National Republican., 1882-12-20
THE BATTLE WITH BOWIES.
Each Principal to Have Two Seconds, Armed
with Navy RevOlvers
How It Was Offered, and Why It Was
Never Fought.
Relative Of Gen. Lander Gives Some Interesting
Facts About II
How the General Came 60 be Mentioned
I'm Connection with 1t.
How the General Came 60 be Mentioned
in Connection with 1t.
To The Ediior.

perhaps ought to be corrected. The following
corrections are therefore suggested
The article stated that the trouble occurred
in February, 1861. In this there is a mistake
of year in time. 1t was in April, 1860 that
the debate took place which was the origin of
the dispute. This debate had no reference to
bill for building a military road in Min
nesota," as stated but arose, If it may be
called debate, at the time Mr.. Lovejoy,
then member from Illinois, was interrupted
while making a speech in the house, which
was particularly obnoxious to Gen. Pryor
and his friends. There was great ex-
citement on the floor and an interchange
of heated remarks, Messrs. Pryor and Potter
being conspicuous on their respective sides.
The next day, or day or two after, Mr.. Pryor,
rising to personal explanation, accused Mr..
Potter of "interpolating words into the report
of his remarks" the words being you are
doing the same thing to which Mr. Potter
retorted that Pryor "had afterward erased
the words" "a thing no gentleman had the
right to do" Mr.. Pryor in a note dated Vir-
ginia, 12 o'clock, April 13, 1860 addressed to
Mr.. Potter, referring to the cause of quarrel
says: l only intend to vindicate my charac-
ter against an aspersion which without war.
rant you interpolated in the official report of
the house of representatives and for which
you refused an apology" If Mr.. Pryor is
right the article is wrong when it says:
"Potter called Pryor liar" for which Mr..
Pryor demanded satisfaction. The article
goes on to say that Mr.. Pryor sent challenge
, to Potter by his friend, Lawrence NJ. Keitt,
of South Carolina.
The correspondence published in the Ma
tional Intelhgencer, over the signature of Mr..
Pryor's friend, Hon. S. p. Chisman, shows that
Mr. Hindman delivered the first note to MIR.
Potter on the 11th Of April, at $3.50 p. m.,"
asking Mr.. Potter "to have the kindness to
designate place out of the district" where he
could be addressed.
Mr.. Hindman stated to Mr.. Potter, "at p.
M, that Mr.. Keitt would act for Mr.. Pryor."
but Mr.. Keitt is not again referred to.
Mr.. Chisman himself, instead of Mr.. Keitt,
on the next day delivered the challenge, as
the friend of Mr.. Pryor, and conducted the
further correspondence as such friend. The
acceptance of the challenge was not as stated
to fight in a dark ROOM" The proposal was
to fight Z" in the open air, or in q private room
with common bowie knives" 1.-TWO seconds
to each principal, restricted to one navy re-
volver." To this Mr. Chisman, not Mr.. Keitt,
replied, declining to allow his principal to
fight on such terms. Further, Mr.. Keitt did
not "manage to get Mr.. Pryor to go to Alex
andria." Mr.. Chisman writes that Mr.. Pryor
went to Alexandria in the afternoon of the
11th to avoid arrest, and that he so informed
Mr.. Potter" nor did he keep him there, as
stated, until the close of the session. Pryor
noon of the 18th, when he returned to Wash
ington; that session closed on the Goth of
June.
1t goes on to say that when Pryor learned
"the particulars at later date he branded
Keitt as coward and knave." Mr.. Pryor,
In letter published by his friend Mr.. CHS
man, dated Virginia, April 13, 12 o'clock,
and directed to Mr.. Potter and quoted above,
says: Il cannot abide Mr.. Chisman's decision.
Protesting against your terms, first, because
they do not afford me the satisfaction usual
among gentlemen; second, as inhuman, afro
cious and repugnant to all sentiments, l ac-
cept and will fight" Mr.. Pryor then knew
of the proposal which his second had declined
before his return from Alexandria and before
12 o'clock on April 49, less than four hours
after the last letter of the correspondence be-
tween the seconds. He may have branded
Mr.. keitt as coward and knave, as claimed;
that he did not so brand his friend, Mr.. CHS
man, who in the capacity of second had re-
jected the terms proposed, is plain, for Mr..
Chisman writes that Mr.. Pryor, in return
ing to Washington, finding no friend who
would carry the note (the one written in Vir-
ginia) handed me another, which l agreed to
deliver" In this note, directed to Mr.. Potter,
Mr.. Pryor proposes to fight Mr.. Potter, as
he proposes to defend himself if he will within
three hours designate some place out of the
thoroughfares" and settled parts of Wash
ington.
This note Mr.. Chisman says, she was on
his way to deliver when he heard Of Mr. Pot
ter's arrest After this l could, of course
present no such communication" Mr.. CHS
mans memorandum is published on the six
teenth of April, it is to be presumed with the
approval of his principal, as his side of the
controversy, as no protest from Gen. Pryor
has ever appeared. The mistakes made in
the article in its reference to the late Gen.
Lander are very marked.
This gentleman is charged with "lobbying
for road in Minnesota" with having Mr..
Potter act as his champion on the floor of the
house, thus causing Mr.. Potter to become in
yolved in quarrel on his account; "of being
insolent to southern men;" of being of such
a character that Gen. Pryor was induced to
remain in Alexandria until the close of the
session by Mr.. Keitt, under pretense of fear
of assassination at his hands" As to this last
charge it has been shown that Gen, Pryor
returned to Washington on the afternoon of
the thirteenth of April, dating his last note to
Mr.. Potter at Washington (the note Mr..
Shisman agreed to deliver); that he re-
E,ained there the reports of proceedings of
congress show conclusively. Either such a
statement was not made or Gen. Pryor did not
believe it. Why should he believe it? The
man who was to assassinate him, at That time
a democrat, in the employ of the government
as superintendent of the wagon road to the
Pacific, having been so employed for several
years; before that, chiefengincer of the North
ern Pacific railway survey, and chief engineer
and consulting engineer of other railways
while in process of construction, whose reports
upon the Pacific railway routes had been three
times called for and ordered printed by reso-
lutions of the house of representatives, was
hardly the person at whose hands a fellow |
democrat would fear assassination. Had he
been such a one, was it probable that Jacob
Thompson, of Mississippi, then secretary of
the interior, would have continued in office |
one who could be thus suspected?
The charge of an insolent manner to south
ern men is wholly unfounded: Those who |
knew Gen. Lander, who knew his kindness of
heart his generosity of disposition, his uni |
form gentleness and courtesy of manner, will |
all bear witness against it. He was n bold and |
daring man, but in no sense an aggressive or |
quarrelsome one. Imposing on no one, he |
bore much without apparent resentments as
brave men will.
At that time Gen. Lander was advocating |
in conversation the passage of bill for the |
building of two Pacific railways, one by the |
way of Utah, the other by the extreme south |
ern line, for the purpose of uniting both sec |
tions of the country in the support of q bill |
providing for both. A printed pamphlet pub
lished by him that winter had shown the ne
cessity Of some road, and given the preference
to the central line.
Is it probable that he was antagonizing a |
favorite project to which he had then given |
seven years of his life and his best energies; |
to assist which he had crossed the great plains |
six times-hve times in the employ of the |
government and once ut his own expense
examining the country with view to the |
buildinu Of railway for xvhich ba bod |