Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1834-04-04
FOR THE ENQUIRER.
HGref fdferi fethulis 1yuudo

<IS'et tuteTl etnUuS QFuH0O.
The author oi"An Old Petersburg Republican, should
apologize for again Introducing the editors Of the Peters
burg nte'gencer before the public Being in Peters
burg he saw yesterday, for the first me their precious
editorial paragraph, in their Mondays paper in auson TO
him. He will give them passing notice, wasting
but q lew words upon them
They say-"He has not hestated 10 assume the sigma
lure oil AN Old Petersburg Republican, (nienaiing
thereby, to pass for resident OF this town. and vet ior
gets his assumed character far contradict this i'm
pied assertion, by speaking OF 1--WE in the country,
Now what must be thought of the man who penned The
foregoing sentence, when il is known that the writer
OF Inc piece alluded to- expressly Stated in the iDtroc
tory remarks that it "was written in Petersburg and in
tended for the in,eIigencer OF that place.? Aud again
THAT we in the country knew our strength &c." Alter
reaung ms, would not any OF common sense
say, that !, was intended to convey the idea that
The writer belonged to the country, and had writ
burg BIZ" hs ," "T,"s a ,emPoray stay in Peters
has the Jolly to assert, that the writer intended bv
me above expressions, o pass for resident OF The
town. but forgot his assumed character and contradict
ed hnsef Let US ask these Petersburg Eitors-Dd ma,
NE author authorize the gentleman who the piece TO
vi. @ Office 10 inform them who the writer
then! Let us ask sgainDid not the aMbor also remark
al tie conclusion OF this piece that he vas ready and vii
such occasions? Did this look like Win - go
Tor resident of the town? The fact s fst tbev know
me author well They also well know that he was not
In The habit oil skuikng TO Post Office box or deposiiup
What he Wi under DOORS general course or chan
mel through which his productions reach their es
uns"oh. No-hs IT, either 10 60 forward in person him.
he
press lie never shrinks from light on these ecca.ions
what motive could he have induce The public 10 b,evc
mat he wa. town RESIDENT What difference did it IN Ike
whether The piece in question was written by a town or
country resident! The material point for inquiry in any
statement should be, Is ii not? Not word has
been said, be said, npe acing the ri
what has been stated by Gan Old PETERSBURG RcoubIc,
Aver II was written, it submitted 20 The view of Sc
verdi old republicans, who all agreed That the facts il con.
xned were true, TO The best of their lion The
author himself lived In Petersburg for many years--was
an eyewitness TO the which occurred there duug
mat PERIOD and knows that what he stated with respect TO
them was strictly correct and above the reach of contra
diciIon Why then, should he not assume as the Peters.
burg Editors term ill., the signature OF AN Old Peters.
burg Republican, Can any one have better claim to
man himself TO AID them in their design and 10 NAL
OUT he assertion true, these liberal and candid conduct
ors Of TIE lniegencer, relied slso upon the expression
I'VE 10 The country &c. This passage directly admits
bdt he author was now resident Of the country, and IL
Is little surprising that they hsve been silly enough 10
Introduce II IN order TO sustain their attempt nsrepie-
seniaion. The signature, has hecn she slIudes 70
Petersburg his former residence Agsinspeakine of
Mr. Robe tsonbe said, after our distinguished fellow.
townsuan, &c Was not the author fellow. Tow nsman
OF That gentleman! All Of those expressions and ma
others which the piece contained along with the rcum.
stances attending its trsnsuisson The press clearly
show, That u wa' not the authors Intention snd thor
could be 10 motive for IT, 70 make II believed that he WAS
resident OF Petersburg Away then, with this piutul
charge! u now seen, who IL guilty of endea Ia
palm deception upon the public TO what despeGa,.
condition must that be reduced who thus co,ppe
ed TO resort 10 such miserable subeflug,l They now
stand detected and exposed IN making th, lious at
tempt 10 fnislead the public.
Having dispatched there Editors upon IBIS point lie, II.
now take Them 10 ancther.Alter flourish or two, and
letting OF little steon they give vent TO some remark,
eq'aly ridiculous as any they have before made. They
say ia' The piece was returned, without having beef
resd TO the gentleman who had been requested by tn,
'uhor 70 apply Tor its insertion" II will be observed
That The Editors Icy stress upon the words tyifhou
hdvfng bftn rtOd" Whether they read the Who'll
article or not, Is matter Of very little consequence
That they read, however, enough OF Il 10 find that
was not very agreeable TO their pslae add rejected
upon party grounds, viii not be questioned The ger