Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-08-09
DOlg HISTIC.
From the Charlottesville /,
From the Charlottesville Chroniclc
BErw ZEN THOMAS w GIL
MER AND WILLIAM G.. RIVES ESOS

u
The publication OF this correspondence, which was
made OH the part of Mr. GiImer in The last number OF the
Virginia Advocate, furnishes in itself enlightened
fuOlc, ample means OF correcting of the
misconceptions which have been relation TO
it, But as this correspondence was conducted on the
parton Mr. kves, without any view to its publication, Tor
the sole purpose OF ascertanipg MIR. Gilmers rela
'oiis towards him. and divesng their those
deIusive appearances which might prove injurious
MN, as they were certainly repugnant his feelings
there are some facts omitted IN his letter. Which sill
necessary for proper appreciation OF his conduct and
complete answer TO many charges TO which MIR. Glner
sought 10 give Fictitious importance, Gas he, doubtless,
served them up at first mainly Tor The public eye)-nnd
which, although susceptible OF satisfactory explain
Mr.. Rives uspcious of his designs did not con,e.
scend TO notice To supply this deficiency and place this
controversy III its proper light before the public, cons
tutes the simple object Of this preliminary statement
III appears, that Mr.. Gmcr has restricted himself
TO the publication alone Of that correspondence, OF
which his controversy with Mr. Rves Immediately sprang
but has rambed through the whole OF his respondence,
from the hrs OF December last, Tor the purpose .ndea
vourng TO CLEAN from IT, and present the public through
the medium OF muiaed aud garbed extracts, some hing
mat might warrant his previous description OF these let
tiers, as conveying g the sentiments Of tcdym and dppd
rentty enthusiastic Friendships He has thus cole
and published portions OF letters from Mr. Ryes extend
ing IRON The Sist oil Dec OF The last, TO the ls of May
me present year. Without stopping to decide how lar
subsequent breach oil friendly relations may warrant
tween honourable men, public disclosure familiar
anu unreserved communications which have passed
between them anterior that period may be safely as
serted that there Is nothing in the disclosure made in the
present instance, which can in the least impair MIR. Rves
glow OF generous feeling and sentiment OF warm devo
ton TO all the chas,e and calm delights OF private and do
nestle lille, which throw charm around these free and
aIniiiar illusions, aud actually impar them an ele
walton aud dignity rarely possessed by such hasty
notes. Nor is there any Inconsistency between their
professions, and the feel ngs actually entertained bv MIR
HIVES Tor it Observable, that the first letter 3h De-
cember 1889 merely contained very proper and cor
dia expression OF thanks TO MIR. Gner The zeal with
which he his election the Senate of tn United
States anu was in fact written before the least c cum
stance had iranspred 10 excite his dsrust of Mr. Gmers
nendshp The last letter, dated LIST May, 1889
was previous TO the appearance OF the bitter and urend
ly personalities which evidently aimed al hr Rives
in the OF Buckskn and ALSO prior TO his acouant
ance with the uniriendly feelings which MIR. GiImer va
said TO beray towards him in private conversation with
others. Ii will be from OF Mr. Rves' published
letters that he ing that the suspicons which
hsu Deen excited IN his mind as TO the reality CT Mr. Gs
friendly professions by ccums which had occurred
on his way to- AMI after his arrival The City ASKING
ION should give rise TO an open rupture, and hence
mined to come 10 conclusion his OWN nnd before he
could have the opportunity personal ryation he
they met in their county. II was in thi- interval
and before he bad fully ejpyed "ths opportlifv of
personal obseTudfion that this last letter was wrJen
and it may be safely left any impartial mind 20 decide
how far lis kind, and friendly we'll as o
similar expressions oil the other and previous letters were
requ RED by MT Rves' actual relations 10 Mr. GineT or
whether they amounted to any special profes sons Of
friendship b@yond the binary couveE naI FERNS of
iIiently intercourse.
But while neither Mr.. r. nor his friends have c,use 70
regret the appearance OF these supplemented letters if is
just subject OF complaint that the letters not also
II. hat
hty been gwen might appear that Mr. RS language
only reciprocaiod strong professions of friendship which
he was not permitted openly 10 question: because his in
cpieht mstrust was founded on confidential communca
lons upon which lac 'deermined to come TO no coucI
sion in his own MUD" and upon which, of course he
could not IL would also seem not Improbable from M
peculiar character OF Mr. RS letter of tlie It Nav tina,
II we had Mr. G's letter TO which that was reply we
mgh'' Perchance discern in Mr. RS beautiful tribute 10
me PURE ana s0hd sdtt9dctiOnS efJTiemdship, and the
domestic c6ecttons, modest reproef to The uaultie
ambition oil his correspondent.
is, also, not less legitimate Of complaint that
MIR. Gilmer only presented the public with moaVre ex
tracts from these letters, which, being torn from their
cont x probably no longer preserve their true meaning
mere Is every reason to suppose that this must be the
case with Mr. RS letter OF the 18Th of February las,
which evidently relates 10 the important tonic in
voly ed in the discussion, viz Mr. Gilmers ALLEGED "sn
6dnoss'ng responsibility on his Gccotnt' 1t is well
KNOWN That institutions had been made in various quar-
tiers that Mr. Rves had not by his in the Senate
redeemed pledges which lie had given and fulfilled ex
pectaions, which he had authorised These unjust cLarc
es winch even receive some countenance from some one
or two OF the certificates, that MIR c. has procured from,
members of the last Legislature, and appended TO this
punished correspondence, have been uniformly repealed
by Mr kves, aud hs friends with indignant surprises be-
cause in his letter TO Maj Yancey, read in the House Of
Delegates, as well as in repeated conversations public
and private lie had expressed in the strongest Terms
his opposition 10 qualification, OF which the t,iun,uh
would have been complete by the omission Congress 10
ADOPT some efficient countedcng Under these
circumstances ii would be surprising indeed if this ex
tract should be good criterion by which 10 iudqe tho
Whole letter; for ii would rather seem from the conclud
hB sentence OF tS extract, that Mr. Rives was actually
dpologizng 10 Mr. g. for "hduing subjected him 10 ann
embarrassing responsibility his account" Now
unless we are greatly mistaken in Mr. Ryes' character
ana particularly his feelings this subject he cod moi
nave intended TO make any such apology; he would much
sooner nave repced the iusinuaon indignant strain
which would have made bis correspondent sensible thai
he was not altogether ignorant tile course pursued In
wards him. The public have right therefore TO expect
aud require Of MIR. Gmer the publication of this lrner
entire, unmutated and ungarbed Ii he has seen pfo.
per 10 avail himself in his defence OF isolated
dointed from their context Justice demands
hS he should put the public in possession of the whole
WINE " proper TO accompany this statement with the
rc-PubcalOn OF these letters, aud extracts of letters
seems unnecessary 10 transfer here the certificates of the
members OF the last Begsdture which, though The tes
umony borne by them is negative, and for the most part
rant, being written in enure Ignorance Of and without
reference to- The subsequent and conclusive proofs of his
uninendiness' are wholly without weight, and un.
deserving OF notice.
There is another topic in intimate connection with the
merits OF this controversy which deserves the attention Of
the impartial mind IL has been The argument most com.
monty welded TO crninate Mr. RiVes. allude TO The
common runor, which Mr.. Gilmer rather seems 10 sus
tain ~ his predatory commens-that he had made an ex
pctt demand OF Mr Rives Tor the names OF his coufde
tdt inormants, which he positively refused TO disclose
and thus made himself amenabe in their stead IL may
ne easily coJectured therefore, what surprise on
reading THIS correspondence, 10 in demand
made nor any such refusal given but the contrary Ia
nd tha arequson Tor their names erpTesSy dirld
and no desire Tor them even ndmsed, except az matter
OF curosy and that without explicitly denyinr the Ioe
stated by them. II such demand was ever made betor
The nstotoO OF this correspondence, ia manifest that
was abandoned in s progress for Mr.. Gner n his lei
Ter OF 22d June says "IWH not again demand me ,
oTuy, or additional circHntstdnees tchieh though mn
ceTe VoiHing To disclose them, you alluded 10 rs han
ing tended 10 ALLEVIATE you from me- The appsren, i,o
ID from lie .aftI. de-.