And not an individual in that whole assembly had the courage, or the manliness, or the sense of justice and propriety, to move that Mr. Barret have leave to put the question! And as there was no motion, of course no formal vote was taken; and I sat down. The single question which I wished to propound, was, "For what purpose was Mr. Wilks summoned again before the Committee, and privately closeted with them for a full half hour, after they had requested us both to retire?" And I desired to ask this question, and to have it answered in the presence of the whole Convention, that all might see what an impartial course that Committee had pursued. One of the Committee, when this question was put to him after adjournment, answered, "The Committee wanted to get some concessions from, Mr. Wilks: That was why they sent for him. And they did get some." Was it not due to Mr. Barrett, as the aggrieved party, that he should have been informed of the nature of those concessions, or that it should have been stated in the report? Was it right for the Committee to regard no one but Mr. Wilks? And to endeavor, in fixing up their report, to approach as near the line of justice as Mr. W. would allow them? Let others decide.
Soon after my return from the Convention, I addressed to Mr. Charles S. Close, of Philadelphia (the member who came and called Mr. Wilks out of the Temple on the occasion referred to) , the following note:—
(No. XIV.)
Orange, June 14, 1866.
Mr. Charles S. Close,
Mr Dear Sir,—Will you please inform me for what purpose the Committee on my memorial in relation to Mr. Wilks, of which you were a member, summoned Mr. W. to appear before them immediately after they had requested us both to retire. It would be gratifying to me to know precisely what the Committee desired Mr. Wilks to do or say, and what he did say; and what effect, if any, the statements received from him in that private interview had upon the Committee’s report. Your early answer to this inquiry is respectfully solicited by {{right|Yours truly,
B. F. Barrett.
The following is Mr. Close’s answer.
(No. XV.)
Philadelphia, June 17th, 1856.
Dear Sir:
In answer to your note of the 14th,—The Committee did not summon Mr. Wilks to appear before them after your being requested to retire. The Committee desired Mr. Wilks to say or do nothing that I know of. "What effect the statement received from him in that private interview” was, I cannot