Chronicles of the Cape Fear River

To tur Pustic.

I take this method of making a few statements in explana-
tion of the course pursued by me in connection with the recent
duel. I can say, with a clear conscience, that I was fully im-
pressed with the responsibility which was attached to my posi-
tion. I knew that upon one unguarded expression, or one im-
prudent act of mine, might depend the life of a fellow-being. I
can also say that I was not actuated by any feeling of enmity
towards the late Dr. Wilkings. We had been born and reared in
the same community, and though not intimate friends, we had
never had any personal difficulty in our lives. I can say, too,
that Mr. Flanner made the declaration before he left town, as
he did on the field after the second fire, that he did not desire
to take the life of his opponent, and that he hoped a fair and
honorable settlement would be made. For these reasons, I went
upon the field with the full determination to accept any propo-
sition for a settlement which I could regard as fair and honor-
able, and during the conversation which occurred after the sec-
ond exchange of shots, I repeatedly said that I desired -a fair
and honorable settlement. By way of showing my willingness
for such a settlement, I call attention to the fact, that, as the
representative of the challenged party, my duty was simply to
receive and consider such propositions as might be made by the
challenging party, and such is the course usually pursued by
persons when placed in the same position, and yet I went beyond
my duty by making the proposition for a withdrawal for a spe-
cific purpose, as set forth in the card signed by me and pub-
lished by Mr. Walker in the Journal of yesterday.

I deem it due to the public to state, that the first mention
which was made of a settlement was immediately after the first
fire, when Dr. James F’. McRee, jr., who was acting as the sur-
geon for both parties, remarked that he hoped the difficulty
could now be settled, as the parties had taken one fire. Where-
upon, I turned to Mr. W. M. Walker, who was the representa-
tive of the other party, and asked him the question, in the pres-
ence of all the parties: “What have you to say, Mr. Walker ?”
To which he immediately replied as follows: “Well, sir, we still
oceupy our former position; you must retract and apologize for
your card.” I then said, “Is this all you have to say?’ He an-
swered, “Yes.” And then I said, ‘‘We have no retraction or

Notable Incidents 937

apology to make.” We then loaded the pistols and the second
fire was made.

The object of this card is not to give a full account of all the
facts which occurred upon the field; it is merely to state what is
sufficient, and no more, to explain the course which I pursued
upon the field. In conclusion, I will say that the position taken
by me with regard to a settlement was that I was willing to
retract Mr. Flanner’s card for a specific purpose, it being so
expressed in writing, but that I would not make an uncondi-
tional retraction of his card.

I regret the necessity which compels me to publish even this
much upon this subject. 6: Vee

May 8, 1856.

The allegation in Dr. Wilkings’ speech that the ticket of the
opposition was composed of merchants who would not hesitate
to sacrifice the public interests (quarantine, ete.) for the sake
of a dollar brought out the publication of Mr. Flanner’s card on
the following day, that the statement was false, and that Dr.
Wilkings knew it was false when he made it. Wilkings promptly
challenged Flanner, whose first shot struck Wilkings’ hat; the
third penetrated his right lung and killed him instantly.