with the agreeing testimony of unimpeachable witnesses. And if Mr. Wilks "expressed" any "regrets" at anything he had done, it certainly was not in my presence. And if he expressed them to the Committee in my absence, was it not proper, if they were seeking, as they professed to be, a reconciliation, that I should have been informed of the nature of those "regrets.” He insisted perpetually that he had done nothing wrong—had uttered no calumny against Mr. Barrett. What, then, had he to regret? He did, indeed, say that, if he had done anything out of the way (persisting at the same time that he had not) he was sorry for it. Was this making any acknowledgment, or expressing any regret? Mr. Wm. J. Parsons, who spoke so earnestly in the Convention in Mr. Wilks' behalf, said he thought this ought to be satisfactory to Mr. Barrett. If a man, charged with robbing Mr. Parsons' house, and proved guilty by the best of testimony, should say, while solemnly protesting his innocence, that if he committed the robbery, he was sorry for it, Would that be satisfactory to Mr. P.? If so, he is less wise than our laws. Mr. Wilks, say the Committee, "much regrets, that, at the time the report was in circulation in New York, he did not so understand the position of affairs,” &c. But the testimony is overwhelming that he did fully understand "the position of affairs," &c. And who set the report in circulation? Who, according to the testimony, but Mr. Wilks himself? Mr. Allen, it is said, declares that the calumny originated with him. It may be very kind and friendly on the part of Mr. Allen to assume such a responsibility, but has the declaration an air of probability? And: if so, how, in view of Mr. Miller’s and Mr. Waldo's testimony, does this relieve Mr. Wilks? Can any one see how?
The Committee at Philadelphia, together with Mr. Wilks and myself, were in session about four hours. And then they requested Mr. W. and Mr. B. to retire, that they might be in freedom to talk the matter over, and make up their verdict from what had been presented. We did retire. Both of us went into the body of the Temple where the Convention was in session, leaving the Committee in the basement. And in about five minutes thereafter, one of the Committee (Mr. Charles S. Close) came into the Temple and invited Mr. Wilks to go out with him. Mr. W. went immediately out with Mr. C., and was absent just thirty minutes by my watch—and came in alone. In five minutes after he entered the Temple, the Committee came in with their report. As soon as the report was read, I rose in my seat and respectfully asked leave to put a single question to the Chairman of that Committee. The President would not give me leave, but said the Convention might if it thought proper. A number of voices immediately shouted, "No—no,—no.”
