Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1859-01-14
LETTER FROM SENATOR sLIDELL.
SENATE CaAxBeR, January IL. 1850.

X, =.
To the Editors of tie Union ''--'l
In Q note dated the 7th instant. signed by
the Hon. s. A. Douglas, addressed to the editor
OF The States, and Published last evening.
Mr. Douglas, after quoting the following pas
sage from my pablished statement of 1Sth De-
cembsr last-viE: Mr.. Douglas has. by AM
morning and countenancing anonymous 1t
tacks on me, through person officiating as bis
private secretary, lost all claim to the eSplsna-
ton that would otherwise have promptly VOL
unteered to give him makes the follovino
remarks at is due to myself to pu blish ,S
emphatic denial of the truth Of the implicat;on
IN the above paragraph. 1t is not true that /
nave autoonisd or eountsnancsd anonymous
This declaration imposes on me the necessity
OF showing the grounds on which made that
charge During my visit to New Orleans in
November last, an editor of paper pu blisbed
there, who is friend and partisan of Mr.
Douglas, (but who at tbs same time Ia not nm.
friendly TO me,) Informed me that he had re-
ceryed an anonymous letter from Chicago for
publication In his paper, commenting very s.
verely upon me, and that he did not intend 10
publish 1t, but desired me to see it, He accord
lngiy produced the paper, and read to me Ger.
tain portions OF 1t extremely vituperatiye. 7
told him that 1 had heard enough Of il. and
Insisted on knowing the name of the author
and bow the paper had been forwarded TO him
10 TINS ne at first demurred, but on my urgent
lnslstance that had the right to know the
name Of the author, he said that it had been
sent to him In the ordinary form of newspaper
correspondents, either without signature or
with an assumed one, and had been accomna-
MED by letter from Mr.. James B. Sheridan
requested him to give me the name in writing
which be did have it now in my possession
L had heard that this Mr. Sheridan acted AZ
aman1ensis for Mr.. Douglas, had accoapapied
him through bis late canvass, reported his
speeches, to, and l also asked the editor
whether Mr.. Sheridan did not stand in tbi, re-
latiOn to Mr.. Douglas. His reply was that he
80 understood, having had other letters from
him. l then declared to the editor in the pres
ence of another person, and subsequently "a.
peated the declaration to other friends, that on
my arrival in Washington, where I expected-
OF course, to meet Mr.. Douglas, I sbouid cali
on MIN for categorical reply whether or NOT
he had authorized this letter of his secretarv
and should be governed in my course towards
him by his answer.
AZ soon as l heard of the charge about the
negroes, and before my departure ION the oath
November last from New Orleans for Wasb-
lngton, L had written to Mr Mediation. in
whose possession the slaves were DENYING in
the most unqualified terms the statement at
tributed to me by the Chicago Press and Tri-
bune. Mr.. Douglas arrived in New Orleans
on the lst or ID December, saw both the editor
above alluded to and Mr.. Mediation, and could
not have failed to know from them that I bad
denied having made any such statement about
the negroes as had been falsely attributed to
me- He must also have known frum the editor
that believed Sheridan's letter to have been
countensnced, If not authorized, by him, and
that my conviction on this point had been
strengthened by the fact of the editors HAVING
received letters bearing the frank Of Mr. Dougs
las, thus, as thought connecting him directly
with Sheridan's letter; yet Mr.. Douglas made
no communication to me- nor disclaimed in apy
manner having cOuntenanced the anopymons
attack. Nay, there is paragraph in his card
OK yesterday which fairly admits the copstruc-
tion that he had denounced me in Chicago az q
ealumnlator, on the authority of a statement
imputed to DIR. Brainard without ever calling
on him to learn whether there was any found.
alton tor his charge, when the event proves
that DIR. Brainard, if called upon, would have
SHOWN the whole story to be a fabrication. It
seems to me that sense Of the common cour-
IeSies OF lie, and OF our position as Senators,
should have dictated the propriety of calling
on me either 10 deny the statement or TO vim.
dicate Its truth; yet it never occurred to Mr..
Douglas TO suggest even q doubt of nv having
been capable Ut originating such q calumpy'
1t was not until the 18th or 10th December
that heard, for the first time, that DIR. Brain.
ard : name had been cited as authority for the
statement imputed to me. Two weeks had
elapsed since Mr.. Douglas had arrived Ia New
Orleans and been appriEed of the circumstances.
above detailed Of my denial Of the truth OF the
statement, and Of my conviction that be soun-
tenanced Sheridan's letter. / had received
from him no assurance Of his regret at having
denounced the calumny in Chicago, 30 far as
connected with my name, nothing to indicate
the slightest desire TO undeceive me, if I had.
indeed, been deceived, in relation to the letter
oi his secretary; and I had no opportunity Of
calling on him for explanation in person. nor
any means Of knowing when he would arrive
In Washington. -
1t was under these circumstances, and in
view OF these facts, that made the publica-
ton Of the 18th ult In nv Judgment tbev
formed very sufficient warrant for the decfa.
ration contained in it, "that Mr.. Douglas had
authorized and countenanced anonymous at
tacks on me, through person officiating as his
private secretary" a. -
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN SLIDELL.