Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1859-07-30

And when bear more
Tho music of his lay
" soul. in utter SORROW, faiuts away.
A CARD.
In the card Of Judge Saunders of the 2sth ultimo,
published in the Standard of the Cd inst in reply
card of mine published in the Raleigh Register
# the 9Th ult, Judge Saunders, in commenting upon
ny "Aat contradiction of his statement" says that
he answers of the committee depended to his card)
arc equally fiat in their contradiction of Col.
3wynn's denial" Now with view to a proper
Of the points at issue between Judge
Saunders and myself well IS to an analysis of the
answers of the committee to which he REFERS it is
proper here to recte the statement made by Judge
Saunders to which l gave fiat contradiction"
It il as follows, viz: "as chairman informed Col
Gwynn in person that the committee required his
Col. Gwynn attended from time to
lime and gave full explanation on every point in re-
gard to the contract and the nature of the claim"
In refutation Of my denial of the truth Of this
Judge Saunders appeals to the answers
Of Mr.. n. G. Rand Mr.. VIM. T. Dortch and Mr.:
Chas. F. Fisher, members of the committee, in re-
ply to his enquiry to "what is your recollection
as to the attendance and examination of Col Walter
Gwynn, the Chief Engineer, before the committee?'
will now take up the "answers of the committee"
and show to what extent they sustain Judge Saun-
ders in his declaration that they fare equally fiat in
their contradiction of Col. Gwvnn's denial"
Mr.. Rand says, according to my recollection Of
tho NATTER state that was one of the committee,
and think that very well rccollcct that Col. Wal
ter Gwynn was present. and examined So far
M. Rands recollection does not seem to be very
clear: he only thinks that he recollects that Col
Gwynn was present" But in his next and the last
sentence of his answer to Judge Saunders enquiry,
he says II further recollect that you, chairman
Of the committee, stated to the committee that you
had notified Col Gwynn Of the meeting. and that
friendly relations between him and Col McRae;
but If McRae would reduce his claim to writing, he
would attend. Mr.. McRae did 50, and COL Gwynn
appeared before the committee" l consider it fair
to draw attention to the feebleness of Mr.. Rand's
recollection. Now, throwing aside my own recol-
lection though firmly standing by it and averring
all that have heretofore said which is in direct
opposition to Mr. Rands "answer," shall proceed
to show that he is not sustained by his colleagues
and also by other evidence that he is cgregiously
mistaken in his recollection
Mr.. Dortch, in his answer" makes no reference
to any notification Of me by the chairman Of the
committee, does he intimate that ever appear
ed before the committee.
Mr.. Fisher makes no allusion to any communion
ton Of the chairman to me- and has no recollection
that twas in attendance on the committee"
Now if it were true Judge Saunders says that
"Col Gwynn attended from time to time, and gave
full explanation on every point in regard to the con-
tract and the nature of the claim" can any one
doubt that it is possible that Mr. Dortch and Mr..
Fisher would have no recollection of nv attendance,
especially when they all and particularly the chair
man of the committee admit that they would have
been derelict in not examining or consulting with
the Chief Engineer" l leave the answer to the
impartial reader! l feel, just at this point that
enough has been said to vindcate truth, which has
been, and is now, my only object and aim. But the
truth can never cloy the appetite of those whose
digestion is unimpaired it can only be unpalatable
to those who are not its votaries shall therefore
proceed to press it overwhelm whom it may, and
shall SO link the chain Of evidence that the chair
man Of the committee for the settlement of the &C.
count Of the contractors of the first division shall
find no loop hole to creep out Of Therefore invite
attention to the following facts and circumstances,
lea'ing them without comment to be weighed and
compared with the statement of Judge Saunders.
During the session of the committee, Mr.. Miller
called on me in reference to some items of the &C.
count OF the contractors of the first division, and
my reply to him was, that as the account had been
reerred to committee of the board of directors.
would have nothing to do with it unless invited BY
the committee. In this connection. here insert
Mr. Millers letter to Jonathan Worth, ESQ.,, "chair.
man Of the joint select committee on the North.
Carolina Railroad" in reply to a Communication
from Mr.. Worth. Mr.. Miller says, 81 am in receipt
OF your communication Of the 9Th inst, and in an.
swer would state that the settlement with Messrs
): T. Mckae d Co., IS contractors of the North
Saolna Railroad, was made by committee of the
board Of directors, IS was informed at the time.
II consequences Of this order, the Chief Enginee,
had nothing to do with the settlement that I an
aMafe Of and the only connection had with it va.
ct the request Of the President to assist in makins
o0>fsv H..
appear before the committee and answer such cues
ions q were asked, none of which referred to tn,
execution of the work"
During the existence of the committee Goyerno
Aorehead, President Of the Company, freouentl,
urged me, and insisted that it was nv duty to at
teaa the meetings Of the committee; and uniform
refused to do so, unless invited. His letter q,
this subject herewith annex.
80 it appears that Judge Saunders is not sustain
Cd ~ the answers Of the COMMITTEES that Gov
Moeenead attended the meetings of the committe
IRON time to time. and II was not before them ~
ana NJ Miller says, the Chief Engineer had moth
mg 70 90 with tho settlement that am aware Of
ana It appears from Mr. Nillers letter that he onl
attended the meetings Of the committee at the =;
quest Of the President"
Thus again nai judge Saunders, st.tsmssnt ,
the counter
nave nov word to say in rse,ed to anoth,
eeanch Of my card Safoee referred Ia in vhir
yuags Sanndes. Is not 1t al implicated or cooosne
sn1ed mat ~ Was not consulted by any memb
Of the committee" =
e Rand and u. Dorteh are silent on this poi;n
They could not be otherwise unlse. ~ =, :. -.
'ars conceTned they affirmed NV statement
ct Mr.. Fisher, in his answer. ~. r., .h.v,.
ne bounds Of the enquiry Of judge eaunderI :,
m0olges In much that b irrelevant and no3 a.
ea!led for While, under other eircumstancee
fet bs seguilsd and teupted 70 enter into
00Naa0- S~A L. y -