The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-08-27


Washington the goth rst and subsequent salts.
factory explanation general taking back OF expressions
and FORTH after much powder vAiny expended We
give the get of story without transferring to our
coOmns sl the rhodomontade which characerizes the
explanations" "stAiements," &C., in the Enquirer:
MR.. OLD TO MR.. WISE
SIX O'CLOCK, Tuesday, August 16, 1859.
S-As presume you 10 be the author OF the two edi-
oria articles In the Enquirer Of this morning. write
inform you that as Soon as can obtain the services OF
you which the offence offered those articles entities
me to make you not the author Of those articles
for them please to consider this With
drawn, and 90 the favor to INFORM me to whom / an
'" 'sp' ''' '' 'Nl ''''''' WILLIAM VILLAIN OLD, Jr.
o. JENNINGS WISE, Esq., Richmond
MR.. wIsR's REPLY.
RICHMOND, Va August l7-9 O'Clock A. N.
SR-Your letter OF six O'Clock yesterday morning
HANDED to me by Mr. }. Archer at eleven o'clock A N.
1. You presume to be the author Of two editorial
articles in the Enquirer
2 You inform tina. the offence is offered you in the
said articles.
g. You ask for explanation of the intent OF the ar
oles In question and fail to specify the alleged Of
fence
4 You intiua,ea threat Of an immediate I'D peremp
tory cosense TO Inc field in shall fail 10 discaim
the authorship OF the articles In question.
The requirements Of self pect and proper obsery
ance OF recognized usage under these circumstances
permit me only 10 form you that am the author OF IT,
editorial articles in question. Any further communication
netts Ninth street. between and Streets Washington
D. G. Your obedient servant, o. JENNINGS WISE.
10 WV OLD, Jr., Present,
MR.. OLD TO MR. WISE.
SUMNER Hill, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, !
August 17--2L O'Clock +. n.
SIRYour letter received this morning. at ten O'Clock,
by Mr. W. e. Lyons implies objection to my former note;
that in il explanation the intent OF the articles
objected to- and even failed TO specify the alleged Of
ence and you assume the employ OF menace,
part as reason for restricting your reply to acknow
Judgement Of the authorship OF the articles DO not ad
init menace AZ deducble from my note but, all eventa
difcaiming worthy of self now OBJ viae your
supposed ground Of objection. made de nand Of
PLANTATION because the intent Of offence eeemed unequivo
call but, as you imply explanations might have been
81 would be difficult to crowd larger quantity Of
papable unruths into the limited Space, and
further on the term false allegation By these
OF the articles, Of which they are marked illus.
trstions, consider impu,ators are cast upon my
racy and honor conceive myself therefore, entitled
to and claim full and explicit disclaimer reaction Of
all such offensive imputafions with the same publicity
they have been made Your obedient servant.
o. JENNINGS WISE, ESQ.,, Richmond.
Nh. wIsE's RESPONSE.
RICHMOND. Va Thursday
August lS-l0h O'Clock, A. NJ
SIR-Your letter Of yesterday reached at about 81.
o'cock NJ On the same day through the hands Of Mr.
p J. Archer. As had already informed my friend Co
he was absent from ownlwhen received your letter
thought it proper consult with him before answ H.
ana Fence requested Mr. Archer 10 inform you that
notice you q the .me Of my n deparaIs
Ny last letter does, indeed, 'im imply that ex.
psn,o1, might have been not for the
and explicitly to define my position when properly called
on to do co. You win not however, regard either this or
part, II gven would be satisfactory or unsatisfactory
to yourself or that such planaons would either admit
or deny intent on my part to offend YOU and when you
shall discover my intent to give to offence you
Will aso discover that such intent was eitner CASE
altogether uIequvoca." In your last letter you dis.
claim all intentional in your first letter Howe yer
you have INTENDED to avoid Menace it ia ndispuaole thai
you 90 promise IN tha, letter to send challenge to
Inc neo as SON as you can obtain the services of
friend This is not only an in.maton, but unquali
nea ano explicit promise that challenge will be
gent 10 many instances such promise has
been regarded as the challenge itself, and as
dispensing with the necessity Of more for nal
summons to the field. consent enter into
explanations while challenge, or the promise Of cha
lenge Is pending When your first letter shan be
formally whdrs -n and such Withdrawal shall be accom-.
panied followed by formal call for explanation, them
and not until them win be AZ liberty TO define you the
intent OF the editorial articles Of which complain.
Your obedient servant, o. JENNINGS WISE
To William Old, Jr,, Esq Summer Hill, Chester neld
county.
MR.. OLD TO MR.. WISE.
RICHMOND, August IS, 1s59-l2M.
S-Yorr note by Col. j. Lucius Davis has lust reached
me have no disposition to hinge on mere mstters o!
form. Ny disclaimer OF menace had supposed obviated
the objection you had taken 10 my first note. But
now you suggest, on what must consider forced
Answering
until its withdrawal, have no hesitation in with.
drawing it, and now renew referring 10 my last letter
my call for full and explicit disclaimer re.racon
all such offensive imputatons, with the pub lefty
they have been made. Your obedlent servant
o. JENsIsG WISE, Esq. WILLIAM OLD, JR.
REPLY OF MR. WISE.
RICHMOND, Va, !
August 10, ls5e-4T O'Clock P. NJ
SIRYour letter Of IL O'CLOCK To-Day, has just been
handed me by Colonel Davis. have already placed in
hanos be returned 10 you the original letter which
m wi In leffar
OF Yesterday you specify as follows
"Ispecify as particularly Offensive the language, cit
untruths into the limited space and further o. the
TERM false allegation By these special phrases, as
well as ny the general tenor Of the articles Of which they
are marked uttrations imputstions are cast
on my verAcity and honor"
In your two last letters you demand.
oil and expnc disclaimer or retraction Of all such
oen imputatons, with the came pabhsi,y they have
been de-"
Is yer to all of which now explain:
u in using the special phrases which you recite
an 9 OF similar import, intended to assert IN the
mo- hattie form the uluuth Of certain specified allie
gat ntsipsd in your editorial of Monday last
VII CATIONS we're untrue, and which nearly con
GER 10 making ths assertion was careful to re
Atr' eli 70 statement that the specified allegations
We G, without making any charge of insincerty
ag.n author.
~. ne general tenor Of my editorial articlesl 10
you srtcle, whlle disavowing charge of i'm uorau
& esy ws s sss,Ssa private letter q
ing obaaonn In my reply intended--nrst, total.
MiBe'S
letter cond 10 apply to the editorial OF the Examiner
charge Of depreciation OF the with that
which you had sscrbed to Gov. wses letter.
Thus, Iregsrd my articles strictly confined TO lie
gtmae reply TO your own editorial have done you
injury. Hence owe you no apology public or private
and am under no obligation 70 publish explanation OF
articles which you cannot, righuly and without mis-
take regard unjust TO yourself you desire publicity
to be given TO this explanation you can easily give sact
by publishing the whole correspondence OF which this
ter forms part Such publication AZ this have nc
right 10 deny you. Your Obedient servant,
To WILLIAM OLD, Jr., Esq. o. JENNINGS WISE.
THE CHALLENGE.
RICHMOND, August Is, 1859,
O'Clock p. ~ +
sI have just received your second letter, by Coloae
y Lneus Davis. cannot admit that In applying to me
Sne language, 'h would be difficult to crowd q
l1ser quantity OF palpsble untruths into the
s sesa,e. limited space" and in charging me with
se aLsgsslons, as well In the generally offensive
nature OF your articles Of which those phrases were
% % rlussfsnons, that you do impugn my SINCE
a =, nave zone me no Injury, that you had any
onrs AZ my eoorias for the spirit and language Of
~ r.o,n ~, nv, snetelore, recognise your explanations
offence offered mo- and now demand tha s.ssc,,nn d
Hn