Mr. Wakeman has explained to me the matter in controversy between him & the Club, & sent me the paragraph which bred it. Now there are two separate & distinct parties affected by that item—to-wit: 1. The newspaper men who welcomed me & made my stay in Chicago so pleasant; 2 and, 2. Myself.

I am necessarily privileged to speak only of my part—it would not be in good taste for me to pass beyond that line. So I proceed as follows:

The item contained several errors, which are best corrected by these negations. 1. The men whose hospitality I enjoyed were not “non-workers” or “figure-heads”—none of they could not be spared from their duties till 11.30 P.M. 2. They were not in any sense a “clique.” 3. They did not render me “exclusive.” 4. I had no “managers.” 5. I was not non-accessibleⒶemendation.

So far from there having been any suggestion of exclusiveness, the thing was exactly the other way, so far as the friends I am speaking of were concerned; for if I had allowed them to have their generous way they would have taxed my modesty with such a big banquet that I shouldn’t have fallen much short of dividing the honors with Gen. Grant. They did not simply propose this, they insisted on it. So if there was anything blameworthy in reducing the thing to a sociable good time in a beer-hostelry at midnightⒶemendation, I am the only person in fault; for I begged for that, & stuck to it, & carried my point. I had no unkindly motive toward anybody in this., nor had I the slightest disposition to hold myself aloof. I had the perfectly natural desire to get acquainted with all the men of my craft that I could; but to be the chief guest at a great dinner is a most formidable position, & beyond the strength of the average man—I did not feel equal to it. So I took the good will for the good deed, & persuaded the boys into a wassail-bout that was nearer my size. As far as I was personally concerned, the thing had but one blemish about it—the daylight came with a too indecent celerity.

Such is my side, as regards this matter. If a reflection upon a man’s conduct, in a newspaper, has the quality of malice in it, I do not think it is a thing to be lightly passed over, or speedily condoned; but I find no taint or suggestion no taint of malice against me in Mr. Wakeman’s paragraph—my behavior seems to be referred to rather in sorrow than in anger. , or with Consequently I have no valid cause of offense against Mr. Wakeman. At least no cause except that he has done a wrong to my friends—a thing which would not have happened if I had been away, therefore I necessarily have my part in it. But I think he did it only through a misconception of the facts.