Inside the Chamber > A Row in the Chamber
In the Civil War, nerves were manifest even within the sanctuary of the Chamber itself. But, at the start of 1862, the row that threatened to “stain the annals” of the institution owed more to a clash of characters than to the stress of battle. The argument between Denning Duer, a former president of the stock exchange, and Royal Phelps, a merchant, used “expressions to each other of a most offensive and hostile character,” and would have resulted in blows had not they been separated by their colleagues.
A week later, A.A. Low described the scene:
Gentlemen of the Chamber,
I am permitted to occupy the chair at this time for the purpose of making an explanatory statement.
At the meeting of the Chamber held on Thursday, the 2nd inst., a difficulty occurred between two of its members who have zealously co-operated, hitherto, in the charge of its affairs, and who have been equally distinguished for their active interest in all that concerns the welfare of our city, State and Country: both occupying a high social standing in the community and a prominent position among the merchants of this city.
The difficulty occurred in this wise: at the close of a lengthy session, Captain Marshall presented a communication from E.A. Stevens, Esq., of Hoboken, inviting the members to witness certain experiments intended to illustrate the advantages of his “Steam Ram” or “Battery.”
Thereupon, General Wetmore moved to accept the invitation and appoint a committee to examine and report to the Chamber.
The rule of the Chamber is that all resolutions shall be offered in writing. The hour being late, the rule was not complied with, and, in the instance referred to, it was not deemed to be of necessary application. Its observance would have prevented the trouble that followed.
Mr. Phelps objected to the appointment of a Committee, and was understood by the Chair to do so simply because an examination of, and report upon, the “Stevens Battery” did not properly come within the sphere of the Chamber’s duties.
In the discussion that ensued, Mr. Phelps understood Mr. Duer as treating his opposition to the motion for the appointment of a committee, as indicating a want of interest in the Sea-Coast defences, and in a manner reflecting on the patriotism of the first vice President of the Chamber.
The following Mr. Duer gives as the words he used on the occasion: “I am surprised to hear the First Vice President of this Chamber declare that the Chamber has nothing to do with the defences of the Harbor. The Chamber decided otherwise when they appointed a Committee last summer to examine into the defences of the Harbor and report to the Chamber.”
The question was distinctly put and decided in the affirmative, and declared to the meeting.
Mr. Phelps then enquired of the Chair if the vote carried with it a decision to appoint a Committee, and remarked that the Chamber did not so understand it.
Mr. Duer immediately said: The Chamber understands what it is doing if Mr. Phelps does not. (at this point of the proceedings, Mr. D. was about to move a re-consideration, and his observation, he assures me, was intended as a preface to it.)
Mr. Phelps, however, arose at once, in a state of excitement, and turning towards Mr. Duer, upbraided him for the misconstruction put upon his motives on this and previous occasions. While yet speaking, Mr. Duer arose on his feet, called Mr. Phelps to order, which the efforts of the chair, perhaps too feebly exerted, failed to enforce. During the confusion a motion to adjourn was put and carried.
The controversy which had assumed a personal character before the adjournment was resumed immediately afterwards. In disregard of the sanctities of the Chamber, and in the absence of a proper self control, both parties permitted themselves to use expressions to each other of a most offensive and hostile character.
Fortunately for human nature, the keenest sensibilities co-exist with traits of character the noblest and most generous. In all right minded men, however quick to resent an injury, the desire to repair a fault and redress a wrong, is the first impulse of duty, and it is a proud thing that is as honorable as it is praiseworthy.
In meeting here to day, such I understand to be the disposition of the two gentlemen who were unhappily betrayed, in a moment of excitement, into expressions which they mutually feel to have been unworthy of themselves, as they were unjust to each other.
And I have great pleasure in saying that they mutually retract the offensive words spoken at the time, and under the circumstances referred to; - that in consequence thereof no stain may rest upon the annals of the Chamber; - that they may stand in the presence of each other, now as heretofore, in the attitude of friends with “consciences void of offense.”
The statement made by Mr. Low having been made, remarks followed by Msrs. R. Phelps and Duer, in keeping with Mr. Low’s paper and expressing regret that the circumstances had transpired as narrated.
Remarks were also made by Msrs Perit, Sturges, Marshall, and Solomon. Mr. Low, Vice President, and as chairman of the meeting of the 2nd inst. was desired to prepare a statement for the press, as to the circumstances named, at the suggestion of Mr. Jonathan Sturges.
There being no further business for consideration, the Chamber then adjourned.
J. Smith Homans, Secretary