Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-10-26
[Rp,y fions Tie Democratic CentnI Committee ]
p,cuMnNn OF o2.i l. IL

[Rtpiy fIom Tie Democratic C,n!nl Committee !
RICHMOND. Oct 23i l>ii.
Gentlemen II have received yours Z" The
22d instant (adGre>sej. To me rs Char::i; oi the
Democratic Central Committee, aid enclosing
certain resolutions adopted rs the W hiS Central
Committee o. III" Staic.) Pursuant 10 yohr wishes.
these resolutions have bcca without Joss OF time.
laid before such members Of the Democratic
Central Committee as are now III the city, and
have been most respectfully considered by them.
On their behalf | am instructed 10 decline con
cu.rcnce in the proposition embraced 10y he reso-
uiions of The Wing Central Committee, and
briefly to explain soG!c OF The reasons which haI c
influenced their decision.
From the indefinite language Of The resolution:
the Democratic Central Committee ale 81 some
loss 10 know or conceive the particular points ol
doubt. in reference 10 which the opinion I'll MIR.
Baxter is proposed 10 be- sought From general
request TO draw up n construction Cl Mc Parts n
hc Constitution itr0irjag iec ASJed NJ SrNf6@t.
il might BE- supposed tbs. general commentary
on ALL that part Of the Constitution relating 10 tie
elective franchise was 10 BE- obtained, 10 which re-
ference should he mad for The souion OF Ill pos
s;hlc doul Is but such the Democratic Central
Committee can scarcely suppose 10 have been
meant. since such commentary SO Tar from ensur-
inc uniformity o! construction ~ the Constitution,
might. and in all probability wOuld, itself he the
subject oil more doubtful Interpretation and con
nic,ng opinions than i the Constitution it-ei-
They can only infer therefore, the purpose Of the
Wing Central Committee 10 have been. 10 obtain
their concurrence in recommending the opinion
of the Attorney General on some special points
OF doubtful construction, and in this view they feel
some surprise that such points should Lo have
been stated or explained. In the animated con-
test OF 1910. there was but single point in Iela-
ton 10 which such grave doubts were entertained.
that il was thought advisable, the opinion oil the
Attorney General should lie officially given,
and THEN it was required BY the Executive
of the State, and published ty its command. To
that opinion reference has been made recently
in the public prints: and il is presumed, HAT as
this opinion emanated from the same gentleman
whom you now propose 10 consult, ani va, 81 ac-
ouiesccd in BY the Wing Committee OF OF 1910,
there is no intention 10 disturb il al the ensuing
election.
The Democratic Central Committee do not feel
themselves authorized 10 imagine difficulties
which inav not exist nor are they disposed 10 sub
nit, through their action, 10 the private unofficial
Judgment OF any single man, (Eowcver h'ohly re-
specieG he suggestion and conclusive settlement
Of all questions which he may deem mootcd. in
relation to the constitutional right Of su!ira ge.-
This would be 10 substitute the iallitic. Unauho
rita,ivc conclusion of single mind in lea o.
the language OF the Constitution, without line al.
,ainmcnt OF even the partial weight OF an Official
exposition.
On this ground alone, the Democratic Central
Committee would feel bound 10 decline the propo
sition submitted 10 their consideration; but they
would base their refusal on higher rcason.-
They cannot admit or recognize The right or pro-
prietv, either on the part of themselves of any
other mere party committee of attempting 10 bia:
or influence the conduct OF sworn officers, OF
whom the law has imposed the duty Of homes
judgmeE. in relation TO The constitutional right o
suffrage. Whatever doub!s may exist, i, will b.
The duty OF the Commissioners under all the re
sponsbities OF their position and station 10 solve
them according 10 their personal, conscientious