Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-08-03
For the Standard.
On

For the Standard.
In the card of Judge Saunders of the 2sth ultmo,
published in the STANDARD of the I'd inst, in reply
to card of mine published in the Raleigh Register
of the 9Th ult, Judge Saunders in commenting upon
my q" fiat contradiction of his statement" says that
the answers of the committee appended to his card
"are equally fiat in their contradiction of Col.
Gwynns denial" Now with view to a proper
understanding of the points at issue between Judge
Saunders and myself as we'll as to analysis of the
answers of the committee to which he refers it is
proper here to recite the statement made by Judge
Saunders to which l gave ). flat contradiction"
1t is as follows viz: "as chairman, l informed Col.
Gwynn in person that the committee required his
presence-and Col. Gwynn attended from time to
time and gave full explanation every point in
gard to the contract and the nature of the claim
In refutation of my denial of the truth of this
statement 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 are equally fiat in
their contradiction of Col. Gwynn's denial"
Mr.. Rand says according to my recollection of
the matter, state that was one of the committee
and think that very we'll recollect that Col Wal
ter1Gwynn was present, and examined So far
Mr. 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 81 further recollect that you as chairman
of the committee, stated to the committee that you
had notified Col. Gwynn of the meeting, and that
he declined to attend il consequence of the un-
friendly relations between him and COL McRae :;
but if McRae would reduce his claim to writing, he
would attend. Mr. McRae did So and Col Gwynn
appeared before the committee" / 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.. Rand's 'answer," shall proceed
to show that he is not sustained BY his colleagues
and also by other evidence that he is egregiously
mistaken in his recollection.
Mr. Dortch, in his "answer," makes no reference
to any notification of me by the chairman of the
committee, nor does he intimate that ever appear
ed before the committee.
Mr. Fisher makes no allusion to any communica-
ton of the chairman to me- and has no recollection
that twas in attendance on the committee"
Now if it were true as 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 recollection of my attendance
especially when they ALL and particularly the chair
man OF the committee, admit that they would have
been dereict in not " examining or consulting with
the Chief Engneer?' | leave the answer to the
impartial reader! l feel just at this point, that
enough has been said to vindicate TRUTH which has
been, and is now, my only.obect and AIM But the
truth can never cloy the appetite of those whose
digestion is unimpared; it can only be unpalatable
to those who are not its votares. shall therefore
proceed to press it, Overwhem whom it NAV, 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
md no loop hole to creep out Of therefore invite
attention to the following facts and circumstances
leaving them without comment to be weighed anG
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, ant
my reply to him was, that as the account had beer
referred to committee of the board of directors,
would have nothing to do with it, unless invited b,
the committee. In this connection, l here inser
MIR. Mllers letter to Jonathan Worth, ESQ.,, "cbair
man OF the joint select committee on the North
carolina Railroad, in reply to communication
from Mr. Worth. Mr.. Miller SAYS, 81 am in receip
OF your communication Of the 9Th inst and in an
swer would state that the settlement with Messrs
.: " Mckae d Co., as contractors of the North
Caoiina railroad, was made by committee of tn
poard OF directors, as | was informed at the time.
In consequence of this order, the Chief Enginee
had nothing to do with the settlement that I an
aware OF; and the only connection had with it wa
at the request of the President to assist in maxim
out some statement relative to the account and +
appear before the committee and answer such cues
ions as were asked, none of which referred to tn
execution of the work"
During the existence of the committee Goyerno
Morehead, President of the Company freouentl
urged me- and insisted that it was nv duty to Al
tend the meetings of the committee; and uniform
y refused to do so, unless invited His letter O
this subject herewith annex.
SO 1t appears that Judge Saunders is not sustain
ca oy the answers of the committce-that (;o,
Morenead attended the meetings of the committe
from time to time, and l was not before them :"
and Mr.: Miller says, 1.-THE Chief Engineer had moth
ing to do with the settlement that am aware If
And it appears from Mr. Mier's letter that he onl
attended the meetings Of the committee "at the r.
quest Of the President"
Thus again nail Judge Saunders statement
the counter
have now word to say in regard to anoth,
branch OF my card before referred to, in wbit
Juage saunders is not at all implicated or concerne
statea That ~ was not consulted by any memb
OF the committee"
n, Mr.. Rand and Mr.. Dortch are silent on this pou
Iney could not be otherwise, unless so far as tn,
are concerned they affirmed my statement
But Mr.; Fisher, in his answer, goes far beyo,
ns POUNDS OF the enquiry Of Judge Saunders a,
inonlges IN much that is irrelevant and not st
called for, While under other Circumstances
might be beguiled and tempted to enter into !
wide range which he opens, 1 shall, on the nrese
occasion, contine myself to the subject immediate
before me, with this restraint upon myself which
an easy task: quote for comment the following 8,
.ehce rom his answer, viz: II consulted ali /
REnm .s neely ana without reserve. talked to G
Now That Mr. Fisher as wu 30 .,,o-,, ,.,..-