Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1834-10-03

OF Mr. Archrr, iuo
further explanations in regard TO his course upon the
Force Bill We are grai6ed 10 perceive from this panrr
mat the letter OF Mr. Archer (on which we commenced
WIN apenty because we supposed written 10 ron
tradicn statement OF the Globe the IA, in kindness TO him
was not the authority which the Richmond hg made
that contradiction Ii seems that the Fitor of tho viii
was msed hy some general remarks la her communal
cation which had reference the article in he Globe
me inferencee, therefore. which have made under this
mistake. with regard all the motives of this letter SO
aslncuipated by us, were Unauthorized.
The explanation given Of he oppa, ent of
AS votes ON the subject OF the Bank is satisfactory
nen 'he statement oil facts were made ia lson TO this
topic, in the Richmond Wing. 10 pub.hed snJhavins
taken exception to the rest OF The article whoet making
uther objection that point gave our as mn 10 IN. s
hciency oil the explanation
From the National eligencer, OF s.p,emb., o,
HON MR. ARCHER OF viRGiSIA.
lmputatons Of Inconsistency have been thrown uuon
hs gentleman, In consequence OF his present party au
Jude which do not appear warranted 10y candid review
oil circumstances.
mas been alleged, that while that measure was pc nd
ing, Mr. Archer was advocate the Force Bill and
prepared 10 sustain II in debate agains, Mr. Me Dur but
That subsequently, and as il has been assumed from dis
appon'nent in obtaining the mission TO London he de-
nounced II, and the Administration for recommending il
The fact is, that, the time OF its pendeucv Mr. Archer
maintained the right of the General Government 10 use
force against refractory State, although acting az State
or Community, until such State put herself on her right
secession, when he conceived the right of the General
Government to apply force constuonaIly terminated
MS opinion he still enerians, and has al no time ami in
no respect degree, departed from This opinion lie was
prepared 10 uslan IN debate against Mr. Med iIie hen
the debate the Force Bill was cut short by the
oil time at the end OF the session.
It's equally true, ihs; Mr.. Archer became opposed a
ter the bill had been time pending 10 certain prov
sions (known as the Judicial provisions and which he
had not before sdveried TO- of The Force Bill-proyo
which he considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL aud which he sought
TO have modified by amendments
tbs sustaining that principle of the bill which recogni.
Ecu me night 10 use orce and his TO
me judicial provisions, has been oil sutecng
his course in regard TO that measure TO seeming ncon
ss'ency Oh this Mr. Archer himself was sensible at the
lime; lor in letter TO the Editor OF the Richmond Whg
dated Amelia, April 3otb 1888 which was written 70 he
SHOWN by the Editor Of the Whg the suor of card
In the Wing, who had inquired OF Mr. Archer if The Gobs
was correct IN saying that he (ar Archer) ,po,
voted Tor the Force Bli. $50 caed) MIR Archer s.vs.
as regards the bill which you call tie Force Bin
my opinion is that, while a State processes IN con
hnue component member OF the Union and has
not declared secession, the Government il auhoIi
zed ana required, TO have the laws carried into effect
wh'n us limits, by the employment of iorce il need
be. IL did not hold this opinion | shout! he a
Nu i, which am not This opiuiOn should have
maintained In debate, If occasion had required me a,
gage in II. No such occasion presented and 4 vo,od
against The Force Bi-tst Thatit was unatvi.ed and
inconsistent TO accompany a measure of paei,icstjon
with one OF irritation, and y regarded tJ,e bio H.;
Tue form ~ which II was presented and in which II
Pssseu, IS violating The Constitution ia other respects
man lhe employment OF the force for which il provided"
nat 10 MI Archer thought, various gentlemen know
ana "id avonch that the Judicial pfo,i.ions Of the b
NJ These, proceeds The letter
Arener aoresaidare still any opinions both potato
nohg 70 extremes with party shall g,in the favor
OF none. OF ihis am aware, and am prepared Tor
Bill mus in the Spring Of 1888 and 1
Cp'nons, mere Is no conflict He thinks as he thought
men, nor does circumstance exist, TO show the
degree Of conflict within The intermediate period
is evident that his approx .ng one part and
nm, part Of me Force Bill calculated TO subject
nun 10 tue appearance OF inconsistency especially in con
pexon WIN The additional facts, fully explained by the
p ieer, 'h' he WAS prepared fusain The Force
n excepting The light oil secession and te udicist
sons) IN debate against Mr.. McDufie ss,d wet voeJ
hgAhs' me D i'seli, because MIR Cays r,sT Comma
nnu ~ e mean ime removed ie concevrd all
necessity 'or passing The Force Bill ia any form There
was ano'her circumstance which The force f i
sPparsH inconsistency. and which, lett Explained sub
jsveu MIR. Archer TO this form imputaiion II 90 a. Li
mnen asssiled by the Administrator resses nn
ne grounds declared above MIR. Archer wrote to the
'o u me Hichmond Wing, lin July or August 1888 IN
IWnishiog MN the general grounds and reasons upon
winch he had acted and thus TO put it within tle novsr
.ne Eo',or OF The Wing TO furnish such explanations As
circumstances might render necessary In Li. Jeuer
,r M useo an expression which usled' the .Edi
,or o. me wing, and induced him. no had toreern Wr
rPy 10 me author OF the card, reciied above TO
aeny .9at MT Archer had been at all or Al apv nne in
favor OF the Force Bill " "S "'"e' :"
me expression was laitthe President of the UnieJ
o'aIes mad known, before Ills message on ,e t;s. =,
g. Carolina afiirs was sentia lhst Mr. Archss ~ VI
eur Ia bis views. so FAR regarded the ryht Of
a. was from this difference opinion las will be found
from on examination OF the Journds) Mir Archer r,ovsJ
me reference OF the message and documents to M yru
siafy committee, in place OF Select Coundueo ,YIch
10 me opinion OF several meabers no so
themselves on Tie eoor, authorized aud demand
eu' was from this expression lraying relereure onI 70
" seeess on and not 10 the general principle OF
coeTclng slate, that the editor OF the Who
MT Archer, as saying that the President ~ ,onrzo NJ
his opposition to The Force Bill when he ,ns ,I "
'u :" 'he disagreement between the President and
nHssl, as 10 The principle Of secession The editor Of
ne "ng acknowledge, (as are authorized 10 saw
% nc mus inadvertently and hastily furnished 10 those
VINO were inclined TO avail themselves of /, s,fFn
siounus TOT an Impeachment Of Mr.. Archsrs consistency
suPPosng' as afi had night to suppose that ne made III.
nehai upon the authority vi Mr. Archer binself 4, o.
SHOWN 70 the ssingon public TO his ends in Congress
:, W n's Dfrc-bs Mr.. Archer maintained The reh of
e General Government 10 cOeTce State: and IA sunnosr
s' ne subsequently denied what was igils known H. oo
Tho IA q, 4.
onsry ana sscertained principles oF human eondcf I,
was Nasty deduction Of the Editor OF The Wbo ,sbo an
Pned IN general sense 10 the Force Bill i,ssH .t, ~
ol'y 70 the discrepancy, The doctrine OF Sc.
MIR. Archer. ~ 'e "''es ehu
Mr. Archer consistency has been asssleJ on snoJ,s
gIOnno, wv: Mr.. Archer voted az ains the res,,;o H.
March, 1883, declaring the Public Deno.i,s, sI az a.
DspS o. oe United States, and The last session q Coz
gFess voted 10 restore the Deposites 10 that B,rt -
whch ihey bad teen taken by The measures of Covern
nsn' 'ne preceding alL There is seeming fnconsssn
~ :" MS out none AZ all when explained friend Of
W.. n's"ef' IN hfril 1888 through The Richmond Wbe
lnqn"eu Of mat gentleman the reasons Tor bis yodng
sghnst ne resoiuon in March, 1873 deel,ug The pr
bc moneys safe IN the Bank of the trnted So A.
hreher' 10 letter 10 the Editor intsnded onv &C. a. a
81 me author OF he card whom II WA .Ie,y III -
WI aFOueb "hal We say, replied that he had vosJ -
hs' Tesouilon' not because lie believed Inc 49,
ealo 10 he b'nk, but because the reports Of liz n,i'
anu minority Of the Committee had not been r5n,d -
Eeao ana That he would for the same reason go 49,, /
againsi the resolution, had IL declared The PnlGc @
.nSye w the Bank instead Of declaring them s,fe
old "Den MIR. Archer voted oeanst lie resof,tion g.
s,aea - The moment Of yotiag dis 10 De bis eson G
the volef TO Mr.. DeaHe, Of Cumberland Vis,joi, ole
20 De near him, q gentleman OF the highest res