The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1823-08-12

1 ffsN'''Ot w h0bHA bfi@ u Ats
bold personiicaiions, But we are not sa-
tsled with defending ourselves from a
charge, syhich the Enquirer knew when il
made IL to he uniouuded. We retort IL
upon MessTs. Richie & Gooeh. They
mol only "trample under foot the common
deeencies of society," but they abandon
he character of their paper, which
they al. ct 10 prize too highly 10 trlie with
WHEN they talk OF our assaing them with
" the ofl-repeated baJJiiags offonyi" and,
putting INTO oar mouths an ins.nHailon
which did not originate with It's, declare ii
10 be "as ph1m as 10 false ~ We have
no inclination to dispute the palm 81 &C.
Mus with the Enquirer. We acknowledge
with al due humility our imperlections and
short -eomioge, and willingly concur in The
praise awarded TO its Editors for the indus
try and ability Ubichits columns exhibit
But we are not, nevertheless, disposed In
see it "lord it over Gods heritage,
with an insOlcnt zeal, which blinds at the
same moment itself and its readers. We
cannot consent to see every dclum of the
Enquirer embraced as orthodox, aud every
contrary opinion reprobated rs heterodox,
without NJ least nn examination into their
correctness, and exposing their errors, il
We deem u necessary or expedient We
shall pursue this course, regardless alike 81
the silence which the policy of The Enqu-
rer sometimes dictates, or the foamiug an
ger to which it gives vent at others.
We did not say that Mr.. Jefferson ieas
in favor Of Mr.. Adams, nor did we say fiat
the Editors Of the Enquirer ioere aware Of
this fact Wcexpressly said, we bad hard
50 and we will now add that we heard it
| from a source which we conceived entitled
To credit, both from the standing of the
gentleman aud his want Of all motive TO
deceive. II, however, these statements be
incorrect land the former only is posittrefy
denied we cannotsce the pr0prlety of the
! language used by that paper IN relation to
them. Itseemed topruceed from detected
| duplicity rather than conscious candor.-
There was not the least shadow OF pre-
teyt for expectoraling upon us 50 much
vulgar abuse. Our language was calm and
temperate aud if the Enquirer could not
follow our example, it should have follow
| ed itself the advice il recently gave II one
of lbs correspondents, aud preserved the
| dignifed silence which becomes ii SC we'll
al least until the "MeS Of Decemba..p
A word ~ 10 Mr.. Jefierson's opinion.
Ii matters not materially with is whom
| he is disposed 10 favor We revere HIM AS
the great apostle OF the republican party.
| and the leader of the civil revolution which
placed that party in power. Bat we eau
not, ON that account, consent to give up
our opinion, even if it should be in OPPOSE
lion 10 bis. Ncpln our faith to no mans
sleeve. We stand upon our own bottom,
and carry our sentiments in our hand " for
! davis 10 peck at" Does the Enquirer net
thus openly We appeal 10 lis columns
for an answer. Has il even get positively
denied that Mr. Jefferson is IN favor Of MIR.
AdamsY The nearest approach 10 deni-
! al is to be found in their columns on the
| 9th inst VIZ: " We would abandon the
whole character of this paper j Mr. J. is
in favor Of Mr.. Adams" Why word the
sentence thus equiyocaIy? Why not at
once give a death-hlow to the report, if il
knew il to be untrue, and say, Mr.. Jeler-
son is not IN favor of Mr.. Adams Is there
any thing behind the curtain which pro-
hlbits its adoption OF this lranh and manly
conduct Or is it, because, although Mr..
|
quirri is aware that lac is also opposed to
Mr.. Crawford and its nice sense of honor
aud high estimate Of its own character,
forbid II To tell the truth without il was
willing 10 tell The Wo'e truth? We would
willingly assign some such motive as this
for the cqnlyocation of the Editors of the
| Enquirer, if we were not forbidden l,Y the
whee course pursued by them IN relation
10 Mr.. Adams. What act of that gentle
man, since he has been a candidate for the
presidency, which afforded the least open
ing for censurc or ridcule, have they not,
sometimes openly, in their editorial capa-
city, anti at others cOroftlg as correspon
dents, seized upon "Wth eyes that never
winkcd aud hands that never tired in the
work of detraction? Even his 4th ofJuy
speech, produced on the spur of the mo
ment, ard (altho' it has some defects ex.
hibting range of information and SPLEEN
dor of genius, with which the acquire
ments aud intellect of Mr.. Crawford sus-
tain no better comparison than Z" | TO Her
lcules," could not escape their fangs They
could not let slip even this insignificant OPP
lportunity OF indulging their rancorous hat
red. But hsw has the Enquirer found out
Mr. Jeherson's opinion. Did il derive its
knowledge from such men as its cores
pondent "Oldborough," whose statements
carry with them their own refutaton? Is
II from such man, whose assertions bear
ON their very front the stamp Of lalsehood,
thai il gets its information? From Il man
whose fertile imagination coins dialogues
that never took pace-who gives to
and whose presumption is exceeded only
by the ignorance which exposes it. Let
MS dlgress for a moment, and examine this
labricator's cldimto credbiIity. Assuming
the sarb of Virginian travelling in dis
tant, state he tells us that he was assaed by
persons of different political creeds, to ms