Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-10-05
LETTER OF MIR. CuFvFS

The following Letter was addressed by Mr.. CHrvr, 10
the Committee OF Invitation, requesting his al
the State Rights Dinner given at Greenville on the 18th
instant
PENDLEroN, Sept !, 1882.
GenHemenl have received your letter the 18th ul-
tlmo, IN which am invited to participate in Dinner 10
be givenby the Citizens Of Greenve District on The 9Th
instant, Gin honor OF that portion of the Delegation in Con-
ress from this State, who voted against the late Tariff on
Imports"
understand the object of thi, Dinner to be, to dj.n
ghs by an act OF public APPRECIATION ercsiuelv those
Gentemen oil the Delegation who voted against the last
act OF Congress- the subject Of the Tariff There is
on ordinary occasions honor or distinction which !,
would not give me great pleasure to join in bestowing on
lhese gentlemen They are generally, the ornaments of
the State in point Of talents and in virtue and patriotism
are uDsurpassed and, perfectly sure these homo
rabe sentiments governed them in their vote ON The
Tariff Act, though my judgment does not concur With
theirs this point should have the least obiecton
10 unite IN bestowng on them the honor you propose
were only TO imply general appreciation of their con-
duct as able and faithful public servants But cannot
doubt that this testimony Of your favor will be understood
as OF the opinion OF those who concur in the
festival, that % the vote Of these gentlemen against the
Bill was OF sound policy and peculiar propretv in re-
terence to the position of the Stale this time and (2)
that the vote OF those Gentlemen Of the Delegation who
voted for the Bill contrary to the sentiments If ber
constituents and the true interests of the State Az think
entirely diiiereHtly, cannot, however unmporian the
opinion OF an individual may be, allow the public TO sun
pose that mine susains these propositions when that
opinion Is altogether in opposition to them.
u mad been my late on the occasion, TO have occupied
seat on the floor OF either House Of Congress- should
most certainly have voted for the Bill in question and
should have done without the least doubt Of its propre-
and policy in reference the interests and honor Of this
o'ae at this time For these opinions among many other
reasons, the following may be mentioned.
L. There was concession compromise OF the great
son at issue, made by the members who voted for the
Dill II IN connexOn with their vote for this Bill thew
IN any manner agreed, that the Bill was to be taken az
OF the question: that with the passage Of
s b their labours in opposition to the protective system
should cease IL they have recommended to their CON
sluents TO sit down, satisfied with as an ultimate adjust
men OF the question, will agree that their conduct does
not deserve the appreciation Of their constituents But GER
'"nly they have done nothing Of this kind. And In
voting Tor This Bill, they did II under apprehension that
hey were giving vote, that might be unpopular beiev
ng az the same time That the public interests required H.
ney deserve instead OF being condemned, to he doubly
1oDorcd Tor their independence.