Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-05-27
Jacob Brlnlxerhof and the VIII
mot PrOvisO.

mot k'rOVISO.
We cut the following from the Buffalo
Courier of May 9th, which gives bit of
history in regard to the authorship of the
Wilmot Proviso, heretofore not made
public.
1t plucks some of the feathers with
which an Ohio politician has sought to
plume his flight to fame, and places him in
rather an unenviable position before the
public in localities where his pretensions
are well known.
Whether the Judge was or was not the
author of the Proviso matters little, after
allowing himself to remain unknown for
over twenty years. during the lifetime of
the ostensible author. The death of the
witness would seem to bar his title to the
honor by his implied admission to the con-
trary, by silence and by the lapse of time
intervening:
AUTHORSHIP OF THE wILMoT PRovIso.
To the Editor of the Neu York Times-I
cannot forbear brief response, by your
permission, to the letter of Jacob Brinker-
hoff, in your paper of the 23d ult., address,
ed to Senator Wilson, concerning the au-
thorship of the Wilmot proviso.
1t was my fortune to know Judge Will
mot, and during the latter part of his life
exchanged communications with him. On
one occasion, during personal interview
with him at his room in the Astor House,
of this city, some five years since, asked
him as TO the inception, progress and pas
sage of the proviso. He recited to me the
facts, varying materially from what Mr..
Brinkerhoff stated. Judge Wilmot said
that at the time spoken of by Mr. Brinker-
hoff various members were engaged in pre-
pairing some proviso to be attached to the
pending bill, that he was engaged in its
preparation, and had quite finished his pro-
posed amendment, when another member
(whose name he did not in this conversa-
ton call, but it would seem that the man
was Mr.. Brinkerhof) handed him draft
of an amendment of an almost identical
character, having, it would seem, both
gone back to the ordinance of 1887 for its
prohibitory provision.
AS to any arrangement" whereby it
was cunningly devised that Judge Wilmot
should present his particular amendment
or not. the Judge did not state, but certain
ly would have stated, had it been his un-
derstanding of the matter, for all who
knew him knew him to be frank and in
genuous.
He did not relate about the contest among
many members wishing to be heard, and
the momentary confusion that followed
that each and all, as he supposed, had va
rious drafts of amendments to be offered,
but the Speaker recognized him, and he
offered his amendment.
This is all corroborated by Mr.. Brinker-
hoff, who also asserts his attempt to put in
his amendment. 1t will also be observed
that Brinkerhoff s original document has
interlineations, and erasures, as he states.
Could it be possible they were to cores
pond with Wilmot's?
No doubt Brinkerhoff thinks he is, or
ought to be, the author of that proviso.-
That his escape from fame was a very mar
row one, may be perhaps admitted; though
he says the Speaker would not be likely, of
all the members, to recognize him. Hence,
we may fairly assume that if there had
been no such man even as Wilmot, he
(Brinkerhoff) would not haye been likely to
to have ever been heard of except in Ohio.
But the careful hiding away of that orig
inal ''undera bushel' for twenty odd years,
and its appearance within ninety days after
the funeral of the late and lamented Judge,
is an evidence of. to say the least, very great
patience on Mr.. Brinkerhoff's part.
The true and best way to gain fame is to
do famous thing of ourselves, but this
tilching of the dead is very unworthy oc-
cupatiOn. May the public be spared rep
etition of such things.
Respectfully yours,
LEDYARD BILL.
NEW YORK, April 27, 1868.