New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-03-10
MIR. BUTTRRWORTH,

We give elsewhere a communication signed
"Truth," elected, as the writer says, by late
article of ours touching the code of honor. This
CONN unicaton undertakes general defense of Dir.
Butterworth not merely against the implications
contained or supposed to bo contained in
our article, but against several other structures
and allegations, said to be ia circulation,
in relation to his conduct in the Schles affair.
With these last We have no concern. So far as re-
lates to US, Truth, we must say, quite fails to
make out case. In the first place. it is not true,
nor anything Like it, that, ia relation to Mr..
ButteIworths statement, we expressed sour
unqualified opinion that it relieved Mr.. Butter
"worth from every unworthy imputaton in 70
"gsrd to the affair" What reliance can DO
placed on tho reports contained In this article Of the
verbal statements Of Mr. Butterworth By q writer
who 80 totally misrepresents our write ststemensi
We merely remarked, incidentally, that Dir. But
terworth's explanation e1Onera,ed him " from the
"imputstion put forth in The N. T. Times Of hsv.
"iDg detained Mr.. Key in conversation while Mr.
Sickles could come up and assassinste him."
But though Mr.. Bu!terworth BY that eIpla-
nation did so exonerats himself, that expla-
nation left totally unans gered tho question raised
and commented upon by US: Did Sickles IN
derstand Butterworth as advising him, and did
Butterworth intend to be understood as adyis-
leg him e assa,sinste Key, and that IS a duty
which be owed to himself as man Of honor'
Upon this interesting aud important question the
printed explanation of Mr. Basterworth throws no
light whatever. That OK PLANTATION limited itself to
the yindication Of Mr.. Butterw0rth against having
taken an active part in Keys assassination, thereby
masking himself az much principal in it as
Sickles himself 1t threw no light upon the
question raised by Us, as to which we were left to
such infererces Is might be derived from careful
consideration Of al the circumstances Of the case.
Our correspondent. now comes forward with an
additional explanation which he says be mas derived
from Mr. Butterworth himsef. We are now told
that what Mr.. Butterwoith meant was "that
"Nr. Sickles, as 8 mao Of honor, was bound 10
punish the insult ~ publicly as II had been
"otfered, and tha. be never meant to offer any
advice, nor was he invited to offer any as to
"the nature of the punishment or the mode Of
ats infection" As TO Mr.. Sckles being bound 10
punish the insult as publicly as it had been offered,
It is impossible that Mr. Bltterworth could have
nesnt tbst, because there had been no public insult
offered at all. The wrong charged on Key had
been done privately. Dir. Butterworth could not
have meant that Sictles should entics Key into
some private place and there punish him More
over, theTs is fat contradiction between the hrst
sentence Of this additional explanation and tie
second The second sentence declares that Nc.
Battery orth did not offer any advice as to the ia
ture Of the punishment: or the mode Of the infic-
ton whereas, the frat sentence, If not specific as
to the nature Of the punishment certainly is 70 as
o the mode
We think it is fairly to be inferred from this
additional explanation that Mr.. ButterwOrth did
not intend to advise Sickles to challenge Key
point which the printed explanation left smbigu-
Gus. He VISA not to challenge him, he was to
punish lin. As maa Of honor he was bound to