The New York Herald

THE LATEST NEWS.
by magnetic and printing telegraphs.

MR. BURLINGAME'S STATEMENT.

On the 21st day of June last I made a speech in the House of Representatives, which contained the following language:

On the 22d day of May, when the Senate and the House had clothed themselves in mourning for a brother fallen in the battle of life in the distant State of Missouri, the Senator from Massachusetts sat in the silence of the Senate Chamber, engaged in the employment appertaining to his office, when a member in this House, who had taken an oath to sustain the Constitution, stole into the Senate, that place which had hitherto been held sacred against violence, smote him as Cain smote his brother. One blow was enough; but it did not satiate the wrath of that spirit which had pursued him through two days. Again and again, quicker and faster fell the leaden blows, until he was torn away from his victim, when the Senator from Massachusetts fell in the arms of his friends, and his blood ran down on the Senate floor.

Sir, the act was brief, and my comments on it shall be brief also. I denounce it in the name of the constitution I venerate. I denounce it in the name of the sovereignty of Massachusetts, which was stricken down by the blow. I denounce it in the name of humanity. I denounce it in the name of civilization, which it outraged. I denounce it in the name of that fair play which bullies and prize fighters respect. What! strike a man when he is pinned—when he cannot respond to a blow! Call you it chivalry? In what code of honor did you get your authority for that? I do not believe that member has a friend so dear who must not, in his heart of hearts, condemn the act. Even the member himself, if he has left a spark of that chivalry and gallantry attributed to him, must loathe and scorn the act. God knows I do not wish to speak unkindly, or in a spirit of revenge; but I owe it to my manhood and the noble State I, in part, represent, to express my deep abhorrence of the act.

On the first day of July, ten days later, the Hon. T. Bocock, of Virginia, called to see me, and that I may not do him injustice, I give his own words, taken from a statement made for Mr. Brooks, which statement he placed in my hands, informing me at the same time that Mr. Brooks had a copy:-

At the request of the Hon. P. S. Brooks, of South Carolina, I called yesterday evening to see the Hon. Mr. Burlingame, of Massachusetts, at his lodgings, at Guy's National Hotel, in this city. Having informed Mr. Burlingame that I had a private communication to make to him and that I desired a private interview for that purpose, we went, at his suggestion, to his own room, where we were entirely alone. I stated, in the first place, that I wished him to know that I had come merely to deliver a special message to him, and to take back such reply as he might think proper to send by me, and that my connection with the matter would, in all events, end there. Having thus explained my position in the matter, I then informed him that I was requested by my friend, Colonel Brooks, to say, that he regarded certain language employed by him (Mr. Burlingame,) in his speech on the Brooks and Sumner affair, as injurious and offensive to him (Mr. Brooks). This being already under arraignment for the assault on Mr. Sumner, he had wished to get no further unnecessary note of empty challenges and idle demonstrations of belt. He had, for this reason, forborne until now, though several days, to send him any message of a hostile character. But within the last few days he had heard from various sources that he (Mr. Burlingame) stood ready to answer, in any way and to any person aggrieved, for what he had said. Col. Brooks felt justified, therefore, in sending me to inquire distinctly whether he (Mr. Burlingame) would accept a call from him, (Col. Brooks,) to answer for the offence which he had given.

The above discloses the purpose for which Mr. Bocock called; what follows is the extract from his own account published by Mr. Brooks, of what occurred between us:-

Mr. Burlingame then commenced an explanation, which led to a long conversation between us, in the course of which he made many statements which he said were confidential. Omitting these, the answer which he desired me to bear to you was substantially this: that he had no unkind feelings whatsoever for you, but, on the contrary, regarded you as a man of courage and a man of honor—that while he disapproved the assault on Mr. Sumner, and felt bound as a Massachusetts man to condemn it, he had designed to discriminate between the man and the act. Let it be remembered that this language was used on the 1st of July, and he had said no more on the subject than his sense of representative duty required. Under these circumstances he was surprised and grieved that you had taken exception to anything which he said. In relation to the boasts which had been thrown out in his name, he stated that they had not been authorized by him, but on the contrary, he very strongly condemned them and their author; and if, after all this, you were not satisfied, and wanted his blood, he stated that he could do nothing less than accept, and would do so.

Before leaving Mr. Burlingame I recapitulated what I understood to be his answer. He agreed that I was right. He added, "Describe me to him as you see me. Do justice to my kind feelings to him, and do justice also to my manhood."

This statement was made for Mr. Brooks, by his second friend, long after the conversation of which it professes to give the substance. The presumption is that it contains all that could aid Mr. Brooks. However much it might be to my advantage to state the whole conversation as I understand it, still, inasmuch as it was private, at Mr. Bocock's own request I refrain from doing so. I have kept what was said to me in the frankness of a free conversation quite away from the newspapers, and shall continue to do so.

I confess that I was pleased with the bearing and conversation of Mr. Bocock. He appeared really desirous of preventing a hostile meeting, and I am sure that nothing but a strong desire to serve his friend could ever have led him to place in his hands the above statement.

When examined, the statement discloses what is more a source of satisfaction. It appears from it that I did not seek a difficulty with any one: that I felt that no man, not even Mr. Brooks, had cause of complaint against me. That I would not admit myself a violator of the rules of personal or parliamentary propriety, as I should have done had I stated to him that I intended to fight Mr. Brooks, or anybody else, on the floor of the House. That I disavowed the character of a boaster. That I retracted none of my language, and was ready to give him satisfaction. I may well rest myself on this statement, leaving a generous public to view it in the light in which it was made. It will be remembered by Mr. Bocock, that I expressly refused in our subsequent interviews, to permit the word "honor" with respect to Mr. Brooks, to be placed in the statement written by my friends, and that because of such refusal, he thought Mr. Brooks would deem it unsatisfactory.

Mr. Brooks, I think, on a close examination of his friend's statement, will fail to find those "apologies," which he says, are there indicated. Would it not have been wise in Mr. Brooks, and more in accordance with that code of honor, of which we hear so much, had he sent a note to me, in the first place, instead of resorting to an irregular way to obtain my views? My answer, it seems, was satisfactory, and he was "impressed with the belief that I was an elevated gentleman!" On his own showing, the affair was closed, and I may say without doing injustice to Mr. Bocock, that a request was made that I should keep the transaction secret.

Nearly two weeks after this, Mr. Bocock, as Mr. Brooks states, came to me with the singular request that I would permit a statement of the conversation we had together to be placed in the hands of Mr. Brooks. I am confident that such a request which could not have been made by Mr. Bocock. It is not necessary to disclose the reasons given for this remarkable proceeding. I looked at his statement, and when I had read the first part, I thought it did me justice, but when I had read the paper more carefully, I found that whatever may have been Mr. Bocock's intentions, it would do me injury, and I refused to give my consent to it. Thus things remained until the following day, when Mr. Bocock addressed me a letter, from which, it not being private, I extract the following, having reference to my refusal to endorse the statement at a previous interview:-"The real point of the matter is that you did not intend to reflect on Mr. Brooks personally." After suggesting a number of ways by which it could be stated, he writes:"It may be done by your saying in reply to this note that you did not intend to reflect on Mr. Brooks personally." Again—I am sure you ought not to object to the latter course." These few words disclose the desire of Mr. Brooks, through his friend, to get something which might satisfy his friends in neglecting me in his liberal calls on gentlemen for personal satisfaction. I did not reply to the letter in writing, but stated to Mr. Bocock that as the matter seemed complicated it might be better for both of us to hold our future conversations in the presence of others.

I consulted the Hon. George Ashmun and Mr. Speaker Banks. I related to them, as nearly as I can remember, that I observed in my speech the rules of personal and parliamentary decorum—that I could not qualify or retract any portion of it, and that I held myself responsible to any gentleman aggrieved by it. To avoid misunderstanding, I desired my friend, Mr. Ashmun, to reduce my views to writing, which he did, approving the position taken by me, as also did Mr. Banks. Mr. Bocock said Mr. Brooks would not deem my position satisfactory, as it yielded nothing. Another interview was had, when I tendered to the form, substantially, as drawn by Mr. Ashmun, which was copied by Mr. Banks. When the friend of Mr. Brooks left, it was not known whether it would be satisfactory or not. I understood Mr. Bocock to say that he thought it would not be. I must say I was surprised when I saw the memorandum the next day in the hands of the reporter, not having received notice that it was satisfactory.

and appended to the speech of Mr. Brooks in such a way as to give the impression that it was extorted and not persuaded from me. That it was liable to misconstruo-tion I soon ascertained. Still I think I should have let it stand as it was, had I not heard, on what I deemed good authority, that Mr. Brooks and some of his immediate friends were claiming that I had yielded to his menace, that he had "backed down" the North, and conquered Massachusetts. Knowing in my soul that such was a gross perversion of what I meant by my statement, I determined at once to make myself understood. Accordingly I published the following card:

A CARD.—I am informed that the memorandum of a recent conversation of myself and friends with the friends of Mr. Brooks has received, in some quarters, from its position as appended to Mr. Brooks' speech, an interpretation which does injustice to its real meaning and to my intentions. This is what I say, and have said, in relation to my speech: That I observed in it the rules of personal and parliamentary decorum; that I could not qualify or retract any portion of it, and held myself responsible to any gentleman aggrieved by it. This is the only construction which I supposed would be placed on the memorandum, which my friends reduced to writing, that there might be no misunderstanding. But, inasmuch as attempts, not altogether unsuccessful, have been made to pervert its true meaning, I now withdraw it. And that there may not be any misapprehension in the future, I say explicitly, that I leave my speech to interpret itself, and hold myself responsible for it, without qualification or amendment.

WASHINGTON, July 19, 1856.
A. BURLINGAME.

On the same day, I received a note from Mr. Brooks, which will be found elsewhere, from the hands of General Lane. From this point the history of my connection with the transaction is most clearly and truly stated by my esteemed and gallant friend, the Hon. Lewis D. Campbell. His statement I append hereto.

Of the conduct of Mr. Brooks in this affair, I can scarcely trust myself to write. I owe it to truth to say that from what I had heard and seen of him prior to his assault on Mr. Sumner, I had formed a high opinion of him, and that act, which I have properly stigmatized, I did think must have been abhorrent to his better nature. In remembrance of my opinion of him and feeling that through his conduct I could still detect traces of a gallantry which, some day, might cause him to condemn, as heartily as others do, his assault on Mr. Sumner, I had a larger charity for him than did most of my friends. Indeed, I have been blamed for intimating the opinion that in spite of that act, he was yet a brave man, even as late as my conversation with General Lane. When he stated that Mr. Brooks desired a speedy meeting, I felt a glow of admiration for him, as a gallant foeman, but I was wrong. The expressions of kindness for him, in which, following a proclivity of my heart, I had indulged, were entirely misplaced. Out of regard for his feelings, inasmuch as he was so tender of mine, I will abstain from any further expression of my opinion, but leave men of honor to determine his position in view of his own conduct. In response to his numerous insinuations, let him take my reasons. Why did he linger in the District, where he was exposed to arrest? The intimation that my friends arrested him is unworthy even of him. I do not know the man who did it. The dearest friends I had could get no clue from me of the affair. I thought Mr. Brooks was in earnest, and prepared myself to meet him sternly, and without fail. If he was afraid to go to Canada, the nearest neutral ground, why did he not name some other place? Was I not, equally with himself, exposed to the hazard of a foreign jurisdiction? He could have reached the place of meeting in a few hours, keeping most of the way in the States of Pennsylvania and Maryland, but this he deemed the "enemy's country." Where is a friend's country for me? It is here, where my comrades are smitten down without warning. Here, where to make the defence of free speech effectual, I, against my early teachings and the deep seated sentiments of my people, have been driven, that I might secure a little fair play, and an approach to an equal chance to go to the field, even with Mr. Brooks. I think Mr. Brooks should not have based so many anticipations of danger to himself on the possibility of my falling. I have not heard that anybody who had fair play ever fell before that arm whose single blow in the House its owner thought would have brought on a revolution.

It would have been a happy circumstance for me, had I shown half as much regard for my reputation as our "gallant" friend did for his life. Then, my name would not have been linked with one whose adroitness in getting out of difficulty is only equalled by his shrewdness in securing from an unsuspecting man what he tried to construe into an endorsement of his courage. I can endorse it no longer; and now give him full notice. It is kind of Mr. Brooks to hand me over to the reputation of men, and then to propose to admit me to the position of a gentleman provided I would challenge him. He seems to have forgotten how in his card he had just stated it was said of me that I would not send, although I would accept a challenge. If I cannot hereafter praise the gentleman's courage, I can commend his prudence. This is revealed to us in the fact that, without seeking another place of meeting, he rushes into print in such a way as to make me forget my triumph in the shame I feel at the conduct of my antagonist. As if suspecting that I might change the place, he closes the door against it by stating that he should have no further demands upon me. I now dismiss, as far as I can, the ex-member from South Carolina from my mind. Self-respect requires me to say that I can never again recognize, save to do him a kindness, if it should be in my power. Preston S. Brooks. I hand him over to that public, North and South, which is ever scornful of those who boast much and perform little.

And now, I hereby submit myself to the public whose convictions, I fear I have invaded. I pray them to remember that forgiveness is of higher quality than justice. I cast myself on their generous hearts, which are always tender and always loving. Let them not forget, when passing on my conduct, the sneers I have seen and the taunts I have heard. How the old State we all love has been insulted, and her cherished Senator stricken down, and how he yet lingers in almost helpless illness. As you of my own State remember these things, you will not entirely blame me if, in a moment of indignation, I was willing to stand up at the hazard of my life—and what is dearer than life—for the insulted honor of those who have always been kind to me. I am no duellist. I seek no man's life. I have but acted in the spirit of the speech I made, when I said that if pushed too long and too far there were men from the old Bay State who would defend her honor and the freedom of speech in whatever field they might be assaulted. My course became to me a defence of liberty against slavery; and a struggle for freedom of speech against freedom of the bludgeon, and the only way which seemed to be left us here, by which we could defend ourselves.

A. BURLINGAME.
WASHINGTON, July 28, 1856.

MR. CAMPBELL TO MR. BURLINGAME,
WASHINGTON, July 26, 1856.

My Dear Sir—In view of the unexpected publicity which Colonel Brooks has given to his "difference" with you, in which he has complicated my name, I deem it proper, in closing my connection with the affair, to place in your hands the enclosed statement of facts. You are at liberty to make such use of it as you may deem proper. I am, my dear sir, very truly, yours, &c.,
LEWIS D. CAMPBELL.
Hon. A. BURLINGAME.

STATEMENT OF MR. CAMPBELL.
WASHINGTON, July 27, 1856.

The following document will appear in the Intelligencer of Monday—

The publication of Hon. P. S. Brooks, in the Union of the 23d instant, with the note of his friend, General Lane appended, in which my name is mentioned, will, I hope, excuse me in presenting the following statement of facts in reference to my connection with the subject which it discusses—

On the 21st instant, about seven o'clock P. M., meeting the Hon. Mr. Burlingame on Pennsylvania avenue, he placed in my hand the following note, and requested me to act as his friend and adviser, first assuring me that he had decided to accede to the request it contained:-

WASHINGTON, July 21, 1856.
Sir—Will you do me the kindness to indicate some place outside of this District, where it will be convenient to you to negotiate in reference to the difference between us? Very respectfully, &c.,
P. S. BROOKS.
Hon. A. BURLINGAME.

No hostile meeting was proposed by the note, and I agreed to render the desired service. Having reason to suspect, from the circumstances connected with the case, from rumors I had heard, and from my knowledge of schemes that are sometimes resorted to in regard to such matters in Washington, that meddling persons might seek to tarnish Mr. Burlingame's reputation by an arrest, I advised him to leave the street immediately—which he did—and to prepare to absent himself from the District at 8 o'clock. He met me at a private room by appointment. The following reply was prepared, and I was instructed to deliver it to Col. Brooks, in person, as soon as he could be found—this being deemed the proper course, because he had not named in his note any person authorized to receive it—

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 21, 1856.
SIR—Your note of this date was placed in my hands by General Lane, this afternoon. In reply, I have to say that I will be at the Clifton House, on the Canada side of Niagara Falls, on Saturday next, at 12 o'clock, M., to "negotiate" in reference to any "differences between us," which, in your judgment, may require settlement, "outside of this District."

I have the honor to be,
Your obedient servant,
A. BURLINGAME.
Hon. P. S. BROOKS.

I took a carriage at 9 o'clock, and sought for Colonel Brooks, with a view to deliver the reply to him. Failing to find him at his lodgings, I looked for him unsuccessfully at the hotels until 11 o'clock—Mr. Burlingame having expressed great anxiety that his note should be delivered immediately. I then repaired to the residence of General Lane, and found him entertaining visitors. As soon as his company left, I wrote, at his table, the following note, explanatory of my reasons for delivering to him Mr. Burlingame's reply to Col. Brooks:-

WASHINGTON, July 21, 1856,
11 o'clock P. M.

Mr. DEAR SIR—This evening, about eight o'clock, the Hon. A. Burlingame handed me the enclosed note to be delivered to Colonel Brooks. Failing to find the Colonel, after calling twice at his lodgings, I deem it proper to place it in your hands, and to ask that you deliver it to him. I would have called on you with the reply of Mr. Burlingame, but for the fact that your name is not mentioned in the note of Colonel Brooks.

Very truly yours, &c.,
LEWIS D. CAMPBELL.
Hon. JOSEPH LANE, Washington.

This note and Mr. Burlingame's reply were delivered, unsealed, to General Lane, who read them both at my request. Our interview was brief. He spoke of the point named (Clifton House) as inconvenient, and desired to know, in the event of their going there, what kind of weapons were to be used. I replied to this that I regarded the note of Burlingame as legitimately and fully responsive to that of Mr. Brooks, and that I declined any negotiation at that time, having reference to weapons, as premature.

It is due to Gen. Lane to say that he has to-day informed me that he derived the impression from my remarks, in regard to weapons, &c., that I was not then authorized to fix upon terms for a hostile meeting, and that he so informed Col. Brooks. I informed him that Mr. Burlingame, acting under my advice, could not be seen in the District, but that I could be found at my lodgings or at my seat in the House, and would receive and deliver to him any communication touching the subject matter of the correspondence. After a few suggestions, in which we mutually concurred, as to the propriety of keeping the affair from the public, we separated—Gen. Lane saying if, after an interview with Col. Brooks, he (Col. B.) deemed any communication necessary in the premises, it would be handed to me on the next day.

The foregoing statement, as to what occurred between Gen. Lane and myself, has been examined by him, and admitted to be substantially correct.

At 12 o'clock I reported the facts to Mr. Burlingame, and he immediately left the district in a private conveyance, accompanied by Mr. James, of Wisconsin. I was either at my lodgings or at my desk in the House during the whole of the next day, the 22d. No communication from the parties, verbal or written, was made to me, and I was surprised at the dinner table of the hotel that day when I heard a friend of Mr. Brooks' publicly state the contents of the correspondence. On the morning of the following day, the 23d, the Union newspaper contained the publication of Mr. Brooks, embracing his note and the reply, with the statement of Gen. Lane appended, in which the place of meeting was declared absurd, and the insinuation made that his arrest was the result of the conduct of Mr. Burlingame's friends. It is not improper here to say that no information was given to me by Mr. Brooks or his friends of a design to publish the correspondence, nor that the place designated was objectionable to him, except verbally by Gen. Lane, in the interview mentioned, prior to his publication in the Union.

Up to the present hour, I have learned nothing from Mr. Brooks or his friends—outside of newspaper publications—except on the 24th inst., when, on inquiry of Gen. Lane, I was told that Mr. Brooks would not be at Niagara Falls to-day, to meet the appointment suggested by Mr. Burlingame. I therefore took measures to have Mr. Burlingame return to his seat in the House, having previously published in the Union of that day—24th—in his absence, the following card:

CARD FROM MR. CAMPBELL.

Mr. Burlingame has been absent from the city since the evening of the 21st inst. As his friend, who suggested the propriety of his absence, I ask a suspension of the judgment of the public, who may have read Mr. Brooks' card and its "exhibits appended thereto," published in the Union of to-day, until Mr. Burlingame returns, and has a hearing.

LEWIS D. CAMPBELL.
WASHINGTON, July 24, 1856.

Those are the material facts in the case, as far as they are embraced within my knowledge, with the interviews, conversations, writings, explanations, cards, &c., &c., of the parties and their friends.

Prior to 7 o'clock of the 21st inst., I have had no connection, direct or indirect. For the contents of the note of Burlingame, in reply to that of Mr. Brooks—especially that portion designating a time and place "for a meeting" to "negotiate," &c., as well as for his bearing as a gentleman in every respect, from that time to this, I am accountable. Mr. Brooks had requested a place to be named outside of this district, convenient to Mr. Burlingame. Not aware of any rule of courtesy which required me to consult the wishes of Col. Brooks or his friends on that point, it was settled without any conference with them. If this justifies complaint, the error is mine. It is proper to say that the suggestion of the "Clifton House, on the Canada side of the Niagara Falls," as the place, was presented by me to Mr. Burlingame. At first he disapproved of it, and added, with some feeling, that if Mr. Brooks was anxious to meet him to "negotiate, &c.," he would, if necessary, go even to South Carolina. I insisted on the time and place I had named, saying to Mr. Burlingame that if I was to be his adviser he must be governed by my counsel, and that "I would be responsible for my decision." Mr. Burlingame then acquiesced, stating that if a communication was presented to me objecting to the time and place, in his absence, I should change either or both at my discretion. I deem a knowledge of the facts on this point alike due to Mr. Burlingame and myself, in view of the unexpected publicity which Col. Brooks has given to the matter through the press.

From the spirit of Col. Brooks' note I was induced to hope that no hostile action would result from the meeting which he invited. I believed that the retired place I had designated, being accessible by one day's travel, in a cool, healthful and magnificently picturesque region, remote from the excitements of metropolitan life, would be far more appropriate in the hot season than any point in the region of the District of Columbia; but Mr. Brooks seems to set out with the assumption that his note was in spirit, if not in form, a hostile message, or, in other words, a challenge. What right had I, in this view of the matter, to drive the challenged party outside of the District? If the answer be, to evade the laws of our country, then that answer admits the place to have been well chosen, because there is no State, North or South, in which the laws do not prohibit such hostile meetings, under heavy penalties. After assuming that the note was a challenge, he says that he could not reach the Falls of Niagara without running the gauntlet of mobs, assassins, prisons and penitentiaries, bailiffs and constables. It appears by the note of Gen. Lane to him that he had informed Mr. Burlingame, at the outset, that he had the right of selecting the place for the meeting, &c., and yet, after it was chosen, he objected to it on the ground that it was "too far distant," and would subject Mr. Brooks "to so many hazards of arrest," and therefore advised him "to take no further notice of the matter." I will not stigmatize the people southward as "mobs," "assassins," &c., but in behalf of the people between this point and Niagara Falls, I assert that Col. Brooks would have been quite as secure north of Mason and Dixon's line as Mr. Burlingame would have been south of it. I know nothing of the rules of chivalry except what Nature has taught me, nor have I studied, nor will I ever waste time in studying, the matter—code duello—but as my action in the premises seems to be rebuked, I leave the parties to show the "authorities" to justify their propositions.—

First—That the challenging party may, in his message, make any restriction either as to time or place of meeting.

Second—That in selecting the place the challenged party is circumscribed geographically by any precise latitude or longitude.

Third—That when the place is fixed by the party entitled to the selection, the challenger may retire from the field on his objections to distance, if within one day's travel, or from fear of "bailiffs and constables."

Fourth—That under mutual agreement not to give publicity, one party is authorized to publish the affair through the press without the knowledge or consent of the other.

My complicity in this affair was induced solely by private friendship, and the hope that I might be instrumental, in some humble way, in restoring amicable relations between the parties. I now dismiss the whole matter, as far as may be possible, from my mind forever, consoled by the reflection that whatever may have been my errors in the premises, no brother's blood has been shed, or life sacrificed, by reason of any act of mine.

LEWIS D. CAMPBELL.
WASHINGTON, July 26, 1856.