO undertake acOntroversy with public
! journal, TO find some matter with regard TO which
the mass of proof against him is less dsmning than
! it appears 10 be- in the present case.
! TRIAL By JURY.
! II ia not IN be denied that for some DurpOses