Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1835-12-19

be connected with political newspapcr Of a decided
party character, to operate reward the Editor
Not one word fell from the lips Of the gentleman in OPP
position TO that mcasurc-and woid from lips
OF his ally That not one word be said against the
position we have taken may then be fairly assumed We
stand then without word opposed us on the posi-
ton that this enforcement of the public press and public
ohces should take placer rather that the alliance
should never have existed-and il would have ex-
iscd had there been any choice. Had MIR Jones or Mr.
rieasants any competitors for the Officer No But il is
now otherwse-the vast multiplication of the business
enables us To- have the duty much done by other
men than by Editors of newspapers WHY is it, saw
they, that objection was made TO Richie on the
ground OF his being an Editor, for many years -
Because there to be opposed to him but
Editors OF newspapers. The question might
answer would apply. But this state of things no lon
ger exists there is no longer n necessity to make
an Editor the public prnter-and there is no longer any
sound reason why the Editor of public journal should
not be relieved from the imputaon of being the nstru-
ment of patty for the reward of office. There is no
necessity at this day that suspicion should upon
the purity of the press by combining together two Off
ces which ought TO be disconnected.
But to return to the argument of the gentleman from
lsle-of-Wight. | ask him. said Mr. S. how he arrived
at the conclusion, that il of injustice to re-
move Mr. Richie in the face ofthe implied denial of that
position IN his statement that if this a question
Mr. Shepherd should receive his vote? If such were his
sentiments, where then is the ground which he
sustain the argument in favor of individual this
place, who, If he should neglect his duties, although
Mr. 3 did not nsnuate that such would be the case
would have all the partiaities of those politically
socated with him. arrayed on his side, TO protect him
from being treated with just severity. The gentle
men do not venture to question the soundnes of this
view 1t is conceded, and sustained by the statement
of the gentleman from Isleof- Wight Suppose said
Mr. Stanard, that any other Office that came before the
House had formerly been supplied in way not recon.
ceable with sound princples-that during period i'm
which the power had shifted hands, an appointment was
made according to sound principes-was that change TO
be termed an act of injustice, and the wrong be
dressed by returning to the former appointment? Why
ON TINS ground, wrong committed could be
remedied You may do wrong and it is not TO be
rghted afterwards; but it is TO be perpetuated The
gentleman from Isle of Wight readily comedies that
part OF the vote given last year given under
the dominion of sound principle but he says, there
sideratons. But he forget, that there was
not one vote given to reject Richie by the party in
his favor-while Shepherd not supported entirely
on party grounds Was not therefore, probable that
IT party feelings had not swayed the vote il would have
been much larger in favor of Shepherd that il was inn
possible to sustain the ground of injustice Mr. Stan
ard believed ought be put other grounds and that
there were probably other which would increase
the force OF the argument for the election of Shepherd