Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

his dull sleepy look was changed into a wild, almost devilish.expression. He looked as Job did when he 'contorted. The General lost his usual mahogany color, and looked pale; but he said nothing. Lazy Sam won the race hy about thirty feet. Job was suddenly cool as a cucumber. And a he put the twenty-five hundred dollar check in his greasy pocket book winch he did very deliberately, lie looked round cunningly, ‘I think that’s leetle past common;’ said Job. ‘Why, Gin’ral, Sam’s laid you as cold as a wedge.’ He turned round suddenly to his rider, ‘Jim, you’re a snorter, here’s five dol lars, why it all goes in a man’s lifetime, but the Gin’ral looks as though he’d been squeez ed through the little end of nothing. POLITICAL. ■ TT..T very high de From the Macon Messenger. MESSRS. STEPHENS AND STILES. Wepublishedlastweek, aspeecliof Mr. Stiles and will also give room for one of Mr. Ste phens’s, perhaps in our next number. The j speech of Mr. Stephens concludes with the | following very pointed note : Since the preparation of the foregoing sheets ' for the press, 1 have seen published in the j Globe what purports to be a speech delivered i in the House upon the same subject, by “ Mr. : Stiles of Georgia,” in which are some remarks J quite personal to myself. This, I take it lor j granted, was written by himself, and published i by his authority. And I notice, that in what j he reports me to have said to him in the House, ; in the progress of his speech, he has repte-j sented me as saying what 1 can hut belive he j knew that 1 did not say, and he has entirely j omitted what I am equally confident lie must j hare known that I did say. Here is not only a suppressio reri, but a clear ; gestio falsi; either of which, according to I most casuists, is wholly inconsistent with a , ee of “ moral ^foment,” a '“l i litude, even 1 by the attrociousness ol that hyp'tfEJ' jpTTiat : would commence the grossest of personal at tacks with the profession “ of all kindness.” i Efforts to assail me or my position, from : such a soui re, and of such a character, as those of that member, ei her as originally made or now reported, will prove no less important in their object, than they were doubtless malig nant in their origin. To his remarks as far as ; my position is concerned, therefore, I have no reply. To such an argument I shall never deism to reply. That position I have placed • fully before the country, and leave the coun try to judge of it. But, ns far as his remarks may have been intended to answer the purpose of conveying a personal insult, I have this reply ; that no man, without a provocation, would have chos- j en the arena of the House, and profaned its w.tlls (in such a purpose, or to give vent to Lis private malice, who wasjjot a knave by nature, ; and a pa/hoon at heatt. And 1 take this me/hr od of making this reply, l>ecause 1 do not i choose to select the floor of the House as the proper place for personal altercations. I did , not come here for that jturpo.se.—And in so doing, I feel that I should no less degrade my- | self, than offer an unpardonable indignity to, 1 made Use of no such statement, why was it, wlieh he had risen for the purpose of seeking explanation and of effecting corrections, that he made no allusion to it ? As to the second part of tile charge, viz : the allegation that I had omitted to state all that he did say. That there were probably remarks made by him, which, from the dis tance that we were separated, may have been lost in the confusion of the House, I do not pretend to deny; but even had they been heard, or kuown to me at the time of writing out my speech, I am not sensible of any obli gation resting on me to become the reporters of another. The labor incident to the usual course on such occasions I felt quite sufficient for myself—that is, to report my own remarks, ana such portions of those of another as I conceived necessary to explain my own. But does this justify his course ?—excuse his low and tardy vengeance ? He dues not pretend that there was any vat iance between my own speech, as delivered and as published; and it is that at which his venom is directed, and to which he has undertaken to assign “ the pur- pnse of conveying a personal insult,” and which, after a fortnight’s deliberation, has at length elicited his most ungentlemanly reply. In conclusion, 1 have only to say, that the object of this individual must be obvious to my intelligent constituents; and 1 have no fear that he can thus escape the consequences of the position which he lias assumed on this question, nor evade the odium of having fail ed to vindicate his honor, when he chooses to complain that it has been assailed. WILLIAM II. STILES. Extract, of Mr. Stile's speech “on the right of members to their seats in the House of Re presentatives." It is to me a source of regret that the course which my colleague has jiursued on this ques tion, has made it necessory to advert Jo jjneu unenviable position whiefe..^ ftrard'to it, he 1 J"; ‘assume. I regret that he Srfitilu nave thought it necessary, by a laboied speech, to have convinced us of his want of title to his seat, when that end could have been so much more effectually and consistently ac complished, without the utterance of a single word, by his absence from this hall. But I regret, more than all, that, with a declaration on his lips that he is not entitled to his seat, he should still undertake to vote, act, and receive the emoluments to which a right to that seat alone entitled him. There was a time when such assurance would have been considered at least a want of delicacy ; when such a dif ference between ojriniotr and action would have been held at ieast a want of consisten cy ; but those days, I suppose, are gone, and the time arrived when such unblushing effron tery is deemed, perhaps, an exhibition of “ moral firmness,” surpassing that which dis tinguished General Jackson at New Orleans, and equalled only by that of the judge who pronounced the infamous sentence upon him. My colleague says that this is a question for the judgment of this House : but let me tell him, in all kindness, that he has, in my opin ion, mistaken the tribunal in which such a question was properly cognizable. His posi tion involved a question, let me say to him,not ii i i ii t - to be tried and decided in this House, but that high minded and honorab e constituency, , a]one fo be deterrnined in flora conscientias. whose representative I am. And if any apol- , Before that tribunal do I arraign and charge oey be due for the language used, .even in this ! place, I can only say, in extenuation of my er ror, (if such it lie,) that I was taught, in that “code of morals” in which “1 whs educated,” that “ a fool should be answered according to bis folly;” and my instinct tell tne that Hack stands sometimes should be treated in a similar way. A. H. STEPHENS. Washington, Feb. 26, 1S44. TO THE PEOPLE OF GEORGIA. A friend has called my attention to a note published by Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, as an addendum to his printed speech in the House of Representatives, “ on the right of mem bers to their seats in the House of Represen tatives,” and to which I replied while he was present in his place. It is evident that this note is an appeal to the public for satisfaction of his “private griefs,” and as he thought proper to select that mode of settling whatever questions of fact or morals may have existed between us, I conceive 1 have no alternative left, but to vin dicate myself before the same tribunal, by a brief statement of the occurrences which elici ted his abuse. Whether he has selected the usual and proper “ method" of satisfaction for remarks deemed by him “quite personal” to himself, was a question referable alone to bis own judgment; and bis “discretion” having decided that question in the way indicated in liis public note, 1 proceed to refute, for the sat isfaction of my constituents, such of his charges as may seem to bear on tire position assumed by me in debate, leaving him sole master of that bloodless field, wherein a “war of wor ds” is the only conflict. I did occupy my hour upon the subject stated, and, in the course of my remarks, commented upon the inconsistencies of Mr. Stephens’s opinions and conduct. If my allusion to him had been deemed offensive at the time it was uttered, lie had the opportunity to repel it, nr to explain, as 1 r epeatedly yielded to him the floor for eitherpurpo-e. He was furnished with anoth er opportunity on the succeeding morning, when he arose to correct such parts of the re porter's account of my remarks as he deemed erroneous. On neither of those occasions did he make any such effort ; but now, after the lapse of a fortnight, would palliate his neglect, ami excuse his want of resentment, by the insinuation that there is a variance between the circumstances as detailed in my speech, and as they actually occurred in the House; and, al though my remarks were apjdicable to his po sition, upon which he states in his note he does “ not deign a reply,” yet he seizes the oppor tunity to indulge in a jiarade of vulgar epithets, which his loss of position and unfor tunate personal situation enable him to use with impunity. It will thus be perceived that the following quotation from his note is the only portion of it in relation to which 1 am left at liberty to offer any explanation. He states : “ And I notice in what he reports me to have said to him in the House, in the progress of his speed), he h as represented me as saying what I can but believe that he knew that I did not say, and has entirely omitted what 1 am equally confident he must have known that 1 did say.” As to the correctness of the former part of the charge—viz: that of misrepresenting what he did say—hut reference to the subjoined ex tract from my speech, (and which includes my entire remarks upon the point of Mr. Ste phens’s position,) it will be observed that a single question, whether I “would undertake to be the keeper or the judge of his con science,” is the only remark which I quote him as making. Now, that this question, if not in those identical words, was, at least in substance, asked me by Mr. S., 1 can not only most confidently appeal for corroboration to every member of the House, but indirectly establish it by that individual himself. On the morning after the delivery of my remarks, Mr. S. (as 1 have already had occasion to mention) called ray attention to the reporter’s account of what occurred between us, and the paper wl licit he at that time held in his hand was a copy of tlie morning Globe, and from which 1 make the following extract: “ Mr. Stephens, on leave being given him to explain, said: 1 he gentleman had no right to judge of his (Mr. S.’s) conscience.” Here is the very idea I quote him as mak ing, wanting only the interrogatory form, which is as correct as the sketches of report- ers generally are; and, if erroneous, if he bad caustic hint with the commission of two high and enormous offences. He cannot but know, from the study of that profession for which be was educated. tW na ture r»r>j criminality of the offence; and I therefore leave him to name it, while I ebatge him with taking that to which he says, and perhaps thinks, he knows that he has no right, or even “ color of title.” Again: he cannot but know, from the pro fession he has followed, that, to participate in the deliberations of this body, with no right to a seat, is against the constitution ; and I there upon charge him with the offence, (leaving him to name it,) which arises out of the violation of an instrument which he has sworn to sup port. [Mr. Stephens, on leave being given him, asked if the gentleman would undertake to be the keeper or the judge of his conscience?] Mr. Stiles replied : God forbid that I should ever be the keeper of such a conscience ! Yes, sir, my colleague, with a declaration on his lips, and a feeling in his heart, that he is not entitled to his seat—whilst, consequen tly, in the very act of violating the constitu tion of his country—lays his hand upon the word of life, and calls upon God to help him, or not to help him, as he may or may not sup port that instrument. If not before high heaven—if not before the world, at least in the silent workings of his thoughts, he must plead guilty ! guilty ! Sir, I dismiss him ; and, without presuming to be his “judge,” I may say to him, with as deep sincerity as ever it was pronounced from the bench to a con demned criminal, “ may God Almighty have mercy upon your soul !” from KtndalTs Expositor. “ THOU SHALT NOT KILL.” dialogue between a Deacon and his Minister, o n the subject of the Presidential Election. Deacon—I come to advise with you as to the course which, as a Christ'an, I ought to pursue in the next presidential election. Minister—Well, what are your difficulties? D.—I am a true Whig, and I hope a true Christian. In 1828 I was much inclined to vote for Gen. Jackson on account of the great services he had rendered the country, but you advised me that, as a true Christian, 1 could not do so, because he had set at defiance the laws of God and man, by fighting a duel.— The Whigs now present us a candidate for the Presidency who has fouehttwo duels, and been an accomplice in a third. What am I to do? M.—I have heard that Clay was a duelist, j: but have never inquired into the particulars. I D.—I have, for I thought it my duty to do i so when called on to put him at the head of the nation to see the laws faithfully executed. Shall I give you the particulars. M.—Go on. D.—Here is a “Biography of Henry Clay,” written by his particular friend, George D. Prentice. At page 30, we are told lie accept ed a challenge from Col. Daviess, but it was adjusted. At page 45, is an account of his; first duel. Here at e the words of the Biogra pher, viz : “ Mr. Clay brought a resolution before the House [the Kentucky Blouse of Representa tives,] that each member, for the purpose of encouraging the industry of the country, should clothe himself in garments of domestic manufacture. This resolution called into ex ercise all Mr. Marshall’s talents of vitupera tion. He denounced k as the project*of a demagogue, and 2 a variety of epithets I°- -IBS author which no parliamentary rules could justify. Mr. Clay’s language in reply was probably of a harsh character, and the quarrel proceeded from one stage to another,, till according to the laws of honor, which eve ry Kentuckian of that day was taught to reve rence, no alternative remained to Mr. Clay,, and he was requited to challenge his antago nist. The challenge was accejited. The par ties met, and the first shot was exchanged without other effect than a slight wound to Mr. Marshall. On the second or third trial, Mr. Marshall’s balfgave Mr. Clay a slight flesh wound in the leg, and the seconds now inter fered and prevented a continuance of the com bat.” This account is given by a friend and apolo gist. But it shows that Mr. Clay was the thal- Icnger and that twice or thriic lie deliberately attempted to take away the life of a fellow- man. M.—But does not the Historian say Mr. Clay has repented this early crime ? D.—He says, “we have no doubt that Mr. Clay erred in this affair with Mr. Marshall, and it is said that he himself looks back to the | incident with disapprobation and regret.” If! there had been any sincere repentance it would I have shown itself in his subsequent conduct, j So far from that, some seventeen years after-; wards, he publicly proclaimed his determine-j tion to commit the same crime if lie could fend j an antagonist, and the next year did commit it!, j M.—Let us have the particulars. D.—Prior to the election of President by ! the House of Representatives in 1825, it was should, reason. The true corrective will be found, when all shall unite, as all ought to unite, in its unqualified proscription.” D.—I had observed that passage and re flected upon it. I will sndeavoj to give the views it suggests. 1. To kill in a duel is MURDER, by the laws of God and man. » 2. According to Mr. Clay’s reasoning, mur der of this sort, is to be excused because it is “ an affair of feeling." Otherwise he is with out excuse. 3. All malicious murder is “ an affair of feel ing,” and is excused on the same ground. 4. How can all unite “in its unqualified “ Being the friend of Mr. Grates, 1 could not invoke the authority of the police to prevent the duel." H is friends, Messrs. Chas. King and Rever- dy Johnson, concur in stating, that on their ur gent appeal to Mr. Clay to aid in arresting the duel, Clay replied in substance, “ that we saw how he was situated. Mr. Graves had consulted him. He ought not, he said, to have been consulted ; but having been, the honor of his friend who was the challenger, might be compromised by any advance on 1 is (Mr. Clay’s) part to arrest the progress of the affair.” These gentlemen found Mr. Graves with Mr. Clay on that occasion, it then being proscription,” when men like Mr. Clay, whom past six o’clock in the evening, and early the society recognizes as its leaders, apologize for the crime and persist in committing it ? 5. So far from promising reformation in this address, Mr. Clav avows that he “may be forc ed” to fight again. What is his “deeper ab horrence” worth, with this avowal on his lips ? G. Is it not the suiest way to arrive at that “ unqualified proscription” which Mr. Clay says is “the true corrective,” for “all” to ■unite in the unqualified proscription'' from the high offices of the country, of all who are guil ty of this awful crime ? M.—I believe the blood of no murdered man is upon Mr. Clay’s head. D.—I am not certain of that. But be that as it may, it is no apology for Mr. Clay that be did not succeed in his murderous design.— The reason why the blood of Randolph does not rest on his bead, is thus lightly given by his Biographer, pages 299, 300, viz : “ In due time, the jiarties fired and luckily for both of them, or at least for Mr. Clay, Mr. Raft-, dal pit’s life was saved byjij* -gdwnfThe un seemly tufflFent constituted such a vast cir cumference, that the locality of * the thin and swarthy Senator was at least, a matter of ve ry vague conjecture. Mr. C. might as well have fired into the outspread top of an oak, in the hope of hitting a bird be supposed to be snugly perched somewhere among the branch es. Ilis ball hit the. centre of the visible object, but Randolph was not there—and of course the shot did no harm and no good.” This shows that if the blood of Randolph does not rest on Mr. Clay’s head, it is not for lack of malice or of deadly aim. M.—But you say you ate not sure that the blood of the murdered does not rest on Mr. Clay’s head : what did you refer to ? D—To the murder of Mr. Cilley in 1836. M.—Why, Mr. Clay had nothing to do with that. D.—You are greatly mistaken. He was M r. G raves’ adviser from the beginning, until he went out to fight, and was clearly an accom plice in the murder. M.—What authority have you for that? D.—’I he authority of Mr. Clay’s particular f und, and of Mr. Clay himself. You may remember, that Mr. Graves of Kentucky was the bearer of a challenge from James Wat son M ebb, to Mr. Cilley, for words spoken in debate. Mr. Cilley verbally declined accept ing the challenge for reasons which were en tirely satisfactory to Mr. Graves. But upon consultation with Mr. Clay, it was determin ed to require Mr. Cilley to put his reasons in writing, and to state among other things that he considered James Watson Webb a gentle man. This he refused to do, because he could not in conscience, and for not admitting that to be hue which he knew to be false, Mr. Graves challenged and killed him. And this charged in a letter published in Philadelphia, ji he did under the advice of Ilenry Clay as I purporting to be written by a member of the ; - Beauties of Whiggery. “Mr. Clay, has long since forfeited all claims to the suffrages ol the South, hy his zealous support of the Ta riff; and his advocacy of the Force Iiilt. w ill afford an ad ditional reason for his receiving the determined opposi tion of the State Rights Party.”—Ga. Journal, Dec. 25.1838. “We can never srfpport the distinguished Orator whose powerful eloquence, has in so many instances been directed against the interests of the South We can never support an advocate of the “Force Bill”—we cannot support • Harry ofthe West.”—Georgia Journal, Feb. 26, 1839. “We were among those who believed Mr. Clay was wedded to a United States Bank, but events as they have transpired. convinces us that we were in error.’ “We are pleased that he has abandoned the project, and sin cerely hope that the energies of his great and powerful mind, will be directed to the support of what we conceive to he more beneficial to the country.— Ga. Journal, May 28.1839. “Our correspondent with oil his zeal, cannot arrive at the forced construction, that we necessarily because Mr. Calhoun is in favor, and Clay and Webster opposed to the Sub Treasury scheme, are tinctured will) Clavism, Wehsieristn. Federalism, the American System and Ab olitionism. Of these sins we have never been accused by our enemies, and it is too late in the day for us to be catechised hy our friends.” To answer our correspondent categorically, we have to say. that vve are neither a Clay nor Webster man, and so far as the Sub-Treasury is concerned we are not a Calhoun man.”—Georgia Messenger, April'26.1838. “As to die other charges of minor consideration, but no less false, viz: That the Georgia Whigs are in favor of a National i Bank. That the Georgia Whigs are in favor of Henry Clay. That the Georgia Whigs, are penegyrists of Daniel Webster. We would express out denial in a very emphatic mon osyllable, were not the use of it offensive to “ears po lite.”— Georgia Messenger, August 23, 1838. To the Editor of the Georgia Messenger: “The opposition which is made to Henry Clay by the States Right Party, is one ol principle. They have no predilections for him as President of the United S ates, nor love for his political creed. He hasalwavs been the open ami avawed. hut generous opposer of tbeir doc trines. They cannot, to be consistent cast their suffra ges in his favor, and opposition to his election, will be aa firmly persevered in, as will be the opposition ofthe same party, to Martin Van Btiren."—Georgia Journal, June 11. 1839. “We will strive to promote the cause of State Rights, by placing before the people, the acts and opinions of a distinguished son ofGeorgia, (G. If. Troup,) in contrast with those of Martin Van Buren and Henry Clay.” ( Georgia Journal, July 9, 1839. “Mr. Clay has identified himself with a course of poli cy on the part of the Federal Government, which is in our opinion no less unjust ihau injurious to the best in terests of the South; against his views, we have warred hitherto, and shall continue to war uncompromisingly.” [Southern Recorder, April 3, 1838.' “Wc consider that a choice of either (Van Buren or Clay.) would be a great evilu therefore we. shall choose neither.—Southern Recorder, May 7,1839. Cure tor Corns.—Corns may be cured by binding them tight at night with a piece of sponge, moistened in a solution of pearlash. The com may be brushed off in the morning, having been dissolved by the yctiAtl of the Blouse, that Mr. Clay had bargained to make Mr. Adams President, on condition of receiv ing preferment at his hands, whereupon Mr. Clay published a card in the newspapers which concluded as follows, viz : “ I pronounce the member, whoever he may ' be, a BASE and INFAMOUS CALUMNIA TOR, A DASTARD AND A LIAR; and if he dare unveil himself and avow his name, I will hold him responsible, as I here admit myself to he, to all the laws which govern and regulate the conduct of men of honor. 1 H. CLAY.” | Mr. Clay was then Speaker of the House of Representatives, and it was from that high sta tion that he thus hurled defiance at the laws of God and man, shocking all the moral and re ligious feelings of this great nation. M.—But no duel grew out of that, I believe. D.—No ; hut it was not in consequence of any retraction or repentance on the part of Mr. Clay, as the events of the next year am ply demonstrate. M.—Go on. D.—Mr. Adams was elected President hy the aid of Mr. Clay’s vote and influence, and appointed Mr. Clay Secretary of State. In a speech in the Senate at the next session of Congress, John Randolph characterised this coalition of known political enemies, as the union of the “ Eastern Puritan with the Wes tern Blackleg." Mr. Clay immediately sent a challenge. Mr. Clay’s Biographer has not thought proper, in the text of his work, to give us any account of this duel, hut in the news papers of the day, 1 find the following official account of the meeting, viz : “On Saturday, the Sth April, at half past four o’clock, a meeting took place between Mr. Clay and Mr. Randolph, upon a call of the former, in consequence of certain expres sions used hy the latter in a recent debate in the Senate, which Mr. Clay considered offen sive, and applied personally to him. “Mr. Randolph was attended by Col. Tat- nall, ofGeorgia, and Major Hamilton of South Carolina. Mr. Clay, hy Gen. Jessup of the Army, and Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. “ The parties met on the ground—exchang ed salutations, and took their stations. “ The Pistol of Mr. Randolph, which was suspended by his side, went off'. It was per ceived to he an accident, and so pronounced by Mr. Clay; immediately, however, upon the report of the pistol, Mr. R. turned to Col. T. and said, “ I told you so.” Col. T. then turning to Gen. J. observed, “ Sir, the fault is mine—Mr. R. protested against the use of the hair trigger—it was at my express instance the hair was sprung.” Another pistol was hand ed to Mr. R. The parties resumed their sta tions and exchanged shots without effect. “ Immediately after the report of the pis tols, while Col. T. and Gen. J. were reloading, Col. Benton, of Mo. rode up, and united with Mr. Johnson and Col. Hamilton in an effort to stop the affair, which proved ineffectual. The patties again took their stations, and the word being given, Mr. Clay raised his pistol and fired, and the ball passed through Mr. R’s clothes. Mr. R. reserved his fire—holding his pistol perpendicularly up—said, “ I do not fire at you, Mr. Clay.” and discharged his pis tol in the air. He added, “it was not my in tention to have fired at you at all; the unfor tunate circumstance of my pistol going oft’ac cidentally, changed my determination.” At this instant Col. Benton came up and said, “Yes, Mr. R. told me so expressly, 8 days ago.” The parties simultaneously approach ed towards each other, both with extended hands, Mr. R. remarking, “ Sir, I give you my hand,” which was received hy Mr. Clay, and the affair thus happily closed.” M.—But look here ; Mr. Clay’s Biographer in his Appendix, page 292, n -tices this duel, and says Mr. Clay “regrets this incident.”— He gives an extract from Mr. Clay’s address to his fellow-citizens soon after the duel, in which he says, “ I owe it to the community to say, that whatever heretofore I may have done, or, by inevitable circumstances, may be forced to do, no man holds in deeper abhor rence than I do, the pernicious practice of du elling. Condemned tis it must he, by the judg ment and philosophy, to say nothing of the re ligion, of every thinking man, it is an affair of feeling, about which we cannot, although we Here is a letter from Mr. Clay to Henry A. Wise, dated February 2S, 1S42, in which Mr. Clay says: “ I did not know that Mr. Graves bore a note from Col. Webb to Mr. Cilley until after the delivery of the note and after Mr. Graves received from him a verbal answer. In that stage of the transaction, for the first time, Mr. Graves communicated the matter to me, and I congratulated him on the fact of that answer beiug perfectly satisfactory and such as to ab solve him from all obligation to pursue the af fair further."—“On conversation together, we both agreed that, to guard against future mis understanding and misrepresentation, it was desit able that Mr. Cilley should put it in writ ing what lie had verbally answered.” Upon this advice Mr. Graves required a written statement from Mr. Cilley, containing a concession that Webb was a gentleman; and not being able to obtain it, he returned to Mr. Clay for further counsel. In reference to what then pasred ; Mr. Clay says in the same letter:— “ When on the day preceding the duel, Mr. Graves in company with you, came to my room, I was informed that lie had determined to challenge Mr. Cilley, and lie showed me the challenge which he had drawn. Upon reading it, 1 thought it closed the door to all accommodation, stated that objection, and sketched a draught in my own handwriting which would admit of an amicable adjust ment.” This draught in Mr. Clay’s own handwrit ing, was copied hy Mr. Graves and sent to Mr. Cilley. It was in the following words, viz : Washington City, Feb. 23, 1S3S. Hon. J. Cilley : As you have declined accepting a commu nication which I bore to you from Col. Wehh, and as by your note of yesterday you have re fused to decline on grounds which would ex onorate me from all responsibility growing out of this affair, I am left no other alternative hut to ask that satisfaction which is recognized a mong gentlemen My friend Hon. Henry A. Wise, is authorized hy me to make the ar rangements suitable to the occasion, Your obedient servant, \V. J. GRAVES. From a statement published by Messrs. Wise and Jones (the seconds,) after the duel, it appears that Mr. Jones stated to Mr. Wise (when Cilley accepted the challenge,) that he was authorized by Mr. Cilley to say, that in declining to receive the note from Mr. Graves, purporting to be from Col. Webb, he meant no disrespect to Mr. Graves, because he en tertained for him then, as he does now, the highest respect and gthe most kind feeling; but that he declined to receive the note be cause he chose not to he drawn into any con troversy with Col. Webb.” Yet, after this second disavowal of any dis respect to Mr. Graves, was this duel pushed, under the advice of Mr. Clay, to a fatal ter mination. But this was not the last of Mr. Clay’s agen cy.— He was duly informed of the acceptance of the challenge written by him, and of the arrangement to fight with the deadly rifle. In the same letter he says : “ My belief is, that I never saw the terms according to which the combat was to be con ducted, prior to the duel, although I think they were stated and explained to me,probably by you" (Mr. Wise.) That he was in possession of all the parti culars, is proved by the statements of Charles King and Reverdy Johnson,Esqr’s., published by Mr. Clay himself, in which the former says: “ At neither interview were we shown the written challenge and acceptance or the terms of the duel, but had them explained, to us on ly by Mr. Clay.” By Mr. Clay’s own evidence, therefore, it appears, that he advised the written corres pondence which led to the duel, that he drew the challenge, and that he knew the terms on which they were to fight. M.—Well, when he knew that the parties had arranged to commit mutual murder, did he not i^ntke the power of the law to prevent it ? D.—So far from that, he directly refused to do so! In the letter already referred to, Mr. Clay says; next morning the awful murder was consumat ed almost in sight of the Capitol ! Mr. Clay says, he did not expect the duel to he fought the next day, because Mr. Graves had not at that time procured a rifle ; but Mr. Clay’s colleague from Kentucky in the Senate, and one of his particular friends in the House, borrowed one about twelve o'clock at night with which the fatal deed was consummated in the niornig. Mr. Wise, who was Mr. Graves’ second, has declared that the duel was caused hy Mr. Clay’s advice which differed from his own ; and Mr. Clay says in his letter : “ I admit without any rcserca'ion uhaterer. that on all the paints of the controversy respecting which he (Graces') asl.cd my opinion. I gate it to him freely, according to the best of my judgment.'' It thus appears: That Mr. Clay helped to conce t this murder. And : That when the plan was all complete, he refused to aid in rrrestir.g it. ... Docs not the-bloodof Cilley rest on Mr. Clay's head ? M But .Mr Graves was .Mr. Clay’s friend, lie says he was hound 'o give his advice when asked. D.—That may he ; lint can any man lawfully advise his friend to commit murder ? Can any man, knowing that a murder was in contemplation, acquit himself of his duty to God and man, without taking efficient steps to prevent it! With Mr. Clay, this was not “an affair ol feeling” like hi duel with Randolph; he at least could " reason” in this case. M— Is your case fully stated ? I).—No; 1 have one point more. The Constitution ofthe U. States says: “ For any speech or debate in either house, they (the members of Congress) shall not be questioned in any other place.” When Henry Ciay was appointed Secretary of State in 1825. he took the following oath prescribed hy law, in pursuance ol the Constitution: viz. ‘ I HENRY CRAY, do solemnly swear that 1 will sup port the Constitution of the United ‘States. SO IIELI* ME GOD ” Yet. the words for which he challenged and attempted to kill John Randolph were spoken in debate in the Senate of the United States. If .Mr. Clay had been a private citi zen, this challenge would have been a violation of the constitution; being Secretary of State, and under oath to support that instrument, it was not only a violation ofthe constitution, hut ofhis SWORN COVENANT WITH HIS GOD. I low can I, as a Christian, or good citizen, support for President a man who not only violates the most sacred lairs, human and dirine. butsetsat naught his SOLEMN OATHS? What will become of our laws, our ronsii- titntion nr our country, when a mail who is capable of becoming so excited By “ an "fair of feeling.'’ that he cannot reason though he should, shall hold in his hand the Executive Power of this great Republic? Graves, the principal in this tragedy, is now spreading out his bloody hands to die people of Kentucky imploring them to vote for his principal! Is this fit company for Christians? M.—I confess you have made out a stronger case against Mr. Clay than I supposed possible He has twice shown himself willing to commit murder in duels, and twice attempted it. He has aided and counselled another in pursuing unto Death, a fellow man, who had repeatedly disavowed all personal disrespect or unkindness towards his pursuer, simply because he refused to admit ichat he believed to he untrue. For this cause only, a happy wife was made a widow, and little childreu made fatherless. He has violated at the same time, the constitution ofhis country and his oath bifore his God. I have now to repeat the advice given you in 1828; for in some respects, Mr. Clay's crimes exceed those of mg party proiess to Be the friends of re ligion. late and order. If true to this profession, we can not vote tor men who set at defiiiance man's laws, and God’s laws, and rush to the commission of crime over the constitution and their ouths. Nay, I am not sure that we ought not, if our Whig leaders persist in pressing on us such a candidate, to take the most effectual way to prevent his election hy voting for his opponent. From the Philadelphian. The Hartford Times, in alluding to Henry Clay’s celebrated “card,” issued when Kre- mer cried aloud and spared not, sums up the argument in the subjoined brief and emphatic manner, which is worth whole volumes of de nial from parties interested and criminated, who of course say “ not guilty,” according to the usual formulas on occasions of this sort. Here are the facts, not to be evaded, misre presented or denied. And yet tLie people are asked to vote for a man whose political prin ciples bang so loosely on him that for an office he betrayed his state and his party, and who, after publicly declaring that the charge against him was a lie, proved its truth by doing the very thing with which he had been charged. Is treachery of this sort a Presidential quali fication ? “ Now we ask our readers to mark this point. Henry Clay’s “card” denounced the author of the letter in the Columbia Observer as *• a base and infamous calumniator, a dastard and liar.” The letter was written in January 1S25, about four weeks previous to the elec tion of John Quincy Adams, and stated that there was evidence that Mr. Clay was about to vote for John Quincy Adams, against the special instructions of the Legislature of his own State, and that Clay would he rewarded by a high office for his treachery. This is the substance of the letter which called out Clay’s “card” of a general challenge—this is what Clay pronounced to he a “calumny” and a “lie.” In February about four weeks after the publication of Clay’s card, the Presiden tial election in the House of Representatives took place. Clay voted for Adams, against the instructions of Kentucky, as the letter said he would. Shortly after that, Mr. Clay was appointed Secretary of State, thus prov ing the statement of the letter which Clay de clared to be a “ lie.” How much reason had he for the public challenge he put forth ? Hartford Times. ' > ^TGLAND^ CHINa!* The article below, which the National In telligencer copies ft oat the old blue-light An glo-American organ of the last war—the New York Commercial Advertiser—renders quite transparent the liberal policy adopted by the government of England in regard to the com merce of other nations with China. The British Commercial says, as the news it gives: “ How it has come into our possession, eiftcr so long a delay, we are under no obligation to tell. It is sufficient for the reader to be assured that it is authentic." There is no need to throw an air of myste ry ovei the Commercial Advertiser’s sources of information, when it undertakes its old of fice of breaking English news to American ears. It will be seen, hy the roundabout in telligence which the editor gets from some agent in this country, derived from (in all like lihood) another British agent in China by the Ann McKim, that our minister, Mr. Cushing, is not to be permitted to visit the imperial court. It seems that “ a ■>. impression prevailed that- Sir Henry Pottinger and the English au thorities would much prefer that other nations should be content with the assurance that the same commercial privileges had been secured to all, and that no attempt should be made to esta blish diplomatic relations with the imperial court, with a view to the formation of separate treaties," Sfc. i\v. This, the reader will remark, is the language of the American editor, in conveying his En glish news to the country. “ The English authorities much prefer,” &c. So it will be seen that the English authority in China al ready sets up to dictate what diplomatic rela tions other independent nations shall establish jvith China, and what rights they shall enjoy there. All the ceremonial had with Keying, a kinsman as well as representative of the Emperor, and Kiking, the viceroy, hy the American consul at Canton, ends after the civilities in the rebuff given in the brief inter rogatory, on the part of the Chinese automa tons. “ Why go to Pekin ? There is no neces sity for liis (,\lr. Cushing’s) going there, as the comma rialprivileges and terms winch had been agreed upon with the English were gi anted also to the Americans.” This is nothing more nor less than the reply of the “ English authority in China,” through the instruments of the Emperor whom their power has compelled him to appoint, or who are bribed over to their interests. It is clear that England looks upon China as a conquest, and means to take the same measures with that empire that she has done with that of India. While she is riveting her power, anti, by terror and bribery, bring ing the mandarins and other great subjects under her influence, as she did the nabobs of India, she will be very gracious to the mer chants of other nations, and will not imme diately lav claim to the lion’s share—the whole. But when she has made herself absolute over the natives, and turned the millions into sea- poys under the British officers, she will hold another language to all commercial rivals. In the meantime, she will interdict other govern ments from immediate communication with the Celestial authorities, and make them take their answer from the terrestrial “English authorit es” established on the seaboard of that empire. It will be observed from the tenor of the Commercial Advertiser’s article, that its editoi is as much under British influence as Keying or the Chinese viceroy. He is quite willing that this country sIiohH Go ...mti-tiz to hn\e its diplomatic relations with China put. under En glish guardianship, and allow our rights to de pend upon her will. Walsh’s Paris letter also intimates, through to-day’s Intelligencer, that England undertakes to manage for all the rest of the world in that quarter of Asia ; and he, as well as his federal brethren in this cauntry, would be glad to see all the nations acknowl edge his vassalage to their great patron. OUR REPRESENTATIVES IN CON GRESS. We have been gratified to notice the high character which has been already attained hy the democratic portion of our delegation in Congress. Our younger members have parti cularly distinguished themselves and acquired lasting reputations as vigilant and able defen ders of republican principles and the Consti tutional rights of the South. Upon the two great questions which almost exclusively occu pied Congress since the beginning of the pre sent session, they have assumed the true—the democratic—the Constitutional position and maintained it with great firmness and ability. The republican party have reason to he proud of their able representation on the floor of Congress. And grateful for the zeal, the elo quence, the ability, and the energy which they have displayed in the defence of our dear est rights and principles. Of Colquitt and Black it is only necessary to observe, that they have nobly maintained their well-earned repu tations.— We admire that generous warmth which cannot keep cool, when the vital and constitutional rights of the South are invaded by open foes, or abandoned by treacherous friends. We tender our humble meed of ap probation to Colquitt, Black, Cobb, Stiles, Lumpkin, and Harbalson. Nor should Col. Chappell, the worthy representative from our own section, although a political opponent he foigotten. We have observed with pleasure the imnly and independent course pursued by him in regard to the question of admitting the members elected by the general ticket system. We observe with pleasure that Col. Chappell has not quite sunk the old State Rights men and Nullifier into the Clay Whig, in spite of some sharp raps over the knuckles from the Savannah Republican and others. It was once our pride and pleasure to do battle sid s by side with’ the Col., for the identical princi ples involved in this case.—Macon Democrat. NEWS FROM CHINA. It is somewhat remarkable (says the New York Commercial Advertiser of Saturday) that the most curious, and not by any means the least important, intelligence from China, brought hy the Ann McKim, which arrived more than a week ago, has not yet found its way to the public. How it has come into our possession, afterso longa delay, we are under no obligation to tell. It is sufficient for the reader to be. assured that it is authentic, as, in deed, is evident from its tenor. When the Ann McKim sailed, as is proba bly known to every body, the American resi dents at Canton were expectingthe speedy ar rival of Mr. Cushing; and much interest was felt in the question of his proceedings and their result. An impression prevailed that Sir Henry Pottinger and the English authori ties would much prefer that other nations should be content with the assurance that the same commercial privileges had been secured to all, and that no attempt should he made to establish diplomatic relations with the Imperial Court with a view to the formation of separate treaties ; and it was believed that this was also the feeling of the Chinese Emperor. Nevertheless, it was known to he the pur pose of Mr. Cushing to visit Pekin if possi ble. Mr. Forbes, the American consul at Canton, hid received a despatch from Mr. Legare, then acting Secretary of State, in structing him to ascertain from the Chinese high officers whether M r. Cushing would he re ceived at the capitol ; and for this purpose he requested an interview with Keying, the Im perial Commissioner, in the early part of Oc tober, which was granted. The designated place of meeting was at the elegant country house of Puntiuqua, a wealthy Chinese, on the banks of the river, a few miles above Can ton. The American party consisted of Mr. Forbes, Mr. Edward King, Dr. Parker, and one other; the Chinese, of Keying, who is a kinsman as well as the representative of the Emperor, Kiking, viceroy of the two Kwang provinces, and Hwang an 1 Hieuling, asso ciates of the Chief Commissioner, all being officers of the highest rank. The Americans were conducted to the pre sence of the Commissioners hy two mandarins, and found them in the largest apartment of the house ; the central portion of the room was fenced in as it were by ranges of chairs and small Chinese tables, forming a large hoi low square. Within this were Keying and liis associates. As the American approached, Keying came forward and received them most graciously, asking the name of each when pre-ented, an 1 shaking them cordially hy the hand. His example was followed hy the "V iceroy, and then Keying pointed out seats to his visitors near liis own, taking care that all were seated at the same moment with himself. The attendants, petty mandarins, and servants, amounting to nearly a hundred, stood about the room, gazing at the Americans with evi dent curiosity. None were seated except the four high officers and the guests. Mr. Forbes was placed at the left side of Keying, the Chinese post of honor, and be tween them was a small table on which they both leaned. A linguist then came forward, kneeled at the feet of Keying, performing the kotou, and then stood erect before him to in terpret. Keying first asked concerning the health of Mr. Forbes, how long he had been in China, if he had a pleasant passage, and, lastly, how old he was—this question, oddly enough, being deemed a compliment by the Chinese. He then told Mr. Forbes that his own age was 55, and that of the Viceroy 65. The object of Mr. Forbes was, first to pre sent his credentials and be recognised as con sul, and then to fulfil liis instructions respec ting the reception of Mr. Cushing at Pekin— the latter a delicate affair, which required much tact and judgment, and, Mr. Forties being to communicate through Dr. Parker and the native linguist, each understanding the othei’s language imperfectly, the difficulty was much increased. The business conference was open ed by the production of Mr. Forbes’s com mission as consul, to which was attached the signature of the President, “John Tyler.” Dr. Parker at the same time produced a Chinese translation of the document, which Keying placed upon the original, and slowly read aloud every word, and whenever the commission requested the Chinese authorities to protect and give aid to the consul, he put his bands together, and waving them up and down, declared emphatically, as the Chinese linguist said, “ truly must do so to which his associates murmured assent. He and the Viceroy appeared to look with much interest upon the signature of the President, and all the petty mandarins crowded round to have a sight of it. After this, servants brought little howls made of cocoa nut shells, beautifully carved on the outside and lined with silver. These were filled with a thick sweet liquid, compos ed of pounded almonds and rice, hoi led with sugar, and very hot; the officers each took a bowl, as did the guests also, and the former gravely nodding their heads, all drank to gether. The business then proceed, Mr. Forbes sav ing that an envoy from the government of the United States was on his way to China to pay his respects to the Emperor; that he came with the most friendly feelings and intentions, and wished to know “in what way he had bet ter proceed to Pekin, whether hy land or water.” As was expressed, Keying at once replied, with some astonishment, “ Why go to Pekin ?” and added, in substance, that there was no necessity of his going to Pekin, as the commercial pt ivileges and terms which had been agreed upon with the English were gran ted also to the Americans and all other for eigners, and “every thing had been settled.” He then repeated, “ Why go to Pekin ?” and asked, with some anxiety, what object Mr. Cushing could have in going there, other than that of arranging a commercial treaty. He said that, if there was no other object, it would be perfectly useless for Mr. Cushing to go there, for “ no one at Pekin knew any thing about the foreign trade,” and evinced the most decided unwillingness tha- such an intention should be persisted in, dwelling much upon the “ fatigue and difficulty of going so far,” and the uselessn -ss of taking so much trouble. In this opposition to the Pekin scheme the Viceroy and the other commissioners earnestly concurred, and all that could he said in reply had obviously no effect. Keying said, how ever, that he would transmit any communica tion to the Emperor which Mr. Forbes should wish to make, and that an answer should be returned ; and he asked Mr. Forbes to give him, in writing, whatever he desired to say, clearly and explicitly, to which he would give a clear reply. He asked, also, for a copy of the consular commission, and of the instruc tions from Mr. Legare respecting this parti cular business. He expressed feelings of the highest regard for the American nation, and said that these were the feelings of the Empe ror also, and of all the people of China ; that we had ever been good friends to the Chinese, and he hoped we ever should be, and that the friendship and interccuse between the two na tions would increase as time went on. The Unjust then said that the Imperial com missioner invited the American gentlemen to partake of some refreshment with him; and a small regiment of servants made their appear ance, bearing a great variety of little porce lain cups and bowls, filled with Chinese deli cacies, among which the famous bird’s nest soup was not forgotten. The Americans made out awkwardly enough with the chop sticks, while the hundred Chinese stared at them with great intensity, much amused ap parently hy their manner of eating. Keying was exceedingly polite to all, but treated Mr. Forbes in particular with distinguished atten tion ; for, seeing his difficulty with the chop sticks, he more than once fed him with his own. He also took four small cakes with his fingers from his own dish, partly rose from his seat, and gave one to each ofhis guests, which was a high compliment. The entertainment consisted chiefly of paste balls stuffed with meats and fruits. Eating over. Keying talked with Mr. Park er about his hospital, commending him highly for 1 is skill and benevolence, and asked his advice concerning some ailments with which he himself was troubled. A few more words passe-;, when the Americans rose to take leave and the Viceroy came forward to Mr. Forbes, asking him in the most serious manner wheth er he understood distinctly what had been said, and what they wished him to do in re gard to the written communication, &c. Key ing and his three colleagues then put on their caps with the peacock feathers, shook hands with their four visiters in the most cordial manner, and attended them to the door and into the piazza, where they remained bowing anil chinchinning until the Americans were out of sight. One of the superior mandarins ac companied the latter to the outer gate of Pun- tiuqua’s grounds, where he shook hands with them all, and the ceremonies were at an end. The Viceroy and the th ee commissioners were not habited in their robes of ceremony, hut wore dark purple dresses or tunics, each having on a belt studded with gems and the other usual appendages of mandarins. Keying is represented as large, rather cor pulent, ami of harsh features and complexion, but with a countenance expressive-of good na ture though not of much intelligence. His manner was perfectly easy and polite, as well as dignified, and his whole hearing to the Americans was extremely kind. Kiking, the Viceroy, is an old man, quite emaciated, and with a countenance expressive of great cate and anxiety, as if worn out by heavy respon sibility, which truly rest upon him, for the two Kwang provinces are the most turbulent in the empire. Hwang and Hienling are des cribed as superior men, the former noted tor his high attainments in Chinese literature, and the latter a general in the Tartar army. In regard to the chief object of thisinterview, the probability is that permission to visit Pekin will not be accorded to Mr. Cushing. Key ing and his colleagues manifested the most de cided opposition to it, and, although they might communicate to the Imperial Court the wish of our government, they would doubtless say nothing in favor of it, if they did not ad vise against it. It is not improbable that sir Henry Pottinger had intimated to Keying th6 inexpediency of any foreign ambassador be iug received at Pekin, as none had been re ceived on the part of the English. And it seems to us that the point should not be insisted on, when the very suggestion was so unpalatable. Our government had better undertake nothing, titan undertake and fail. If insisted on and refused, then serious neces sity arises of employing coertion or threats ; and it would he both impolitic and ungener ous to take advantage of the sufferings and distresses of the Chinese government, panting after a ruinous and exhausting war, and now desirous to secure repose even at the cost of yielding in matters of cherished and long-con tinued policy. Besides, there can be no doubt that all important objects can be as effectually gained by negotiation with Keying, if not even more so. It is doubtful whether the new system of trade and opening of the new ports > n North will be of any advantage to China. Hei imports will soon he much larger than her ex ports, and the balance of the trade will turn greatly against her. The native manu ac tures ( too,will be injured by foreign competition.