The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1858-11-22


n,sn ~ sur,s which wss published day or two
ef,er The duel between that gentleman and Mr..
! WIS. the letter from Judgc B. wns transmitted
!. ira .6,ors Of the En4sircr, With tho instfuc.
elan not 10 publish unless they were assured upon
~. hest authority that Mr.. CLxmEss ~as out Of
A.n.sr The editors state that Mr. @ . recovery
s.,ns now placed beyond doubt, they do not hesi'
ate "a publish the Judges communication.
rha Judse Introduces his letter by stating that
"a coos,deration could lnduce him to revive the
reeolsectios Of controversy which had 30 serious
and distressing a result, but conviction OF the
:. necessIty Of viudicAtipg" his 'charac'er from
the aspersions las many deem them) eastupon ~
IN the statement Of Mr.. CLEMENS The Judge then
remarks upon what he pronounces the peculiar
.c,scumstances" Of the publication OF the state
uenf. IL purported TO have been written with
xiex 10 publication only In the event the author
ssshould not survive the meeting" Yet it was
published Of time when It was thought his wound
Vas MOI OF serious Character. Ia testimony OF
which the Judge quotes telegraphc dispatch from
Mr.. CLEMENS, dated tho 18Th September, the day
after the duel in which he states that 'the wound
yas mot dangerous, aud that he was in the hands
of his friends" Without specializing upon the
ssuse Of this Sudden change Of purpose In the
p.b,ioatiop, the Judge proceeds, A. he declares
~v,,hout acrimony," to respond to some OF The
,,,.eatious contained In the Statement" We
eopy the remaiader Of his communication:
Mr. c,smeus has so expressed himself as to in
Aure the careless reader 10 conclude that he III
tended to contradict the satemen. o. ny nsss ass-
.o,horixed him to say that would eeciine tho
nomination for the Office OF Governor, ii rendered
10 me by the Convention, or forbidden the use oil
,.v nan,e In any way, 10 that connection. The
ed nv
construction Of his language, therefore, i that an
tssue OF yeracity 10 raised between u.s. IL Is my
nurpsse TO show, from the face OF the abatement
isseif, AZ we'll as from Mr.. Clemens own pre-
yious conduct, that he did not, and could not,
have intended to impugu the truth OF my al
tegation He ssys that just before va passed into
the door OF the ho;s!, as the light struck my lace,
he said to me: judge, can stats your posl,I0Pi
further states that IL was due TO me to say, that
when be called my attention to this fact after the
pubIication Of my fret letter TO the "Ehquirer,
] did not recall IT, 1t quite true, that Mr. Ce'
mems did ask me, in Wheeling, If cid not re-
member having used this langu sc, and that |
repIisd that had no recollection OF having used
the word "authorise" at all, but added that 1t
was altogether probable that had authorised aim,
as had authorised all who had approached me, On
the subject, t. stats my position. Bus what was
Ehai posuiyns He may have reported nay language
S correctly but he had misconeeiyea the position
fssiE which simply was, that did not oes1re the
nomination not that would not aeeept 1t, il ten
,,erei Now. does be aver, 10 his Statement, that
I authorised him to say that forbade the "use OF
my name, In any way" In the Language OF his orr
pinai card, that would decline the nomination,
II rendered! Certainly not but states 1t as an infer
snee merely, "from my whole tone and manner ana
language"
Tne conversation referred to was, indeed, free
from all reserve. on my part; and did, In most
emphatic manner, declare my aversion to the to-
tai change of pursuits which the supposed contin>
gency would supernduce but the idea of peremp.
torily refusing the use OF my namein the pending
canvass, and declining the nomination, II tender
cd, still less of constituting MIR. Clemens my organ
10 make that declaration known to the public, had
never for mon ent been entertained by me. The
utmost that could be affirmed, in reference to our
conversation lie, that the inference deducted by
Mr. Clemens from "my wGoie tone, and inner,
and language" that wou.d decline the nomina
zion was natural or REASONABLE one No man Of
sense will aver that 1T was tho HscesS2ry One and
g II not the recssscry one, then Mr. Clemeus was
not authorized TO make the publication be did in
the "Epauirer" If there be those who cannot
comprehend how man may feel constrained to
sacrifice inclination to duty BY accepting an Office
which he does not covet and would prefer to see
Allied BY an lther, have argument to address &c
th<n Iusauthoriging Mr.. Clemens, as he says, &c
state MY position, since he admits that had not
stated, in terms, that would dec!tue the nomna.
ton, submit that il was due to se that be should
have enquired Of me, In clear and explicit terms
in matter of such grave moment, whether ths
: Inference he bad drawn Was the correct one. Bu
he has himself explained why he did not do So fol
he says that he had no idea Of the press or pub
- lioatiou, whom he first spoke to me-" Had be an
such idea at any time during the conversation o.
nj Its closei No, for he tells US himself that |
was an after thought and not suggested till h
returned homo and found appearances tending
70 conflict between myself and another );
and he thought he could do me an act o
: Kindness by defining my position by a letter Il
the .Epauirer.'" Did he send the letter to mt
for my sanction ard approval, as ] think gen
uxGA iisrr haT dom
No, for had he done so the letter would never have
E reached the printers hands, and the Whole train
of deplorsble consequences, resulting from his in
discretion, would have been avoided. And why
did he submit bis letter TO my Inspection The
reason he has himself assigned IL q singular and
very Unsatisfactory one: ''Because he desired tt
leave me utterly non conmitteda rs to the language
until 1t was published---that to 1t he was alone
privy, and respopsiblel" How strange that h,
was unwilling to commit me, as to the mere Ian
yvage ct the note, and so swift TO commit me /,
She fact Of an unqualified, aud, as | deemed 1t
offensive refusal TO serve the State in the highest
ONCE In her gift Bnt he says that though he die
not submit his letter TO me, send me
copy Of It, for the just stated that Goai tht
time be sent his first letter to the Enquirer, apj
II before Il UaS published lie addressed letter to rue
then holding Court az Clarksburg, apprsiug n,e Of
what be had done" About the tisas, and before Il
tros published! Are We to infer from this that he
had given me notice Of his having dispatched his
letter 70 the enquirer" In time TO countermand
its publication, If disapproved iti If SO, be ID
entirely mistaken, for bis letter to the Enquirer
wessin the hands Of the printer before his private
letter srr,tten; the letter which is before
ms, being dated the. 10th OF August, the former
~ the 9Th OF the same month. Ii had been ap'
prised then of the precise character and contents
Of his public letter, 1t Was too late, when re-
esived the notice, to have arrested its publication
m His private letter was written on Sunday, August
10Th, and received by me on Monday, the very
day believe, for ] have 10 copy Of the paper
oonfaining II, on which Mr. Clemens card was
publishedin the "Enquirer.' IL is thus demon
strated, from the face Of Mr.. Clemens' estate
fnent" ITSELF that never did state to him that be
was authorised 10 snnoance to the public, through
tho columns OF the press or otherwise, that de.
eiined to allow the Use Of my name in any way, in
z connection with the pending Gubernatorisl can.
vass In Virginia, or that would decline the nom
nation IL rendered.
m Bat the same conclusion 10 equally well estab.
lished by Mr.. O.s course after reached Wheeling
4 His letter addressed to me there, aud my reply
% it, we're published 10 the Wheeling papers on
tho very next day, not at my instance, but by the
special request Of Mr.. Clemens himself When l
sent him my reply through the hands Of his
hiepd, had no idea that / wonld ever II In
print Tor the that supposed 1t nust be very
unsatisfactory 10 him. disclaimsd indeed all I'm
pusAttop OF his entering into AN Intrigue against
Or acting treacheroasly towards me. but declared
sxplicitIy that he Was not justified in my judg-
msnt. in dsducing the iateyeacs be bad done from
our conversation at Grafton. Let 1t be remem-
bevsd. that here again he treats bis conclusion
= mere inference. viz: that authorized him to
say that declined the use of my name In any
way, although did not cruelty say Sol" If did
not exactly say 70, on point on which exactness
was OF the last importance Mr. Clemens was not
Grady warranted In Affirming that had said So
Bat again; on the evening Of the day which he
received my reply, Mr. Clemens called at my room,
ard found ne Engaged in conversation With several
ffispds, after brief participation In which, be said
he wished 70 have . private interview with me-
We retired together to the piazza attached 10 my
yocm 81 the "6prigg House" What passed bee
tween % then h known only to him and to him
ecH He aaid that he had received my reply; that
- had left tbs whole nattsr TO me, aud that be
vas satlsAed with it, though be would have been
srsti6ed III could have remembered the language
Afterwards imputed to me in bis statement" to