Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-04-24

the establishments OF the most hnl-heu coutue''-
Did this quality offend AIR. Van Ness!
Whatever We're his objections. II seems he mao
{" some difficulty" in giving MIR. A. his support
Now ask. it this circumstance would NOT, Oh u"
self, give the friends Of the administration some
difficulty in coming tos conclusion IN favor OIL MI
Van Ness as Senators? In proportion TO the re-
luctance with which we take particular position,
will be the ease with which we transfer ourselves
to better. In truth, Mr.. Van Ness does not APP
pear to have ever, himself, preferred Mr. Adams;
for he afterwards expressly acknowledges, that he
was 80 determined in favor OF MIR. "A, not by
any conviction of his superior fitness, but by
desire 10 s,a'iiy the people with whom he was
connected. II was this consideration, and tins
alone, according 10 bis own confession, that" de-
,ermined his course II tue people Of Vermont
had been opposed TO Mr.. a., MIR. Van Ness would
have been OPPOSED: but they for him, and
therefore, Mr.. Van Ness for him. And yet he
wonders that the friends o! the administration had
| not undoubtng confidence in him!
III were a warm friend Of Mr. Van Ness,
should regret that he has named the time when he
declared himself for MIR. Adams, in letter, as he
says, to friend in histan, par, of The State. 1;
was in April, 1929 when the que sion had been
several years in agitation, and just after Tie death
Of Judge Livingston, of the Supreme Cour, oil
the United States, who died on the 18th OF March,
1929. Mr.. Van Ness then 1 believe on The
bench OF Vermont, was candidate for the vacan-
cy, and his nane was pressed with great earnest.
ness MIR. Adams, through whose department,
the appointment to be made. His i.isnd IN
distant part of the State took great interest in the
suit. can see reason thea to doubt, thar he
did declare himself fer Mr.. Adams in April, 1928,
notwithstanding his previous indecsiou: and there
fore forbear to call on him, in my turn, to pub
lish his letter, in proof OF his assertion.
Such was the eiuivocal ground on which Nj.
Van Ness, after much hesitation, first planted his
standard. But how was he after the election Of
Mr.. Adams? He confesscs that MIR. AS a'linni,-
trstion, from the commencement, was far from
being unerceptiono5ic." Nov, these views OF
hi-. it is presumed mus, have been known 10 the
public; for he afterwards protests, that he never
uttered or wrote word at variance with what he
had just said; that is, that he never uttered or
wrote 4 word at variance with the fact tls-t he
thought the administration E" lar from being unsx-
ccptionatlc." Il is true, he might have been al
together silent The merits Of the admin is,raton
but this, of itself, would have been enough TO
cite d!strust OF his friendship to it, The p,Obabili
y is, that he expi essed his opinion tf it; and ii he
did, then, according To his own express decaIa-
ton, he must have pronounced il far from being
uri, yceptionsbie. And with this view Of it, how
could he expect to be esteenal I" unexrep-
tionable" candidate for the Sesate, By citizens
who did not think the administration so excep-
iionsbie?
Taking his own statement, is it al all strange
that so able and honest public as Mr.. Sey-
mour should have teen preierred? And has no,
The result most amply justified the preference? MIR.
Van Ness absn'lons his party because another has
been preferred TO himself. confidential friend
of MIR. Van Ness, as am IN st credibly informed,
declared several months before The election, ~
substance, that the condi ion which he and Mr..
Van Ness should Continue to support the admins
ration, was, that the latter should be (or he per-
miited 10 beg elected Senator. Can such iriend-
ship ever deserve confidence: What would be our
opinion, if, in the late Yirsiria election, DIR.
Floyd had been opposed 10 Mr. Randoi ph--if The
friends OF Gen. Jackson had uni,edly urged the ex-
pedsncy OF rejoicing Mr.. Ri Mir. II. had
been re eecied--and if DR. 4. had, in cense-
quence, pubciy proclaimed his abandonment of
Gea. J. for the sole that Gen. ]. ana his
friends had preferred Mr.. X? Should we not say
either that DIR. f. The real friend of Gen.
j., or that he relish politician 10 be USE
tui friend o! any cause!
Suppose Mr.. Van Ness had been cleo ell: what
particle OF security would the citizens of Vernon,
have had, that he would pursue the course they
wished! If, soon afer taking his seat, in the
Senate, he should have cast wisbful eye on some
high executive or Judicial Office and the President
should have preferred another 10 him, would he
not, on bis own svowed principle, have consi-
deredit I" SELF degradation" 10 continue longer his
friend? The result, then, has most amply justified
the distTust, WHICH his previous course had in
spired.
The three next conclusions from Mr. Van
Ness paper are, that lie has not found sin
gle act OF interference by Tie PRESIDENT that
though ne accuses several Of his friends of favor
ing Mr.. Seymour, he has rot oddrced a particle
of valid proof that the President had the smallest
connection. or even acquaintance, With their steps
- and that, in attempting to do shis, he has moi
only reasoned islac cusly, but repeatedly ulisIe-
presented facts.
What are his attempts at proof, A citizen
of Vermont, now in public employment at Wash.
ington, visit ed his own state, and expressed him
self Gas is a!leged) in favor of Mr.. Seymour's
re~tlection aye, was 4" closeueJ'' with a.
another Citizen and therefore, the President in
terered in The elecinn' A member elect of the |
legislature visited New York, saw {" The King
tafnIly," or did not see them. as the case NAV
he,) returned, and voted for Mr.. Sand there.
JOJe, the President inteIfered in the election
newspaper al Boston, nnd another at Washing. |
ton, spoke well of Mr.. S. and therefore. the
President inIeTiered III the election! And last, |
though first. In Mr.. Van Ness's array, lester
was written by me, speaking in just terms of Mr. |
s. aud therefore, The President in,erfered.
vi the former incidents, il is not necessary for
me To spesk, even, ii their badness did not rr axe
them contemplate Of tie last, will -sy.
that our country has never witnessed more elar.
ing attempt, on the part of disappointed can
diJae for Office. to give Fictitious importance 10
an act OF the most ordinary, every day, innocent
character. When, before bis, was il a crime tn |
speak well oil another! When before, was i, q |
crime IN citizen OF One state, 20 tesiif, TO the |
ZEAL ability, aud fidelity, with which TIE public |
servant of another state had discharged the trust
| conhded to him? The cri1ens Of a state bayioe |
appointed one of their number a Senator of The
United States, how are they to know in VIVA,
manner he performs his duty, bu, through The