The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1869-04-06

Editors Dispatch:
,eutlemen,--In addition to the numerous os
accounts of the method in which G9'9l aa1
Wills received "the missing letter." hna
recently. from Special Mail Agent pHrher'
another tale, having neither novelty noi
wit to redeem it from the conflicting c"n.
voting, absurd, and embarrassing pr,ol
narratives. If the receipt Of the letter py
Allan is a fact, as endorsed By Parker why
all Wells's ceremony, timidity, and extra
ordinary means during three months to con-
ceal the method Of its receipt Wells re-
fused on the 9Th of January to permit me
to tell him how he obtained the letter. l
proposed to indicate to him the "person by
whom the letter was taken from the post
office. and the manner" but Wells, hold
ing up both hands, said, "Oh, no no /
don't want you to do that" Why not, II
obtained in the manner so lately discovered
On the 31st of December Wells read o
copy of the letter to me, and responded to
a reflective mood of mine in the words, 81
know what you're thinking Of, but you
can't tell how l got this letter." These,
or words Of similar meaning, were
uttered some days after, in the
presence Of Mr.. Allan. If obtained in
aParker's method" why should Wells,
through @ political campaign, refuse to say
how he secured my letter "unless put upon
oath ?" If obtained in " Parker's method"
why should Wells permit Allan, in my
presence, to his face, to deny that ne (Ai,
lan) had received the letter Or, did
Wells read q letter of one person addressed
to another without inquiring how it had
been obtained9 Wells, in the presence OF
myself and Allan, declared that he ana
the person giving it to him were the only
parties present upon his receipt Of the let
ter. If Zincke's published letter Is true
and equally his statement in the presence
of fifteen or twenty persons, that ne, Duo-
lev, and Bond, carried the letter to Wells,
then "Wells's and Parker's methods are
incorrect. If Platt's statement to FAINTER
and Maddox, that the letter was mailed IN the
wrong envelope, thus reaching FarmVllle,
is correct, then Wells's account, and
Zincke's, and Parker's, look suspicious.
II Watkins James received correct &C
count of the method from Bond, Hopkins,
and Dudley, still neither Wells's nor Park
er's course is clear or plausible-certainly
not truthful.
But who is Parker, who 80 late comes to
the rescue? Sharp has him nominated
Marshal for Virginia; Bond has him stay
ing at his residence during all this time.
What, is Parker better than Poor; better
than Dudley?
When | first learned of this diBhonora-
BILE, if not criminal, act of Wells, two ways
of securing the letter suggested themselves
to me: First, through Dudley, by taking
the letter from the ost-office, on plea OF
mistake, as his own, and thus OBTAINING it !;
second, by Dudley informing Bond Of the
possible Importance of the letter, and Bond
persuading Parker to take the letter from
the mailbag. The latter hypothesis, upon
the apprehension of further facts, | ig-
nored. was convinced that Dudley took
the letter in the manner I have indicated.
With regard to "Parker's method" thus
indirectly assailing Adams oath, it is dis
covered too late to be of use before an
honest and unprejudiced jury. 1t manifests
contemplate conduct upon the part Of all
would impeach their truth
fulness before any just and impartial tri-
bunal.
Zincke, in his published letter, certainly
brands himself an incorrigible, but at the
same time unconscious, scamp. What does
Dudley mean by inquiring of Burwell " If
question has been made of a missing let
ter 60" Why, this was before Wells in
formed me that he had seen my letter, De-
cember 81, 1868! If the letter had been to
Farmville, why should Dudley ask Burwell
respecting it, who could, under " Parker
METHOD" know nothing of Ga missing
letter."
A multitude of similar reflections will be
made by every candid mind, demonstrating
the complicated falsehoods of all the guilty
parties in their efforts to escape, one by
the other, and oil by each, the legal con-
viction of the crime charged against them
before United States Commissioner Cha
hoon.
7 shall believe to my dying-day that
Dudley took the letter from the post-ofiice,
and himself carried it to Wells.
Respecting my participation in the pro-
secution, l was forced to it by Wellss
statement that he would only make known
the facts "under OATH" and by the publ
cation of Zincke's letter.
1t must be recollected also that Wells,
Bond, Dudley, Porr, and oil Of that clique,
knew that for months had been opposing
Wells for second nomination. The call
ing of the Petersburg Convention was due
alone to my persistent adhesion to the the
DRY of its necessity. Wells, Bond, and
Dudley, were opposed to the assembling Of
o new convention. Wells said, when
presented him the resolutions offered by
myself, January G, 1869, in executive COM
mittee, "This will ruin the Republican
party"
This statement of mine gives the lie also
to the remark of the editor of the Evening
Journal, in On "editorial of some days
since, that Wells showed me "the letter "
when asked him for position. soy that
I will not ask, will not receive, position
from the Republican party Of Virginia as
recognized in the Wells movement.
OF Bonds denial orally of my sworn de-
claration that he said he controlled Chahoon
do not now respond except by saying that
the fact is as I have sworn it is, and this
oath will repeat on my death-bed.
Of Dudley's guilt in this particular had
extraneous circumstances to support me, in
an unauthorized removal of my furniture,
which looked to me, at the time, very much
like larceny" ellis will remember
something of this fact.
I am reluctantly compelled, gentlemen,
at this time, to request your courtesy and
patience in the perusal of this lengthy
Communication, and, if compatible with
your convenience, its insertion in your
columns.
Iappend brief legal resume of the facts
upon which the prosecution relied in this
case, all of which were presented to United
States District Attorney Beach, whose con-
duct in the prosecution I leave for the