Page:The Judicial Capacity of the General Convention Exemplified.djvu/39

Rh the slander. Mr. Wilks disclaims having done it. He says that such a charge against Mr. Barrett is a calumny; and he much regrets, that, at. the time the report was in circulation in New York, he did not so understand the position of affairs as to feel that he was called upon to give his decided testimony to the strictly honorable dealing of Mr. Barrett in the affair in question.

"Your Committee present this statement as due to the Convention, in order that they may have correct views of a transaction which has been vaguely and imperfectly brought to their notice, and in justice to the two gentlemen concerned.

“We could wish that they might have and see sufficient grounds for reconciliation,—a settlement of the difficulty between them. We have endeavored to give them such friendly aid as was in our power towards this end; and we pray that they may be able to do as He would wish to have them, who says, 'If thy brother sin against thee, rebuke him; and, if he repent, forgive him; and if he sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn to thee again, saying, I repent, thou shalt forgive him;'—who says, 'Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven;'—and who says, 'With the same measure that ye mete withal, it shall be measured to you again."

"The Committee submit the following resolutions, as expressive of their views.

"Resolved: First, That, in the opinion of the Convention, the circumstances of the case were sufficient to justify Mr. Barrett in demanding an investigation.

"Resolved: Second, That the explanations given and regrets expressed by Mr. Wilks ought to be received as satisfactory by the Convention.”

And this report was accepted, and the resolutions appended thereto were unanimously adopted by the Convention—under protest, however, by Mr. Barrett, as contrary to truth and the evidence in the case.

The "circumstances" which the Committee here say "were sufficient to justify Mr. Barrett in demanding an investigation," were circumstances which convinced me that Mr. Wilks was guilty of the alleged calumny. And there was not a syllable of testimony presented to invalidate the force of these 66 circumstances,” or to change their aspect in the slightest degree. Not a single new fact, or new phase of old facts, was elicited by the "investigation." If, then, I was justified "in demanding an investigation,” I am justified by the same "circumstances" in still believing Mr. Wilks guilty of the calumny alleged, since nothing which I did not know before was brought to my knowledge by this investigation—nothing to change the -aspect or weaken th* force of the "circumstances" referred to.

And as to Mr. Wilks' "explanations," they were no explanations to me; for, besides being unreasonable, they were inconsistent with themselves, and with known and admitted facts, and in direct conflict