Memoirs and Services of Three Generations
Jonathan Cilley
The member of this family who possesses the deepest and most melancholy interest for the people of Maine is Jonathan Cilley who was shot in a duel with Congressman Graves of Kentucky in 1838. This gentleman was born in Nottingham, N. H., in 1802, and was graduated from Bowdoin college in the celebrated class of 1825. Even then he was noted for his brilliant talents and his oratorical powers marked him for a great career.
Immediately after quitting college young Cilley settled in the village of Thomaston and began the study of law in the office of the late Senator Ruggles. It was but natural that amidst such surroundings he should imbibe a love for politics, and in a short time he became thoroughly identified with the Democratic party and its policies. In 1829 he was admitted to the Lincoln bar and shortly afterward married Miss Deborah Prnce, daughter of Hon. Hezekiah :Prince of Thomaston. He then entered actively on the practice of his profession and by his superb ability soon gained a prominent position both as a lawyer and political leader.
In the latter line Mr. Cilley rose rapidly and soon became a member of the legislature. Here he served for five terms, part of which time he was speaker of the house and always its leader. By that time his reputation was so firmly established that in 1836, he received the nomination for Congress and secured a triumphant election in a district which at that time was strongly Whig in its political leanings. The campaign waged had been a bitter one and the glory of his triumph was more marked from the fact that he was opposed by a powerful section of his own party. Scars were made that even time could not heal, and in one sense his very victory carried with it the seeds of a fatal ending. The gloom of a dark pitfall lay across his path, and even the brilliancy of his triumph was clouded by the prophetic presentiment of some untimely fate. In speaking of the character and personal peculiarities of Mr. Cilley, at that time a college classmate, Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote as follows:
Hawthorne's Tribute.
"In private intercourse, Cilley possessed a remarkable fascination. It was impossible not to regard him with the kindliest feelings, because his companions were intuitively certain of a like kindliness on his part. He had a power of sympathy which enabled him to understand every character and hold communion with human nature in all its varieties. He never shrank from the intercourse of man with man; and it was to his freedom in this particular that he owed much of his popularity. In a few words, let us characterize him at the outset of life as a young men of quick and powerful intellect; endowed with sagacity and tact, yet frank and free in his mode of action, ambitious of good influence, earnest, active and persevering; with an elasticity and cheerful strength of mind which made difficulties easy, and the struggles with them a pleasure. Mingled with the amiable qualities which were like sunshine to his friends, there 'were harsher and sterner traits which fitted him to make head against an adverse world, but it was only at the moment of need that the iron framework of his character become perceptible.
"In the summer of 1837, a few months after his election to Congress, I met Mr. Cilley for the first time since early youth, when he had been to me almost as an elder brother. The few days which I spent in his neighborhood enabled us to renew our former intimacy. In his person there was very little change, and even that was for the better. He had an impending brow, deep-set eyes, and a thin and thoughtful countenance, which in his abstracted moments seemed to be almost stern. In the intercourse of society it was brightened with a kindly smile that will live in the recollection of all who knew him.
"His manners had not a fastidious polish, but were characterized by the simplicity of one who had dwelt remote from cities, holding free companionship ith the yeomen of the land. I thought him as true a representative of the people as ever theory could portray; his earlier and latter habits of life, his feelings, partialities and prejudices were those of the common people; the strong and shrewd sense, which constituted so marked a feature of his mind was but a higher degree of the popular intellect. He loved the people and respected them, and was prouder of nothing than of his brother- hood with those who had intrusted their public interests to his care. His continual struggles in the political arena had strengthened his bones and sinews; opposition had kept him ardent; while success had cherished the generous warmth of his nature and assisted the growth both of his powers and sympathies. I was aware, indeed, that his harsher traits had grown apace with his milder ones-that he possessed iron resolution, indomitable perseverence, and an almost terrible energy-but these features had imparted no hardness to his character in private intercourse. In the hour of public need these strong qualities would have shown themselves the most prominent ones, and would have encouraged his countrymen to rally around him as one of their natural leaders."
Such is the pen portrait of Jonathan Cilley that has been given us by one of the most brilliant of his contemporaries and personal friends. The universal verdict even of his political enemies is that he was one of the most brilliant sons of Maine, and had it not been for his untimely end he would have been the worthy peer of the ablest men whose records adorn the history of our state. In the very beginning of his national fame he was cut down by the hand of a man who was no better than an assassin, and all the proud hopes of his brilliant future perished. Brief although his career may have been, his name is written high in the temple of fame and will long be treasured as one of the most brilliant that has added glory to our state and nation.
The following account of the fatal duel was written by Hon. Horatio King, late postmaster general, in his valuable work "Turning on the Light," which account has been pronounced by ex-Governor Hugh J. Anderson as the most complete ever written.
The Fatal Duel.
A charge of corruption against a Senator in Congress, made by "The Spy In Washington," Matthew L. Davis, correspondent of the New York Courier and Enquirer, was the basis of the trouble which led to the fatal encounter. He was the intimate friend and biographer of Aaron Burr, and while acting as correspondent at the capital, he was excluded, I remember, from the ladies' gallery on account of alleged gross immorality there. In a letter to his paper the charge referred to was set forth as follows:
"The more brief my statement the better it will be understood. It is in my power, if brought to the bar of either house, or before a committee, and process allowed me to compel the attendance of witnesses, to prove by the oath of a respectable and unimpeachable citizen, as well as by written documentary evidence, that there is at least one member of Congress who has offered to barter his services and his influence with a department or departments for a compensation. 'Why, sir,' said the applicant for a contract, 'if my proposition has merit, it will be received; if it has not, I do not expect it will be accepted.' And what do you think was the answer of the honorable member? I will give it to you in his own emphatic language: 'Merit?' said he; 'why, things do not go here by merit, but by pulling the right strings. Make it my interest and I will pull the strings for you.'"
The editor of the Courier and Enquirer, James Watson Webb, vouched for the character and standing of his correspondent, and called upon Congress promptly to initiate the investigation thus challenged, both as an act of justice to itself and the country. Whereupon Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, offered in the House of Representatives, on the 12th of February, a motion for a committee of inquiry, embodying in the preamble of his resolution both the above extract and the editorial comments there-on. The resolution gave rise to a warm debate, and resulted in a determination to bring Mr. Davis before the bar of the House. He appeared accordingly, and, having declared that the person alluded to in his letter was not a member of the House, he was discharged.
On the 13th of February, John Ruggles, Senator from (Thomaston) Maine, addressed a letter to the Washington Globe, stating that he had been informed that the charge referred to "was a blow aimed at him." In explanation, he said that a Mr. Jones, of New Jersey, had applied to him to draw up a specification and claim for a patent for a trunk-lock. He had consented to do it, "as it was a strictly professional matter." Subsequently he had agreed to take an assignment of one-fourth part of the patent for his services; the papers were drawn and assented to by Jones, but never executed, nor had any compensation ever been allowed for his services.
On the 16th of February, at Mr. Ruggles's request, a committee to investigate the charge against him was appointed in the Senate, and he was entirely exonerated.
In the debate on Mr. Wise's resolution, Mr. Cilley said:
"As the course proposed to be pursued on this occasion was novel and extraordinary, he 'hoped the House would pause before it embarked in this business on such authority as was produced. This charge comes from the editor of a newspaper, and we all know that in a country where the press is free, few men can expect to escape abuse and charges of a similar description. Ordinarily, when we are about entering upon a business of this kind before a magistrate, a conservator of the peace, the charges submitted are obliged to be made distinctly, clearly, and under the solemnity of an oath; and why should we now depart from this well-known and well-settled rule? He knew nothing of this editor, but it was the same editor who had made grave charges against an institution of this country (the old United States Bank in 1831), and afterwards was said to have received facilities to the amount of fifty-two thousand dollars from the same institution and gave it his hearty support; he did not think his charges were entitled to much credit in an American Congress. If he has charges to make, let him make them distinctly and not vaguely; let him make them under the solemnity of an oath, and then it will be quite time enough to act. He trusted the House would not go into an investigation of this kind on a mere newspaper statement without any proof."
It was the subject of pointed comment at the time that, whereas, the remarks of Mr. Cilley were published in the Globe of the 12th, Mr. Webb waited until the 21st of February before demanding an explanation. Therefore. the presumption was, and it was distinctly charged, that "the offence was taken at Washington, the plot arranged there, and Mr. Webb sent for, after full consultation, and notified that he must take offence at Mr. Cilley's remarks. This supposition was the more readily credited not only because the same imputation against Mr. Webb had "been thousands of times made on innumerable occasions in Congress" without his ever resenting it in any such manner, but also from the fact that Mr. Cilley's ability and fearless bearing in debate had aroused a determination on the part of certain Southern gentlemen, if possible, to intimidate him and destroy his influence. As an illustration of this feeling the following extract from the Democratic Review is in point. Referring to the discussion upon Mr. Wise's resolution, above mentioned, the editor, J. L. O'Sullivan, afterwards United States minister to Portugal, and who, I am glad to know, still survives, said:
"An altercation of a very acrimonious character on the part of Mr. Wise arose upon this occasion. In reply to Mr. Cilley, Mr. Wise, among general remarks upon the opposition of the friends of the administration to all investigation without specific charges, etc., remarked, 'Every man careful of his honor, when such charges as these are made, will not wait to have them specifically framed,' and in the present instance he would say to the gentleman from Maine that a member of the party (Democratic) to which that gentleman belongs should be the last man to oppose the investigation of a charge like this, for it was much more likely to be him that was meant by the author of the charge than himself (Mr. W.). 'I, sir,' said Mr. Wise, 'have no influence with the executive or any of its branches, to sell for a price,'" etc.
Afterwards, in the course of the debate, the following altercation took place, as we find it reported in the Intelligencer:
"'But now, because he (Mr. C.) had stood up to defend the character of the House against that anonymous imputation, he was to hear the basest charges against himself.
"'Mr. Wise here asked if the gentleman from Maine meant to say that he (Mr. W.) had made base charges in relation to himself?
"'Mr. Cilley would explain. He did feel that it was ungenerous for that gentleman to have said that the presumption was rather it was he (Mr. C.) than himself (Mr. W.) to whom this charge alluded.
"'Mr. Wise had made no personal charge against the member from Maine, false or true, none whatever; and he again asked that gentleman if he meant to say that he had insinuated base charges against him.
"'Mr. Cilley responded in substance what he had said.
'Mr. Wise. Then the gentleman from Maine designs deliberately to insult me.
"'Mr. Cilley certainly did not; he had not made any charge against the gentleman from Virginia. He knew his rights and those of his constituents on that floor.
"'Mr. Wise understood, and did not understand the gentleman from Maine as disclaiming the charge, that he had made base charges against that gentleman.
"'Mr. Cilley said that he had distinctly remarked that the gentleman from Virginia had said he (Mr. C) was more obnoxious to the charge contained in the resolution before the House than he (Mr. W.) was; and he could say no less than he had said, fearless of all consequences, but he had no intention to insult any one. The gentleman from Virginia just remarked that he had been informed of the name of the member alluded to; why not disclose it?
"'Mr. Wise rose and said that he could never again treat that gentleman with confidence who could rise in his place and repeat to the House what a member had said in private conversation in his seat.
"'Mr. Cilley had not intended to violate confidence. The gentleman from Virginia had said openly in his seat that he knew the name of the member meant.
"'Mr. Wise. But it was in reply to an express question of another member.
"'Some further explanation then took place between Mr. Cilley and Mr. Wise,' etc.
"The report of it is here cut off. Mr. Cilley sustained himself with perfect firmness and dignity to the end, his manner being, according to our information, in highly advantageous contrast with that of his assailant. The latter concluded by the following remark, spoken so openly and loud as to be heard at some distance, a remark which Mr. Cilley never affected to notice or to hear: 'But what is the use of bandying words with a man who won't hold himself personally accountable for his words?'"
Fully to appreciate this scene, one needs to have known its principal actors and observed the calm, firm, and dignified manner of Cilley in contrast with the fierce look and aggressive bearing of his opponent, as the Writer more than once saw him in debate in the House during the winter of 1838-39, while Graves, looking sad and desponding, was also still a member of that body.
We will next present the correspondence, etc., as it appeared in a paper signed by the seconds in the duel, George W. Jones, of Iowa, and Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, which they published as their
"STATEMENT.
"Washington City, D, C., Feb. 26, 1838 "The following is a statement of the facts of the duel between the Honorable William J. Graves, of Kentucky, and the Honorable Jonathan Cilley, of Maine, agreed upon by George W. Jones and Henry A. Wise, the seconds of the parties, committed to writing between the hours of 10.30 o'clock a. in., February 25th, and 12 o'clock in. this day. The seconds propose, first, to state the correspondence which occurred before the challenge and which was communicated through others than themselves, neither second having borne any message, verbal or written, to or from either of the principals, until Mr. Wise bore the challenge and Mr. Jones bore the acceptance. This correspondence, as it has been placed in the hands of the seconds, is as follows, to wit:
"Mr. Graves to Mr. Cilley.
"House of Representatives, February 21. 1838.
--In the interview which I had with you this morning, 'when you declined receiving from me the note of Colonel J. W. Webb, asking whether you were correctly reported in the Globe in what you are there represented to have said of him in this House upon the 12th instant, you will please say whether you did not remark, in substance, that in declining to receive the note, you hoped I would not consider it in any respect disrespectful to me, and that the ground on which you rested your declining to receive the note was distinctly this: That you could not consent to get yourself into personal difficulties with conductors of public journals for what you might think proper to say in debate upon this floor, in discharge of your duties as a representative of the people, and that you did not rest your objection in our interview upon any personal objection to Colonel Webb as a gentleman. Very respectfully your obedient servant,
"W. J. Graves.
"Honorable Jonathan Cilley.
"Mr. Cilley to Mr. Graves.
"House of Representatives, February 21, 1838.
--The note which you just placed in my hands has been received. In reply I have to state that in your interview with me this morning, when you proposed to deliver a communication from Colonel Webb, of the New York Courier and Enquirer, I declined to receive it because I chose to be drawn into no controversy with him. I neither affirmed nor denied anything in regard to his character; but when you remarked that this course on my part might place you in an unpleasant situation, I stated to you, and now repeat, that I intended by the refusal no disrespect to you. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
"Jona. Cilley.
"Honorable W. J. Graves,
"Mr. Graves to Mr. Cilley.
"House of Representatives, February 22, 1838.
--Sir,--Your note of yesterday, in reply to mine of that date, is inexplicit, unsatisfactory, and insufficient; among other things in this, that in your declining to receive Colonel Webb's communication, it does not disclaim any exception to him personally as a gentleman. I have therefore to inquire whether you declined to receive his communication on the ground of any personal exception to him as a gentleman or a man of honor? A categorical answer is expected. Very respectfully,
"William J. Graves.
"Honorable J. Cilley.
"Mr. Cilley to Mr. Graves.
"House of Representatives, February 22, 1838.
--Sir,--Your note of this date has just been placed in my hands. I regret that mine of yesterday was not satisfactory to you, but I cannot admit the right on your part to propound the question to which you ask a categorical answer, and therefore, decline any further response to it. Very respectfully,
"Jonathan Cilley.
"Honorable W. J. Graves.
"Here follows the first paper borne by Mr. Wise:
"As you have declined accepting a communication which I bore to you from Colonel Webb, and as, by your note of yesterday, you have refused to decline on grounds which would exonerate me from all responsibility growing out of the affair, I am left no other alternative but to ask that satisfaction Which is recognized among gentlemen. My friend, Honorable Henry A. Wise, is authorized by me to make the arrangements suitable for the occasion. Your obedient servant,
"W. J. Graves.
"Honorable J. Cilley.
"Mr. Wise states that he presented the foregoing challenge to Mr. Cilley in the parlor at Mr. Birth's boarding-house a few minutes before twelve o'clock, on Friday, the twenty-third instant.
"In addition to the foregoing correspondence the seconds propose to relate only such facts and circumstances as occurred within their joint knowledge, after their own participation in the melancholy affair.
"On the evening of the twenty-third instant, about the hour of five o'clock, Mr. Jones, the second of Mr. Cilley, delivered to Mr. Graves in the room of Mr. Wise, and in his presence, the following note, which was the first paper borne by Mr. Jones, to wit:
"Washington City, February 23, 1838.
-- Honorable W. J. Graves: Your note of this morning has been received. My friend, General Jones, will 'make the arrangements suitable to the occasion.' Your obedient servant,
"Jona. Cilley.
"Immediately upon the preparation of the acceptance of the challenge, Mr. Graves retired, leaving Mr. Jones with Mr. Wise, who submitted to Mr. Wise the following propositions for the arrangement of the meeting, to wit:
"Washington City, February 23, 1838.
--Sir: Mr. Cilley proposes to meet Mr. Graves at such place as may be agreed upon between us tomorrow at twelve o'clock in. The weapons to be used on the occasion shall be rifles the parties placed side to side at eighty yards distance from each other; to hold the rifles horizontally at arm's length downward; the rifles to be cocked and triggers set; the word to be, 'Gentlemen, are you ready?' after which, neither answering 'no,' the words shall be in regular succession, 'Fire, one, two, three, four.' Neither party shall fire before the word 'fire,' nor after the word 'four.' The positions of the parties at the ends of the line to be determined by lot. The second of the party losing the position shall have the giving of the word. The dress to be ordinary winter clothing and subject to the examination of both parties. Bash party may have on the ground, besides his second, a surgeon and two other friends. The seconds, for the execution of their respective trusts, are allowed to have a pair of pistols each on the ground, but no other persons shall have any weapon. The rifles to be loaded in the presence of the seconds. Should Mr. Graves not be able to procure a rifle in the time prescribed, time shall be allowed for that purpose. Your very obedient servant,
"George W. Jones.
"Honorable Henry A. Wise.
"About nine o'clock p. in., at Mr. Jones's room at Dawson's, Mr. Wise returned to him the following answer, to wit:
"Washlngton City, February 23, 1838.
--Sir: The terms arranging the meeting between Mr. Graves and Mr. Cilley, which you presented to me this evening, though unusual and objectionable, are accepted with the understanding that the rifles are to be loaded with a single ball, and that neither party is to raise his weapon from the downward horizontal position until the word 'fire.' I will inform you, sir, by the hour of eleven o'clock a. in. tomorrow whether Mr. Graves has been able to procure a rifle, and, consequently, whether he will require a postponement of the time of meeting. Your very obedient servant,
"Henry A. Wise.
"Honorable George W. Jones.
"About eight o'clock a. in. on the twenty-fourth instant, Mr. Jones left at Mr. Wise's room the following note, to wit:
"Washington City, February 24, 1838.
--Sir: I will receive at Dr. Reilly's, on F Street, any communication you may see proper to make me until eleven o'clock a. in., today. Respectfully, your obedient servant,
"George W. Jones.
"Honorable H. A. Wise.
"Dr. Reilly's, F Street, February 24, 1838, 10 a. m.
--Sir: I have called at this place in conformity to your note of this morning, to inform you that Mr. Graves has not as yet been able to procure a rifle and put it in order, and cannot be ready by twelve o'clock in. today. He is desirous, however, to have the meeting today, if possible, and I will inform you by half-past twelve o'clock in. today what time he will require to procure and prepare a weapon. Very respectfully, etc.,
"Henry A. Wise.
"Honorable George W. Jones.
'Afterwards Mr. Jones left at Mr. Wise's room the following note, to wit:
"Washington, 10.30 a. in., February 24, 1838.
--Sir: Your note, dated at ten o'clock today, is received. In reply I have the pleasure to inform you that I have in my possession an excellent rifle, in good order, which is at the service of Mr. Graves. Very respectfully, etc.,
"George W. Jones.
"Honorable H. A. Wise.
"Afterwards Mr. Jones sent to Mr. Wise's room the following note, to wit:
"Washington, February 24, 1838, 11 a. m.--Sir: Through the politeness of my friend Dr. Duncan, I now tender to you, for the use of Mr. Graves, the rifle referred to in my note of ten o'clock this morning. Respectfully, your obedient servant,
"George W. Jones.
"Honorable H. A. Wise.
"And with this note a rifle and powder-flask and balls were left at Mr. Wise's room. After the reception of this note from Mr. Jones, Mr. Wise called on him at Dr. Reilly's and informed Mr. Jones that Mr. Graves had procured a rifle other than that left at his room by Dr. Duncan, and would be ready for the meeting at three o'clock p. m. It was then agreed that the parties should meet at the Anacostia bridge, on the road to Marlborough, Maryland, between the hours of half-past one and half-past two o'clock p. in., and if either got there first he should wait for the other, and that they would thence proceed out of the District. Accordingly the parties met at the bridge, Mr. alley and his party arriving there first, and all proceeded, about two o'clock p. in., to the place of meeting. On arriving at the place, Mr. Jones and Mr. Wise immediately proceeded to mark off the ground. They then decided the choice of positions. Mr. Wise won the position, and consequently Mr. Jones had the giving of the word. At the time Mr. Jones was informed by Mr. Wise that two gentlemen (Mr. Calhoun, of Kentucky, and Mr. Hawes, of Kentucky) were at some distance off, spectators, but they should not approach upon the ground. Mr. Jones replied that he objected to their coming on the ground, as it was against the articles of the meeting, but he entertained for them the highest respect. Mr. Wise informed Mr. Jones that, contrary to the terms, he had brought on the ground two rifles; that if he (Mr. Jones) required him to do so, he would immediately send one of them away. Upon Mr. Jones finding that the rifle was unloaded, he consented that it should remain in one of the carriages. There were, it is proper to remark, several persons on the ground (besides the hack-drivers and the two gentlemen at a distance before mentioned) who were there without the authority or consent of either party or their friends, as far as is known either to Mr. Jones or Mr. Wise, and one of these persons was supposed to he the owner of the field. Shortly after the hour of three p. m. the rifles were loaded in the presence of the seconds; the parties were called together; they were fully instructed by Mr. Jones as to their positions, and the words were twice repeated to them as they would be and as they were delivered to them in the exchange of shots. After they were ordered to their respective positions, the seconds assumed their places, and the friends accompanying the seconds were disposed along the line of fire to observe that each obeyed the terms of meeting. Mr. Jones gave the word distinctly, audibly, and in regular succession, and the parties exchanged Shots without violating in the least a single instruction. They both missed. After which Mr. Wise called upon the friends generally to assemble and hear what was to be said. Upon the assembling of the friends, Mr. Jones inquired of Mr. Wise whether his friend (Mr. Graves) was satisfied. Mr. Wise immediately said in substance, 'Mr. Jones, these gentlemen have come here without animosity towards each other; they are fighting merely upon a point of honor; cannot Mr. Cilley assign some reason for not receiving at Mr. Graves's hands Colonel Webb's communication, or make some disclaimer which will relieve Mr. Graves from his position?' Mr. Jones replied, in substance, 'Whilst the challenge is impending, Mr. Cilley can make no explanation.' Mr. Wise said, in substance, 'The exchange of shots suspends the challenge, and the challenge is suspended for the purpose of explanation.' Mr. Jones therefore said he would see Mr. Cilley, and did go to him. He returned and asked Mr. Wise again, 'Mr. Wise, do I understand aright that the challenge is suspended?' Mr. Wise answered, 'It is.' Mr. Jones was then about to proceed, when Mr. Wise suggested that it was best, perhaps, to give the explanation or reason in writing. Mr. Jones then said, in substance, 'Mr. Wise, if you require me to put what I have to say in writing, I shall require you to put 'what you have said and may say in writing.' Mr. Wise replied, 'Well, let us hear the explanation beforehand, as it may not be necessary to put it in writing.' Mr. Jones then proceeded, as he now thinks, substantially to say, 'I am authorized by my friend, Mr. Cilley, to say that, in declining to receive the note from Mr. Graves, purporting to be from Colonel Webb, he meant no disrespect to Mr. Graves, because he entertained for him them, as he now does, the most kind feelings; but that he declined to receive the note because he chose not to be drawn into controversy with Colonel Webb.' Mr. Wise thinks this answer of Mr. Jones's was, in substance, as follows: 'I am authorized by my friends, Mr. Cilley, to say that, in declining to receive the note from Mr. Graves purporting to be from Colonel Webb, he meant no disrespect to Mr. Graves, because he entertained for him then, as he does now, the highest respect and most kind feelings, but my friend refuses to disclaim disrespect for Colonel Webb, because he does not choose to be drawn into an expression of opinion as to him.' Such is the substantial difference between the two seconds as to the answer of Mr. Jones. The friends on each side, with the seconds, then retired from each other to consult upon this explanation. After consultation, Mr. Wise returned to Mr. Jones and said, 'Mr. Jones, this answer leaves Mr. Graves precisely in the position in which he stood when the challenge was sent.' Much conversation then ensued between the seconds and their friends, but, no nearer approach to reconciliation being made, the challenge was renewed and another shot was exchanged in a manner perfectly fair and honorable to all parties. After this the seconds and their friends again assembled and the challenge was again withdrawn and very similar conversations to that after the first exchange of shots again ensued. Mr. Jones then remarked, 'Mr. Wise, my friend, in coming to the ground and exchanging shots with Mr. Graves, has shown to the world that in declining to receive the note of Colonel Webb he did not do so because he dreaded a controversy. He has shown himself a brave man, and disposed to render satisfaction to Mr. Graves. I do think he has done so, and that the matter should end here.' To this Mr. Wise replied, in substance, 'Mr. Jones, Mr. Cilley has already expressed his respect for Mr. Graves in the written correspondence, and Mr. Graves does not require of Mr. Cilley a certificate of character for Colonel Webb; he considers himself bound not only to preserve the respect due to himself, but to defend the honor of his friend, Colonel Webb.' These words of Mr. Wise Mr. Jones recollects, and Mr. Wise thinks he added the words, 'Mr. Graves only insists that he has not borne the note of a man who is not a man of honor and not a gentleman.' After much more conversation and ineffectual attempts to adjust the matter, the challenge was again renewed, and, whilst the friends were again loading the rifles for the third exchange of shots, Mr. Jones and Mr. Wise walked apart, and each proposed to the other anxiously to settle the affair. Mr. Wise asked Mr. Jones 'if Mr. Cilley could not assign the reason for declining to receive the note of Colonel Webb, that he did not hold himself accountable to Colonel Webb for words spoken in debate?' Mr. Jones replied, that 'Mr. Cilley would not assign that reason, because he did not wish to be understood as expressing the opinion whether he was or was not accountable for words spoken in debate.' Mr. Wise then, according to recollection, asked Mr. Jones whether Mr. Cilley would not say that 'In declining to receive the note of Colonel Webb he meant no disrespect to Mr. Graves, directly or indirectly?' To which Mr. Jones replied affirmatively, adding, 'Mr. Cilley entertains the highest respect for Mr. Graves, but declines to receive the note because he chose to be drawn into no controversy with Colonel Webb.' After further explanatory conversation the parties then exchanged the third shot, fairly and honorably as in every instance. Immediately previous to the last exchange of shots Mr. Wise said to Mr. Jones, 'If this matter is not terminated this shot, and is not settled, I will propose to shorten the distance.' To which Mr. Jones replied, 'After this shot, if without effect, I will entertain the proposition.'
"After Mr. Cilley fell, Mr. Wise, for Mr. Graves, expressed a desire to Mr. Jones to see Mr. Cilley. Mr. Jones replied to Mr. Wise, 'My friend is dead,' and went on to Mr. Graves and told him that there was no objection to his request to see Mr. Cilley. When Mr. Jones approached Mr. Graves and informed him that his request should be granted. Mr. Graves inquired, 'How is he?' The reply was, 'My friend is dead, sir.' Mr. Graves then went to his carriage. Mr. Wise inquired of Mr. Jones before leaving the ground whether he could render any service, and tendered all the aid in his power. Mr. Wise and Mr. Jones concur that there were three shots exchanged.
"Such is the naked statement of all the material facts and circumstances attending this unfortunate affair of honor, which we make in justice to our friends, to ourselves, and to all concerned, the living and the dead; and it is made only for the purpose of allaying excitement in the public mind, and to prevent any and all further controversy upon the subject, which already is full enough of woe. We have fully and substantially stated wherein we agree and disagree. We cordially agree, at all events, in bearing unqualified testimony to the fair and honorable manner in which the duel was conducted. We endeavored to discharge our duties according to that code under which the parties met, regulated by magnanimous principles and the laws of humanity. Neither of us has taken the least exception to the course of the other; and we sincerely hope that here all controversy whatever may cease. We especially desire our respective friends to make no publication on the subject. None can regret the termination of the affair more than ourselves, and we hope again that the last of it will be the signatures of our names to this paper, which we now affix.
"George W. Jones.
"Henry A. Wise."
Vain hope! Instead of this being "the last of the affair," the supposed instigators of it were met on all sides with a perfect storm of indignation, and an almost universal demand for a searching investigation of the matter and punishment of The guilty; and the more the circumstances of the tragedy became known the fiercer the cry for retribution. Before. proceeding, however, to depict this feeling, I will introduce the sworn statement of William H. Morrell and Daniel Jackson, two chosen friends of Colonel Webb, who, according to their testimony, "said that it was utterly impossible that a meeting could be permitted to take place between Messrs. Graves and Cilley until Mr. Cilley had first met him (Webb), and that he was determined to force such a meeting upon Mr. Cilley, be the consequences what they might." It was accordingly agreed that Col. Webb, with two friends "properly armed, should repair to Mr. Cilley's room, when Mr. Webb should offer to Mr. Cilley the choice of his duelling pistols with the following alternatives: either then and there to settle the question or pledge his word of honor that he would give Colonel Webb a meeting before Mr. Graves at such a place and time and with such weapons as Mr. Cilley might appoint; and the event of doing neither, then to expect the most serious consequences in the spot. Mr. Webb then added: 'Should he refuse either to fight me at the time, or give the pledge required, I shall have no alternative left but to shatter his right arm and thereby prevent his meeting my friend." Before this plan could be carried out, it was found that Mr. Cilley had left his lodgings for the duelling ground, understood to be Bladensburg, to which place Colonel Webb and his two friends immediately repaired. On their way, Colonel Webb designated the following order of proceedings:
"'On reaching the parties,' said he, 'I'll approach Mr. Cilley and tell him this is my quarrel and he must fight me, and that, if he aims his rifle at my friend, I'll shoot him on the spot. We know that, upon this, Messrs. Graves and Wise will interfere, and that we will be ordered off the ground; but I shall tell them that we have come prepared to lose our lives or prevent the meeting, and that it cannot proceed without first disposing of us. From our knowledge of the parties, it is probable that some one of them will then raise his weapon at me, when I shall instantly shoot Cilley, and we must proceed to defend ourselves in the best way we can.'
After stating that they drove to the usual duelling ground and several other places without being able to find the parties, the witnesses say: "It is unnecessary to add what would have been the course of Colonel Webb if Mr. Graves, instead of Mr. Cilley, had been injured. Suffice it to say that his determination was sanctioned by us, and, however much we deplore it, we could not doubt but the extraordinary position in which he would then have been placed would have warranted the course determined upon."
Alluding to the dark intimation in the last paragraph, an able editor, at the time holding a high position under the United States government, remarked, 'Thus then, it seems if Cilley had escaped from the field with his life, he would have been doubtless, assassinated by Webb and his associates."
Colonel Schaumbourg, a friend of Mr. Cilley, states that before the meeting, Mr. Cilley said to him:
"Mr. craves has taken upon himself to demand of me to say, and that in language dictated by himself, that James Watson Webb is a gentleman and a man of honor. Now, that is what I am not going to disgrace myself by saying. I see into the whole affair. Webb has come on here to challenge me because he and perhaps others think that, as I am from New England, I am to be bluffed, and Mr. Webb will proclaim himself a brave man, and having obtained acknowledgment on my part that he is a gentleman and a man of honor. But they have calculated without their host. Although I know that the sentiment of New England is opposed to duelling, I am sure that my people will be better pleased if I stand the test than disgrace myself by humiliating concessions. Sir, the name I bear will never permit me to cower beneath the frown of mortal man. It is an attempt to browbeat us. and they think that because I am from the East, I will tamely submit."
Besides the two seconds, the friends of each party on the ground were, on the part of Mr. Cilley, Jesse A. Bynum, member of Congress from North Carolina, Colonel W. Schaumbourg, of Pennsylvania, and Alexander Duncan (surgeon,) member of Congress from Ohio; and, on the part of Mr. Graves, John J. Crittenden, Senator, and Richard H. Menifee, member of Congress from Kentucky. and Dr. J. M. Foltz, surgeon, of Washington City. These gentlemen were quite as free from censure in the affair as were some others not present. The greater weight of "public opprobrium and disgust" fell upon Mr. Wise and Colonel Webb, as will appear from quotations we will see from the public records and the press.
Mr. Cilley's death was announced in the House of Representatives on the 26th of February by the Hon. John Fairfield, of Maine, and in the Senate, the same day, by the Hon. Reuel Williams, of Maine, and appropriate resolutions provided for the appointment of a committee of seven members to investigate the causes which led to Mr. Cilley's death and the circumstances connected therewith; also to inquire whether, in the matter, there had been any breach of the privileges of the House. The resolutions, after considerable opposition, were passed by yeas one hundred and fifty-two, nays forty-nine, and this committee was composed of the following gentlemen: Isaac Toucey, of Connecticut, W. W. Potter, of Pennsylvania, George Grinnell, Jr., of Massachusetts, F. H. Elmore, of South Carolina, A. D. W. Bruyn, of New York, S. Grantland, of Georgia, and J. Rariden, of Indiana. The committee were divided in opinion and made three reports, Mr. Toucey, afterward Senator and member of both President Polk's and President Buchanan's Cabinet, presenting that of the majority. It embraces the material facts and circumstances of the duel and among other things, declares that "It is a breach of the highest constitutional privileges of the House, and of the most sacred rights of the people in the person of their representative, to demand in a hostile manner an explanation of words spoke in debate."
The committee submitted resolutions for the expulsion of William J. Graves, Henry A. Wise, and George W. Jones. Finally, after a long debate, the whole subject was laid on the table by a vote of one hundred and two to seventy-six, a vote of censure merely being passed. High as party feeling was at the time, indignation and denunciation were by no means confined to one side in politics. "Never," said Charles G. Green, editor of the Boston Post "was there a more dastardly murder than that of the unfortunate Cilley. The nation should echo with indignation at this horrible outrage, this cold-blooded assassination." Naming two of the principal actors (Webb and Wise) in the affair, the same editor calls the one "the miserable poltroon," and the other "the wretch," adding, "both of them are equally a disgrace to human nature, and will deceive the execration of man-kind; we hope that the penitentiary or the gallows will soon relieve society of their baneful presence." A Washington correspondent of the Journal of Commerce is quoted as saying that, "After Jones returned the last time, from the conference, with Wise's reply, Mr. Cilley said, in a calm and collected tone, 'They thirst for my blood!'" In a previous conference, as reported by the seconds, Mr. Cilley said that "in declining to receive the note from Colonel Webb, he meant no disrespect to Mr. Graves, because he entertained for him then, as he now does, the highest respect and most kind feelings." "But," as remarked by the Democratic Review, published by Langtree and O'Sullivan, at the time, "all this was without avail."
Mr. Cilley fought under disadvantages which (says the Journal of Commerce) must have been well known to those on the other side, and which induced some persons to say that his seconds ought never to have suffered him to fight under them at all. These disadvantages were stated to be that Mr. Cilley, being, as was personally known to the present writer, very near-sighted, could not see to shoot at the distance measured off, which was alleged to be greater by twenty yards than that agreed on; that his rifle was so light-only about one-half the calibre of that of his antagonist--that it would not carry that distance with accuracy; that he was shooting against the wind, which was blowing a gale; and that he stood on rising ground in open light, presenting a plain mark, while his antagonist was shaded by a copse of wood. Under all these disadvantages, after disclaiming all enmity to Graves, and after technical requsition preliminary to accommodation in honorable duelling, and even after he had declared that he did not wish to take Graves's life, but entertained for him "the highest respect and the most kisd feelings," Mr. Cilley was shot down! "What," asked the Eastern Argus, "does this prove but that he was foully murdered?"
At a great public meeting, held at the capital of Maine, on the 9th of March, 1838, "for the purpose of noticing in a suitable manner the atrocious murder of Hon. Jonathan Cilley," a series of resolutions were unanimously adopted, declaring, among other things, that the duel was "the result of a foul conspiracy, concerted and approved among a few political leaders, to take advantage of Mr. Cilley and draw him into a quarrel, in order that they might seize upon the opportunity afforded to gratify personal feelings of private malice and revenge, and remove out of the way an opponent every day becoming more and more formidable, Whose eloquent appeals and retorted sarcasms it would be more easy to silence by the pistol than answer in debate; that in the course pursued by Henry A. Wise in managing and conducting the incidents of the duel after the first fire, there is evidence of deep and vindictive malignity; and that he stands justly chargeable before the world, upon his own showing, of having violated every recognized principle of chivalry by availing himself of his position and the occasion to glut his own feelings of private grudge and ill-will against Mr. Cilley for a former supposed offense given by the deceased, not to his principal, Graves, but to himself, Wise, a course of conduct worthy only of a recreant and a dastard; that the studied attempt made by Henry A. Wise to palliate and gloss over his conduct during the duel, apparent in the imperfect but official account, so called, of the doings, and the special desire expressed in the account, that those who witnessed the scene should make no publication on the subject, afford strong presumptive evidence of a consciousness that there were deeds of darkness and treachery in the history of the conflict which would not bear to be told; while, on the other hand, the careful insertion in that account of a statement that Mr. Wise inquired of Mr. Jones, before leaving the ground, 'whether he could render any service, and tendered all the aid in his power,' the murder having been already perpetrated, and the lifeless corpse of Mr. Cilley then lying stretched out before him, is a derision and a mockery upon the better feelings of our nature, worthy only of the man who could coolly triumph over the fallen victim of his own foul machinations; and that in the transaction which terminated in the death of Mr. Cilley, considered under the mildest and most mitigated features given to it by those who took part in it, there is presented to the people of Maine a case of ruthless assassination--of preconcerted and cold-blooded murder of one of their representatives, for having boldly and fearlessly done his duty, and being resolved to continue to do so."
The editor of the Democratic Review, in a position to obtain the most correct information on the subject, was very severe in his comments upon the whole affair, and particularly with reference to Wise's course in insisting, after the second shot, either that Mr. Cilley should "acknowledge Webb to be a gentleman and a man of honor," or that "blood should flow!"
"It is not enough that he (Mr. Cilley) has said nothing to the disparagement of Mr. Webb'--that he is free in expression of the highest respect and best feeling toward Graves; it is not enough that two shots have been interchanged on this flimsy punctilio of honor, in the language of one of the gentlemen on the field, in his remonstrance, 'based on an abstraction and assumed upon an implication;' It is not enough that all persons on the ground--the second, the surgeon, and consulting friends of the challenged party, the surgeon and one at least of the friends of the challenging side (Mr. Crittenden)--are unanimous in opinion that all has been done that the most fastidious honor can require; It is not enough that he (Wise) has put a distinct proposition, in decisive terms, as if an ultimatum, from an anxiety to bring an end to the combat, that acknowledgment shall be made that no disrespect was meant to Mr. Graves, directly or indirectly, and that it was, in terms, answered affirmatively: nothing whatever will suffice but a degrading acknowledgment contrary to the conscience and truth of the party, and to the well-known majority of society, and entirely extraneous to the relation between the parties in the field--an acknowledgment which nothing but a trembling cowardice, widely unlike the brave bearing of poor Cilley, could yield under such circumstances-- an acknowledgment which he knew, and could not but have known, could not and would not be conceded. No, nothing will suffice but this abject and impossible submission--or blood! The spirit of malignant evil that ruled the ascendant of that dark hour triumphed, and the kind-hearted, the generous, the peaceful, the marly, the noble, the true, the brave, lay weltering in his own blood!"
The following, says the editor of the Review, are substantially the views of the matter which Mr. Cilley expressed freely to his friends on the morning of the fatal encounter:
"I am driven to this meeting by a positive compulsion. I have done all that an honorable man could do to avert it. Why should I acknowledge that man to be a gentleman and a man of honor? In truth and conscience I could not do so, and still less can I have it so unreasonably extorted from me by force and threat. I have no ill-will nor disrespect toward Mr. Graves. He knows it, and I have repeatedly and fully expressed it. I abhor the idea of taking his life, and will do nothing not forced upon me in self-defence. The pretext of the challenge is absurd. I understand the conspiracy to destroy me as a public man. But New England must not be trampled on, my name must not be disgraced, and I go to this field sustained by as high a motive of patriotism as ever led my grandfather or my brother to battle, as an unhappy duty, not to be shrunk from, to my honor, my principles, and my country."
On the evening before the duel he charged one of his lady friends, should he not survive, to say to his wife that he "had endeavored to pursue that course in all things which she would approve and his own conscience dictated."
In a biographical sketch of Mr. Cilley, published in the Democratic Review for September, 1838, Nathaniel Hawthorne says:
"A challenge was never given on a more shadowy pretext; a duel was never pressed to a fatal close in the face of such open kindness as was expressed by Mr. Cilley; and the conclusion is inevitable that Mr. Graves and his principal second, Mr. Wise, have gone further than their own dreadful code will warrant them, and overstepped the imaginary distinction which, on their own principles, separates manslaughter from murder."
Mr. Wise was not a man to rest silent under such opprobrium. On the 16th of March, 1838, he issued a long address to his constituents in which he gave his own account of the duel so far as he himself was concerned. He began by saying that "the catastrophe had brought upon him much odium and reproach," but claimed that he was bound to set for Mr. Graves, because, said he:
"I felt obliged to do for him what I would have called on him to do for me. It is said that I myself was hostile to his antagonist. If so, I may have been incompetent, but I solemnly deny that I was hostile to Mr. Cilley. There had been a slight misunderstanding between us in debate, which passed off with the moment and left no trace of animosity behind. But hostile to him or not, and though hostility might, perhaps, have incited another to take his life--dark and deadly such hate must have been--yet my conduct proves that I did earnestly endeavor to prevent the shedding of blood by reconciling his difference with my friend; and the history of the tragedy proves that not only I but two 'other gentlemen of known character and standing, who were never accused of hostility to him, and who might have overruled me by their voices and influence, could not reconcile that difference or prevent its result."
He says, also, that he rebuked Graves for bearing the note from Mr. Webb, and that he told him that Mr. Cilley's reasons, as repeated by Mr. Graves, for refusing to receive the note "were very proper," and his answer, "certainly satisfactory." Here is what he said Mr. Graves represented Mr. Cilley had in substance verbally declared:
That, "In declining to receive the note he hoped it would not be thought disrespectful to him (Mr. Graves); that he declined on the ground that he could not consent to be involved in personal difficulties with conductors of public journals for what he had thought proper to say in debate upon the floor, and that he did not decline upon any personal objection to Colonel Webb as a gentleman." Mr. Wise appears to have assented to the propriety of Mr. Graves requiring this answer to be put in writing, and so came the challenge, the terms of which Mr. Wise said were regarded as "barbarous and such as might properly be declined; but it was thought they were intended to intimidate; that the distance was so great as in some measure to mitigate the severity of the weapon, and therefore I was advised that they should be accepted." It was likewise suggested that the challenged party might be the first to fly from these terms.
He speaks of his difficulty in procuring a suitable rifle for Mr. Graves, and admits that he had asked Mr. Jones to assist him in that particular. At the same time he says. "I wished to gain time not only to procure a lit rifle, but to afford an opportunity, if possible, to prevent the meeting."
He quotes from Mr. Jones's note the passage in which he said to Mr. Wise that he had the pleasure to inform him that he had an excellent rifle in good order which was at the service of Mr. Graves, and remarks that, without waiting for an answer, Mr. Jones tendered to him "for the use of Mr. Graves, the rifle referred to," and its appendages. Thus, Mr. Wise says, "A weapon, not one of a pair, was tendered for the use of Mr. Graves in a manner that was considered taunting." Leaving it be inferred, of course, that one preferred to it had been reserved for Mr. Cilley. He contends, too, that Mr. Cilley "precipitated the time of meeting when the second of Mr. Graves was avowing a want of preparation and a desire for delay."
He proceeds to say:
"The distance appointed was eighty yards. It is my firm belief that the distance stepped off by Mr. Jones and myself, which we did pan paissu, was nearer one hundred yards than eighty. The ground was measured before the choice of positions, and I believe that we both stepped with a view of preventing the "parties from hitting each other. I kept my eye on Mr. Cilley. It was my duty to see he obeyed the rules. At the first exchange of shots I thought he fired, though perfectly fair too hurriedly, and his ball did not reach Mr. Graves, because he did not raise his rifle sufficiently high. Mr. Graves fired after Mr. Cilley."
At the second shot, he says:
"Mr. Graves's rifle went off quickly, and, as he told me afterwards, accidentally, and into the ground. Mr. Cilley drew up very deliberately, aimed, I feared, a deadly shot, and fired. I thought he had hit Mr. Graves. It was very apparent to me that Mr. Cilley had shot at the life of Mr. Graves. If, when Mr. Graves's rifle went off, without harm to him, he had discharged 'his in the air or reserved his fire, the fight would have been at an end."
Nevertheless, Mr. Cilley's friends said that, even admitting that Mr. Wise was correct in his assertion that Mr. Cilley fired after the discharge of Mr. Graves's rifle, it was equally true, according to his own statement, that Mr. 'Graves, on the first exchange of shots, had done the same thing toward Mr. Cilley. It does not appear how Mr. Wise could reconcile his allegation in this regard with his official statement, conjointly with Mr. Jones, that the second shot was exchanged "in a manner perfectly fair and honorable to all parties," and that they bore their unqualified testimony to the fair and honorable manner in which the duel was conducted.
Between the second and third shots, in making the proposition he did, that Cilley should say that "In declining to receive Colonel Webb's note, he meant no disrespect to Mr. Graves, either directly or indirectly," Mr. Wise says he went beyond his instructions; and that he understood Mr. Jones to say that "Mr. Cilley would not say these words alone, nor without adding words which did away the effect of the word 'indirectly,' and which left the parties exactly where they were when they came upon the ground." He says, "It was at the instance of Mr. Graves himself that I remarked to Mr. Jones, immediately previous to the last exchange of shots, 'If this matter is not terminated this shot, and is not settled, I shall propose to shorten the distance.'" Later--February, 1839--Mr. Wise availed himself of an opportunity to present his defence before the House of Representatives. I was there and heard it. He was wildly excited and defiant. said he:
"I am ready to be tried. Put me at your bar, and I will plead instantly. I am ready to say on the spot, I did on that occasion just what I will do again under similar circumstances. Let Puritans shudder as they may, I proclaim that I belong to the class of Cavaliers, not to the Roundheads! You shall not taunt me. What are you doing? You have passed a penitentiary act [the anti-duelling law]. You are then bound to take the defence of character into your own hands, as you have taken arms from the hands of the cavalier. Will you do it? No! I call upon you, I call upon society either to defend me or give me back my arms. In the face of an approaching election, I say to my good constituents. . . . If you are determined I shall not defend myself when assailed, like a true knight, do not send me to Congress, for I shall just as surely fight, if occasion is given, as you send me; and so I shall ever continue until the holy religion of the Cross takes possession of my soul, which may God grant right early."
Up to this time, and for nearly two years afterwards, Mr. Wise, in public estimation, stood out prominently as the one individual altogether the most deserving of censure in this matter. As he himself said in an appeal "to the public," in March, 1842, 'The whole weight of an almost insupportable odium fell upon my reputation for my conduct in the affair." But in the winter of that year, or earlier, the relations of some of the parties to the transaction had become changed. Mr. Wise had espoused the cause of President Tyler, thus separating himself from his old friend Henry Clay, who was a candidate for the presidency, and to whose fortunes Messrs. Graves and Webb, with the Whig party generally, adhered. It began to be whispered about that Mr. Clay had been consulted and exercised a controlling influence in the affair of the duel, and a direct charge to this effect brought out Mr. Graves, on a call from Mr. Clay, in explanation. I will not extend this narrative by going at length into the particulars of the correspondence which followed, and in which Messrs. Wise, Graves, Clay, Reverdy Johnson, and Charles King took part. Suffice it to say that, except so far as Wise was concerned, all was said that could be to exculpate Mr. Clay, but, as must be admitted, not with entire success. It came out that he was early consulted by all these gentlemen, and that he actually "drew the form of challenge which was finally adopted." It was a modification of the form submitted to 'him 'by Wise and Graves, and the latter states that "it was rather calculated to soften the language and not so completely to close the door to an adjustment of the difficulty." Mr. Wise says that when he and Mr. Graves called on Mr. Clay. in discussing the terms of the duel, which he (Wise) "protested against as unusual and barbarous," Mr. Clay remarked that Mr. Graves was "a Kentuckian, and that no Kentuckian could back out from a rifle."
Mr. Wise stated that--"Mr. Clay's friends particularly 'were very anxious, for obvious reasons, not to involve his name especially in the affair. Thus many confidential facts remained unknown on both sides. Mr. Clay him self, it is true, while all his friends were trembling lest the part he took in it should be disclosed, boldly came to me and said, 'Sir, it is a nine days' bubble! If they want to know what I did in the matter, tell them to call me before them and I will tell them.' This excited my admiration at the time, and was effectual to prevent me from unnecessarily bringing his name before the committee."
After all, I think public sentiment, as at first expressed, was not materially modified by these later developments, and that it remains unchanged as regards Wise's great culpability, notwithstanding Graves, in the course of their correspondence, declared to him, "I always have, and now do, most emphatically exempt you from all blame or censure growing out of your connection with the affair. I, and I only, am justly responsible for whatever was done by myself or those representing me as my friends on that occasion."
One of the most stinging accusations against Mr. Wise was made by ex-President John Quincy Adams, in the House of Representatives on the 26th of January, 18'4 When a resolution, offered by Mr. Gilmer, of Virginia (killed by tire bursting of the "Peacemaker" on the "Princeton," in February, 1844), was under discussion. declaring that Mr. Adams had justly incurred the censure of the House in presenting for its consideration an abolition petition for the dissolution of the Union. Mr. Wise took a leading part in the discussion, in the course of which the venerable ex-President was led to say that, "four or five years ago, there came to the House a man [Wise) with his hands and face dripping with the blood of a murder, the blotches of 'which were yet hanging upon him." This in nearly the same language, he twice repeated, and at the same time said: "I never did believe but he [Wise] was the guilty man, and that the man who pulled the trigger was but an instrument in his hand This was my belief in the beginning."
Of the actors in this deplorable affair, the only survivor (December, 1891) is George W. Jones, of Iowa, Mr. Cilley's second. Mr. Graves, after long and intense suffering, both mental and physical, died in Louisville, KY., on the 27th of September, 1848, aged forty-three years.
The public funerals held by Congress, and also in Augusta, Thomaston and other places were deeply impressive in their nature and called out a wealth of eulogy, and showed only too plainly the great hold that Jonathan Cilley had upon the people of the entire country.
"There is a curious psychological fact connected with this matter," says Gen. J. P. Cilley. "Father was killed on Saturday, and the next day being Sunday, my mother took down a copy of Watts' Hymns, and began to turn the pages. She had not heard of father's death, and after turning a few leaves she found a hymn that impressed her so profoundly that she marked the page, in order to refer to it again. A short time afterward she learned that the hymn in question was the very one sung at his funeral in the halls of Congress. It was the poem commencing with these lines:-
"Far, far o'er hill and dale on the winds stealing
List to the tolling bell, mournfully pealing;
Hark! hark! it seems to say,
As melts those sounds away,
So life's best joys decay
Whilst new their feeling.
O'er a father's tomb see the orphan bending,
From the solemn churchyard's gloom hear the dirge ascending;
Hark! Hark! it seems to say,
How short ambition's sway,
Life's joys and friendship's ray,
In the dark grave ending."
"In a few months my father's body was brought home from the Congressional burying ground in Washington. When the vessel reached Rockland, a company of friends took the body from the boat and carried it to Thomaston on their shoulders, where elaborate and impressive services were held. It almost seems that I have a dim recollection of the event, although this may be my own imagination. Even the people of the South denounced father's death as a murder. In the Maysville, Kentucky, Monitor, a poem was printed a short time after the duel, entitled "A Lament for Hon. Jonathan Cilley." Here is the poem, but I cannot tell you the name of the author:-
"And thou art dead and lowly laid,
The foeman's dread, thy people's aid;
And shall no requiem chant for thee,
Son of the bold, the brave, the free?
Thus saith the bard, as with trembling hand,
He touched his harp to a solemn sound;
Then softly rose a mournful strain,
As those who weep for the early slain.
Son of the North-of a hero's line,
Why bend they o'er thy lowly shrine?
Why stand these mourners in mute array,
With weeds of woe in sad display,
While many a chieftain, tall and true,
With tears thy early fall bedew,
And silent awe and gloomy shades,
O'er the vast multitude pervades?
Why waits that lady, so sad and lone,
In her bower afar, her loved one's return?
The swell of emotion is heard in her sighs.
Ah! in vain, lovely lady, shalt thou listen to hear
His accents of kindness again fall on thine ear,
In the hail of his fathers his footsteps no more,
He lies a pale corpse on a far distant shore.
Fell he in the battle as his fathers had done?
Or fell he in phalanx, the gallant among?
Ah! as for the story too tragic to tell,
How the young and the noble so fatally fell:
Too honest to falter, too proud to deny,
Too brave to act craven, or dastardly fly,
His truth or his valor he never could yield,
A martyr to honor-he sank in the field."
Thus died the brave and gifted Jonathan Cilley. To our regret for the loss of that splendid genius must be added another grief-that he threw away his life for so senseless a cause. True to his New England blood and training he was ever staunch and steadfast until he swerved in this final scene. If he had a mistaken sense of honor he paid the forfeit, and we may now well spread garlands above his grave. Had not the grim messenger cut short that brilliant genius we know not to what splendid heights it might have mounted. In our imagination we will no longer dwell upon his grave, but picture him as still rising on triumphant wing above all struggles and aspirations that may surround him on that farther shore.
Cilley