The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1869-02-15
The Publishing of the COde-- Re ] DIN.
der from Er. Fleming.


der from REr. Fleming.
To tho Editor OF the Intelligencer.
Ihave read with some surprise n let
ter from Mr.. J. II. Hoke, in your issue
of Saturday, in answer 10 mine OF the
day before on the subject of publishing
the Code-surprise not that he should
write letter, but that he should de-
nounce my statements in such unspar-
ing terms as "falsehoods." 1t is an old
saying that one cannot handle pitch
without being deGled, and have
Jared no worse than others have before.
I do not forget that Mr.. Hoke was the
editor of the Berkeley Union and once
carried on a controversy in 1t with the
Wheeling Register in terms OF such
nastiness that the Register was COM
pletely overcome, and had to hold its
nose. Therefore If had been altogether
prudent should have tried to make my
statement without uncovering Mr..
Hoke. 1 am aware of my inability TO
cope with him in that sort OF thing, and
have no disposition to try.
The gentleman is pleased to consider
my letter a personal attack on himself.
Ny purpose was TO set forth the history
OF the delay in publishing tho Code with
out designing to attack any one. II
the truth hits Mr.. Hoke, it is no fault
OF mine. Iregret the necessity OF troub-
ling you again, but Mr.. Hoke's letter
is Of such extraordinary character, that
I cannot with justice to myself. to truth
or to him, let the matter rest where he
leaves it. So far as he indulges in mere
viLuperation of myself, l have nothing
to reply. That is not the argument OF
gentlemen, in newspapers or out OF
them. But when he asserts that my
whole article is tissue of
falsehoods from beginning to end"
1t becomes proper Inquiry wheIher
the assertion is true. submit that my
statements touching the legislation,-.
and the delays in the contamination of
that legislation-on the subject of pub
fishing the Code are literally true. They
are not only matters OF fact ia mlllaS to
the members of both Houses, but mat
ters of record. 1t is fact that the last
House unanimously passed pill pro-
viding for publishing and distributing
the Code, that eight Senators defeated
| 1t in the Senate, and thus defeated all
| legislation on the subject at that ses-
sion. 1t is fact that on the second
day of the present session, the House
unanimously passed the same bill and
sent it down to the Senate; that 1t
was referred TO the Judiciary Commit
tee of that body, and at the time OF
writing my letter, almost three weeks
after the reference, SO far as the House
was informed no action had been taken
on it. Now these are the main facts
in the case, and no one careful OF the
truth will call them tissue OF false
hoods" Aud these are the facts that
fix the responsibility for the delay on
a portion of the Senate. The Senate
| can and will FIX that responsibility
where IL belongs in its own body.
1t is apparent, therefore, that the only
matter in which could have been mis-.
taken-or concerning which 1have pub
lished "falsehoods," II that is more be.
coming-is as to Mr.. Hoke's connection
with this delay or his share OF the re-
sponsibility for 1t.
He charges me Ito quote his own
j choice and elegant phrase) with having
published p p " -
"Three distinct, unqualified and un-
mitigated falsehoods.
"F'irst-That on my motion the bill
was referred to the Committee on the
"Second-That prior to his writing, it
never had been report ted back from that
committee to the Senate.
"Third-That was responsible for
the delay in printing the Code"
And he "hurls these back" into my
"teeth." &c. This Is quite tragic, butts
it true2 Here language Is attributed to
me which 1 did not use.
First-I did not say 1t was on Mr..
Hoke's "motion;" though might haV
said so, for was so informed; but
learn that rule OF the Senate refers
bills without motion, so that my infor-
nation must have been wrong. But
whether any such motion was made or
not is wholly immaterial. The impor'
, tant fact is that the bill went into his
{ keeping as Chairman OF the Committee,
| and that it stayed there.
Second,-I did not say that prior to
nv writing the bill had not been report
ed back from that Committee to the
T Senate. 1 said the reference was the
. last that had been heard of 1t; and sc
far as the House, was concerned 1t was
true. I learn that substitute for the
: bill was reported the day my letter was
: written or the day before, but the House
had no knowledge of such action.
( Third-I did not say that Mr.. Hokt
was responsible for the delay In print
ing the Code, but stated facts which
: certainly lead to that conclusion, anc