Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-01-03
Richmond, VA, Tuesday, Ban. g.
To BRAND upon his Forehead

/ ne characters Of " OILY and EALSEHOOD."
am compelled once more to throw myself upon
the indulgence of my readers.-I shall be az brief
as can possibly bel have last driven the Edi-
tor of the Telegraph to his specification and am
now prepared to brand upon his forehead the cha
racters which had originally attached 10 his asser-
ions-of fdtsehood and of Folly.
some days since the Telegraph stated follows
The letter does not that Mr.. Richie to become
Mr an Burens successor at the Court of ST. James, but
we have good cause, Mr. II. knows TO believe that
that point has long been the object of his AMBITION
This assertion astonished well as amused mo
but though 1t was almost too ridiculous for refIta-
ton, yet as did not know but some readers might
be found credulous enough to believe it, and some
Editors silly enough to republish it, thong il best
to notice i-and accordingly denied it to his teeth
and dared him TO produce his proofs.-Thc Editor
of the Telegraph asked, if would permit him to
prove my desire to 60 to London ~under my own
breach of confidence? used the following Language
in reply:
We do go for words but facts for form, hut the
substance OF the thingwe meet the question once
We again defy him 1.-THE Editor of the
Telegraph produce his proofs We discharge him from
all pretended obligations OF confidence and permit him
convict us oil desire to foreign mission, under
own sign manual if he can"
And now let us attend to the proofs which he
brings forward in his paper of Saturday last.
Some time in the month of March or April, 1899
Mr.. Duff Green opened Correspondence with me
on the subject Of the Presidents appointing Editors
to ohce lie had seen the objections / had made
to 1t in the Enquirer lin my humble opinion the
most eXccponabe of the present administration
and he addressed me very civil letter for the pur-
pose of showing that my views erroneous, and
my objections were unfounded.-In my reply of g.
pril llth, 1920 presented the opposite views of the
SUBJECT admitted that Editors ought to share
equally with their fcllow-citizens such Offices as
were in the gift Of the People or the Legislature
/ but argued against the expediency of Executive
Appointments | attempted to show the dangerous
consequences of such practice upon the Liberty of
the Press admitted that Gen. Jackson might have
been actuatcd by proper motives in the course he
had puTsued; but argued at the time, that if
some AMBITIOUS and unworthy citizen should sue
cceed him in the government, who might avail him
self of the weight of his "a. J.sl nanTe and abuse
and extend so unfortunate precedent for his own
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, the most serious consequences
might threaten the Liberty of the Press, and of the
Peoplc.-Such, well as / recollect was the gene
raj tenor of my leter-and it is from this letter. that
Mr.. ID. q. has the hardihood extract the follow
ing general propositions, the proofs of his specific
charge against me, of an ambitious design TO "be-
come Mr.. Van Buren's successor at the Court of ST.
James,"
"Takc from the people the liberty of the press and the
freedom OF elections and place them much at the
feet OF the President than wish TO see them i'm this
country But how can we directly accomplish this
Object, than by showerng offices upon members of Con-
gress and upon the conductors of journals? True
would not prohibit the President from selecting the first
talents in the nation for his very highest Offices say his
Secretaries, or Foreign Ministers of the highest grade
or judges of the Supreme Court but, with these
three exceptions (none others strike at this time)
could wish him TO keep his hands from the rcpcSe MIA
lives and the cenncls of the people. would tabOO both of
them with these limitations. If President could find
Franklin, 90 cothe him with the functions of Pleni-
potenaTy, would permit him to take him from the
Press but not 10 place him in subordinate and sectional
Office which he might find thousand qualified to fill
But You prescribe the editors henand would qtOnd
hoe; but prescribe them than would member
Of Congress"
Yes, reader, This is tIic proof! Hence is drawn
the ridiculous assertion of the Telegraph-.4H that
ne has to do is to assert that claim he ga Frank
lIn"-that ''ussume to be the Franklin of the Press'
and that "he highest foreign mission" is "the mis-
sion to London"-und the argument is made ont
"that that point has long been the object of lis ny
ambtion!"
will not insult the common sense ofany man i'm this
community so far as to expose the absur1ity of Mr..
ID. G.s nsinuaion, and the slalowness of his n1isrc-
presentation. Why should be silly enough to dis
claim the egregous vanity which he would no,o as
cribe to me?-Why show the absence of every parfi-
Gle of proof that was DESTROYS of this office in $780,
or that have ever sought this any other appoint
ment, from that time to this?--Why repeat my uni
form declaration that would neither ask nor accept
of any thing at the hands of this administration? No
man could be more fastidious thnn have been-ButI
will not trouble tic public upon subject
upon which have tie vanity to suppose that
they can take any particular interest.
have done with Mr.. d. Go those, whose con
iidencc he seeks, whose private letters he may thus
torture by the grosses pervcrsons into the most ridi
cuous charges against their writer's and then draqs
them in n g0rbcd state before the public this les
son may not prove altogether Improbable. II may
warn them before il be too late. As fer those who
h1rf i5':r4 n.fi W-.h crn3rica:isns wl;sh no;