Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-01-06

GEORGE BEcKwITH.
By request of Col. Savage | hand him copy Of
the above. Your friend,
GEORGE BEoKwITu.
Now, it is fully proven by this letter and Stantens
publication, that in order TO make it appear TO the
people that he (Stanton) was very prompt and very
brave-he antedated his letter to the 9th of Novem-
Der, which in fact left Carthage until the 18th
atterwards,and which never reached me until the
2Sth six days after my publication-and that he
really had no proper knowledge of its delivery
when he made his publication. He asked my friend
r. Cantrel at Nashville about the 9th of December,
if had received such letter. He Is thus caught
attempting to palm Off fraud upon the public by
committing in effect forgery upon his letter, when
at the same time he is charging upon the dis
honorable conduct of which he alone is guilty
This letter is fac smile of Stanton. 1t brags
him and abuses me in language quite characteristic
and concludes by dismsslng any further paper
correspondence with me-" | submit to the public
whether his publication in the Banner is the enter
tainmeIt that was authorized to expect consider
ing the compliments paid himself in his first article
With all proper respect for Stanton it seems to me
that man who could write such letter declining
all reply antedate it, and causeit to be delivered
above shown, and afterwards fall back upon its
publication as a means Of escape, lis cock that
may crow but won't 90 to bet on"
81. Mr.. Stanton SAYS % it became matter of dis
putc as to whether he did denounce Savages state
his denunciatiOns were made a coward would
make them, &c.. &C. meaning that was in pulpit
making public speech, and that he was in a crowd
Of ladies and gentlemen, and that without making
any direct charge, l had merely stated the differ
once between Stanton and CullOm, and then put the
question Stokes to decide between his friends not
caring which he took. When Stanton denounced
false the charge that he guilty with Cullom,
be knew that he had denounced what had not then
asserted. sly article of September tine 9th makes
+I,o
contradict my statement and it is manifest from the
wording of their certificate that it was not intended
to state the whole truth. and that cross eXanlina-
ton would prove my allegations
| rode up to Stanton and three other men in pub
lie road not an hour before his boosted denuncia-
tion-stopped and talked with his men in his pres
ence some minutes 1t was proper time and place
to settle the difficulty. Stanton had knowledge of all
had said or was going to say, yet he was as meek
as a lamb. | submit the following statements made
by gentlemen whose characters need no sustaining
certificate. They prove my assertion that Stanton
merely played the coward at Yankeetown, and has
since been lying to deceive the people.
We were present at the speaking at fankeetown
between Nessrs savage and Stokes when Dir. Stan
ton interrupted Mr.. Savage.
Mr. Savage replied TO Mr. Stanton that he was not
going TO be interrupted by him, and 1t was not a
proper place to settle difficulties and if re (StantOn)
had any difficulties to settle he Col Savage would
give him satisfaction any hour or day he would
NAME ana MI stokes Salu 10 OOi Savage 10 20 on
Mr.. Savage replied what he had said about CuilOm 5
committee he had said upon every stump during
the canvass, and he would say it again that night,
nothing more nor less.
Mr. Stanton took Gs seat and after Col Savage had
concluded Mr. Stanton arose and the crowd began
to dispense. And Mr.. Stanton begged the crowd to
hear him that there would be no difficulty there
He then quoted his testimony before the Cullom
committee and asked Col Savage if he had not
quoted it correctly, and Col Savage replied that he
thought he had. We did not understand Col Savage
to retract, or qualify any statement, that he had
made. This December the 20th 1860.
DAVID LITTLE,
THos. CARMICHAEL.
K. MILLER.
INo. W. JET.
4th Stanton being unable to reconcile the evidence
and his contradictory swearing consistently with his
innocence files the plea of ignorance and puts him
self upon the mercy Of the public; wishing it to be
understood that even to this day he does not know
but that a Clerk at a salary of $4,000 year could
honestly and consnentlv with the laws of Congress
clear $4,000 in about nine months, and near
! Sl00 0e0 in two years.
What confession for Senator and Bell Eector.
Is there Constable Justice of the PeaeQ in the
State, so ignorant as he EFeteRds 20 be!
BEt such are the shifts of guilty men, the, plea of
infancy lunacy is to be expected If he writes
again.
The following is his language in the Banner:
| " Nor do to this day know how much Clerk of
| the House might make honestly and entirely con-
sstent with the laws of Congress and by reference
to page $50 OF the Repart Of the HOUSE UoAmttee,
referred 10 by SaYaues article it will be seen that
my view was such at the time my testimony was
given. will give the language of the questions and
| answers
| Question-Did you ever hear him state any
amount that he had realized from his Office, and if
| so, what was it?
Answer-It seems to me that heard him state on
occasions, that it would be worth somewhere near
| 500 900. but do not know whether he meant the
actual profits of the Office the percentage that
to him by way Of side considerations, e1trd Ia
| b0r. or whit else he had reference to.
Now the public will see ut once that in quoting
my testimony IN the article referred to, injustice
was done me in lea wing out that part of it,
The above quotation was not left out, but was
published in my article Of September 9th, nor
it fraudulentIy garbled as Mr.. Stanton has done.
The following is the extract as given IN my artl-
ole Of September 9Th "a published IN the Neie Era
questionable you ever hear him state any
amount that he had realised from HIS office, and if
so, what was it?
Answer seems to ale-thqi haze heard him state
on occasions, that lcold be ao0yti SOmerhere near
100000. Bat ! do not kn0lo 1eheher lie meant tie
actual profits Of the office or the percentage that 10
come 10 him Gy t1dy OF side considerations extra tabor
on 1oba else he had reference TO- lie made the remark
in my presence, | believe IN Nashville, when we
went on home after the first session. that he had
cleared about $4,000 up to that time. will not
be certain that he stated specifically that it was
from the profits Of the Office or not But the con-
versation was in reference to the profits of the Of
flee. A friend of his present at the time, and
seemed to be very much interested In General Ogl-
Ions welfare. and anxious to know that he was
getting on well-p
It must astonish everybody that Stanton would
publish a fasehood easily exposed.
1t is presuming upon the ignorance Of the people
and his powers of deception to an unparalleled ex-
tent | will furnish the Banner my article if re-
quested, that its editor may compare and see for
himself that Stanton is guilty, as above charged.
The suppression of evidence, or the Introduction
of faIsehood by defendant in criminal trials is al
ways considered evidence of his guilt.
In this instance, by Stanton, it Is so base to DO
equivalent to forgery upon his own testimony, as
published before Congress.
9Th Stanton asserts that resigned; and attempts
to prove this by reference to his own swearing
The record will not lie, and it shows that he was
discharged the 2Sth of February, and his letters
show that he left Washington about the 23d of
March.
9Th Stanton asserts that the dispute between him
and Cullom. concerned them alone, and had nothing
to do with the rights of the general Government.
l ask the question, how then did it happen, that
the $3.50 which was taken out in Stantons name was
disgorged aud repaid to the Treasury more than
one year aftCc wards.
9TH. Stanton makes no reply to that part Of my