Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-05-27
Letter from Abram 3. hewitt.


WAsHINGTON. d. G., Nay 3, 1852. !
DEAR SIR have read the letter of the
Hon. j. X. Chalmers, dated the 10Th instant,
and addressed to the editors of the Mem phis
APPEAL, OF which you have been good
enough TO hand me a copy. In this letter
General Chalmers quotes me as having said
in the Democratic caucus" in reference to
his case, that
If it was contest between two white men they
could afford TO filibuster but being a contest be-
tween a eOlored aud a white man the Northern
Democrats could not afford to do il.
And again, further on in the letter, Gen
eral Chalmers says:
When Mr.. Hewitt of New York said in caucus
that if it was contest between two white men
the fy eo94d munster LOT me, but being a contest
Democrats could not afford to do it, and when the
Democratic caucus, by its own action, sustained
him in the view, my mind was made up, and did
not conceal It,
As / was not present at the Democratic
caucus to which he refers, could not there
have made the statements for which he seeks
to make me responsible. / am informed,
however, that at thecaucus Judge House, of
Tennessee, stated that he could not advise
the party to resort to hlibustering in order to
keep General Chalmers in his seat. The
opinion expressed by Judge House was also
the judgment of Messrs. Tucker, Carlisle
and Hammond, all Southern Democrats
whose names, with that of Judge House, had
been announced by General Chalmers, in
previous caucus, as his friends chosen to
present and manage his case. Similar ad-
vice was given by the Democratic members
OF the Committee on Elections. Although
this view was opposed by Northern Demo-
crat, Judge Converse, of Ohio, the caucus
decided, as was natural, to follow the advice
of the chosen COUNSEL of General Chalmers,
who were all of them Southern Democrats
l fail to see, therefore, the slightest justi-
fcation for the assertion that the loss
OF his seat is 10 be charged 10 the
Northern Democrats. 1t was rather due
to the fact that those who knew Gen
eral Chalmers best, and the merits of his
case, were not willing 20 advise extreme
measures in order TO defeat the will OF the
Republican majority. So far as concerns any
statement which / may have made elsewhere
than in the caucus (Which l did not attend)
General Chalmers is entirely at fault. At
an informal conference which preceded the
caucus l stated that flIbustering operations
were always regarded with disfayor at the
North, and could only be justified when
they might be necessary in order to get
fair hearing before the Committee on Elec-
tions and the House; that in the Chalmers
case there was no allegation of unfair treat
ment by the committee, nor any desire to
prevent full and fair discussion in the
House. To filibuster under such circum-
stances would, in my opinion, be uDjustifia-
BILE; that our motives would be misrepre-
sented in any case, and that the fact that the
contestant was colored man would intensity
the misrepresentation, to the great prejudice
of the Democratic party in the North-this
view appeared to commend itself to the great
majority of the gentlemen present, nearly all
OF whom were Southern Democrats.
If the case had not been fairly heard
nv the Com uniffpa on Elections. 81 taSti.
mony had been altered or suppressed; if
evidence of such fraudulent transactions
had been rejected by the committee, as in
the pending Mackey-Dibble case, then every
Northern Democrat would not only have
been willing, but would have insisted on OBJ
struction tactics in the House until the COM
mittee might be willing to hear the truth
But when fair hearing has been secured, /
do not think that any Democrat, Northern
or Southern, would take any other course
than was wisely pursued in the case of Gen
eral Chalmers. In other words, that course
was not dictated by personal considerations,
but by the general conviction that he was
entitled to have, and had had fair hear
ing, and as much justice as can ever be ex-
pected from a partisan majority. Finally,
General Chalmers has no excuse for misrep-
the views which L expressed at the
informal gathering above referred to lat
which he was not presently, inasmuch as his
erroneous impressions were corrected by Mr..
Carlisle, OF Kentucky, who authorizes me to
say that when General Chalmers repeated
them to him he told him that he was mis-
taken, and that the remarks which l had
made were not capable of the construction
which General Chalmers had placed upon
them. To which General Chalmers replied
that he "was glad to hear it." but this feel
ing of qualification appears to have ceased
with the loss of his seat. Sincerely yours,
ABRAM 5. HEWITT
The Hon. Van H. Manning, House of Repre-
sentatives.