Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1823-09-30
COOLIES.
To the Editors of The Enquirer.

Gentlemen: CHARLESTON.
The attention of the friends of Judge
johnson has been attracted To an editorial ar
ticle in your paper Of Sept. I'd, containing
some Remarks which they deem both unne-
cessary and unprovoked.
The article is headed Gree People of CO.
iour," and among other things you observe,
e" The Judge himself has stepped upon the a
rena the fifth time at least during the present
year that he has taken up the quill in his own
vindication !"
The note of admiration affixed to the peri
cd is sufficiently explicative of the intention
with which the Remark is made, though it
had not been followed by the passages quoted
from the publications of Mr.. Holmes and Mr.
Hunt. When the sage of Monticello was late
ly assailed by the Z" Native VirginiaD," he ac
knowledged the value he set on the good Opt
MON of his fellow citizens, and the necessity Of
leaving his children in possession of his vindi-
cation, by meeting him before that tribunal in
TO which he was forced by calumniator. But
there might have been found five Native CT
tIzens of Virginia." the same malice that
dictated one accusation may have dictated fye
equally derogatory to his character. Vino
then would have reproached him with having
stepped five times out on the arena? What
kind of common sensibity would have Es-
garded it otherwise than his misfortune rot
his offence A mans Ssensibility To the ,alee
of reputation, or respect for public opinion is
but sorry subject for note Of admiration.
1t is the consolation of Judge Johnson's
friends that however often he may have
stepped out on the ARENA" it has never been
without cause nor yet without effect.
IL should however have been stated that in
this instance he confined his brief letter to
the solitary subject of the charge of having
committed an act ofindecorum. Every other
he expressly waved, leaving his opinion TO
defend itself.
But your Remarks were perhaps intended
as an apology for Introducing into your paper
two publications that have appeared in this
place of most indecorous character, and af-
fording you an opportunity for covert at
tack upon that gentIeman's individual correct
ness.
You must have knswn the disadvantages
under which Judge Iabours under such cir
cumstances. To enter the lists Of n newspa-
per discussion is out Of his power, and he must
OF necessity leave the question TO the public
upon The comparative weight Of the contrary
assertions. Had you not been too ready 10
seize occasion, you would have seen, upon the
face of both the contradictions you have pub
ished, much reason to doubt the correctness of
republisbing them. A little enquiry here would
have left no doubt upon The subject.
You say you have stated The facts and the
arguments 10 the case of Ellison but do you
not misunderstood both, and the opinion Of the
Judge likewise? And have you not been car
ried away by the idea that the whole are to b.
found correctly stated in the argument oI
counsel or perhaps in their private communi.
cations to you.s
The question before the court was not a,
yOu,suppose the Missouri question" TIE
general right Of exclusion was not questioned
| by the court the decision goes only to deter
mine that the states cannot exercise that p0w
or so as to control the general government il
o. Private communications How ridiculous this jes
seusihlty We have received ~ such communities
! siens.-l Edbtors,