Wilmington journal., 1873-07-11
THE RIgETT COOLEY DUEL.
The Card of Judge Cooley thai
led TO the challenge.
The following card from Judge Coo
ley was published in the New Orleans
Times on the 9th u1timo:

IHe lolIoWlHS caTu lIOLu q uuSe CoO
ley was published in the New Orleans
! Times on the 9th ultimo:
! CARD.
Yesterday morning the Picasyune
in an editorial, assailed me on account
| Of my argument in the Hawkins Plea
| jury were qualified as being "malicious
and wilfully false As soon as I read
the Article I addressed letter to
Colonel r. B. Rhett, Jr., the editor,
which was handed to him by a friend
After reading it, Colonel Rhett stated
that he, within tyenty-four hours,
would answer; and this time was
granted. To-day [ received his an
swer; and l now put before the people
of New Orleans the two letters:
New ORLEANS, June %, 1878.
II. Il. Rhct, Dr., Editor of the Plea
yuie:
SIR-In the Picay,tnc of this morn
ing, under the caption of "Hawkins
VS.. the Picayat,ae." you take the liberty
of commenting upon the incidents of
the trial of the libel suit against the
paper. SO far as you deal i'll generali-
ties, it is not my purpose to ask you
any explanation; but i'll referring to
me, under my own name, you have
been guilty of what | consider direct
misrepresentation You refer to my
concluding argument for the plaintiff,
and say that [ travelled ont of the re-
cord and misrepresented facts because
| knew no one was to follow me and
show my mistake, which you qualify
as not only wilfully but maliciously
false. In this connection you allude
to and quote from my argument as
follows:
"This canvass (of the Lynch return
ing bOard) was made-this result pro-
claimed to the citizens Of the State of
Louisiana on the twelfth day of De-
cember What did the Picays,,ae do :?
Did the Picayuae in the month of De-
cember say one word about it? No
not a word. Then comes the month
of January. Did the Picoyene in the
month of January say one word about
it? Not syllable. Another month is
about to expire. On the twenty-third
of February, two months and a half
since the action was committed, then
it is that the virtuous Indignation of
that very virtuOus sheet is aroused,
and it publishes this article.
"Why is it that they single out
Judge Hawkins from the returning
board It was not Hawkins solely
and singly who had perpetrated this
immense injury of which you had
complained. If anybody did it. it was
the board that board was composed
of five individuals. I ask you, if you
put yourselves forward as champions
of public liberty and public interest,
and on that account claimed eXemp-
ton of damages for libellous article
which You have written, I ask you if
Won did that in the interest of the
public, why didn't you pitch into
Longstreet, Lynch, Bovee and Her.
ron? [ might suggest a reason. 1 will
let you guess at it. Some people, you
know, it don't do to trifie with"
In answer to this you pretend that
the Picayrne had repeatedly denounced
the returning board previous to your
article against Judge Hawkins, of the
2:}d of February, 1873. Now, sir,
was defending Judge Hawkins against
Il charge OF ''perfidy, ''perjury'' and
.'bribery" in connection with his Ia
/ bors as member Of the retlu aing
! hoard, and I took occasion to tell the
| jury the Picayune had made no such
! charge against any other member of
| that board. I now reiterate my Ian
guage, and make You this proposition
If you can find and show me, in any
number of the Picayrne, the words
''perfidy, perjury, and bribery" APP
piled to any other member of that
board, | shall publicly acknowledge
was wrong; if you cannot, you will
make the acknowledgment Of contra.
dieting your record.
Your obedient servant,
/ w TT COoIFy