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


hands, the eleven foot cannot escape detec.
ton.
The enquirer pleads not guilty to The
charge of " disingenuousncss and cautious
timidity," which we preferred against it,
How does it support is plea X says,
+" We have freely and fearessly declared
our preference for Willism II. Crawford, y
which assertion we freely and fearlessly
deny. II has NEVER BEFORE expressly de-
ciared his preference, but has contented IT.
self with bush ighting. We founded our
charge on the skttting course it had pur
sued on the presidential question, aud we
had an eye To an assertion whIch we made
twelve months ago, when, relying rs we
did upon lis previous devotion To correct
pfns lpes, we said 1--WE know the indie
pendence Of its editors too well to believe
their cautious silence and cquiyocal con
duct on the presidential question, 70 the Ell
feet Of a determination tc discover which
way the wind sets, before they trust them
selves 10 the gale" We know, indeed, that
they have defended Mr. Crap ford's con-
duet upon all occasions. We know that
they have contrnded the ground inch by
inch against his assailants. But with all
the earnestne5s manifested in his defence,
they lad neycrventured to express for HIM
an unqualified preference. The Editors OF
the Enquirer are deepiy petite men, and
II vas not necessary Ia fOrcg0 the substan-
tlal benefit winch Mr.. Crawford would de
rive from defence coming from dBiHfe-
rested source for the possibility ufbelng praI-
scd for that nova days worthless, unsub-
stantlal shadow 0fa shade, y'clcpt iadepta-
dence So far from expressing apreference
At all they have until very lately manifest
ed disposition to put stop 10 the discus
sion, Al least for the present, declaring that
the Time had not ye, arrived when 1t should
commence, &c. Sc. How will the Enqu-
rer reconcile the assertion of IFS fearless
Freedom with the fact OF the case A fact
which they know they cannot disproye,
except by the attacks which they have
made upon Mr.. Craw ford's assailants, and
upon which eqpirocd mode of proceeding
our oharge was predcatcd.
But, more surprising still, the Enquirer
says, II has never shut the dore rndely up.
on those who wish freely to discuss the
preteusions of the candidates for the presi-
dency! We persist in the charge, not
wltllstanding its denial, aud viii suhstanti-
ale IL by facts. Did not the Enquirer re-
celNe communication against Mr., Craw-
ford we forget Che siguaturc) and refuse
to publish 1t, on the ground, lof which II
was the sole judge that the argument,
adduced therein against Mr.. {. had been
used before AS ifit expected that every
article ON the subject would breach some
novel feature. Has Il ever thrown aside
"A communication IN favor Of Mr.. Crawford
on this ground? Did it not cell lis cores
pondent "a Faymr,"J whom it found 10
he too strong for its a notes, that it
could publish nothing further from him,
and that he must seek some other organ
OF communication :" Did Il not, by It's
remarks, appended 10 the manswerable
facts adduced by " Wythe" and "Pendle-
equally unsatisfactory ard tart, manifest a
disposition TO stop their "powcrCul pens p
let them answer these questions freely
and fearlessly," and we beg leave to add
candldly aud without cquivocation. The
fact is this-the Editors of the Enquirer
closed their columns on this subject as long
as Their sense of propriety would permit
them-they became aware that popular
feeling would find vent, aud then only
they torsook their predetermined course.
Uhy have they admitted so many commu-
nlcatlons against Mr.. Crawford? Because,
after their avowal of impart,alty, they
could not do.otherwise. They calculated,
that, when the door should be opened, the
friends of that gentleman wOuld come
forth III all their might but iamentabie to
say, and much to their disappointment,
his advocates Lave been outnumhered,
even tho some of his adyelsaJies have
been deprived of hearing Who have ap-
peared on the side of thceNclusiye repubI-
can !? Julian the .1poSt0te, HGson and
Otdbof0ngh, a worthy trio The two
inst communications from TIE same pen, a
native of Georgia, and the latter from IA
man Who, by his own showing is unworthy
OF credit! But they have been blamed
they say for publishing so many attacks
upon their flvorite. By whom Why,
lorsooth, by Mr.. Noah, an editor bigot,d
IN the extreme to whatever party he for
the time being is attached-aud wha ex-
ercises over has press a censorship, not less
banetnl and detestablc than tie same en-
glne ~ the hands Of the French ministry,
because IN the one case it is welded by a
government, and in the other by an mdi
sidual--an editor who refused to insert a
communication, which he acI5now lodged
to be decently & even ably written because
1t attacked the secretary of thetreasury.
And is II upon such weak grounds as these
that the Enquirer rests its defence? Aware
OF lis own improper course, does it seek to
shelter its improprieties behind the less
detenslbie acts eff NJ. Noah : "Verily.
we have fallen upon evil times :" This
IS not the policy which the Enquirer was
wont to pursue, when, instead, as now, of
crouchlng TO the jackall, it bearded the
hon.
We have already exceeded the limits
we had prescribed to ourselves. The En-